The HST, Gordon Campbell and the Clark government

The "harmonized tax" plan makes me wonder if the Campbell government has lost its way.
It's not the plan's substance, in fact, though there a lot of questions about the costs and benefits for different groops.
It's the way Gordon Campbell, with no warning or consultation, imposed a major tax change. The new tax system will shift taxes from business to individuals. Some industries will win and some - like the restaurant business - will lose.
The tax plan wasn't mentioned in the election campaign three months ago. There have been no discussion papers or reports. The Liberals rejected calls for the harmonized tax and said the change wasn't on the agenda.
And then imposed it.
Here are the basics. Right now, individuals and businesses pay seven-per-cent provincial sales tax and five-per-cent federal GST on most goods and services they buy.
The federal government - and many business groups - would like to see one harmonized tax. Three provinces have already merged the GST and provincial sales tax - Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Campbell proposes to follow them with a 12-per-cent merged GST and PST, effective next July 1. The tax will go to Ottawa, and B.C. will be sent its share.
But that's just the start. Businesses can deduct GST they pay from their tax bill. Now they will be able to deduct PST as well, as it is included in the harmonized tax.
That will save them - and cost the government - about $1.9 billion in what had been provincial sales tax. That's a 37-per-cent drop in PST revenue.
But Campbell said the change would be revenue neutral. The overall money coming into government, needed to pay for schools and hospitals, would not go down.
Which means someone else is going to have to pay the $1.9 billion that business will be saving.
Most likely you. The new tax will apply to a long list of things that you didn't pay PST on. Heating oil and natural gas, cable and telephone, restaurant meals and non-prescription medicine. Movie and airline tickets and real estate commissions and dry cleaning and new house prices. You get the picture.
The theory is that while you will pay more in taxes, the companies will pass on their tax savings to you. It will work out.
Uh-uh.
There are benefits. Companies say that filing one sales tax return will cut their costs.
The federal government will give the province $1.6 billion for making the change, part of a national incentive plan.
And Campbell said that as other provinces give tax breaks to business in this way, B.C. had to follow.
The three Atlantic provinces aren't significant. But Ontario is proposing a harmonized tax for July 1, 2010 - the date B.C. now proposes to introduce its version.
Ontario's approach is strikingly different. Premier Dalton McGuinty started talking about the harmonized tax in January. The proposal was set out in the budget in March, with reports on the effects on business and families. The government pledged to use the federal incentive payment to cushion the impact of the change - most families would get transitional payments of $1,000 - and to exempt many goods. It also pledged to help affected industry sectors - tourism, for example would get an extra $40 million a year for marketing efforts.
Even the language was different. McGuinty's budget said the tax changes would be made "pending legislative approval and Ontario and Canada signing a tax co-ordination agreement."
Campbell presented a done deal. MLAs, both Liberal and New Democrats, might as well be cardboard cutouts. The public's views were not of any interest.
Campbell said the harmonized tax issue wasn't even on the radar for him at the time of the election campaign. Odd, since Ontario had announced its intention before that.
So, in a little over two months, the premier noticed tax harmonization and worked out a whole plan.
It reminds me of the last couple of years of the Glen Clark government. Too much certainty, too little planning, too bold enthusiasms and too little interest in the views of anyone outside the inner circle.
And that, we know, ended in tears.

Rolling the GST and PST into one tax

Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen left a lot of questions with the announcement of a Harmonized Sales Tax that would - mostly - combine the GST and PST into one 12-per-cent tax.
It's the kind of big change that could have been debated during the election campaign, except it wasn't on the radar for him three months ago, Campbell said. (Which raises questions about how well the details have been thought through.)
It also could have been useful to invite public comments on such a sweeping tax change.
There are benefits and drawbacks, which I'll write about once there is a little more information.
For now, there are more questions. For example, the premier says the change will reduce sales taxes for business by about $1.9 billion.
And he says the change overall will be - more or less - revenue neutral.
So who is going to pay $1.9 billion more to make up for the cut for business?
More to come. . .

