A child taken away because his parents were poor
This is a second column about a three-year-old boy. He started life healthy, loved by capable but challenged parents. But he was taken from them, based on legitimate concerns, at three weeks.
The basic problem was they couldn't afford a safe place to live. He moved through three foster homes in five months and then ended up in hospital, with symptoms suggesting he was shaken while living in the third foster home.
Now he's back with his parents. He's blind in one eye, can't walk and has cerebral palsy. His disabilities are permanent. But they're all doing OK.
The Representative for Children and Youth examined the case to find out what, if anything, could have been done to produce a different ending.
The ministry has already done an internal review. It found that required steps in investigating child protection concerns were skipped, available information wasn't considered and there was too little effort to learn about the child's extended family.
Once the boy was taken from his parents, care was "not fully consistent with legislation, policy and service standards," the internal review reported vaguely. Assessment, training and monitoring of the foster home were he was living when injured were all "were not fully consistent" with policy and standards.
The review resulted in mushy recommendations to review plans and send out memos and hold meetings.
The representative didn't find that adequate. And Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond offered a reminder of what this was all about - a child a few months old, removed from his parents by the state, completely dependent on the adults in his life for all his needs.
The representative's report noted that only one thing blocked the parents from keeping their child - the lack of housing. Everyone acknowledged that.
But in the five months from the time a child protection concern was raised until the baby was hurt, no worker or agency addressed that problem.
The income assistance ministry turned the family away when they sought emergency help; the children and families ministry didn't address the housing issue. If they had been found a one-bedroom, safe apartment, even a motel room, everything might be different.
Helping the family into housing might have cost some money and time. But even at $800 a month, that would be at least 50 per cent cheaper than foster care,.
And, as the representative notes, because of the injuries "the lifelong cost of caring for this child is unknown." I'll guess though, at something well over $4 million.
But there was no evidence that the ministry considered finding a motel room or coming up with a housing subsidy as a better alternative for the baby than apprehension and foster care.
The problems - poverty and no or bad housing - aren't new. The Hughes report, in 2006, noted that poor families were far more likely to have their children apprehended. The First Nations community that was home to this family has a housing waiting list of 200 people.
The representative noted that in First Nations communities, a housing shortage means many family member share one home out of necessity. The ministry acts as if parents have a choice about where the live. So their children are apprehended "largely because they are unable to immediately create a living situation that they could not reasonably be expected to achieve."
Even if people can find their way to income assistance, the representative found, the housing allowance leaves them $200 to $400 a month short of what is needed. A family of three, like this baby boy's, is allowed $660 a month for rent. Check out the apartments and basement suites in your community and see what is available for that rent.
The result, the representative found, is that children are taken from their parents because they are poor. "This places the basic human rights of children in jeopardy and tears families apart in tragic way, especially aboriginal families trying to recover and rebuild," the report found.
The baby boy's parents kept working to reunite their family. They finally secured suitable housing in November 2008. "They deserve credit for their determination, but will now care for a developmentally disabled child while continuing to struggle with poverty," Turpel-Lafond said.
All because, instead of finding them a place to live, the state took their child away.
Next: Isolated case, or a systemic problem?
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Monday, August 03, 2009
A little boy, failed by the system and forgotten by the rest of us
It’s fitting, in a grimly symbolic way.
Just when attention might be paid to the little boy who fared so badly in the government’s care, a swirl of bigger news stories pushed him into the shadows.
We don’t know his name. The little boy has a right to privacy. Not much else.
The representative for Children and Youth set out his story — how he went from a healthy baby boy to a three-year-old who had suffered devastating injuries that left him with cerebral palsy. He’s blind in one eye, can’t walk yet and faces a life of struggle.
The boy was born on July 9, 2006. His mom was 20; his dad 24. They were from the same First Nations community and had rough childhoods themselves.
But they loved their baby and were capable of nurturing him. They moved back into the boy’s grandparents’ home on an unidentified reserve to care for him.
It was not a great place for an infant. On July 28, someone called the ministry of children and families and said it was not a safe home for a child. Alcohol abuse, neglect, even physical abuse were possible.
The ministry responded admirably. Social workers checked the files and made immediate home visits. They checked on the baby boy, who was doing well. They explained to the parents why the grandparents’ home was not safe.
The mother understood. She said they were going to live with another relative as an interim measure.
There was a 200-person waiting list for reserve housing. To deal with the concerns, she needed help from the ministry of income assistance to get off-reserve housing.
And the mother applied for the help. The income assistance ministry told her to come back after the mandatory three-week wait, if she had found a place. She was denied interim financial assistance.
In September, the ministry received a report the family was back in the grandparents’ home and, apparently, other concerns were raised. The investigating social worker decided the risk was serious enough that the boy should be taken from his parents.
An RCMP officer and social workers from the ministry and the aboriginal agency that provided services found the mother walking her two-month-old son in a stroller.
She had been living in the grandparents’ home for a week because they had no money to live anywhere else, the young mother said. She had been in the hospital for several days and the boy’s father had been caring for him.
And the workers took the baby away.
He was placed in a foster home that day. (A relative who provided foster care offered to take him. That offer was apparently never followed up on.) The parents suggested two other relatives who could care for the child. The ministry says it couldn’t reach them; the family says they were never called.
The ministry came up with a risk-reduction plan that would allow the child to be returned to his parents, once housing was secured and support was provided. But it didn’t do the required plan of care for the child. This is tangled and difficult work, of course. The social worker referred the parents to family counselling. They didn’t go.
The first foster home placement was on a 30-day contract. When it ended on Oct. 2, the baby was moved to another foster home.
In early November, the boy’s mother requested the ministry return her child because she had found shared housing. It wasn’t safe enough, workers decided.
Meanwhile, the child’s second foster mother became ill. So on Dec. 12, he was moved to a third foster home.
It’s worth pausing to think about this. The baby was barely five months old and had been with his parents and in three different foster homes. All good intentions aside, as a parent or grandparent, how do you think a child you loved would handle those changes? How long would he cry for a missing blanket or a person he had come to associate with comfort?
On Dec. 18, the baby boy had a successful supervised visit with his parents. Two days later, it all went wrong. The foster home reported he was unwell. At B.C. Children’s Hospital, doctors said his injuries were consistent with having been shaken. Criminal charges were laid against a caregiver in the foster home and then later stayed.
After almost a month in hospital, the baby was sent to his fourth foster home in January 2007.
In July, he was returned to his parents and started receiving support because of his massive disabilities. He has been making progress in their care since then, but is struggling with permanent, severe disabilities.
Next: What did we learn from this family’s tragedy?
Just when attention might be paid to the little boy who fared so badly in the government’s care, a swirl of bigger news stories pushed him into the shadows.
We don’t know his name. The little boy has a right to privacy. Not much else.
The representative for Children and Youth set out his story — how he went from a healthy baby boy to a three-year-old who had suffered devastating injuries that left him with cerebral palsy. He’s blind in one eye, can’t walk yet and faces a life of struggle.
The boy was born on July 9, 2006. His mom was 20; his dad 24. They were from the same First Nations community and had rough childhoods themselves.
But they loved their baby and were capable of nurturing him. They moved back into the boy’s grandparents’ home on an unidentified reserve to care for him.
It was not a great place for an infant. On July 28, someone called the ministry of children and families and said it was not a safe home for a child. Alcohol abuse, neglect, even physical abuse were possible.
The ministry responded admirably. Social workers checked the files and made immediate home visits. They checked on the baby boy, who was doing well. They explained to the parents why the grandparents’ home was not safe.
The mother understood. She said they were going to live with another relative as an interim measure.
There was a 200-person waiting list for reserve housing. To deal with the concerns, she needed help from the ministry of income assistance to get off-reserve housing.
And the mother applied for the help. The income assistance ministry told her to come back after the mandatory three-week wait, if she had found a place. She was denied interim financial assistance.
