Liberal MLA Joan McIntyre didn't likely intend to take a shot at Premier Gordon Campbell.
But she did.
McIntyre chairs the legislative committee on children and youth, which held a session on child poverty this week. It was the premier's idea, sort of.
Last June, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond asked for a meeting with Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to talk about child poverty.
B.C. has had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Canada for the last six years, Statistics Canada reports. The recession likely increased the problems. The meeting, Turpel-Lafond said, would allow a non-partisan discussion of what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
"The premier and the opposition leader need to sit down together and think about how we're going to work on the child-poverty issue," Turpel-Lafond said. "Are we addressing it? Are we doing enough? Can we do more and work more collaboratively on it?"
The goal was action. "The issues are quite daunting, but I think good people working together can make change," she said.
James said yes. Campbell refused. He didn't want the issue to be politicized, he said. And the children's representative reports to the legislative committee. She should take up the issue there.
The result was this week's meeting.
But McIntyre's introduction set out clearly - even painfully - how little resemblance the session bore to the meeting sought by the representative almost a year ago.
McIntyre said she wanted to take time to make sure people didn't have "unrealistic expectations" about the outcome. The committee's focus is "strictly" on children at risk or receiving services from the government.
"I also wanted to clarify that developing a strategy or even providing a written analysis does go beyond our terms of reference and crosses over into the realm of government policy making," she said.
So the experts could talk. The MLAs could ask questions. The transcript would go up on a website.
But there would be no action, no recommendation, no report, not even a summary.
It's an anemic interpretation of the committee's role. Its mandate includes increasing awareness about the child welfare system. A report on the impact of poverty could be part of that role.
And it makes the premier's refusal to meet look entirely unjustified.
Especially as the alternative he suggested - going to the committee - was apparently guaranteed to produce no concrete results.
That's too bad. The risks of the meeting were minor and entirely political. The representative might point out problems Campbell would rather not see. James might use the occasion for partisan advantage.
The problems are real. StatsCan has reported B..C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for six straight years. Any improvements have not been great enough to change that standing. (Poverty definitions are tricky; but StatsCan was comparing provinces using a standard approach.)
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children were poor. In B.C., 13 per cent of the children fell below the poverty line. That's some 126,000 children.
There's a good moral objection to needlessly subjecting children to a life of poverty in such a wealthy and skilled province.
There is also a strong pragmatic one. We love rags to riches stories because they are encouraging. But we pay attention to them because they are rare.
Children who start poor tend to stay poor. Poor children have less success in school and are less healthy.
That's not genetic or an indicator that poor parents do a bad job. It's a reflection of poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition and a host of other factors. Research indicates that poverty even affects brain development.
By leaving children in poverty, we are increasing the risk of a tougher adult life for them. And we are guaranteeing higher costs for society in future, while squandering a chance to benefit from these peoples' fullest contributions.
The government doesn't want to commit to a plan on child poverty.
But surely a meeting with the children's representative shouldn't have been impossible.
Footonote: The presentations to the committee were excellent, on everything from the costs of childhood poverty to plans in other provinces to measures that could provide immediate benefits. I'll present some of the highlights in a coming column.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Things get very complicated if HST petition passes
Even if the anti-HST initiative gets the required number of signatures, there is no guarantee the tax is dead.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Why did Liberal MLAs march into HST debacle?
What if just one or two Liberal MLAs had decided it was a mistake to bring in the HST without seeking the public's views?
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Following the BC Rail corruption trial
As well as the usual sources, I suggest anyone interested in the trial check out pacificgazette.blogspot.com.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Liberals stumble, again, on children and families
Monday was a bad day for the Liberals.
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn’t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn’t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Province's role in capital marina dispute
A proposal for a marina in the Inner Harbour across from the legislature has created a great divide in the community. The marina is to target really large yachts. Opponents fear a wall of big boats blocking the water and problems for kayakers and other waterfront users.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Gulf oil spill burying B.C. offshore dreams
All that oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and washing up on U.S. shorelines is going to have an impact in B.C.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada’s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada’s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Children lose as government fights to keep secrets
Something has gone badly wrong when the person charged with looking after the interests of vulnerable children in B.C. ends up suing the government to get information.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, åsomething that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, åsomething that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Kash Heed affair gets worse and worse
With the Kash Heed mess, the Liberal government has stumbled closer to the abyss that swallowed the NDP regime in 2001.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general April 9, after RCMP officers said they wanted to question him about Elections Act violations during his campaign.
On Tuesday, a special prosecutor recommended charges against Heed's campaign manager, his financial agent and a supporter.
The charges include allegations that they sent a flyer smearing the NDP without revealing the Liberals' role, failed to report the election expense and obstructed justice in an attempted cover-up.
But special prosecutor Terence Robertson said Heed could not have been expected to know anything about the dirty tricks. He was exonerated.
The timing becomes important here.
Sometime the next day - Wednesday - Premier Gordon Campbell decided Heed should be re-appointed solicitor general.
That was unwise. Heed's senior campaign managers faced serious charges. Their evidence had not been heard. His narrow election victory is tainted.
It was a situation that should have called for careful consideration.
But Campbell, in Europe, decided to go ahead. At "approximately 4 o'clock," Attorney General Mike de Jong told the legislature, Heed accepted Campbell's invitation to take up his old job.
"Within a few moments," de Jong said, Robertson dropped a bombshell. He resigned as special prosecutor. His law firm had donated $1,000 to Heed's campaign (and thousands more to the Liberals).
Robertson said he knew about the donation and the RCMP had asked him about a potential conflict of interest. But he only decided to act on the concerns after he had exonerated Heed.
The conflict should have been obvious. Someone who helped fund a politician's election campaign shouldn't be deciding whether potentially career-ending charges are justified. Equally, the government should have known that it would be wrong to go ahead with Heed's return to cabinet.
But it didn't act. Heed was sworn in around 8 p.m. despite the obvious problems. Ineptitude or arrogance? Or was THE government unable to function because of a dependence on Campbell, sleeping through the early morning hours in Europe?
There's no good explanation, as de Jong revealed in the legislature this week. The New Democrats pounced, of course. They went too far in slagging the Liberals - de Jong's unhappiness with all this is real.
But the main points were valid. The special prosecutor system was established to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest in political cases. The fear was that a Crown prosecutor might be suspected of being soft on powerful government figures who could decide his career future.
Yet it failed. A Liberal partisan was named to assess election campaign violations. And although campaign donations are online, no one noticed and Robertson apparently didn't tell anyone.
And even when that was revealed, Heed was re-appointed. He stepped down 13 hours later. But the re-appointment to cabinet should not have happened.
All this wrangling is significant, but dwarfed by the underlying issue.
In the last days of the 2009 campaign, a mailer went to households. It was in Chinese and English and hit hot buttons for the Chinese-Canadian community - about 40 per cent of the population in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding.
The flyer said the NDP would legalize heroin and prostitution and impose an inheritance tax. The flyer claims were false.
NDP candidate Gabriel Yiu lost by 748 votes.
No one admitted sending the flyer. The Heed campaign specifically denied having any role.
The special prosecutor believes that is not true and that the Heed campaign violated the election laws on the way to a narrow victory.
Which does not necessarily have anything to do with Heed. But it still taints his election, something Heed, Campbell and the Liberals have not acknowledged.
Heed might well turn out to be the victim in all this, a political Nemo swimming with sharks. His election could be overturned if the courts and Election B.C. finds the flyer pushed the campaign over spending limits
But the Liberals look like buffoons, willfully blind to serious scandal.
Footnote: Two other issues are of note.
Heed's campaign manager, Barinder Sall, is a strong Liberal supporter and former Liberal ministerial assistant. If the charges are proven, the party faces questions about campaign integrity.
And the independence of other special prosecutors in other cases is now being examined. Robertson recommended against illegal lobbying charges against former Campbell aide Ken Dobell. The Vancouver Sun reported at least seven other special prosecutors or their law firms had donated to the Liberals.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general April 9, after RCMP officers said they wanted to question him about Elections Act violations during his campaign.
On Tuesday, a special prosecutor recommended charges against Heed's campaign manager, his financial agent and a supporter.
The charges include allegations that they sent a flyer smearing the NDP without revealing the Liberals' role, failed to report the election expense and obstructed justice in an attempted cover-up.
But special prosecutor Terence Robertson said Heed could not have been expected to know anything about the dirty tricks. He was exonerated.
The timing becomes important here.