Latest secret cuts hurt those who most need help

It seems bad public policy - even dumb and destructive - to cut supports that help people get off welfare and into jobs just as more people are being forced onto income assistance.
Or to cut efforts to improve literacy, one of Gordon Campbell's "five great goals" of 2005.
But those are among the measures the provincial government has chosen to deal with its botched budget.
The NDP released leaked documents this month that show the government knew in early June that its income assistance caseload projections were wildly inaccurate.
The budget was based on the assumption that 112,000 people would be on welfare by the next fiscal year; the documents show the caseload is now expected to "to peak at 147,000 in June 2010."
That's 24 per cent higher than the forecast, an increase that represents suffering for individuals and families and a $100-million budget overrun. (The revelation comes after the government's public affairs bureau intervened to suppress the regular monthly release of income assistance caseloads during the election campaign. The statistics - which were released during the last two campaigns - would have showed a 50 per cent jump in the number of employable people on income assistance in just six months.)
The documents also reveal the government is attempting to deal with its errors by cutting needed services.
A June 5 memo announced an immediate freeze on "direct purchase" funding for people on income assistance. That's a ministry program intended to help people on welfare find and keep work.
In areas where there is no contractor supplying employment programs to government, for example, income assistance workers have been able to approve job readiness training for clients who were capable and keen to work, but needed help.
Direct payments were also available for literacy training for people on income assistance and to cover small costs like textbooks and transportation. They were used to cover high school level upgrading courses for people whose lack of education was preventing them from finding work.
And in all cases, funding was only available if the person on welfare had demonstrated commitment, motivation and ability in the hunt for a job.
What sensible person could think these cuts make sense?
Income assistance rates are desperately low in B.C. A single person who is considered employable receives $375 a month for shelter and $235 a month for every other expense - that's less than $8 a day for food, transportation, clothes and everything else.
Which leaves no money for the basics required for job hunting. Direct payments were the solution, a small amount of money available to provide needed help in making the transition from welfare to work.
Cutting it is cruel, of course.
It's also foolish. Helping people off income assistance reduces the long-term costs substantially.
And as Campbell has noted, the longer a person is on income assistance the greater difficulty they have in escaping.
The literacy cuts show a similar short-sightedness.
Last year, the government announced funding for 16 regional literacy co-ordinators.
Advanced Education Minister Murray Coell said the co-ordinators would help make improvements urged by the auditor general. "Regions are often faced with challenges matching up people with the programs and services they need and making all the various literacy programs work together efficiently," Coell said.
Now the jobs are being cut to try to keep the deficit down.
It's an odd approach for a government that has identified literacy as a key to the province's future - and the need for economic stimulus. Firing people and weakening the literacy effort hardly accomplishes either goal.
Add in the news - revealed by Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com - that libraries across the province face funding cuts and reports that support for university and college students is being chopped, and a pattern is emerging.
The greater worry is that these cuts are just symptoms of rushed, arbitrary and ill-considered efforts to slash programs and jobs across government at great cost to people and communities now, and the province's future.
Footnote: None of these cuts are being announced publicly. The government is proceeding by stealth - a great contrast to the flood of pre-election announcements of tiny funding programs and a betrayal of commitments to "openness and accountability."

Reconciliation act is dead on the vine - what next?

The provincial government had high hopes its proposed recognition and reconciliation act would bring "seismic change" to relations with First Nations in the province.
But the plan has collapsed in the face of native concerns, as this memo shows, and its back to the drawing board.


July 14, 2009

Dear UBCIC Chiefs Council,

Re: Proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation Process-to-Date and Next Steps

The UBCIC Executive takes this opportunity to provide an update regarding the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation.

The legislative initiative was a step which the UBCIC, First Nations Summit and BCAFN mandated the FNLC to advance with the Province, designed to compel the Province to implement commitments contained in the New Relationship (2005), including to recognize Aboriginal title and rights, to respect First Nations' laws and responsibilities, to reconcile Aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdictions, and to close the socio-economic gap through agreements about revenue and benefit sharing.