In September, the ministry received a report the family was back in the grandparents’ home and, apparently, other concerns were raised. The investigating social worker decided the risk was serious enough that the boy should be taken from his parents.
An RCMP officer and social workers from the ministry and the aboriginal agency that provided services found the mother walking her two-month-old son in a stroller.
She had been living in the grandparents’ home for a week because they had no money to live anywhere else, the young mother said. She had been in the hospital for several days and the boy’s father had been caring for him.
And the workers took the baby away.
He was placed in a foster home that day. (A relative who provided foster care offered to take him. That offer was apparently never followed up on.) The parents suggested two other relatives who could care for the child. The ministry says it couldn’t reach them; the family says they were never called.
The ministry came up with a risk-reduction plan that would allow the child to be returned to his parents, once housing was secured and support was provided. But it didn’t do the required plan of care for the child. This is tangled and difficult work, of course. The social worker referred the parents to family counselling. They didn’t go.
The first foster home placement was on a 30-day contract. When it ended on Oct. 2, the baby was moved to another foster home.
In early November, the boy’s mother requested the ministry return her child because she had found shared housing. It wasn’t safe enough, workers decided.
Meanwhile, the child’s second foster mother became ill. So on Dec. 12, he was moved to a third foster home.
It’s worth pausing to think about this. The baby was barely five months old and had been with his parents and in three different foster homes. All good intentions aside, as a parent or grandparent, how do you think a child you loved would handle those changes? How long would he cry for a missing blanket or a person he had come to associate with comfort?
On Dec. 18, the baby boy had a successful supervised visit with his parents. Two days later, it all went wrong. The foster home reported he was unwell. At B.C. Children’s Hospital, doctors said his injuries were consistent with having been shaken. Criminal charges were laid against a caregiver in the foster home and then later stayed.
After almost a month in hospital, the baby was sent to his fourth foster home in January 2007.
In July, he was returned to his parents and started receiving support because of his massive disabilities. He has been making progress in their care since then, but is struggling with permanent, severe disabilities.
Next: What did we learn from this family’s tragedy?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
I am trying to break you heart
I know we're heading to a long summer weekend, but everyone should read this report from Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.
It's a review of the travails of a baby boy who was taken from his parents as a result of legitimate, but easily addressed concerns. All they really needed was help finding an apartment .
While living in his third foster home, and still not six months old, he suffered massive injuries, consistent, doctors said, with being shaken. He is back with his parents as a three-year-old with cerebral palsy, blind in one eye and unable to walk.
I have a friend who is troubled by the attention on these reports. She fears it slights or discourages the workers doing great things every day, in impossible circumstances.
I think paying real attention is the greatest honour we can do those people.
It's a review of the travails of a baby boy who was taken from his parents as a result of legitimate, but easily addressed concerns. All they really needed was help finding an apartment .
While living in his third foster home, and still not six months old, he suffered massive injuries, consistent, doctors said, with being shaken. He is back with his parents as a three-year-old with cerebral palsy, blind in one eye and unable to walk.
I have a friend who is troubled by the attention on these reports. She fears it slights or discourages the workers doing great things every day, in impossible circumstances.
I think paying real attention is the greatest honour we can do those people.
Is the recognition and reconciliation act really dead?
The unravelling of the proposed legislation setting out a new relationship with First Nations remains a fascinating mystery. In the spring, the government was on the brink of introducing the act, with the support of most provincial-level First Nations leaders.
Now, aboriginal support has collapsed and the letter below suggest they want to make sure the act is really quite sincerely dead, as they sing in the Wizard of Oz.
UBCIC Open Letter: Implementing the New Relationship and the Legislative Initiative
July 30, 2009
Dear Premier Campbell and Ministers,
We are writing to clarify the UBCIC’s position regarding pursuing Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation based on the Discussion Paper on Implementing the New Relationship (the “discussion paper”).
The UBCIC has fought long and hard for the recognition by the Crown of Aboriginal title in British Columbia, and for respect for our laws and governments. The New Relationship is regarded as a good step in the right direction, and our communities watched and waited with much hope, for the implementation of the Vision. To our bitter disappointment, the Province failed to implement the spirit and intent of the New Relationship. By way of examples, notwithstanding the decisions of the Court, including the Huu-ay-aht case, where the Court found that the revenue and benefit sharing formula for the FRAs/FROs constituted bad faith negotiations, the Province refused to even discuss revenue and benefit sharing for forestry agreements on any other basis. Nor has the Province been prepared to discuss the sharing of a percentage of gaming revenue as an example of a commitment to revenue sharing to accommodate the economic component of title. There has been no implementation of the jurisdictional component of title, either. The present Environmental Assessment Review Process is the most blatant example of unilateral Crown decision making which is used to veto our Aboriginal title and rights interests as big projects are permitted to proceed, over our objections and often to the detriment of the land itself. The Province continues to rely on discredited terra nullius theories in litigation defences – such as in the Jules and Wilson litigation, where the Province pleads that the Browns Creek Watersheds are vacant Crown land.
When the conduct of the Province did not produce concrete and far-reaching change on the ground, the UBCIC supported legislative change as a tool to bring about systemic change in Provincial Crown conduct from denial to title recognition. This led to the discussion paper.
The discussion paper has been brought to our members for discussion, and we have had considerable feedback at Regional Forums, community meetings, and at meetings held by the UBCIC. The response from our members is clear: there are concerns about concepts in the discussion paper, and UBCIC members do not support legislative drafting based on it. This point was made most emphatically at the last Chiefs Council meeting. A resolution, designed to improve the process for First Nations’ review and debate of any proposed legislation was defeated, based on a debate which was in opposition to the discussion paper initiative. The Chiefs stated that the process which led to the discussion paper and which was proposed for legislative drafting was not sufficiently inclusive.
The UBCIC has now made clear to our members, and we wish to make it clear to you and to your Government, that the UBCIC has withdrawn from the legislative initiative based on the discussion paper. We will continue to attend the Regional Forums and other community meetings as observers, to witness and listen to the concerns of the community membership and leaders. UBCIC also continues to support the spirit and intent of the Leadership Accord, and all other initiatives attached to this collective effort, including the Forestry Council, Fisheries Council, Economic Development Council, Energy and Mining Council, Children and Family Wellness Council and Health Council.
We will now consider all options for the implementation of the New Relationship at the upcoming All Chiefs forum in August, and the UBCIC General Assembly scheduled for mid-September. Make no mistake; the UBCIC shall continue to utilize all means to achieve a just resolution of the Land Question in B.C.
Over the summer, we ask you to consider solutions so that we might have success in our future conversations. The problem which has been expressed many times in discussions about the discussion paper is a widespread distrust of the Province. This has been said a number of ways – but what is disturbing, even enraging, to those who raise this concern, is the Province’s inability or unwillingness to substantively change from status quo behaviour, especially since 2005. First Nation leaders point out correctly that while there are systemic shifts that might best be achieved through legislation, legislation is not needed for the Province to change its conduct, by providing different honourable recognition-based negotiation and litigation mandates consistent with the New Relationship Vision and decisions of the Courts. Outdated Provincial denial policies can give way today, to the policy expressed in the New Relationship. Engaging in discussions with the FNLC is not a substitute or reason for the Province to delay. New opportunities for reconciliation must emerge. First Nations are waiting for the Province to engage with them respecting Aboriginal title, including our laws and jurisdictions, sharing lands and resources and revenue and benefits derived from our lands and resources, and addressing past and ongoing interferences. The Province should have taken such actions a century ago, and there is no honourable basis for not doing so today.
Sincerely,
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President
Now, aboriginal support has collapsed and the letter below suggest they want to make sure the act is really quite sincerely dead, as they sing in the Wizard of Oz.