Sometime the next day - Wednesday - Premier Gordon Campbell decided Heed should be re-appointed solicitor general.
That was unwise. Heed's senior campaign managers faced serious charges. Their evidence had not been heard. His narrow election victory is tainted.
It was a situation that should have called for careful consideration.
But Campbell, in Europe, decided to go ahead. At "approximately 4 o'clock," Attorney General Mike de Jong told the legislature, Heed accepted Campbell's invitation to take up his old job.
"Within a few moments," de Jong said, Robertson dropped a bombshell. He resigned as special prosecutor. His law firm had donated $1,000 to Heed's campaign (and thousands more to the Liberals).
Robertson said he knew about the donation and the RCMP had asked him about a potential conflict of interest. But he only decided to act on the concerns after he had exonerated Heed.
The conflict should have been obvious. Someone who helped fund a politician's election campaign shouldn't be deciding whether potentially career-ending charges are justified. Equally, the government should have known that it would be wrong to go ahead with Heed's return to cabinet.
But it didn't act. Heed was sworn in around 8 p.m. despite the obvious problems. Ineptitude or arrogance? Or was THE government unable to function because of a dependence on Campbell, sleeping through the early morning hours in Europe?
There's no good explanation, as de Jong revealed in the legislature this week. The New Democrats pounced, of course. They went too far in slagging the Liberals - de Jong's unhappiness with all this is real.
But the main points were valid. The special prosecutor system was established to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest in political cases. The fear was that a Crown prosecutor might be suspected of being soft on powerful government figures who could decide his career future.
Yet it failed. A Liberal partisan was named to assess election campaign violations. And although campaign donations are online, no one noticed and Robertson apparently didn't tell anyone.
And even when that was revealed, Heed was re-appointed. He stepped down 13 hours later. But the re-appointment to cabinet should not have happened.
All this wrangling is significant, but dwarfed by the underlying issue.
In the last days of the 2009 campaign, a mailer went to households. It was in Chinese and English and hit hot buttons for the Chinese-Canadian community - about 40 per cent of the population in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding.
The flyer said the NDP would legalize heroin and prostitution and impose an inheritance tax. The flyer claims were false.
NDP candidate Gabriel Yiu lost by 748 votes.
No one admitted sending the flyer. The Heed campaign specifically denied having any role.
The special prosecutor believes that is not true and that the Heed campaign violated the election laws on the way to a narrow victory.
Which does not necessarily have anything to do with Heed. But it still taints his election, something Heed, Campbell and the Liberals have not acknowledged.
Heed might well turn out to be the victim in all this, a political Nemo swimming with sharks. His election could be overturned if the courts and Election B.C. finds the flyer pushed the campaign over spending limits
But the Liberals look like buffoons, willfully blind to serious scandal.
Footnote: Two other issues are of note.
Heed's campaign manager, Barinder Sall, is a strong Liberal supporter and former Liberal ministerial assistant. If the charges are proven, the party faces questions about campaign integrity.
And the independence of other special prosecutors in other cases is now being examined. Robertson recommended against illegal lobbying charges against former Campbell aide Ken Dobell. The Vancouver Sun reported at least seven other special prosecutors or their law firms had donated to the Liberals.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Victoria police face questions in woman's death
This is a case worth watching.
The mistrial isn't the issue.
While it's early in the process and the information is limited, the report indicates that in the hours after a young woman died, Victoria police worked hard to make sure a suspect had a lawyer, rather than simply ensuring he understood his rights and pursuing the investigation.
Police might have been simply ensuring any evidence could not be challenged because the suspect's rights had been violated.
But it seems a considerable effort, one not usual in such cases.
The mistrial isn't the issue.
While it's early in the process and the information is limited, the report indicates that in the hours after a young woman died, Victoria police worked hard to make sure a suspect had a lawyer, rather than simply ensuring he understood his rights and pursuing the investigation.
Police might have been simply ensuring any evidence could not be challenged because the suspect's rights had been violated.
But it seems a considerable effort, one not usual in such cases.
HST turning into a political disaster
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's uncharacteristically snarky reaction to an Elections BC ban on a government campaign to sell the HST is a sign the Liberals are worried.
The Campbell government forced the HST bill through the legislature last week, using closure to shut down debate. All the Liberal MLAs, who ran on a platform rejecting the new tax, voted in favour. All New Democrats and Independent Vicki Huntington were opposed.
The broken promise not to bring in the tax and the widespread belief that the Liberals kept their real plans secret during the election campaign have turned into a devastating political issue.
The anti-HST initiative campaign led by former Bill Vander Zalm appears to be going strongly.
The legislation allowing British Columbians to petition for a referendum sets what most saw as an impossible threshold. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat legislation was designed to ensure initiative efforts would fail and promised changes. (That never happened.)
But opponents of the HST, or people just angry at a government that promised one thing and did the opposite, are flocking to sign the initiative petitions.
The task is still huge; 10 per cent of people on the voters' list for the last election must sign for the initiative calling for a referendum on the HST to succeed.
Even then, the result is uncertain. Provincial and federal governments signed the deal in November (six months after the election campaign in which the Liberals ruled out introducing the tax).
Hansen was testy after Elections BC said the government's plan to spend more than $2 million on a mailer defending the new tax would break the law.
The act is designed to keep rich special interests from buying legislative change. Interest groups - and the government is an interest group - must register and can't spend more than $5,000.
Hansen said the ruling was unfair. The government would normally send out ad material about the budget.
But Sean Holman reported on publiceyeonline.com that Elections BC raised its concerns by April 22 after the public affairs sought an opinion.
And the independent office that protects the integrity of voting in B.C. didn't rule against a budget mailing, just the sales job on the HST.
The tax betrayal has been damaging for the Liberals, leaving them looking either dishonest or incompetent. Dishonest if they promised not to introduce the tax while secretly planning to move ahead. Incompetent if they had been rejecting a change that Hansen now says is the single best thing that can be done for the B.C. economy.
Basically, the HST will cut taxes for businesses by $1.9 billion a year and increase the taxes paid by individuals and families by the same amount - something like $460 a year per person.
That's good for business and encourages investment in the province. The government maintains that's good for you, despite the higher tax bill. Businesses might pass on their lower taxes in price cuts. They might need more employees. They might have to raise wages to attract good people.
Or they might pocket the tax cuts and invest in machines that reduce the number of people they need to employ.
The Liberals needed to address those concerns before they imposed the tax, not after.
It's not just that 82 per cent of British Columbians oppose the tax, according to an Angus Reid poll. The poll found 64 per cent of people believed the Liberals were uncaring; a majority believed them to be dishonest.
And it put NDP support at 47 per cent of voters, far greater than the Liberals' 29 per cent.
Grim days for Campbell and company, especially for the Liberals who hoped to succeed him and are now tainted by the doubts about HST honesty.
Whether the HST initiative succeeds or evolves into a recall effort against vulnerable Liberal MLAs, the government faces a legitimacy crisis.
Footnote: Former finance minister Carole Taylor added to the Liberals' woes last week. She repeated her opposition to the tax shift on to consumers. And the "bigger issue," she said, is that the Liberals "promised that they would not - they would not - do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it."
The Campbell government forced the HST bill through the legislature last week, using closure to shut down debate. All the Liberal MLAs, who ran on a platform rejecting the new tax, voted in favour. All New Democrats and Independent Vicki Huntington were opposed.
The broken promise not to bring in the tax and the widespread belief that the Liberals kept their real plans secret during the election campaign have turned into a devastating political issue.
The anti-HST initiative campaign led by former Bill Vander Zalm appears to be going strongly.
The legislation allowing British Columbians to petition for a referendum sets what most saw as an impossible threshold. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat legislation was designed to ensure initiative efforts would fail and promised changes. (That never happened.)
But opponents of the HST, or people just angry at a government that promised one thing and did the opposite, are flocking to sign the initiative petitions.
The task is still huge; 10 per cent of people on the voters' list for the last election must sign for the initiative calling for a referendum on the HST to succeed.
Even then, the result is uncertain. Provincial and federal governments signed the deal in November (six months after the election campaign in which the Liberals ruled out introducing the tax).
Hansen was testy after Elections BC said the government's plan to spend more than $2 million on a mailer defending the new tax would break the law.
The act is designed to keep rich special interests from buying legislative change. Interest groups - and the government is an interest group - must register and can't spend more than $5,000.
Hansen said the ruling was unfair. The government would normally send out ad material about the budget.
But Sean Holman reported on publiceyeonline.com that Elections BC raised its concerns by April 22 after the public affairs sought an opinion.