In February 2009, a "Discussion Paper on Instructions for Implementing the New Relationship" (the "Discussion Paper") was released to generate dialogue on the proposed legislative initiative. A series of regional sessions and community visits to explore the content of the Discussion Paper have been held with First Nations across the Province, and these are continuing.

In many ways, the first several community/Tribal group visits represented a 'test drive' of the original discussion paper. Based on the feedback, it is clear that many concepts expressed in the Discussion Paper are unacceptable. Concerns have been raised, including that 'reconstitution' will interfere with self-determination; that the Indigenous Nation Commission could become another bureaucracy; that there is risk of including Aboriginal title recognition in legislation which also recognizes Crown title in any form; that the nature, scope and substance of the title being recognized will weaken the title recognition within s. 35. We have heard questions raised whether the Province has jurisdiction to pass such legislation, and doubts expressed whether they will implement it. Questions have also been raised about the absence of Canada.

We have also heard expressed the opportunities which title recognition could bring. Consistently we heard the message, "we generally accept and support the concept of the need to achieve recognition, but not in its current form". In other words, not as currently articulated in the original Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper has done its job, but it has now become an impediment to carrying forward a constructive and productive dialogue.

Consequently, on June 25th, the FNLC made a decision to 'set aside' the discussion paper to provide the space and opportunity to carry on an inclusive and cohesive dialogue. The Recognition Working Group ("RWG"), who had been instructed to develop with the Province language that might serve as detailed instructions to legislative drafters, has been directed to stop that work and not engage in any legislative drafting.

We believe our decision has significantly improved the tone of our dialogue; both politically and legally. When we finalize our Regional and community sessions, we will be in a position to deliver a summary report to the delegates of a Provincial-wide meeting at the end of August.

We welcome the formation of a lawyers' caucus comprised of First Nations' lawyers who wish to participate, who are working together to prepare other options for consideration at the All Chiefs' Assembly this summer.

We are at an important time in answering the land question. We have an opportunity unlike any other in our history. The Province has been compelled through law and politics to agree to recognition of title. We must use this opportunity well. Through recognition legislation or other initiatives, we must now compel the provincial government and every civil servant to act based on recognition and not denial of Aboriginal title. Now it is time to listen to our communities. We believe we will be given clear direction in terms of a 'forward looking' mandate when we next meet.

United we stand; divided we perish. We will work together to identify consensus for the steps we will collectively take together.

Sincerely,

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President

Chief Robert Shintah
Vice-President

Chief Robert Chamberlin
Secretary-Treasurer

The uranium file

Although professionally predisposed to have an opinion on anything, I'm uncertain on uranium mining. If global warming is a real issue, nuclear power beats coal-fired plants. And without uranium, you can't nuclear power.
The provincial government is more certain. It has taken two shots at discouraging development of potentially significant deposits, in part because they're in the Okanagan. People don't want to retire to uranium country.
New junior minister for mines Randy Hawes told Sean Holman, on CFAX 1070's Public Eye, that the public doesn't want uranium mining and the government accepts that. Hawes refused an invitation to see Saskatchan's uranium mines.
Meanwhile, a second mining company has sued the government over the pre-election uranium mining ban, arguing their rights were expropriated and they are owed compensation.