UBCIC Open Letter: Implementing the New Relationship and the Legislative Initiative
July 30, 2009
Dear Premier Campbell and Ministers,
We are writing to clarify the UBCIC’s position regarding pursuing Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation based on the Discussion Paper on Implementing the New Relationship (the “discussion paper”).
The UBCIC has fought long and hard for the recognition by the Crown of Aboriginal title in British Columbia, and for respect for our laws and governments. The New Relationship is regarded as a good step in the right direction, and our communities watched and waited with much hope, for the implementation of the Vision. To our bitter disappointment, the Province failed to implement the spirit and intent of the New Relationship. By way of examples, notwithstanding the decisions of the Court, including the Huu-ay-aht case, where the Court found that the revenue and benefit sharing formula for the FRAs/FROs constituted bad faith negotiations, the Province refused to even discuss revenue and benefit sharing for forestry agreements on any other basis. Nor has the Province been prepared to discuss the sharing of a percentage of gaming revenue as an example of a commitment to revenue sharing to accommodate the economic component of title. There has been no implementation of the jurisdictional component of title, either. The present Environmental Assessment Review Process is the most blatant example of unilateral Crown decision making which is used to veto our Aboriginal title and rights interests as big projects are permitted to proceed, over our objections and often to the detriment of the land itself. The Province continues to rely on discredited terra nullius theories in litigation defences – such as in the Jules and Wilson litigation, where the Province pleads that the Browns Creek Watersheds are vacant Crown land.
When the conduct of the Province did not produce concrete and far-reaching change on the ground, the UBCIC supported legislative change as a tool to bring about systemic change in Provincial Crown conduct from denial to title recognition. This led to the discussion paper.
The discussion paper has been brought to our members for discussion, and we have had considerable feedback at Regional Forums, community meetings, and at meetings held by the UBCIC. The response from our members is clear: there are concerns about concepts in the discussion paper, and UBCIC members do not support legislative drafting based on it. This point was made most emphatically at the last Chiefs Council meeting. A resolution, designed to improve the process for First Nations’ review and debate of any proposed legislation was defeated, based on a debate which was in opposition to the discussion paper initiative. The Chiefs stated that the process which led to the discussion paper and which was proposed for legislative drafting was not sufficiently inclusive.
The UBCIC has now made clear to our members, and we wish to make it clear to you and to your Government, that the UBCIC has withdrawn from the legislative initiative based on the discussion paper. We will continue to attend the Regional Forums and other community meetings as observers, to witness and listen to the concerns of the community membership and leaders. UBCIC also continues to support the spirit and intent of the Leadership Accord, and all other initiatives attached to this collective effort, including the Forestry Council, Fisheries Council, Economic Development Council, Energy and Mining Council, Children and Family Wellness Council and Health Council.
We will now consider all options for the implementation of the New Relationship at the upcoming All Chiefs forum in August, and the UBCIC General Assembly scheduled for mid-September. Make no mistake; the UBCIC shall continue to utilize all means to achieve a just resolution of the Land Question in B.C.
Over the summer, we ask you to consider solutions so that we might have success in our future conversations. The problem which has been expressed many times in discussions about the discussion paper is a widespread distrust of the Province. This has been said a number of ways – but what is disturbing, even enraging, to those who raise this concern, is the Province’s inability or unwillingness to substantively change from status quo behaviour, especially since 2005. First Nation leaders point out correctly that while there are systemic shifts that might best be achieved through legislation, legislation is not needed for the Province to change its conduct, by providing different honourable recognition-based negotiation and litigation mandates consistent with the New Relationship Vision and decisions of the Courts. Outdated Provincial denial policies can give way today, to the policy expressed in the New Relationship. Engaging in discussions with the FNLC is not a substitute or reason for the Province to delay. New opportunities for reconciliation must emerge. First Nations are waiting for the Province to engage with them respecting Aboriginal title, including our laws and jurisdictions, sharing lands and resources and revenue and benefits derived from our lands and resources, and addressing past and ongoing interferences. The Province should have taken such actions a century ago, and there is no honourable basis for not doing so today.
Sincerely,
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Is running B.C. Ferries really a $940,000 a year job?
The provincial government announced a review of the operations of B.C. Ferries and TransLink yesterday.
If you're wondering about the timing, Jordan Bateman at langleypolitics.com notes that the ferry corporation filed its report on executive compensation this week, revealing CEO David Hahn received $940,000 in base bay and bonuses, plus another $96,000 in pension contributions. The pay was approved by the board, which is appointed by the government. Read Hansen's comments and the details here.
If you're wondering about the timing, Jordan Bateman at langleypolitics.com notes that the ferry corporation filed its report on executive compensation this week, revealing CEO David Hahn received $940,000 in base bay and bonuses, plus another $96,000 in pension contributions. The pay was approved by the board, which is appointed by the government. Read Hansen's comments and the details here.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Liberal campaign and a sick democracy
Is this really democracy?
The whole election process now looks like a sham. The Liberals rejected a harmonized sales tax during the campaign, less then three months ago.
Not part of their plans, period. The association that represents restaurant owners asked all parties about the harmonized tax prior to the election.
The Liberals said the tax would cover too many items that were currently tax-exempt and prevent future sales tax changes. It was not of their plans.
And then, with no consultation, it was announced last week. Anyone who voted for the Liberals on the basis of that commitment has been played for a sap.
There is actually much to recommend the tax change.
But in a real democracy, a party would make those arguments and let the voters decide.
Not in B.C.
The Liberals pledged during the campaign that the deficit this fiscal year would not be more than the $495 million forecast in the February budget.
Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen both committed, less than three months ago, to that number. You could believe the budget, they said.
The claims were ridiculous. Every economist and analyst - and anyone who looked at the budget - knew the deficit would be much, much larger.
After the election, Campbell revealed the deficit would be much larger. The explanation - that income and corporate tax transfers from the federal government were lower than expected - was ludicrous.
Almost all the main assumptions underlying the budget - housing starts, natural gas prices, economic growth, welfare rolls - were overly optimistic. Within hours of the budget, independent analysts were saying the deficit would be much larger.
The NDP was complicit in this scam. Carole James unveiled a platform and spending plan based on the Liberals’ budget assumptions. The New Democrats said they had to accept the forecast. It was also politically safer to build a budget based on optimistic numbers than to face reality. (Though straight talk might have had advantages. If one in 30 non-voters had been inspired by an honest NDP plan, the party could have been in government now. Or, of course, the plan could have cost the party existing support.)
Back to the Liberal campaign’s distance from reality. They left the door open for cuts to programs and services, but didn’t say which ones would be chopped.
Campbell did pledge that health care and education would be protected.
Less than three months later, health care is being cut significantly. Here on Vancouver Island, the health authority plans to do five per cent fewer surgeries to save money. That means 3,160 people who would have been helped by surgery in the 12 months will now wait.
The story is similar in other health authorities where cuts are being made to the number of patients treated and the level of care.
A politician could try to make the case that it makes fiscal sense to deny timely treatment. When government revenues are down, people should expect a lower standard of health care.
But the Liberals did not make that case. Campbell promised to protect health care, and then didn’t.
You have to wonder about all those MLAs, who ran on platforms that have now been abandoned. They told people in their communities what would happen if their party formed government.
It was not true. They misled the voters.
It adds up to a grim scenario. About 51 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots in May and about 24 per cent of eligible voters supported the Liberals.
They were supporting a $495-million deficit, no health cuts, no new sales tax.
None of those are part of the Liberals’ real plans.
The election wasn’t really about policies or platforms. It was about electing a dictator or, at least, a leader who would do much as he chose for the next four years.
That’s a form of democracy. But not the one Canadians have been promised.