And the independent office that protects the integrity of voting in B.C. didn't rule against a budget mailing, just the sales job on the HST.
The tax betrayal has been damaging for the Liberals, leaving them looking either dishonest or incompetent. Dishonest if they promised not to introduce the tax while secretly planning to move ahead. Incompetent if they had been rejecting a change that Hansen now says is the single best thing that can be done for the B.C. economy.
Basically, the HST will cut taxes for businesses by $1.9 billion a year and increase the taxes paid by individuals and families by the same amount - something like $460 a year per person.
That's good for business and encourages investment in the province. The government maintains that's good for you, despite the higher tax bill. Businesses might pass on their lower taxes in price cuts. They might need more employees. They might have to raise wages to attract good people.
Or they might pocket the tax cuts and invest in machines that reduce the number of people they need to employ.
The Liberals needed to address those concerns before they imposed the tax, not after.
It's not just that 82 per cent of British Columbians oppose the tax, according to an Angus Reid poll. The poll found 64 per cent of people believed the Liberals were uncaring; a majority believed them to be dishonest.
And it put NDP support at 47 per cent of voters, far greater than the Liberals' 29 per cent.
Grim days for Campbell and company, especially for the Liberals who hoped to succeed him and are now tainted by the doubts about HST honesty.
Whether the HST initiative succeeds or evolves into a recall effort against vulnerable Liberal MLAs, the government faces a legitimacy crisis.
Footnote: Former finance minister Carole Taylor added to the Liberals' woes last week. She repeated her opposition to the tax shift on to consumers. And the "bigger issue," she said, is that the Liberals "promised that they would not - they would not - do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it."
Friday, March 19, 2010
Taking a break
Time for a little change of pace. Blogging will be highly intermittent to non-existent for a while until we return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Moving past the politics of blind division
I admit to being a bit critical of government.
Crabby, you might even say.
I like to think I’m offering useful information and constructive perspective, but not everyone is going to see it that way.
Which is fine. As it’s fine to challenge my arguments or offer an alternate view of the issues. I was charmed by the headline last year on a letter to the editor responding to a column last year — “If Willcocks likes it, it must be bad.”
But it’s puzzling and frustrating when some readers think that a critical look at the policies or actions of the party in power means a writer must support another political party.
And it’s worrisome. It speaks of polarized, mindless divisions and the politics of contempt. People don’t talk about policies. They pick teams. Hell’s Angels versus Bandidos, Leafs versus Canucks.
Policies don’t matter, only loyalties.
I have done this kind of work in five provinces. The attitude toward politics varied widely. In New Brunswick, political loyalty brought direct benefits like a government job (which was at risk if the other party won next time). In Alberta, people united behind a dominant governing regime.
But in B.C., we pick sides. If you criticize the NDP position on the carbon tax, then you are expected to support the Liberal position on minimum wage. If you criticize the Liberals for not having a plan to reduce child poverty, then you must think the NDP is right on private power.
That makes no logical sense. On election day, voters have to choose between candidates and parties. But, except for the hardcore partisans and loyalists, between elections molst of us can worry about policies.
We can be free to praise the party in power for good actions and carp at it for failures.
When we don’t, public discourse is cheapened, reduced to slogans and posturing. It demeans us as thinking, caring people.
And to the extent that people buy into the need to pick sides, we lose the benefit of their intelligence and experience.
The Liberals, for example, are keen to expand private power production for export. There are risks of higher electricity rates for residents as a result.
It’s complex and we would benefit from a discussion. But if people feel compelled to support or oppose it on some party basis, there is no critical discussion of the benefits and costs.
It’s troubling for a columnist. Between elections, the opposition doesn’t much matter. The party in power sets the budget and brings in the policy changes and deals with the problems and opportunities. So you write generally about how it is doing. The opposition criticizes, but sets out few clear policies.
And mostly I write about things that could be done better.
That’s a compliment to readers and our political system. It’s based on the belief that journalism provides information and perspective to people.
That they then weigh all the information and use their good judgment and experience to form their opinions and act on them. And that politicians respond to the public. Otherwise, what’s the point of writing this stuff, or reading it?
It can be negative. Probably a few more columns about successes would be good. But with a couple of columns a week, it seems important to write about a problem that could be fixed or examine an issue that matters.
And it can seem partisan. When the New Democrats were in government and I was writing about their truly dismal performance, I was characterized as a Liberal supporter. Now the topics involve Liberal stumbles – often, sadly, in the same areas – and I’m seen as a shill for the NDP.
Writing about things that the party in power could and should do better by shouldn’t be seen as support for the opposition.
Public policy matters. To reduce it to us versus them undermines democracy and creates more stupid, destructive politics.
Footnote: For the record, I think I have voted for Liberal, Conservative and NDP candidates in federal and provincial elections, depending on the candidates and the policies and issues of the day.
Crabby, you might even say.
I like to think I’m offering useful information and constructive perspective, but not everyone is going to see it that way.
Which is fine. As it’s fine to challenge my arguments or offer an alternate view of the issues. I was charmed by the headline last year on a letter to the editor responding to a column last year — “If Willcocks likes it, it must be bad.”
But it’s puzzling and frustrating when some readers think that a critical look at the policies or actions of the party in power means a writer must support another political party.
And it’s worrisome. It speaks of polarized, mindless divisions and the politics of contempt. People don’t talk about policies. They pick teams. Hell’s Angels versus Bandidos, Leafs versus Canucks.
Policies don’t matter, only loyalties.
I have done this kind of work in five provinces. The attitude toward politics varied widely. In New Brunswick, political loyalty brought direct benefits like a government job (which was at risk if the other party won next time). In Alberta, people united behind a dominant governing regime.
But in B.C., we pick sides. If you criticize the NDP position on the carbon tax, then you are expected to support the Liberal position on minimum wage. If you criticize the Liberals for not having a plan to reduce child poverty, then you must think the NDP is right on private power.
That makes no logical sense. On election day, voters have to choose between candidates and parties. But, except for the hardcore partisans and loyalists, between elections molst of us can worry about policies.
We can be free to praise the party in power for good actions and carp at it for failures.
When we don’t, public discourse is cheapened, reduced to slogans and posturing. It demeans us as thinking, caring people.
And to the extent that people buy into the need to pick sides, we lose the benefit of their intelligence and experience.
The Liberals, for example, are keen to expand private power production for export. There are risks of higher electricity rates for residents as a result.
It’s complex and we would benefit from a discussion. But if people feel compelled to support or oppose it on some party basis, there is no critical discussion of the benefits and costs.
It’s troubling for a columnist. Between elections, the opposition doesn’t much matter. The party in power sets the budget and brings in the policy changes and deals with the problems and opportunities. So you write generally about how it is doing. The opposition criticizes, but sets out few clear policies.
And mostly I write about things that could be done better.
That’s a compliment to readers and our political system. It’s based on the belief that journalism provides information and perspective to people.
That they then weigh all the information and use their good judgment and experience to form their opinions and act on them. And that politicians respond to the public. Otherwise, what’s the point of writing this stuff, or reading it?
It can be negative. Probably a few more columns about successes would be good. But with a couple of columns a week, it seems important to write about a problem that could be fixed or examine an issue that matters.
And it can seem partisan. When the New Democrats were in government and I was writing about their truly dismal performance, I was characterized as a Liberal supporter. Now the topics involve Liberal stumbles – often, sadly, in the same areas – and I’m seen as a shill for the NDP.
Writing about things that the party in power could and should do better by shouldn’t be seen as support for the opposition.
Public policy matters. To reduce it to us versus them undermines democracy and creates more stupid, destructive politics.
Footnote: For the record, I think I have voted for Liberal, Conservative and NDP candidates in federal and provincial elections, depending on the candidates and the policies and issues of the day.
'Rural' tax break for Whistler chalet owner; not for PG renter
There's a certain late-1990s NDP quality in the budget's $200 tax break for "northern and rural homeowners."
By any rational economic or public policy test, the move makes no sense.
The government is collecting $80 million from all taxpayers and then redistributing the money to some people, without any consideration of need or public benefit.
Poor people, who have it really tough, will pay taxes that will be redistributed to multimillionaires who need no help at all.
But the ploy scores political points and spins well - both important to the NDP government of the late-'90s and, apparently, the Campbell government.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the tax credit - an add-on to the homeowner grant - would provide "breathing room" for people in communities hit hardest by the economic downturn.
It does no such thing.