E-mails might, finally, move B.C. Rail case forward

Slowly — so slowly — British Columbians might be moving closer to some answers in the B.C. Rail corruption case.
It’s been a dismal performance from the courts and the politicians. More than five years after police raided legislature officers and talked about the long reach of organized crime, the affair hangs over the government and the three accused.
That might change with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett’s ruling that the government must produce e-mails from Premier Gordon Campbell and a clutch of current and former cabinet ministers and their staff.
Or it might sink the whole affair even deeper into an ethical and legal quagmire.
We’ll find that out, perhaps, Aug. 17. That’s when the government’s lawyer will tell the court whether the e-mails exist, or if some or all have been destroyed. (An astonishing number of lawyers — all taxpayer-funded — are involved in the case. Costs have been estimated at more than $10 million and counting.)
The government’s story has been changing.
Last month, its lawyer introduced a deposition from an official saying the e-mails from 2002 to 2005 and all backups had been erased.
That appeared to violate government policy, which calls for records to be kept for seven years. (Transitory e-mails — like a message confirming a lunch date — are exempted.)
Last week, the government offered a new deposition from the same officials saying that at least some of the relevant e-mails had existed but were ordered destroyed in May, during the election campaign.
If true, that’s serious on several levels.
First, destroying evidence is a criminal offence. The relevance of the e-mails to the trial should have been obvious since the raids. It was certainly clear once the defence lawyers asked for the documents in 2007. The RCMP has already been asked to review the information to see if an investigation is warranted.
Second, if the evidence is gone, defence lawyers have a reasonable argument that the charges should be dismissed due to the government’s abuse of the process. That would leave the questions unanswered.
Third, the government would face a political crisis. Campbell has pledged complete openness and co-operation with the investigation since the days after the raid.
Barring some remarkable explanation — I can’t even think of an example — the destruction of the e-mails being sought by the court would look like a cover-up. And while governments can escape a great many failings and missteps, cover-ups tend to taint their reputations and relationships with the public permanently.
It’s a potentially toxic mess, stemming from the broken 2001 campaign promise not to sell B.C. Rail but spreading to include questions about the influence of well-connected Liberal insiders, the legitimacy of the bidding process and, now, the missing evidence.
The Crown is alleging Dave Basi, ministerial assistant to then finance minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who held the same position with transport minister Judith Reid, accepted benefits from Omnitrax, one of the B.C. Rail bidders. In return, the Crown says, they provided inside information about the bidding process.
The defence denies that and says the two were actually acting on behalf of their political masters. The bidding was rigged all along to ensure CN got B.C. Rail, the defence alleges. The government wanted Omnitrax kept involved to preserve the appearance of a real bidding process. (CP Rail had dropped out because it believed the bidding process was unfair; a partner bidding with Omnitrax had pulled the plug for the same reason.)
And all of this, remember, after a promise by Campbell not to sell B.C. Rail.
It is a bizarre situation that two provincial elections have been held since the raids and allegations of corruption, with no answers for the public and only silence from the government.
And, if the e-mails have been destroyed and the case is thrown out, those answers might still be years away — particularly if the investigation into the destruction of evidence moves at the same halting pace.
Footnote: The NDP will undoubtedly seek a public inquiry if the case is thrown out. But Campbell has so far stonewalled on the case and the vanished e-mails. The tactic has worked and it’s unlikely that he would now accept an independent inquiry into the scandal.

A dissident hero speaks for democracy

Not in China or Iran, but in Alberta, where a Conservative MLA has decided to put his constituents ahead of his party.
Party discipline is part of our system. Members of a party are supposed to share some broad principles and policies.
But they are not supposed to be robotic public boosters of their bosses reciting talking points written by staffers at the direction of the leader. They should not stand foolishly silent when government actions damage their own communities. (For example, like Liberal cabinet ministers Murray Coell and Ida Chong, when their government enriched a forest company while opening vast amounts of green space and protected land for development.)
Our system was based on MPs and MLAs having the power to dump a distant or inattentive leader; they have abandoned that power and chosen docility.
Except for this guy.

The purposes of journalism

"The stenographers of power will always find work. As will the trumpeters of fame. I.F. Stone wrote not to create a sensation, or to promote himself (or his 'brand'), but to change the world." John Ibbitson quotes from D.D. Guttenplan's Stone biography in a review in today's Globe.