Footnote: Hansen says the Liberals didn’t scam voters on the HST. The new tax was “not on our radar” during the election campaign, he said. (Although Ontario had introduced the same tax earlier in the spring.) It defies reason to claim that the government suddenly looked around and noticed the need to make a huge shift in tax burden from business to consumers.
The whole election process now looks like a sham. The Liberals rejected a harmonized sales tax during the campaign, less then three months ago.
Not part of their plans, period. The association that represents restaurant owners asked all parties about the harmonized tax prior to the election.
The Liberals said the tax would cover too many items that were currently tax-exempt and prevent future sales tax changes. It was not of their plans.
And then, with no consultation, it was announced last week. Anyone who voted for the Liberals on the basis of that commitment has been played for a sap.
There is actually much to recommend the tax change.
But in a real democracy, a party would make those arguments and let the voters decide.
Not in B.C.
The Liberals pledged during the campaign that the deficit this fiscal year would not be more than the $495 million forecast in the February budget.
Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen both committed, less than three months ago, to that number. You could believe the budget, they said.
The claims were ridiculous. Every economist and analyst - and anyone who looked at the budget - knew the deficit would be much, much larger.
After the election, Campbell revealed the deficit would be much larger. The explanation - that income and corporate tax transfers from the federal government were lower than expected - was ludicrous.
Almost all the main assumptions underlying the budget - housing starts, natural gas prices, economic growth, welfare rolls - were overly optimistic. Within hours of the budget, independent analysts were saying the deficit would be much larger.
The NDP was complicit in this scam. Carole James unveiled a platform and spending plan based on the Liberals’ budget assumptions. The New Democrats said they had to accept the forecast. It was also politically safer to build a budget based on optimistic numbers than to face reality. (Though straight talk might have had advantages. If one in 30 non-voters had been inspired by an honest NDP plan, the party could have been in government now. Or, of course, the plan could have cost the party existing support.)
Back to the Liberal campaign’s distance from reality. They left the door open for cuts to programs and services, but didn’t say which ones would be chopped.
Campbell did pledge that health care and education would be protected.
Less than three months later, health care is being cut significantly. Here on Vancouver Island, the health authority plans to do five per cent fewer surgeries to save money. That means 3,160 people who would have been helped by surgery in the 12 months will now wait.
The story is similar in other health authorities where cuts are being made to the number of patients treated and the level of care.
A politician could try to make the case that it makes fiscal sense to deny timely treatment. When government revenues are down, people should expect a lower standard of health care.
But the Liberals did not make that case. Campbell promised to protect health care, and then didn’t.
You have to wonder about all those MLAs, who ran on platforms that have now been abandoned. They told people in their communities what would happen if their party formed government.
It was not true. They misled the voters.
It adds up to a grim scenario. About 51 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots in May and about 24 per cent of eligible voters supported the Liberals.
They were supporting a $495-million deficit, no health cuts, no new sales tax.
None of those are part of the Liberals’ real plans.
The election wasn’t really about policies or platforms. It was about electing a dictator or, at least, a leader who would do much as he chose for the next four years.
That’s a form of democracy. But not the one Canadians have been promised.
Footnote: Hansen says the Liberals didn’t scam voters on the HST. The new tax was “not on our radar” during the election campaign, he said. (Although Ontario had introduced the same tax earlier in the spring.) It defies reason to claim that the government suddenly looked around and noticed the need to make a huge shift in tax burden from business to consumers.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The HST, Gordon Campbell and the Clark government
The "harmonized tax" plan makes me wonder if the Campbell government has lost its way.
It's not the plan's substance, in fact, though there a lot of questions about the costs and benefits for different groops.
It's the way Gordon Campbell, with no warning or consultation, imposed a major tax change. The new tax system will shift taxes from business to individuals. Some industries will win and some - like the restaurant business - will lose.
The tax plan wasn't mentioned in the election campaign three months ago. There have been no discussion papers or reports. The Liberals rejected calls for the harmonized tax and said the change wasn't on the agenda.
And then imposed it.
Here are the basics. Right now, individuals and businesses pay seven-per-cent provincial sales tax and five-per-cent federal GST on most goods and services they buy.
The federal government - and many business groups - would like to see one harmonized tax. Three provinces have already merged the GST and provincial sales tax - Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Campbell proposes to follow them with a 12-per-cent merged GST and PST, effective next July 1. The tax will go to Ottawa, and B.C. will be sent its share.
But that's just the start. Businesses can deduct GST they pay from their tax bill. Now they will be able to deduct PST as well, as it is included in the harmonized tax.
That will save them - and cost the government - about $1.9 billion in what had been provincial sales tax. That's a 37-per-cent drop in PST revenue.
But Campbell said the change would be revenue neutral. The overall money coming into government, needed to pay for schools and hospitals, would not go down.
Which means someone else is going to have to pay the $1.9 billion that business will be saving.
Most likely you. The new tax will apply to a long list of things that you didn't pay PST on. Heating oil and natural gas, cable and telephone, restaurant meals and non-prescription medicine. Movie and airline tickets and real estate commissions and dry cleaning and new house prices. You get the picture.
The theory is that while you will pay more in taxes, the companies will pass on their tax savings to you. It will work out.
Uh-uh.
There are benefits. Companies say that filing one sales tax return will cut their costs.
The federal government will give the province $1.6 billion for making the change, part of a national incentive plan.
And Campbell said that as other provinces give tax breaks to business in this way, B.C. had to follow.
The three Atlantic provinces aren't significant. But Ontario is proposing a harmonized tax for July 1, 2010 - the date B.C. now proposes to introduce its version.
Ontario's approach is strikingly different. Premier Dalton McGuinty started talking about the harmonized tax in January. The proposal was set out in the budget in March, with reports on the effects on business and families. The government pledged to use the federal incentive payment to cushion the impact of the change - most families would get transitional payments of $1,000 - and to exempt many goods. It also pledged to help affected industry sectors - tourism, for example would get an extra $40 million a year for marketing efforts.
Even the language was different. McGuinty's budget said the tax changes would be made "pending legislative approval and Ontario and Canada signing a tax co-ordination agreement."
Campbell presented a done deal. MLAs, both Liberal and New Democrats, might as well be cardboard cutouts. The public's views were not of any interest.
Campbell said the harmonized tax issue wasn't even on the radar for him at the time of the election campaign. Odd, since Ontario had announced its intention before that.
So, in a little over two months, the premier noticed tax harmonization and worked out a whole plan.
It reminds me of the last couple of years of the Glen Clark government. Too much certainty, too little planning, too bold enthusiasms and too little interest in the views of anyone outside the inner circle.
And that, we know, ended in tears.
It's not the plan's substance, in fact, though there a lot of questions about the costs and benefits for different groops.
It's the way Gordon Campbell, with no warning or consultation, imposed a major tax change. The new tax system will shift taxes from business to individuals. Some industries will win and some - like the restaurant business - will lose.
The tax plan wasn't mentioned in the election campaign three months ago. There have been no discussion papers or reports. The Liberals rejected calls for the harmonized tax and said the change wasn't on the agenda.
And then imposed it.
Here are the basics. Right now, individuals and businesses pay seven-per-cent provincial sales tax and five-per-cent federal GST on most goods and services they buy.
The federal government - and many business groups - would like to see one harmonized tax. Three provinces have already merged the GST and provincial sales tax - Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Campbell proposes to follow them with a 12-per-cent merged GST and PST, effective next July 1. The tax will go to Ottawa, and B.C. will be sent its share.
But that's just the start. Businesses can deduct GST they pay from their tax bill. Now they will be able to deduct PST as well, as it is included in the harmonized tax.
That will save them - and cost the government - about $1.9 billion in what had been provincial sales tax. That's a 37-per-cent drop in PST revenue.
But Campbell said the change would be revenue neutral. The overall money coming into government, needed to pay for schools and hospitals, would not go down.
Which means someone else is going to have to pay the $1.9 billion that business will be saving.