The government decided to give $200 to every homeowner living outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. (More specifically, outside the Greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Capital Regional Districts.)
About 70 per cent of British Columbians live in those three excluded areas. No matter how tough time are for their families, no money for them. They're paying taxes to help other people.
Which, given competent government, could be OK. We accept the notion that those who are doing well will help those who aren't.
We grumble. We certainly worry about waste. But when government can show that our taxes help a sick person get care or a child get a fair chance at life, most of us are willing to write the cheques.
But not so much if we're giving money to people who are already financially better we off than we are.
Which is what the government is doing.
Kelowna is, according to the government, a northern or rural community. People who own houses there will get the $200 from other taxpayers.
The unemployment rate in Kelowna is about six per cent.
In Prince George, unemployment is 12.9 per cent, more than twice the level in Kelowna.
Kelowna's population includes many people who are doing just fine, to their credit. But why would we send money to someone doing well? Especially when the money was being, in part, from people who were doing very poorly, while still paying taxes?
A laid-off forest worker in Sooke won't get the grant because he lives in the CRD; instead, he will pay taxes in part so a person living in a $2-million house in Whistler will get the $200 as a "rural and northern resident."
And the grants only go to homeowners. That would be fine if the goal was to provide a little extra income to people who owned homes.
But Hansen said it was to all help provide "breathing room" for all people in hardhit communities. A lot of the people suffering through this recession are renters, many of them in the middle-income brackets. They get nothing; in fact a portion of their taxes will go to providing a $200 cheque to the neighbour on the next block with a mortgage-free houses.
There is a vaguely sensible public policy buried deeply beneath all the political calculations. The recession's impact has fallen particularly heavily on people in specific communities. And within the community, the blows have fallen hardest on a specific group. People who were really poor before the recession still are; people who were relatively comfortable have some cushion.
But people working for modest wages, with narrow skills and living from pay cheque to pay cheque, have had a tough time. You could argue for targeted aid in some form.
Just tossing out $80 million and hoping for the best doesn't really qualify as targeted aid.
The money could fund career training each year for 8,000 people displaced from their jobs by the recession. It could increase income assistance benefits for families for a time after they employment insurance benefits expired.
There are lots of options. Instead, a single mom working for $14 an hour is going to pay taxes to provide $200 to a millionaire vineyard owner in Oliver.
Footnote: The rural and northern homeowners grant was part of the Liberal government's pre-election budget last year, the one that projected a deficit of $495 million, one-fifth the size of the real shortfall. Despite other cuts, the program is going ahead next year.
By any rational economic or public policy test, the move makes no sense.
The government is collecting $80 million from all taxpayers and then redistributing the money to some people, without any consideration of need or public benefit.
Poor people, who have it really tough, will pay taxes that will be redistributed to multimillionaires who need no help at all.
But the ploy scores political points and spins well - both important to the NDP government of the late-'90s and, apparently, the Campbell government.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the tax credit - an add-on to the homeowner grant - would provide "breathing room" for people in communities hit hardest by the economic downturn.
It does no such thing.
The government decided to give $200 to every homeowner living outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. (More specifically, outside the Greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Capital Regional Districts.)
About 70 per cent of British Columbians live in those three excluded areas. No matter how tough time are for their families, no money for them. They're paying taxes to help other people.
Which, given competent government, could be OK. We accept the notion that those who are doing well will help those who aren't.
We grumble. We certainly worry about waste. But when government can show that our taxes help a sick person get care or a child get a fair chance at life, most of us are willing to write the cheques.
But not so much if we're giving money to people who are already financially better we off than we are.
Which is what the government is doing.
Kelowna is, according to the government, a northern or rural community. People who own houses there will get the $200 from other taxpayers.
The unemployment rate in Kelowna is about six per cent.
In Prince George, unemployment is 12.9 per cent, more than twice the level in Kelowna.
Kelowna's population includes many people who are doing just fine, to their credit. But why would we send money to someone doing well? Especially when the money was being, in part, from people who were doing very poorly, while still paying taxes?
A laid-off forest worker in Sooke won't get the grant because he lives in the CRD; instead, he will pay taxes in part so a person living in a $2-million house in Whistler will get the $200 as a "rural and northern resident."
And the grants only go to homeowners. That would be fine if the goal was to provide a little extra income to people who owned homes.
But Hansen said it was to all help provide "breathing room" for all people in hardhit communities. A lot of the people suffering through this recession are renters, many of them in the middle-income brackets. They get nothing; in fact a portion of their taxes will go to providing a $200 cheque to the neighbour on the next block with a mortgage-free houses.
There is a vaguely sensible public policy buried deeply beneath all the political calculations. The recession's impact has fallen particularly heavily on people in specific communities. And within the community, the blows have fallen hardest on a specific group. People who were really poor before the recession still are; people who were relatively comfortable have some cushion.
But people working for modest wages, with narrow skills and living from pay cheque to pay cheque, have had a tough time. You could argue for targeted aid in some form.
Just tossing out $80 million and hoping for the best doesn't really qualify as targeted aid.
The money could fund career training each year for 8,000 people displaced from their jobs by the recession. It could increase income assistance benefits for families for a time after they employment insurance benefits expired.
There are lots of options. Instead, a single mom working for $14 an hour is going to pay taxes to provide $200 to a millionaire vineyard owner in Oliver.
Footnote: The rural and northern homeowners grant was part of the Liberal government's pre-election budget last year, the one that projected a deficit of $495 million, one-fifth the size of the real shortfall. Despite other cuts, the program is going ahead next year.
Cut steals communication from the disabled
Many of us fear being trapped in our bodies in old age, unable to communicate.
For some people, that's a reality long before they're old.
An amazing initiative has been changing that reality — and people's lives. But now the provincial government has eliminated its modest support for the program.
Giving the gift of communication to people with disabilities isn't a priority.
The name is a little dull - Communication Assistance for Youth and Adults, or CAYA.
But the work is astonishing. It combines advanced technology, therapy and ingenuity. The results are life changing.
Imagine being 29, and suffering from a spinal cord injury or illness that meant you couldn't speak or sign or communicate. When doctors asked about pain, you couldn't answer. You couldn't ask for something you badly wanted or tell someone how much you cared.
CAYA changes that. The speech pathologists work with clients to find the best way to communicate. The tech people identify the best communication device. There's training and support.
Imagine that gift for you or someone you care about.
The CAYA website has some wonderful client stories. People freed from the prison of their bodies to work and share life. You should read them. It's heartening and humbling to see the enthusiastic embrace of life from people dealing with such big challenges.
Like Melissa Yaretz of Sicamous. She's 19. She has struggled to survive physically. But she was an academic star in high school, thanks to advanced communications technology.
"Without a communication system there would have been no grades and no proof that I am all that I am." Yaretz wrote. "I would have just sat in the back of the room looking cute. Cute only works for so long. Without communication, to the rest of the world I am just a woman in a wheelchair with a severe disability, who is dependent for everything."
Or Andrea Paterson of Abbotsford. Her Lightwriter voice communication device gives her a voice and allowed her to move into a group home.
"I use my Lightwriter to help the staff at my new group home know what I like to do, to eat, or how I am feeling," Paterson says. "Once when I was sick I wrote 'I want to go home.' I love to have fun and to tease the staff and the Lightwriter helps me do that. I love it here!"
Government revenues are down and costs must be balanced against benefits.
But cutting a small amount of funding that produced huge changes in people's lives betrays the values most of us live by.
Since 1989, SET - Special Education Technology B.C. - has been working to help school-age children communicate. In 2005, CAYA was created to extend the effort to adults, with government support.
Two years ago, then education minister Shirley Bond and income assistance minister Claude Richmond announced a $500,000 grant for CAYA. "Our government wants every British Columbian to achieve their very best, both in school and in life," said Bond.
"I know that CAYA will continue to make a tremendous difference in the lives of those with severe communication disabilities," Richmond said.
But now the government has eliminated funding. A disabled person with a chance of employment or a volunteer role can apply to CAYA, which will dip into the money it has left to help.
Otherwise, disabled people are apparently not worth the money it would take to allow them to communicate.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible, said government recognizes the program's effectiveness and how lives have been changed.
"However, the economic downturn has placed significant pressure on our programs and we are no longer able to provide funding to the CAYA project," Coleman wrote. (MLAs, beyond having forgone a one-per-cent wage increase, haven't cut their wages or benefits.)
Last word to Melissa Yaretz.