Health cuts unnecessary and a broken promise

The Campbell government has decided the province’s sick and injured should carry a chunk of the recession’s burden.
The health authorities - more than three months into the fiscal year - have been told to make $360 million in spending cuts.
They’re looking for administrative savings, of course.
But they are also planning layoffs, longer waits for surgery and cuts in acute and residential care.
The government has decided that keeping the deficit small is more important than maintaining health care at the current level. People should limp longer with their bad knees or wait longer for care.
Governments can do what they want. But we’ve just been through an election campaign. And the Liberals did not talk about reducing the level of health care in the interests of fiscal responsibility. (And the other parties and media, myself included, did not raise the issue effectively.)
Quite the contrary. They promised to protect health care.
Health Minister Kevin Falcon wrote to the health authorities Wednesday. (Or, more accurately, public affairs staff drafted a dozen versions of a letter really aimed at managing media coverage.)
After 535 words setting out all the great things had been done in the last few years, Falcon got to the point.
The authorities had submitted budgets based on maintaining care. The government wanted $360 million cut.
That’s a 3.5-per-cent cut. After years of funding shortfalls, the health authorities and hospitals have ground costs out of the system. There are always savings to be had — you can stop cutting the lawns, cut corners on cleaning costs or cancel travel.
But those won’t add up to $360 million.
Vancouver Coastal plans to reduce surgeries by three per cent and Fraser Health is cutting the number of elective surgeries and limiting MRIs.
The Interior Health Authority is looking at capping or reducing community care and making people wait longer for elective surgery. It’s also cutting jobs and freezing clinical hours. The Northern Health Authority is reducing nursing care.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority is putting off maintenance, freezing programs and plans to reduce “volumes of elective surgeries, procedures and diagnostics” to stay within the funding. (It also plans to sell off property to make up for the operating deficit, much like selling the furniture to pay the mortgage. The next payment comes, and then what?)
The authorities have acknowledged that care will suffer — fewer surgeries, for example, means people will wait longer. That sounds OK, unless you’re the one limping on a horribly painful kneee.
You could make the case for health cuts. The recession means less revenue for government. Why shouldn’t people accept reduced care?
But that is not what the Liberals promised during the campaign
So where is the mandate for reduced health care - longer waits for surgery, delays in tests to determine what treatment is, or isn’t, needed?
This is about $360 million. What would be wrong with an increase in MSP premiums — which are graduated to the ease the burden on low-income families — to make up the shortfall. For a singe person, all that would be needed would be a $12-per-month increase to maintain health care at last year’s level; for a four, about $3.50 a person a month.
We can afford it. Health care costs have been increasing faster than the overall inflation rate. But we’re older and the treatments have got slicker and more expensive. We still want them for our family members.
And health care remains a bargain. In 1995, health costs consumed about 6.6 of provincial GDP. Last year - 13 years on - it was seven per cent. There are cost pressures that have to be addressed in the coming years, but no crisis.
But, for whatever reasons, the government has decided that it’s time to go backwards on health care for British Columbians.
Footnote: The NDP challenged the timing of the announcement, accusing the Liberals of hiding the cuts until after the provincial election. The delay – whatever the cause – results in deeper cuts as savings must be found in the remaining months of the fiscal year.

To steal a head, RailGate A-Go-Go.....Who Knew What When?

A useful look at the destruction of potential evidence in the B.C. Rail corruption trial is to be found here.

Come on. This can't be happening in an advanced democracy in 2009.