Most likely you. The new tax will apply to a long list of things that you didn't pay PST on. Heating oil and natural gas, cable and telephone, restaurant meals and non-prescription medicine. Movie and airline tickets and real estate commissions and dry cleaning and new house prices. You get the picture.
The theory is that while you will pay more in taxes, the companies will pass on their tax savings to you. It will work out.
Uh-uh.
There are benefits. Companies say that filing one sales tax return will cut their costs.
The federal government will give the province $1.6 billion for making the change, part of a national incentive plan.
And Campbell said that as other provinces give tax breaks to business in this way, B.C. had to follow.
The three Atlantic provinces aren't significant. But Ontario is proposing a harmonized tax for July 1, 2010 - the date B.C. now proposes to introduce its version.
Ontario's approach is strikingly different. Premier Dalton McGuinty started talking about the harmonized tax in January. The proposal was set out in the budget in March, with reports on the effects on business and families. The government pledged to use the federal incentive payment to cushion the impact of the change - most families would get transitional payments of $1,000 - and to exempt many goods. It also pledged to help affected industry sectors - tourism, for example would get an extra $40 million a year for marketing efforts.
Even the language was different. McGuinty's budget said the tax changes would be made "pending legislative approval and Ontario and Canada signing a tax co-ordination agreement."
Campbell presented a done deal. MLAs, both Liberal and New Democrats, might as well be cardboard cutouts. The public's views were not of any interest.
Campbell said the harmonized tax issue wasn't even on the radar for him at the time of the election campaign. Odd, since Ontario had announced its intention before that.
So, in a little over two months, the premier noticed tax harmonization and worked out a whole plan.
It reminds me of the last couple of years of the Glen Clark government. Too much certainty, too little planning, too bold enthusiasms and too little interest in the views of anyone outside the inner circle.
And that, we know, ended in tears.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Rolling the GST and PST into one tax
Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen left a lot of questions with the announcement of a Harmonized Sales Tax that would - mostly - combine the GST and PST into one 12-per-cent tax.
It's the kind of big change that could have been debated during the election campaign, except it wasn't on the radar for him three months ago, Campbell said. (Which raises questions about how well the details have been thought through.)
It also could have been useful to invite public comments on such a sweeping tax change.
There are benefits and drawbacks, which I'll write about once there is a little more information.
For now, there are more questions. For example, the premier says the change will reduce sales taxes for business by about $1.9 billion.
And he says the change overall will be - more or less - revenue neutral.
So who is going to pay $1.9 billion more to make up for the cut for business?
More to come. . .
It's the kind of big change that could have been debated during the election campaign, except it wasn't on the radar for him three months ago, Campbell said. (Which raises questions about how well the details have been thought through.)
It also could have been useful to invite public comments on such a sweeping tax change.
There are benefits and drawbacks, which I'll write about once there is a little more information.
For now, there are more questions. For example, the premier says the change will reduce sales taxes for business by about $1.9 billion.
And he says the change overall will be - more or less - revenue neutral.
So who is going to pay $1.9 billion more to make up for the cut for business?
More to come. . .
Latest secret cuts hurt those who most need help
It seems bad public policy - even dumb and destructive - to cut supports that help people get off welfare and into jobs just as more people are being forced onto income assistance.
Or to cut efforts to improve literacy, one of Gordon Campbell's "five great goals" of 2005.
But those are among the measures the provincial government has chosen to deal with its botched budget.
The NDP released leaked documents this month that show the government knew in early June that its income assistance caseload projections were wildly inaccurate.
The budget was based on the assumption that 112,000 people would be on welfare by the next fiscal year; the documents show the caseload is now expected to "to peak at 147,000 in June 2010."
That's 24 per cent higher than the forecast, an increase that represents suffering for individuals and families and a $100-million budget overrun. (The revelation comes after the government's public affairs bureau intervened to suppress the regular monthly release of income assistance caseloads during the election campaign. The statistics - which were released during the last two campaigns - would have showed a 50 per cent jump in the number of employable people on income assistance in just six months.)
The documents also reveal the government is attempting to deal with its errors by cutting needed services.
A June 5 memo announced an immediate freeze on "direct purchase" funding for people on income assistance. That's a ministry program intended to help people on welfare find and keep work.
In areas where there is no contractor supplying employment programs to government, for example, income assistance workers have been able to approve job readiness training for clients who were capable and keen to work, but needed help.
Direct payments were also available for literacy training for people on income assistance and to cover small costs like textbooks and transportation. They were used to cover high school level upgrading courses for people whose lack of education was preventing them from finding work.
And in all cases, funding was only available if the person on welfare had demonstrated commitment, motivation and ability in the hunt for a job.
What sensible person could think these cuts make sense?
Income assistance rates are desperately low in B.C. A single person who is considered employable receives $375 a month for shelter and $235 a month for every other expense - that's less than $8 a day for food, transportation, clothes and everything else.
Which leaves no money for the basics required for job hunting. Direct payments were the solution, a small amount of money available to provide needed help in making the transition from welfare to work.
Cutting it is cruel, of course.
It's also foolish. Helping people off income assistance reduces the long-term costs substantially.
And as Campbell has noted, the longer a person is on income assistance the greater difficulty they have in escaping.
The literacy cuts show a similar short-sightedness.
Last year, the government announced funding for 16 regional literacy co-ordinators.
Advanced Education Minister Murray Coell said the co-ordinators would help make improvements urged by the auditor general. "Regions are often faced with challenges matching up people with the programs and services they need and making all the various literacy programs work together efficiently," Coell said.
Now the jobs are being cut to try to keep the deficit down.
It's an odd approach for a government that has identified literacy as a key to the province's future - and the need for economic stimulus. Firing people and weakening the literacy effort hardly accomplishes either goal.
Add in the news - revealed by Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com - that libraries across the province face funding cuts and reports that support for university and college students is being chopped, and a pattern is emerging.
The greater worry is that these cuts are just symptoms of rushed, arbitrary and ill-considered efforts to slash programs and jobs across government at great cost to people and communities now, and the province's future.
Footnote: None of these cuts are being announced publicly. The government is proceeding by stealth - a great contrast to the flood of pre-election announcements of tiny funding programs and a betrayal of commitments to "openness and accountability."
Or to cut efforts to improve literacy, one of Gordon Campbell's "five great goals" of 2005.
But those are among the measures the provincial government has chosen to deal with its botched budget.
The NDP released leaked documents this month that show the government knew in early June that its income assistance caseload projections were wildly inaccurate.
The budget was based on the assumption that 112,000 people would be on welfare by the next fiscal year; the documents show the caseload is now expected to "to peak at 147,000 in June 2010."
That's 24 per cent higher than the forecast, an increase that represents suffering for individuals and families and a $100-million budget overrun. (The revelation comes after the government's public affairs bureau intervened to suppress the regular monthly release of income assistance caseloads during the election campaign. The statistics - which were released during the last two campaigns - would have showed a 50 per cent jump in the number of employable people on income assistance in just six months.)
The documents also reveal the government is attempting to deal with its errors by cutting needed services.
A June 5 memo announced an immediate freeze on "direct purchase" funding for people on income assistance. That's a ministry program intended to help people on welfare find and keep work.
In areas where there is no contractor supplying employment programs to government, for example, income assistance workers have been able to approve job readiness training for clients who were capable and keen to work, but needed help.
Direct payments were also available for literacy training for people on income assistance and to cover small costs like textbooks and transportation. They were used to cover high school level upgrading courses for people whose lack of education was preventing them from finding work.
And in all cases, funding was only available if the person on welfare had demonstrated commitment, motivation and ability in the hunt for a job.
What sensible person could think these cuts make sense?
Income assistance rates are desperately low in B.C. A single person who is considered employable receives $375 a month for shelter and $235 a month for every other expense - that's less than $8 a day for food, transportation, clothes and everything else.