"What about Love? I too desire love from life and all that it can mean. How can someone love me if they don't know me? How can they know me if they don't understand me? To be able to communicate all my thoughts and feelings allows others to know all of me inside and out. As I desire an equal place in life, I also desire the same of love."
Sorry, the government says. Too expensive. Go away.
For some people, that's a reality long before they're old.
An amazing initiative has been changing that reality — and people's lives. But now the provincial government has eliminated its modest support for the program.
Giving the gift of communication to people with disabilities isn't a priority.
The name is a little dull - Communication Assistance for Youth and Adults, or CAYA.
But the work is astonishing. It combines advanced technology, therapy and ingenuity. The results are life changing.
Imagine being 29, and suffering from a spinal cord injury or illness that meant you couldn't speak or sign or communicate. When doctors asked about pain, you couldn't answer. You couldn't ask for something you badly wanted or tell someone how much you cared.
CAYA changes that. The speech pathologists work with clients to find the best way to communicate. The tech people identify the best communication device. There's training and support.
Imagine that gift for you or someone you care about.
The CAYA website has some wonderful client stories. People freed from the prison of their bodies to work and share life. You should read them. It's heartening and humbling to see the enthusiastic embrace of life from people dealing with such big challenges.
Like Melissa Yaretz of Sicamous. She's 19. She has struggled to survive physically. But she was an academic star in high school, thanks to advanced communications technology.
"Without a communication system there would have been no grades and no proof that I am all that I am." Yaretz wrote. "I would have just sat in the back of the room looking cute. Cute only works for so long. Without communication, to the rest of the world I am just a woman in a wheelchair with a severe disability, who is dependent for everything."
Or Andrea Paterson of Abbotsford. Her Lightwriter voice communication device gives her a voice and allowed her to move into a group home.
"I use my Lightwriter to help the staff at my new group home know what I like to do, to eat, or how I am feeling," Paterson says. "Once when I was sick I wrote 'I want to go home.' I love to have fun and to tease the staff and the Lightwriter helps me do that. I love it here!"
Government revenues are down and costs must be balanced against benefits.
But cutting a small amount of funding that produced huge changes in people's lives betrays the values most of us live by.
Since 1989, SET - Special Education Technology B.C. - has been working to help school-age children communicate. In 2005, CAYA was created to extend the effort to adults, with government support.
Two years ago, then education minister Shirley Bond and income assistance minister Claude Richmond announced a $500,000 grant for CAYA. "Our government wants every British Columbian to achieve their very best, both in school and in life," said Bond.
"I know that CAYA will continue to make a tremendous difference in the lives of those with severe communication disabilities," Richmond said.
But now the government has eliminated funding. A disabled person with a chance of employment or a volunteer role can apply to CAYA, which will dip into the money it has left to help.
Otherwise, disabled people are apparently not worth the money it would take to allow them to communicate.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible, said government recognizes the program's effectiveness and how lives have been changed.
"However, the economic downturn has placed significant pressure on our programs and we are no longer able to provide funding to the CAYA project," Coleman wrote. (MLAs, beyond having forgone a one-per-cent wage increase, haven't cut their wages or benefits.)
Last word to Melissa Yaretz.
"What about Love? I too desire love from life and all that it can mean. How can someone love me if they don't know me? How can they know me if they don't understand me? To be able to communicate all my thoughts and feelings allows others to know all of me inside and out. As I desire an equal place in life, I also desire the same of love."
Sorry, the government says. Too expensive. Go away.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
It would save lives, but photo radar is not returning
Photo radar saves lives and reduces injuries and health care costs.
It's simple. Drivers pay more attention to speed limits if they're worried about tickets. And when they obey the posted speed limits, fewer people are maimed and killed.
There is no real debate about those basic facts. The global research and the evidence from B.C. are overwhelming.
That doesn't mean people must support photo radar. They can argue the money spent on the equipment could produce greater safety improvements if it was used in some other way.
Or they can maintain that some laws shouldn't really be enforced too rigorously, though it's hard to see the logic of that position. Or that photo radar is unfair in some unspecified way.
But the reality is that B.C. politicians have decided it's not worth getting yelled at over an unpopular measure, even if better law enforcement would save lives. That's why the NDP and Liberals both reject the return of photo radar and run like scared cats when the issue comes up.
Mostly. NDP MLA John Horgan did a radio interview in Victoria and said he personally supports photo radar because it saves lives.
Which prompted a quick response from the Liberal caucus communications people (whose salary you pay).
"NDP wants to resurrect failed photo radar plan," the title said.
The staffers crafted imaginary quotes for Solicitor General Kash Heed. Photo radar was a "total failure" in B.C., they imagined Heed saying. "Only the NDP would want to resurrect a plan to use police as tax collectors rather than having them on the street fighting crime and targeting problem drivers."
Crash deaths fell 15 per cent in 2008 compared with 2007, the release noted. Other policing efforts have worked to make the roads safer.
But that's not really true. Photo radar caught speeders in B.C. for six years. The average number of people who died in crashes was 408.
In the six previous years, the toll had averaged 534.
In the same period after photo radar was eliminated, the average number of people killed in crashes was 439.
So despite the new measures, the lives of 30 more families each year were shattered. Many were victims of someone else's speeding, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thousands more people were injured. The costs to us all were huge, from health care to higher insurance rates.
A study that looked at the first year of photo radar in the province found a "dramatic reduction" in speed at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the report said.
Another review analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies around the world. Crashes were reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent. Fatalities by 40 to 46 per cent.
There's lots of support for photo radar. The RCMP and ICBC and Surrey council all sought photo radar for the Patullo Bridge.
And a 2007 poll for the Canada Safety Council found 75 per cent of British Columbians supported photo radar on the highways - and 90 per cent in school zones.
Politically, it's still poison. The NDP photo-radar was tainted by the government's unpopularity. The program was wasteful, with a police officer in each van. And people felt the predatory locations were chosen to boost revenue.
But there are effective alternatives. Boxes for photo radar - or speed cameras - could be mounted on traffic lights or utility poles at high-risk areas. Cameras could be rotated from location to location. Speeders would be caught and more people would drive closer to the speed limit.
Lives would be saved, hospital costs reduced and insurance rates kept lower - and families protected from tragedy.
Perhaps police officers watching for traffic offenders would be even more effective. But the government is not likely to hire a lot more of them.
Or, sadly, to bring back photo radar.
Footnote: Give credit to Horgan for a straight answer. Many MLAs - not all - would have responded to a question about an issue like photo radar with blather, determinedly saying nothing. Honesty and straight talk are refreshing.
It's simple. Drivers pay more attention to speed limits if they're worried about tickets. And when they obey the posted speed limits, fewer people are maimed and killed.
There is no real debate about those basic facts. The global research and the evidence from B.C. are overwhelming.
That doesn't mean people must support photo radar. They can argue the money spent on the equipment could produce greater safety improvements if it was used in some other way.
Or they can maintain that some laws shouldn't really be enforced too rigorously, though it's hard to see the logic of that position. Or that photo radar is unfair in some unspecified way.
But the reality is that B.C. politicians have decided it's not worth getting yelled at over an unpopular measure, even if better law enforcement would save lives. That's why the NDP and Liberals both reject the return of photo radar and run like scared cats when the issue comes up.
Mostly. NDP MLA John Horgan did a radio interview in Victoria and said he personally supports photo radar because it saves lives.
Which prompted a quick response from the Liberal caucus communications people (whose salary you pay).
"NDP wants to resurrect failed photo radar plan," the title said.
The staffers crafted imaginary quotes for Solicitor General Kash Heed. Photo radar was a "total failure" in B.C., they imagined Heed saying. "Only the NDP would want to resurrect a plan to use police as tax collectors rather than having them on the street fighting crime and targeting problem drivers."
Crash deaths fell 15 per cent in 2008 compared with 2007, the release noted. Other policing efforts have worked to make the roads safer.
But that's not really true. Photo radar caught speeders in B.C. for six years. The average number of people who died in crashes was 408.
In the six previous years, the toll had averaged 534.
In the same period after photo radar was eliminated, the average number of people killed in crashes was 439.
So despite the new measures, the lives of 30 more families each year were shattered. Many were victims of someone else's speeding, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thousands more people were injured. The costs to us all were huge, from health care to higher insurance rates.
A study that looked at the first year of photo radar in the province found a "dramatic reduction" in speed at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the report said.
Another review analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies around the world. Crashes were reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent. Fatalities by 40 to 46 per cent.