IHA chair thinks two-tier care just fine

The Interior Health Authority chair, responsible for an organization delivering care to 720,000 British Columbians, believes two-tier care should be allowed in Canada.
And he doesn't see why the health care system should be providing residential care for frail seniors who can't live on their own any longer.
You have to admire Norm Embree's candour in raising such radical positions.
And he made it clear he was expressing his personal opinions.
But it's hard to see how most people living in the interior could feel comfortable with Embree as the health authority chair.
There are some big challenges ahead for all the health authorities. Provincial funding isn't enough to meet the care needs. The five regional authorities have to cut $320 million.
Embree's comments raise doubts about his commitment to the basic values and functions of our health care system.
His opinions are legitimate, if extreme, contributions to the discussion on health care. But they raise questions, coming from a B.C. health care leader.
In an interview with Don Plant of the Kelowna Daily Courier, Embree said it might be time to abandon the principles of medicare and allow people to pay for faster, better care.
"We're already multi-tier - we already go to Washington for private care - why not have it here,'' he asked.
Embree, to his credit, took the same position a few days later in an interview with Robert Koopman of the Kamloops Daily News when the issue of two-tier care came up.
"I have no problem with it. We've had two tiers for years, but nobody wants to admit it," he said, citing the ability of patients to the U.S. for speedier treatment.
Not every could afford that, Embree acknowledged.
"That's the nature of two tier - if you can, you do it. If you can't you hang in there," he said. "I've got nothing philosophically against it. As long as we maintain universal access and portability, I've got no problems with it."
That's one view of health care.
The Canadian view, expressed in the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, has been that your income shouldn't determine the kind of health care you receive.
If two little girls are sick, each should get the same care. The fact that one had poor parents wouldn't put her at greater risk. Embree's approach would see the poor child "just hang in there."
Embree's views on residential care for seniors raise as many questions.
"The Canada Health Act doesn't say anything about providing housing for everyone," he said. "Now everyone expects the health-care system to provide a room and a place."
It's true. The Canada Health Act doesn't include residential care and intermediate level nursing home care in the category of covered services.
But more than 5,500 Interior residents are in residential care or assisted living beds. If providing that care is not considered part of the health system, how are they to afford the $4,500 a month for a private care home? Pensions are a fraction of that amount and savings would quickly be exhausted.
So what becomes of the people who can't care for themselves and need help with meals or medical care or bathing?
They get worse and worse, I suppose, until they are admitted to an acute care hospital bed. That's a far more costly option, poorer for the senior and those beds aren't available for the patients who need them. (Between 10 and 15 per cent of acute care beds are already occupied by people waiting for long-term care.)
Embree's comments follow Health Minister Kevin Falcon's musings about allowing two-tier care in an interview with the Vancouver Sun. He later said he only meant for non-essential treatment.
A full debate on health care is welcome. But it's hard to see how the public can have confidence on a government-appointed health authority board chair who doesn't support the most basic principle of Canadian health care.
Footnote: Kelowna radio station AM 1150 tried to find out what Falcon thought of Embree's comments. They were told the minister was not available for comment on the topic "today, tomorrow, next week or indefinitely."

IHA chair backs two-tier care, less support for frail seniors

Interior Health Authority chair Norm Embree told the Kelowna Daily Courier this week that he sees nothing wrong with two-tier heath care. Why shouldn't a person with money be able to buy faster, better treatment if they're sick or injured, he said? (Aside from the provincial and federal laws that say health care should be available based on medical need - that one sick six-year-old shouldn't be treated while a neighbour suffers just because of an accident of birth.)
Embree also said he doesn't see why the health system should provide residential care for sick or frail seniors who can't live on their own.
I wondered if he would retreat. But Embree repeated the positions in an interview with the Kamloops Daily News here.
And columnist Susan Duncan outlines why pushing old people onto the streets is a bad idea here.
Embree also confirmed cuts to services are coming because of underfunding by the province. Expect to hear more on that in the next few days as Health Minister Kevin Falcon gives the health authorities their marching orders.