Which leaves no money for the basics required for job hunting. Direct payments were the solution, a small amount of money available to provide needed help in making the transition from welfare to work.
Cutting it is cruel, of course.
It's also foolish. Helping people off income assistance reduces the long-term costs substantially.
And as Campbell has noted, the longer a person is on income assistance the greater difficulty they have in escaping.
The literacy cuts show a similar short-sightedness.
Last year, the government announced funding for 16 regional literacy co-ordinators.
Advanced Education Minister Murray Coell said the co-ordinators would help make improvements urged by the auditor general. "Regions are often faced with challenges matching up people with the programs and services they need and making all the various literacy programs work together efficiently," Coell said.
Now the jobs are being cut to try to keep the deficit down.
It's an odd approach for a government that has identified literacy as a key to the province's future - and the need for economic stimulus. Firing people and weakening the literacy effort hardly accomplishes either goal.
Add in the news - revealed by Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com - that libraries across the province face funding cuts and reports that support for university and college students is being chopped, and a pattern is emerging.
The greater worry is that these cuts are just symptoms of rushed, arbitrary and ill-considered efforts to slash programs and jobs across government at great cost to people and communities now, and the province's future.
Footnote: None of these cuts are being announced publicly. The government is proceeding by stealth - a great contrast to the flood of pre-election announcements of tiny funding programs and a betrayal of commitments to "openness and accountability."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Reconciliation act is dead on the vine - what next?
The provincial government had high hopes its proposed recognition and reconciliation act would bring "seismic change" to relations with First Nations in the province.
But the plan has collapsed in the face of native concerns, as this memo shows, and its back to the drawing board.
July 14, 2009
Dear UBCIC Chiefs Council,
Re: Proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation Process-to-Date and Next Steps
The UBCIC Executive takes this opportunity to provide an update regarding the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation.
The legislative initiative was a step which the UBCIC, First Nations Summit and BCAFN mandated the FNLC to advance with the Province, designed to compel the Province to implement commitments contained in the New Relationship (2005), including to recognize Aboriginal title and rights, to respect First Nations' laws and responsibilities, to reconcile Aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdictions, and to close the socio-economic gap through agreements about revenue and benefit sharing.
In February 2009, a "Discussion Paper on Instructions for Implementing the New Relationship" (the "Discussion Paper") was released to generate dialogue on the proposed legislative initiative. A series of regional sessions and community visits to explore the content of the Discussion Paper have been held with First Nations across the Province, and these are continuing.
In many ways, the first several community/Tribal group visits represented a 'test drive' of the original discussion paper. Based on the feedback, it is clear that many concepts expressed in the Discussion Paper are unacceptable. Concerns have been raised, including that 'reconstitution' will interfere with self-determination; that the Indigenous Nation Commission could become another bureaucracy; that there is risk of including Aboriginal title recognition in legislation which also recognizes Crown title in any form; that the nature, scope and substance of the title being recognized will weaken the title recognition within s. 35. We have heard questions raised whether the Province has jurisdiction to pass such legislation, and doubts expressed whether they will implement it. Questions have also been raised about the absence of Canada.
We have also heard expressed the opportunities which title recognition could bring. Consistently we heard the message, "we generally accept and support the concept of the need to achieve recognition, but not in its current form". In other words, not as currently articulated in the original Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper has done its job, but it has now become an impediment to carrying forward a constructive and productive dialogue.
Consequently, on June 25th, the FNLC made a decision to 'set aside' the discussion paper to provide the space and opportunity to carry on an inclusive and cohesive dialogue. The Recognition Working Group ("RWG"), who had been instructed to develop with the Province language that might serve as detailed instructions to legislative drafters, has been directed to stop that work and not engage in any legislative drafting.
We believe our decision has significantly improved the tone of our dialogue; both politically and legally. When we finalize our Regional and community sessions, we will be in a position to deliver a summary report to the delegates of a Provincial-wide meeting at the end of August.
We welcome the formation of a lawyers' caucus comprised of First Nations' lawyers who wish to participate, who are working together to prepare other options for consideration at the All Chiefs' Assembly this summer.
We are at an important time in answering the land question. We have an opportunity unlike any other in our history. The Province has been compelled through law and politics to agree to recognition of title. We must use this opportunity well. Through recognition legislation or other initiatives, we must now compel the provincial government and every civil servant to act based on recognition and not denial of Aboriginal title. Now it is time to listen to our communities. We believe we will be given clear direction in terms of a 'forward looking' mandate when we next meet.
United we stand; divided we perish. We will work together to identify consensus for the steps we will collectively take together.
Sincerely,
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President
Chief Robert Shintah
Vice-President
Chief Robert Chamberlin
Secretary-Treasurer
But the plan has collapsed in the face of native concerns, as this memo shows, and its back to the drawing board.
July 14, 2009
Dear UBCIC Chiefs Council,
Re: Proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation Process-to-Date and Next Steps
The UBCIC Executive takes this opportunity to provide an update regarding the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation.
The legislative initiative was a step which the UBCIC, First Nations Summit and BCAFN mandated the FNLC to advance with the Province, designed to compel the Province to implement commitments contained in the New Relationship (2005), including to recognize Aboriginal title and rights, to respect First Nations' laws and responsibilities, to reconcile Aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdictions, and to close the socio-economic gap through agreements about revenue and benefit sharing.
In February 2009, a "Discussion Paper on Instructions for Implementing the New Relationship" (the "Discussion Paper") was released to generate dialogue on the proposed legislative initiative. A series of regional sessions and community visits to explore the content of the Discussion Paper have been held with First Nations across the Province, and these are continuing.
In many ways, the first several community/Tribal group visits represented a 'test drive' of the original discussion paper. Based on the feedback, it is clear that many concepts expressed in the Discussion Paper are unacceptable. Concerns have been raised, including that 'reconstitution' will interfere with self-determination; that the Indigenous Nation Commission could become another bureaucracy; that there is risk of including Aboriginal title recognition in legislation which also recognizes Crown title in any form; that the nature, scope and substance of the title being recognized will weaken the title recognition within s. 35. We have heard questions raised whether the Province has jurisdiction to pass such legislation, and doubts expressed whether they will implement it. Questions have also been raised about the absence of Canada.
We have also heard expressed the opportunities which title recognition could bring. Consistently we heard the message, "we generally accept and support the concept of the need to achieve recognition, but not in its current form". In other words, not as currently articulated in the original Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper has done its job, but it has now become an impediment to carrying forward a constructive and productive dialogue.
Consequently, on June 25th, the FNLC made a decision to 'set aside' the discussion paper to provide the space and opportunity to carry on an inclusive and cohesive dialogue. The Recognition Working Group ("RWG"), who had been instructed to develop with the Province language that might serve as detailed instructions to legislative drafters, has been directed to stop that work and not engage in any legislative drafting.
We believe our decision has significantly improved the tone of our dialogue; both politically and legally. When we finalize our Regional and community sessions, we will be in a position to deliver a summary report to the delegates of a Provincial-wide meeting at the end of August.
We welcome the formation of a lawyers' caucus comprised of First Nations' lawyers who wish to participate, who are working together to prepare other options for consideration at the All Chiefs' Assembly this summer.
We are at an important time in answering the land question. We have an opportunity unlike any other in our history. The Province has been compelled through law and politics to agree to recognition of title. We must use this opportunity well. Through recognition legislation or other initiatives, we must now compel the provincial government and every civil servant to act based on recognition and not denial of Aboriginal title. Now it is time to listen to our communities. We believe we will be given clear direction in terms of a 'forward looking' mandate when we next meet.
United we stand; divided we perish. We will work together to identify consensus for the steps we will collectively take together.