There's lots of support for photo radar. The RCMP and ICBC and Surrey council all sought photo radar for the Patullo Bridge.
And a 2007 poll for the Canada Safety Council found 75 per cent of British Columbians supported photo radar on the highways - and 90 per cent in school zones.
Politically, it's still poison. The NDP photo-radar was tainted by the government's unpopularity. The program was wasteful, with a police officer in each van. And people felt the predatory locations were chosen to boost revenue.
But there are effective alternatives. Boxes for photo radar - or speed cameras - could be mounted on traffic lights or utility poles at high-risk areas. Cameras could be rotated from location to location. Speeders would be caught and more people would drive closer to the speed limit.
Lives would be saved, hospital costs reduced and insurance rates kept lower - and families protected from tragedy.
Perhaps police officers watching for traffic offenders would be even more effective. But the government is not likely to hire a lot more of them.
Or, sadly, to bring back photo radar.
Footnote: Give credit to Horgan for a straight answer. Many MLAs - not all - would have responded to a question about an issue like photo radar with blather, determinedly saying nothing. Honesty and straight talk are refreshing.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Glowing HST report too little, too late
There are two big problems with the economic analysis the government released this week to try and win support for the HST.
It's a year too late.
And it only addresses the questions the Liberal government wanted answered - not the issues British Columbians have with the new harmonized sales tax.
The approach to HST represents one of the great government fumbles. The tax isn't an easy sell, but in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces the governments figured out a way to take it to the public for a real discussion.
Not here. The Liberals vowed not to introduce the HST during the election campaign 10 months ago because it would be bad for B.C.
Weeks after winning the election, they decided to bring in the tax. According to the Liberal line, which isn't convincing many people, they had some sort of epiphany in the weeks after the election.
The HST was suddenly revealed to be not just OK, but critical to the province's future.
The analysis from Jack Mintz, a University of Calgary economist and former head of the C.D. Howe Institute, supports the decision. The government paid him $12,000 for a 12-page report on the impact of the new tax.
It's a great move, he concluded. The HST shifts the costs of government services from businesses to individuals and families.
Companies will pay less tax in capital investments in B.C. - things like new equipment or expanded operations. Lower taxes mean higher return on investment, so companies will choose to invest here rather than in some other jurisdiction. That, mostly, creates jobs.
Mintz estimates that by 2020 the HST will have resulted in $11.5 billion in additional capital investment - new equipment and factories and business start-ups.
Overall, Mintz predicts, the tax will mean a net additional 113,000 jobs by 2020. That's about five per cent more than the current number of jobs.
Mintz has a PhD in economics. I have an English degree and one economics course.
But there are a couple of legitimate questions here.
If the HST was such an obvious way to attract $11.5 billion in investment and bring 113,000 new jobs, why weren't Gordon Campbell and Hansen alert to that possibility a year or two ago? How could they be clued out about the benefits?
And given that this is a big change - a $1.9 billion a year tax shift from business to individuals and families - why is the first analysis being done nine months after the government decided to bring in the new tax?
According to Campbell, the government didn't one study or review of the impact on British Columbia before it decided to introduce the tax. That's an admission of incompetence.
The other problem is that the Mintz review doesn't look at the impact on ordinary British Columbians.
Budget documents show most British Columbians - aside from the poor - will pay more in total taxes to the provincial government this year, with the HST the biggest factor.
The budget offers six examples of the way different people will be affected. Seniors with an income of $30,000 and a single person with income of $25,000 will pay less.
The other four examples provided will pay between 2.1 per cent and and 6.2 per cent more. A family of four with a household income of $60,000 faces a 5.4 per cent increase in provincial taxes and fees.
The review doesn't analyze the higher cost of living as a result of the tax, which TD Economics put at 0.7 per cent. And it doesn't offer any information on the effect on wages.
The HST is quite likely a positive measure.
But the questions for the Liberals remain. If the HST was so great for B.C., why did Campbell reject it during the election campaign? What sort of government introduces a huge tax change with no studies or consultation?
And how can the public trust a party that promises one thing, and does the opposite?
It will take more than a 12-page report to answer those questions.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder in Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a scathing report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder of Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a damning report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
It's a year too late.
And it only addresses the questions the Liberal government wanted answered - not the issues British Columbians have with the new harmonized sales tax.
The approach to HST represents one of the great government fumbles. The tax isn't an easy sell, but in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces the governments figured out a way to take it to the public for a real discussion.
Not here. The Liberals vowed not to introduce the HST during the election campaign 10 months ago because it would be bad for B.C.
Weeks after winning the election, they decided to bring in the tax. According to the Liberal line, which isn't convincing many people, they had some sort of epiphany in the weeks after the election.
The HST was suddenly revealed to be not just OK, but critical to the province's future.
The analysis from Jack Mintz, a University of Calgary economist and former head of the C.D. Howe Institute, supports the decision. The government paid him $12,000 for a 12-page report on the impact of the new tax.
It's a great move, he concluded. The HST shifts the costs of government services from businesses to individuals and families.
Companies will pay less tax in capital investments in B.C. - things like new equipment or expanded operations. Lower taxes mean higher return on investment, so companies will choose to invest here rather than in some other jurisdiction. That, mostly, creates jobs.
Mintz estimates that by 2020 the HST will have resulted in $11.5 billion in additional capital investment - new equipment and factories and business start-ups.
Overall, Mintz predicts, the tax will mean a net additional 113,000 jobs by 2020. That's about five per cent more than the current number of jobs.
Mintz has a PhD in economics. I have an English degree and one economics course.
But there are a couple of legitimate questions here.
If the HST was such an obvious way to attract $11.5 billion in investment and bring 113,000 new jobs, why weren't Gordon Campbell and Hansen alert to that possibility a year or two ago? How could they be clued out about the benefits?
And given that this is a big change - a $1.9 billion a year tax shift from business to individuals and families - why is the first analysis being done nine months after the government decided to bring in the new tax?
According to Campbell, the government didn't one study or review of the impact on British Columbia before it decided to introduce the tax. That's an admission of incompetence.
The other problem is that the Mintz review doesn't look at the impact on ordinary British Columbians.
Budget documents show most British Columbians - aside from the poor - will pay more in total taxes to the provincial government this year, with the HST the biggest factor.
The budget offers six examples of the way different people will be affected. Seniors with an income of $30,000 and a single person with income of $25,000 will pay less.
The other four examples provided will pay between 2.1 per cent and and 6.2 per cent more. A family of four with a household income of $60,000 faces a 5.4 per cent increase in provincial taxes and fees.
The review doesn't analyze the higher cost of living as a result of the tax, which TD Economics put at 0.7 per cent. And it doesn't offer any information on the effect on wages.
The HST is quite likely a positive measure.
But the questions for the Liberals remain. If the HST was so great for B.C., why did Campbell reject it during the election campaign? What sort of government introduces a huge tax change with no studies or consultation?
And how can the public trust a party that promises one thing, and does the opposite?
It will take more than a 12-page report to answer those questions.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder in Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a scathing report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder of Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a damning report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Going backward on support for families who step up to help children
The B.C. Association of Social Workers offers informed and balanced analysis. Thus the concerns about changes to supports for grandparents and other family members who step up to care for children should be given serious consideration. Children need families.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BC ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
MARCH 11, 2010
“EXTENDED FAMILY PROGRAM” OFFERS IMPROVED SUPPORTS FOR SOME, BUT DISQUALIFIES TOO MANY OTHERS
Effective April 1st, the provincial government will institute changes to support services for family members/family friends who have stepped in to care for a child whose parents cannot look after them. The Child in a Home of a Relative (CIHR) program under the Ministry of Housing and Social Development will be phased out, with no new applications accepted after March 31st, 2010. The new Extended Family Program (EFP) under the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), heralded by the provincial government as a way to “support strong, stable home environments and ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth who are temporarily unable to live with their parents,” states its most important goal is to “improve outcomes for children and youth.”
The majority of these children will be living with their grandparents. In fact, there are more children being raised by their grandparents in BC than there are in the foster care system. A recent survey by Parent Support Services Society of BC and the University of Victoria School of Social Work indicated that half the grandparents raising their grandchildren had the children placed with them by MCFD. Grandparents have been referred to as ‘the underground foster care system’ for good reason.