Budget bad news and big cuts ahead

I resent being treated like I'm stupid. Sure, I'm capable of dumb moments and bad decisions, but, mostly, I'm a responsible, competent person.
That's why the release of the province's public accounts - the final version of the financial statements of the last fiscal year - was irksome.
There are four things to take away from the event.
First, the province avoided a deficit in the fiscal year that ended March 31. The surplus was small - $58 million by the government's reckoning, $8 million, according to the auditor general.
But a surplus, even if tiny, is important for the government's legitimacy.
Second, the government is finally inching toward honesty about the budget projection of a $495-million deficit for this fiscal year.
It's bogus. The revenue assumptions are hopelessly, blatantly optimistic. The expenses were based on million in cuts that had not been identified.
Within a few days of the February budget, it was being questioned. Before long, economists were suggesting the real deficit would be more than $1.5 billion.
No way, said Premier Gordon Campbell, throughout the election campaign and after. The deficit will be $495 million.
No, said Finance Minister Colin Hansen, even weeks ago. We'll meet the budget.
Finally, the government is acknowledging that's just not going to happen.
Hansen said everything changed on June 24, when the federal government sent new tax revenue estimates. Corporate taxes, especially, will be much lower than expected.
I'm a fan of Hansen. He's smart and sensible, and as health minister his command of issues was impressive.
But his claim that up until June 24 he thought the budget was still realistic is just baffling.
Housing starts were way below the budget assumptions. GDP growth was lower. Natural gas prices a fraction of the budget projections. Welfare rolls were climbing. Within two weeks of the budget day, a reasonable person would acknowledge it was wrong.
Third, the bad forecasting is going to be used to justify deep cuts in services and programs.
After the 2001 election, the Liberals brought in a 25-per-cent income tax cut on their first day in office, a $12-billion hit to the budget. That created a revenue crisis and set the stage for a budget focusing on cuts to programs and services.
Now the botched budgeting and determination to keep the deficits small is creating another crisis.
The budget already included cuts to eight of the 19 government ministries this year. Programs and jobs would have to be shed. And the budget was introduced without an actual plan for achieving all the savings.
Even health authorities were being pushed to find $320 million in spending cuts to keep within their funding.
Hansen confirmed the government has also targeted grants to organizations and is prepared to cut deeply.
That's bad news for communities. Grant support economic development efforts and social service delivery and seniors' support and organizations that educate children about drug risks. The services are close to the community and generally delivered in a cost-effective way.
Now, more than three months into the fiscal year, those organizations face surprise cuts, or even the elimination of provincial funding, Hansen said.
Government should always ensure money is being used effectively.
But the Liberals have had eight years to winnow weak or duplicate efforts. These cuts will do real harm.
And fourth, the public was cheated in the election campaign. Campbell's claim that the deficit would not exceed $495 million and that the budget was credible were not true.
But they prevented a real debate on how the province should respond to the recession. (The New Democrats were complicit; they chose to accept the budget numbers and use them as the basis for their own plans.)
British Columbians were sold a pig in a poke. When the real budget is finally released in September, expect a pretty ugly beast to emerge from the sack.
Footnote: How deep will the cuts be? The government has already cut help for people on income assistance who need literacy upgrading or other support to get off welfare and into a job. Job cuts are already planned in some ministries. It's an odd strategy when other governments have accepted the need for simulus spending.

What's wrong with two-tier care?

Interesting and worrying story in the Kelowna Daily Courier.
Norm Embree, chair of the Interior Health Authority, speaks candidly about cuts to care because of inadequate funding. He should get full marks for accountability.
But read on. What's wrong with two-tier health care, he asks?
He also questions whether residential care for seniors unable to live on their own should really be a health care responsibility, which raises a lot of questions, which, hopefully, he will answer.
Read the story here.

OK, Hansen finally admits, cuts are coming

All those community groups, social service agencies and service providers who have been getting the runaround about their provincial funding for this year should now know why.
As Sean Holman reports here, the government is looking to cut those grants to save money. Everything is on the block, from drug prevention to programs to women's shelters to literacy efforts to support for seniors. Provincial grants make up their core budget; cuts - or elimination - would be devastating.
The government's plan has been to stall the groups. Some are more likely to make their concerns public now that they know what's going on.