Sincerely,
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President
Chief Robert Shintah
Vice-President
Chief Robert Chamberlin
Secretary-Treasurer
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The uranium file
Although professionally predisposed to have an opinion on anything, I'm uncertain on uranium mining. If global warming is a real issue, nuclear power beats coal-fired plants. And without uranium, you can't nuclear power.
The provincial government is more certain. It has taken two shots at discouraging development of potentially significant deposits, in part because they're in the Okanagan. People don't want to retire to uranium country.
New junior minister for mines Randy Hawes told Sean Holman, on CFAX 1070's Public Eye, that the public doesn't want uranium mining and the government accepts that. Hawes refused an invitation to see Saskatchan's uranium mines.
Meanwhile, a second mining company has sued the government over the pre-election uranium mining ban, arguing their rights were expropriated and they are owed compensation.
The provincial government is more certain. It has taken two shots at discouraging development of potentially significant deposits, in part because they're in the Okanagan. People don't want to retire to uranium country.
New junior minister for mines Randy Hawes told Sean Holman, on CFAX 1070's Public Eye, that the public doesn't want uranium mining and the government accepts that. Hawes refused an invitation to see Saskatchan's uranium mines.
Meanwhile, a second mining company has sued the government over the pre-election uranium mining ban, arguing their rights were expropriated and they are owed compensation.
E-mails might, finally, move B.C. Rail case forward
Slowly — so slowly — British Columbians might be moving closer to some answers in the B.C. Rail corruption case.
It’s been a dismal performance from the courts and the politicians. More than five years after police raided legislature officers and talked about the long reach of organized crime, the affair hangs over the government and the three accused.
That might change with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett’s ruling that the government must produce e-mails from Premier Gordon Campbell and a clutch of current and former cabinet ministers and their staff.
Or it might sink the whole affair even deeper into an ethical and legal quagmire.
We’ll find that out, perhaps, Aug. 17. That’s when the government’s lawyer will tell the court whether the e-mails exist, or if some or all have been destroyed. (An astonishing number of lawyers — all taxpayer-funded — are involved in the case. Costs have been estimated at more than $10 million and counting.)
The government’s story has been changing.
Last month, its lawyer introduced a deposition from an official saying the e-mails from 2002 to 2005 and all backups had been erased.
That appeared to violate government policy, which calls for records to be kept for seven years. (Transitory e-mails — like a message confirming a lunch date — are exempted.)
Last week, the government offered a new deposition from the same officials saying that at least some of the relevant e-mails had existed but were ordered destroyed in May, during the election campaign.
If true, that’s serious on several levels.
First, destroying evidence is a criminal offence. The relevance of the e-mails to the trial should have been obvious since the raids. It was certainly clear once the defence lawyers asked for the documents in 2007. The RCMP has already been asked to review the information to see if an investigation is warranted.
Second, if the evidence is gone, defence lawyers have a reasonable argument that the charges should be dismissed due to the government’s abuse of the process. That would leave the questions unanswered.
Third, the government would face a political crisis. Campbell has pledged complete openness and co-operation with the investigation since the days after the raid.
Barring some remarkable explanation — I can’t even think of an example — the destruction of the e-mails being sought by the court would look like a cover-up. And while governments can escape a great many failings and missteps, cover-ups tend to taint their reputations and relationships with the public permanently.
It’s a potentially toxic mess, stemming from the broken 2001 campaign promise not to sell B.C. Rail but spreading to include questions about the influence of well-connected Liberal insiders, the legitimacy of the bidding process and, now, the missing evidence.
The Crown is alleging Dave Basi, ministerial assistant to then finance minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who held the same position with transport minister Judith Reid, accepted benefits from Omnitrax, one of the B.C. Rail bidders. In return, the Crown says, they provided inside information about the bidding process.
The defence denies that and says the two were actually acting on behalf of their political masters. The bidding was rigged all along to ensure CN got B.C. Rail, the defence alleges. The government wanted Omnitrax kept involved to preserve the appearance of a real bidding process. (CP Rail had dropped out because it believed the bidding process was unfair; a partner bidding with Omnitrax had pulled the plug for the same reason.)
And all of this, remember, after a promise by Campbell not to sell B.C. Rail.
It is a bizarre situation that two provincial elections have been held since the raids and allegations of corruption, with no answers for the public and only silence from the government.
And, if the e-mails have been destroyed and the case is thrown out, those answers might still be years away — particularly if the investigation into the destruction of evidence moves at the same halting pace.
Footnote: The NDP will undoubtedly seek a public inquiry if the case is thrown out. But Campbell has so far stonewalled on the case and the vanished e-mails. The tactic has worked and it’s unlikely that he would now accept an independent inquiry into the scandal.
It’s been a dismal performance from the courts and the politicians. More than five years after police raided legislature officers and talked about the long reach of organized crime, the affair hangs over the government and the three accused.
That might change with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett’s ruling that the government must produce e-mails from Premier Gordon Campbell and a clutch of current and former cabinet ministers and their staff.
Or it might sink the whole affair even deeper into an ethical and legal quagmire.
We’ll find that out, perhaps, Aug. 17. That’s when the government’s lawyer will tell the court whether the e-mails exist, or if some or all have been destroyed. (An astonishing number of lawyers — all taxpayer-funded — are involved in the case. Costs have been estimated at more than $10 million and counting.)
The government’s story has been changing.
Last month, its lawyer introduced a deposition from an official saying the e-mails from 2002 to 2005 and all backups had been erased.
That appeared to violate government policy, which calls for records to be kept for seven years. (Transitory e-mails — like a message confirming a lunch date — are exempted.)
Last week, the government offered a new deposition from the same officials saying that at least some of the relevant e-mails had existed but were ordered destroyed in May, during the election campaign.
If true, that’s serious on several levels.
First, destroying evidence is a criminal offence. The relevance of the e-mails to the trial should have been obvious since the raids. It was certainly clear once the defence lawyers asked for the documents in 2007. The RCMP has already been asked to review the information to see if an investigation is warranted.
Second, if the evidence is gone, defence lawyers have a reasonable argument that the charges should be dismissed due to the government’s abuse of the process. That would leave the questions unanswered.
Third, the government would face a political crisis. Campbell has pledged complete openness and co-operation with the investigation since the days after the raid.
Barring some remarkable explanation — I can’t even think of an example — the destruction of the e-mails being sought by the court would look like a cover-up. And while governments can escape a great many failings and missteps, cover-ups tend to taint their reputations and relationships with the public permanently.
It’s a potentially toxic mess, stemming from the broken 2001 campaign promise not to sell B.C. Rail but spreading to include questions about the influence of well-connected Liberal insiders, the legitimacy of the bidding process and, now, the missing evidence.
The Crown is alleging Dave Basi, ministerial assistant to then finance minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who held the same position with transport minister Judith Reid, accepted benefits from Omnitrax, one of the B.C. Rail bidders. In return, the Crown says, they provided inside information about the bidding process.
The defence denies that and says the two were actually acting on behalf of their political masters. The bidding was rigged all along to ensure CN got B.C. Rail, the defence alleges. The government wanted Omnitrax kept involved to preserve the appearance of a real bidding process. (CP Rail had dropped out because it believed the bidding process was unfair; a partner bidding with Omnitrax had pulled the plug for the same reason.)
And all of this, remember, after a promise by Campbell not to sell B.C. Rail.
It is a bizarre situation that two provincial elections have been held since the raids and allegations of corruption, with no answers for the public and only silence from the government.
And, if the e-mails have been destroyed and the case is thrown out, those answers might still be years away — particularly if the investigation into the destruction of evidence moves at the same halting pace.
Footnote: The NDP will undoubtedly seek a public inquiry if the case is thrown out. But Campbell has so far stonewalled on the case and the vanished e-mails. The tactic has worked and it’s unlikely that he would now accept an independent inquiry into the scandal.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A dissident hero speaks for democracy
Not in China or Iran, but in Alberta, where a Conservative MLA has decided to put his constituents ahead of his party.