The BC Association of Social Workers has reviewed the new Extended Family Program, and has identified some major concerns:
Although anyone currently in receipt of CIHR benefits will continue to be covered under that program until the child reaches the age of majority, after March 31st, the only apparent option for a relative who undertakes the care of a child is through the Extended Family Program. If they do not qualify, they will be left with very few supports – and indeed many will not qualify. Two major flaws are apparent in the planning for the EFP:
• The only gateway to the new program is through the child’s parent, who must request and agree to the arrangement. Too often that parent cannot be found, suffers from a mental illness or addiction, may be incarcerated or street engaged, may have an estranged relationship with the grandparents or simply may be unwilling or unable to cooperate for a variety of reasons.
• The new policy disqualifies any relative with legal guardianship of the child to receive services, even if they have great need. This is despite the fact that MCFD staff and often lawyers advise grandparents (or other relatives) to obtain legal guardianship because of the protection it affords the child and the grandparents in decision making and acquiring services for the child.
Unlike the CIHR plan, which covers children until they age out, the service plan under the Extended Family Program will be reviewed every six months, and supports will continue “as long as there is an assessed need and the parent agrees that the out-of-home placement remains the best option for the child.” This leaves relatives unable to plan far into the future as all or some supports could disappear in a very short time. The agreements are “not expected to continue beyond 24 months maximum... unless an assessment of the child’s needs supports a longer timeline.” Two years in the life of a child who has likely experienced substantial turmoil, and whose parents may have chronic problems that interfere with their ability to parent, is extraordinarily brief. Many grandparents hope that their child will be able to parent again when well. Sometimes that is possible. Often the children stay with their grandparents until they are grown or the grandparents are too old or ill to care for them. But this program can only assure them they will receive help for between 6 and 24 months.
As for the screenings and assessments, we are concerned that these procedures now become the responsibility of MCFD. No new funding or staffing has been allocated to handle the additional workloads in an already under-resourced ministry. While we support the need for in- depth assessments, adding this task to social work caseloads which are already too high in most regions will only result in critical delays across the board to families needing help, and create untenable situations for professional staff.
We do not note any appeal system for people refused under the new program, nor is there any increased advocacy funding or service to assist with navigation, clarification, problem solving etc. In fact, it has been reduced, with the elimination of LawLINE, which was often the first step in receiving legal rights information.
We applaud the services the new Extended Family Program will provide – financial help, respite care, medical, optical and dental benefits, increased access to counselling services – it’s all good. But why, we ask, has this program been designed to deliberately exclude many of the families who need it most – the family members who cannot locate or have an estranged relationship with the child’s parent, the grandparents or other relatives who fought for legal guardianship to protect the child’s best interests – many of whom live near or beneath the poverty line or struggle on fixed incomes, and who have undertaken responsibility for a child or children who may have many special needs.
Currently, 4500 families receive benefits under CIHR and less than 200 under Kith and Kin agreements. With the tight screening criteria of the Extended Family Program, it is likely that few families will qualify. For those who do, it will be a wonderful benefit. For the vast majority who do not, it will be devastating.
BCASW asks the government to review this program in the light of our concerns, and institute the changes that will ensure no children are excluded from the help they need to live in a safe and secure family environment. Specifically, we ask that:
• Legal guardians be considered eligible for the EFP • Caregivers be allowed to apply for the EFP in circumstances that preclude a parent from giving consent
• The program be reframed from a ‘temporary’ stopgap to one that offers help until a child reaches the age of majority, where it is in the child’s best interests. • Funding be increased to MCFD to handle the additional workload • MCFD establish an external advisory body that includes social workers, legal advocates and other stakeholders
• MCFD recognize the unique hardships and contributions of grandparents and other relatives/close family friends and demonstrate its commitment to supporting children to remain with extended family on a long term basis if needed.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BC ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
MARCH 11, 2010
“EXTENDED FAMILY PROGRAM” OFFERS IMPROVED SUPPORTS FOR SOME, BUT DISQUALIFIES TOO MANY OTHERS
Effective April 1st, the provincial government will institute changes to support services for family members/family friends who have stepped in to care for a child whose parents cannot look after them. The Child in a Home of a Relative (CIHR) program under the Ministry of Housing and Social Development will be phased out, with no new applications accepted after March 31st, 2010. The new Extended Family Program (EFP) under the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), heralded by the provincial government as a way to “support strong, stable home environments and ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth who are temporarily unable to live with their parents,” states its most important goal is to “improve outcomes for children and youth.”
The majority of these children will be living with their grandparents. In fact, there are more children being raised by their grandparents in BC than there are in the foster care system. A recent survey by Parent Support Services Society of BC and the University of Victoria School of Social Work indicated that half the grandparents raising their grandchildren had the children placed with them by MCFD. Grandparents have been referred to as ‘the underground foster care system’ for good reason.
The BC Association of Social Workers has reviewed the new Extended Family Program, and has identified some major concerns:
Although anyone currently in receipt of CIHR benefits will continue to be covered under that program until the child reaches the age of majority, after March 31st, the only apparent option for a relative who undertakes the care of a child is through the Extended Family Program. If they do not qualify, they will be left with very few supports – and indeed many will not qualify. Two major flaws are apparent in the planning for the EFP:
• The only gateway to the new program is through the child’s parent, who must request and agree to the arrangement. Too often that parent cannot be found, suffers from a mental illness or addiction, may be incarcerated or street engaged, may have an estranged relationship with the grandparents or simply may be unwilling or unable to cooperate for a variety of reasons.
• The new policy disqualifies any relative with legal guardianship of the child to receive services, even if they have great need. This is despite the fact that MCFD staff and often lawyers advise grandparents (or other relatives) to obtain legal guardianship because of the protection it affords the child and the grandparents in decision making and acquiring services for the child.
Unlike the CIHR plan, which covers children until they age out, the service plan under the Extended Family Program will be reviewed every six months, and supports will continue “as long as there is an assessed need and the parent agrees that the out-of-home placement remains the best option for the child.” This leaves relatives unable to plan far into the future as all or some supports could disappear in a very short time. The agreements are “not expected to continue beyond 24 months maximum... unless an assessment of the child’s needs supports a longer timeline.” Two years in the life of a child who has likely experienced substantial turmoil, and whose parents may have chronic problems that interfere with their ability to parent, is extraordinarily brief. Many grandparents hope that their child will be able to parent again when well. Sometimes that is possible. Often the children stay with their grandparents until they are grown or the grandparents are too old or ill to care for them. But this program can only assure them they will receive help for between 6 and 24 months.
As for the screenings and assessments, we are concerned that these procedures now become the responsibility of MCFD. No new funding or staffing has been allocated to handle the additional workloads in an already under-resourced ministry. While we support the need for in- depth assessments, adding this task to social work caseloads which are already too high in most regions will only result in critical delays across the board to families needing help, and create untenable situations for professional staff.
We do not note any appeal system for people refused under the new program, nor is there any increased advocacy funding or service to assist with navigation, clarification, problem solving etc. In fact, it has been reduced, with the elimination of LawLINE, which was often the first step in receiving legal rights information.
We applaud the services the new Extended Family Program will provide – financial help, respite care, medical, optical and dental benefits, increased access to counselling services – it’s all good. But why, we ask, has this program been designed to deliberately exclude many of the families who need it most – the family members who cannot locate or have an estranged relationship with the child’s parent, the grandparents or other relatives who fought for legal guardianship to protect the child’s best interests – many of whom live near or beneath the poverty line or struggle on fixed incomes, and who have undertaken responsibility for a child or children who may have many special needs.
Currently, 4500 families receive benefits under CIHR and less than 200 under Kith and Kin agreements. With the tight screening criteria of the Extended Family Program, it is likely that few families will qualify. For those who do, it will be a wonderful benefit. For the vast majority who do not, it will be devastating.
BCASW asks the government to review this program in the light of our concerns, and institute the changes that will ensure no children are excluded from the help they need to live in a safe and secure family environment. Specifically, we ask that:
• Legal guardians be considered eligible for the EFP • Caregivers be allowed to apply for the EFP in circumstances that preclude a parent from giving consent
• The program be reframed from a ‘temporary’ stopgap to one that offers help until a child reaches the age of majority, where it is in the child’s best interests. • Funding be increased to MCFD to handle the additional workload • MCFD establish an external advisory body that includes social workers, legal advocates and other stakeholders
• MCFD recognize the unique hardships and contributions of grandparents and other relatives/close family friends and demonstrate its commitment to supporting children to remain with extended family on a long term basis if needed.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Health care cuts for disabled cost us all
The latest cuts to health services for the poorest British Columbians crossed a line.
The income assistance and disability benefit cuts are cruel, wasteful and petty.