Child poverty meeting rejected by premier

It seemed a reasonable request.
The Representative for Children and Youth asked Premier Gordon Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to meet with her on the growing problem of child poverty.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative, is worried. For six years in a row, Statistics Canada reported, B.C. has had the highest child poverty rate in Canada.
And the recession has greatly increased the number of children at risk.
Children's lives today, and their futures, should be above partisan considerations. Turpel-Lafond invited the two leaders to sit down and talk about what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
James said yes.
Campbell said no. He refused even a meeting, brushing off the Children and Youth Representative and the issue of child poverty.
There are reasons for the premier to worry. The representative might point out problems - that is part of the job, created in as a result of the damning Hughes' report on the government's failures on children's issues. James might look for political advantage.
But the plight of some 126,000 B.C. children - with that number growing each week - seems more important than those political considerations.
The problems are serious. For six years, Statistics Canada has reported that B.C. has the highest proportion of children in poverty. You can quarrel about the definition of poverty, but StatsCan is comparing provinces on the same basis. And year after year, B.C. ranks at the bottom.
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children fell below the poverty line. That is an improvement.
But not enough to move B.C. out of last place on child poverty. And it still meant 126,000 children in B.C. were living on the margins.
That number is much higher now. The recession has sent families on a downward spiral. Jobs are lost - there were 103,000 fewer people with full-time jobs in May than a year earlier.
Some people find work at lower wages. Others go on unemployment insurance. When that runs out - and any savings are gone - they end up on welfare, now known as income assistance. The government has kept life on income assistance pretty miserable. The focus should be on helping those who can work to find a job, the Liberals maintained.
It's a defensible position when the economy is growing and employers are hiring.
But it not when families with no options are forced to live in grinding poverty.
In four months, the number of children living on welfare has jumped almost nine per cent. A single parent with two children who is considered employable receives up to $660 a month on income assistance for rent. It's tough to find a decent one-bedroom - for three people - for that amount.
In addition, the family on assistance gets $650 a month for everything else. Try it. Put $650 in a jar and see if you and two children can make it through the month.
Bus passes, food, insurance, clothes, school trips, a movie with friends for your daughter, swimming lessons. Which will you drop?
If you get reckless, and spend $7 a day on food for each of the three people, all the income assistance is gone.
That's a long digression, but with a point. Times are grim for a lot of children in B.C. - for a higher percentage here than anywhere else in Canada). We benefit when children make the most of their potential.
But Campbell refused a meeting to talk about how we could give more children a chance to build great lives here.
Other provinces have already set out plans for reducing child poverty, with timelines and actions and targets to measure progress. B.C. has not taken that basic step.
The children's representative offered a simple opportunity to look at a critical problem. And the premier said no.
Footnote: Campbell said the representative should discuss child poverty with the legislative committee on children and youth. The committee has not met in almost eight months, and in any case has no power to direct the government or bring about improvements.

Some portions of reconciliation act discussion paper rejected, says chiefs

The "seismic change" for relations between First Nations and the province, which I wrote about here seems to be hitting some bumps in consultations with First Nations. It's too early for consultations with non-native British Columbians, says aboriginal affairs minister George Abbott.

NDP’S Proposal is Premature
PRESS RELEASE - July 6, 2009

The UBCIC Executive has reviewed and discussed the BC New Democratic Party’s June 30th letter to Premier Campbell proposing that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be mandated to consult with British Columbians on the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs stated “Without the availability of the draft legislation to substantially discuss, it is premature for a legislative committee to trek through the province asking for input to a Discussion Paper. Our fear is that an ill-defined, ill-instructed committee will only serve to polarize the issue of reconciliation and act as an open-invitation for those who oppose the recognition of our Title and Rights.”

The Union of BC Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit and the BC Assembly of First Nations have hosted several regional sessions and have presented at community meetings on the Discussion Paper that contemplates a proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.

“It is clear from the community sessions that elements of the Discussion Paper have been rejected and other elements require further reconsideration and refinement. We have heard that a more collaborative and inclusive process is needed for First Nations” said Grand Chief Phillip. “If through that process, there is agreement to proceed to a legislative proposal, the UBCIC anticipates it will require a significant departure from the proposed model in the Discussion Paper.”

Government paralysis

First, the reports were that subsidies to allow the poorest B.C. kids to camp were at risk. Then aid for leaky condo owners. Now even the Vancouver Island marmot is on the government chopping block. Funding for the marmot recovery program is uncertain, more than three months into the fiscal year.
Those are only the examples that have drawn public notice. Cuts are being planned across government, in secrecy, as this editorial notes.
One result of this process is paralysis, in government and the agencies that do its work. Three months into the fiscal year, funding for most projects is uncertain. Action is on hold. The public won't find out what is going on until September, when a new budget is presented.
The Liberals claim they need until then to rework the numbers. But in 2001, facing the task of replacing the NDP budget with one of their own, the Liberals were able to table a plan by July 30.

A smart and scary article on health care

Our inability to manage health care is one of the great public policy failures of the last 25 years, at least. The same issues and the same lack of information come up again and again and again.
Given Kevin Falcon's musings on private and two-tier care, this New Yorker article is must reading.