And the hypocrisy and contempt for the public - everyone, not just those disabled and poor people hurt by the cuts - is shameful.
The cuts weren't announced as part of the budget last week or included in the ministry's service plan.
Instead, the public affairs bureau - the government's $26-million-a-year communications arm - put out a news release headlined "Province protects services for low-income clients."
In fact, it was cutting services for those people.
The basic goal is to reduce the health benefits for people living on provincial disability benefits and income assistance.
They are already dirt poor. A disabled person in B.C., unable to work and with no other income, gets $906 a month, with $375 of that for housing. That's $10,872 a year, including $4,500 for housing.
Meanwhile, MLAs can claim up to $19,000 just for an apartment to use while they’re in Victoria. And Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for income assistance, billed taxpayers $18,654 in the most recent reporting period just for meals and accommodation while he was in the capital.
Yet he says people paying all their bills from an income barely half that much should find money for medical costs (most of which MLAs don't have to pay).
Disability and income assistance benefits have included some medical equipment and supplies necessary "to help reduce serious health risks."
But the program was too generous, the government decided.
For example, the benefit plan recognized that people on income assistance or disability benefits couldn't afford birth control and covered the cost of IUDs. No more.
So people who were not good at taking birth control pills or couldn't use them for medical reasons are now at greater risk of pregnancy. The result will be more unwanted children born to poor families, or more abortions. Neither seems desirable for a sensible government.
The government will no longer pay for medical testing devices such as glucometers for diabetics. People with the illness - often called a disease of poverty - are supposed to find the money themselves out of an income equivalent to a full-time job paying $5.75 an hour.
Most won't. Glucometers are essential for measuring glucose levels in the blood and managing diabetes. Without monitoring, which lets individuals manage their illness, the risks of medical complications and much more expensive care rise sharply.
What can be dumber than measures that increase illness, abortions and unwanted pregnancies?
And what can be smaller than beating up on these people to save, in the case of the cuts to medical equipment and supplies, $3 million this year and $6 million next year?
The government had no hesitation in giving MLAs a raise last April (though salaries are frozen this year). And it spent $16.4 million last year to enrich pensions for MLAs - more than all these cuts to the vulnerable will save annually.
Petty and wasteful seem covered.
Cruel is more subjective. But consider this cut. The government has provided a minimum shelter allowance to people between 59 and 65 even if they were homeless or not paying rent. It was only $75 a month, but it helped.
Now it's taking that money away.
So a 62-year-old woman who had been getting by on the basic disability income - $531 a month - plus the $75 shelter allowance, will now face a 12-per-cent cut in income.
If she makes it to 65, the federal pension of $1,170 a month will be will be $640 higher than the amount the Liberal government thinks seniors should be able to survive on.
The Liberals didn't run on cuts to support for disabled British Columbians.
And Coleman has no studies or analysis to show this makes sense. It would be hard to find a doctor in B.C., outside the Liberal caucus, at least, who would support them.
Dumb, small, mean - and incompetent.
Footnote: Coleman said the cuts are needed because more people are on income assistance. That hardly seems unexpected. The economic slowdown has meant more people have lost their jobs. For too many, once EI benefits and their savings run out, income assistance is the only option.
The income assistance and disability benefit cuts are cruel, wasteful and petty.
And the hypocrisy and contempt for the public - everyone, not just those disabled and poor people hurt by the cuts - is shameful.
The cuts weren't announced as part of the budget last week or included in the ministry's service plan.
Instead, the public affairs bureau - the government's $26-million-a-year communications arm - put out a news release headlined "Province protects services for low-income clients."
In fact, it was cutting services for those people.
The basic goal is to reduce the health benefits for people living on provincial disability benefits and income assistance.
They are already dirt poor. A disabled person in B.C., unable to work and with no other income, gets $906 a month, with $375 of that for housing. That's $10,872 a year, including $4,500 for housing.
Meanwhile, MLAs can claim up to $19,000 just for an apartment to use while they’re in Victoria. And Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for income assistance, billed taxpayers $18,654 in the most recent reporting period just for meals and accommodation while he was in the capital.
Yet he says people paying all their bills from an income barely half that much should find money for medical costs (most of which MLAs don't have to pay).
Disability and income assistance benefits have included some medical equipment and supplies necessary "to help reduce serious health risks."
But the program was too generous, the government decided.
For example, the benefit plan recognized that people on income assistance or disability benefits couldn't afford birth control and covered the cost of IUDs. No more.
So people who were not good at taking birth control pills or couldn't use them for medical reasons are now at greater risk of pregnancy. The result will be more unwanted children born to poor families, or more abortions. Neither seems desirable for a sensible government.
The government will no longer pay for medical testing devices such as glucometers for diabetics. People with the illness - often called a disease of poverty - are supposed to find the money themselves out of an income equivalent to a full-time job paying $5.75 an hour.
Most won't. Glucometers are essential for measuring glucose levels in the blood and managing diabetes. Without monitoring, which lets individuals manage their illness, the risks of medical complications and much more expensive care rise sharply.
What can be dumber than measures that increase illness, abortions and unwanted pregnancies?
And what can be smaller than beating up on these people to save, in the case of the cuts to medical equipment and supplies, $3 million this year and $6 million next year?
The government had no hesitation in giving MLAs a raise last April (though salaries are frozen this year). And it spent $16.4 million last year to enrich pensions for MLAs - more than all these cuts to the vulnerable will save annually.
Petty and wasteful seem covered.
Cruel is more subjective. But consider this cut. The government has provided a minimum shelter allowance to people between 59 and 65 even if they were homeless or not paying rent. It was only $75 a month, but it helped.
Now it's taking that money away.
So a 62-year-old woman who had been getting by on the basic disability income - $531 a month - plus the $75 shelter allowance, will now face a 12-per-cent cut in income.
If she makes it to 65, the federal pension of $1,170 a month will be will be $640 higher than the amount the Liberal government thinks seniors should be able to survive on.
The Liberals didn't run on cuts to support for disabled British Columbians.
And Coleman has no studies or analysis to show this makes sense. It would be hard to find a doctor in B.C., outside the Liberal caucus, at least, who would support them.
Dumb, small, mean - and incompetent.
Footnote: Coleman said the cuts are needed because more people are on income assistance. That hardly seems unexpected. The economic slowdown has meant more people have lost their jobs. For too many, once EI benefits and their savings run out, income assistance is the only option.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Low point, again
Question: How can this committee encourage more strongly positive collaboration and engagement between the ministry and the children's representative?
Answer, from Lesley du Toit, deputy minister, Children and Families.
I can only reiterate that it has been our intention from the day that the representative arrived here, and it will continue to be our intention, and it is certainly built into our practice. We have built in systems, processes and various other mechanisms. I will ask Mark Sieben to talk to some of this, but it is our fundamental commitment to work together with anybody else who is committed to the children and families of this province. I will not accept that we will not do that.
What I was saying earlier on does not take away from the fact…. In fact, I was trying to emphasize that our job as two professional organizations committed to children across this province is to put our heads down — and sometimes, hopefully, together — and focus on the children of this province and figure out ways in which we can do that together.
I'm committed to doing that. My team is committed to doing that. We could spend probably the next hour or two explaining every possible process and mechanism that we've put into place to make sure that we honour that, including an interface unit which you, I think, have a report on in the package. It is fundamentally there to do nothing else but make sure that the representative gets what she needs to be successful in doing her job.
I want to make sure that everybody understands that that is our commitment, and I would like to ask Mark if he can add to that.
Answer, from Lesley du Toit, deputy minister, Children and Families.
I can only reiterate that it has been our intention from the day that the representative arrived here, and it will continue to be our intention, and it is certainly built into our practice. We have built in systems, processes and various other mechanisms. I will ask Mark Sieben to talk to some of this, but it is our fundamental commitment to work together with anybody else who is committed to the children and families of this province. I will not accept that we will not do that.
What I was saying earlier on does not take away from the fact…. In fact, I was trying to emphasize that our job as two professional organizations committed to children across this province is to put our heads down — and sometimes, hopefully, together — and focus on the children of this province and figure out ways in which we can do that together.
I'm committed to doing that. My team is committed to doing that. We could spend probably the next hour or two explaining every possible process and mechanism that we've put into place to make sure that we honour that, including an interface unit which you, I think, have a report on in the package. It is fundamentally there to do nothing else but make sure that the representative gets what she needs to be successful in doing her job.
I want to make sure that everybody understands that that is our commitment, and I would like to ask Mark if he can add to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