Party discipline is part of our system. Members of a party are supposed to share some broad principles and policies.
But they are not supposed to be robotic public boosters of their bosses reciting talking points written by staffers at the direction of the leader. They should not stand foolishly silent when government actions damage their own communities. (For example, like Liberal cabinet ministers Murray Coell and Ida Chong, when their government enriched a forest company while opening vast amounts of green space and protected land for development.)
Our system was based on MPs and MLAs having the power to dump a distant or inattentive leader; they have abandoned that power and chosen docility.
Except for this guy.
Party discipline is part of our system. Members of a party are supposed to share some broad principles and policies.
But they are not supposed to be robotic public boosters of their bosses reciting talking points written by staffers at the direction of the leader. They should not stand foolishly silent when government actions damage their own communities. (For example, like Liberal cabinet ministers Murray Coell and Ida Chong, when their government enriched a forest company while opening vast amounts of green space and protected land for development.)
Our system was based on MPs and MLAs having the power to dump a distant or inattentive leader; they have abandoned that power and chosen docility.
Except for this guy.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The purposes of journalism
"The stenographers of power will always find work. As will the trumpeters of fame. I.F. Stone wrote not to create a sensation, or to promote himself (or his 'brand'), but to change the world." John Ibbitson quotes from D.D. Guttenplan's Stone biography in a review in today's Globe.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Health cuts unnecessary and a broken promise
The Campbell government has decided the province’s sick and injured should carry a chunk of the recession’s burden.
The health authorities - more than three months into the fiscal year - have been told to make $360 million in spending cuts.
They’re looking for administrative savings, of course.
But they are also planning layoffs, longer waits for surgery and cuts in acute and residential care.
The government has decided that keeping the deficit small is more important than maintaining health care at the current level. People should limp longer with their bad knees or wait longer for care.
Governments can do what they want. But we’ve just been through an election campaign. And the Liberals did not talk about reducing the level of health care in the interests of fiscal responsibility. (And the other parties and media, myself included, did not raise the issue effectively.)
Quite the contrary. They promised to protect health care.
Health Minister Kevin Falcon wrote to the health authorities Wednesday. (Or, more accurately, public affairs staff drafted a dozen versions of a letter really aimed at managing media coverage.)
After 535 words setting out all the great things had been done in the last few years, Falcon got to the point.
The authorities had submitted budgets based on maintaining care. The government wanted $360 million cut.
That’s a 3.5-per-cent cut. After years of funding shortfalls, the health authorities and hospitals have ground costs out of the system. There are always savings to be had — you can stop cutting the lawns, cut corners on cleaning costs or cancel travel.
But those won’t add up to $360 million.
Vancouver Coastal plans to reduce surgeries by three per cent and Fraser Health is cutting the number of elective surgeries and limiting MRIs.
The Interior Health Authority is looking at capping or reducing community care and making people wait longer for elective surgery. It’s also cutting jobs and freezing clinical hours. The Northern Health Authority is reducing nursing care.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority is putting off maintenance, freezing programs and plans to reduce “volumes of elective surgeries, procedures and diagnostics” to stay within the funding. (It also plans to sell off property to make up for the operating deficit, much like selling the furniture to pay the mortgage. The next payment comes, and then what?)
The authorities have acknowledged that care will suffer — fewer surgeries, for example, means people will wait longer. That sounds OK, unless you’re the one limping on a horribly painful kneee.
You could make the case for health cuts. The recession means less revenue for government. Why shouldn’t people accept reduced care?
But that is not what the Liberals promised during the campaign
So where is the mandate for reduced health care - longer waits for surgery, delays in tests to determine what treatment is, or isn’t, needed?
This is about $360 million. What would be wrong with an increase in MSP premiums — which are graduated to the ease the burden on low-income families — to make up the shortfall. For a singe person, all that would be needed would be a $12-per-month increase to maintain health care at last year’s level; for a four, about $3.50 a person a month.
We can afford it. Health care costs have been increasing faster than the overall inflation rate. But we’re older and the treatments have got slicker and more expensive. We still want them for our family members.
And health care remains a bargain. In 1995, health costs consumed about 6.6 of provincial GDP. Last year - 13 years on - it was seven per cent. There are cost pressures that have to be addressed in the coming years, but no crisis.
But, for whatever reasons, the government has decided that it’s time to go backwards on health care for British Columbians.
Footnote: The NDP challenged the timing of the announcement, accusing the Liberals of hiding the cuts until after the provincial election. The delay – whatever the cause – results in deeper cuts as savings must be found in the remaining months of the fiscal year.
The health authorities - more than three months into the fiscal year - have been told to make $360 million in spending cuts.
They’re looking for administrative savings, of course.
But they are also planning layoffs, longer waits for surgery and cuts in acute and residential care.
The government has decided that keeping the deficit small is more important than maintaining health care at the current level. People should limp longer with their bad knees or wait longer for care.
Governments can do what they want. But we’ve just been through an election campaign. And the Liberals did not talk about reducing the level of health care in the interests of fiscal responsibility. (And the other parties and media, myself included, did not raise the issue effectively.)
Quite the contrary. They promised to protect health care.
Health Minister Kevin Falcon wrote to the health authorities Wednesday. (Or, more accurately, public affairs staff drafted a dozen versions of a letter really aimed at managing media coverage.)
After 535 words setting out all the great things had been done in the last few years, Falcon got to the point.
The authorities had submitted budgets based on maintaining care. The government wanted $360 million cut.
That’s a 3.5-per-cent cut. After years of funding shortfalls, the health authorities and hospitals have ground costs out of the system. There are always savings to be had — you can stop cutting the lawns, cut corners on cleaning costs or cancel travel.
But those won’t add up to $360 million.
Vancouver Coastal plans to reduce surgeries by three per cent and Fraser Health is cutting the number of elective surgeries and limiting MRIs.
The Interior Health Authority is looking at capping or reducing community care and making people wait longer for elective surgery. It’s also cutting jobs and freezing clinical hours. The Northern Health Authority is reducing nursing care.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority is putting off maintenance, freezing programs and plans to reduce “volumes of elective surgeries, procedures and diagnostics” to stay within the funding. (It also plans to sell off property to make up for the operating deficit, much like selling the furniture to pay the mortgage. The next payment comes, and then what?)
The authorities have acknowledged that care will suffer — fewer surgeries, for example, means people will wait longer. That sounds OK, unless you’re the one limping on a horribly painful kneee.
You could make the case for health cuts. The recession means less revenue for government. Why shouldn’t people accept reduced care?
But that is not what the Liberals promised during the campaign
So where is the mandate for reduced health care - longer waits for surgery, delays in tests to determine what treatment is, or isn’t, needed?
This is about $360 million. What would be wrong with an increase in MSP premiums — which are graduated to the ease the burden on low-income families — to make up the shortfall. For a singe person, all that would be needed would be a $12-per-month increase to maintain health care at last year’s level; for a four, about $3.50 a person a month.
We can afford it. Health care costs have been increasing faster than the overall inflation rate. But we’re older and the treatments have got slicker and more expensive. We still want them for our family members.
And health care remains a bargain. In 1995, health costs consumed about 6.6 of provincial GDP. Last year - 13 years on - it was seven per cent. There are cost pressures that have to be addressed in the coming years, but no crisis.
But, for whatever reasons, the government has decided that it’s time to go backwards on health care for British Columbians.
Footnote: The NDP challenged the timing of the announcement, accusing the Liberals of hiding the cuts until after the provincial election. The delay – whatever the cause – results in deeper cuts as savings must be found in the remaining months of the fiscal year.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
To steal a head, RailGate A-Go-Go.....Who Knew What When?
A useful look at the destruction of potential evidence in the B.C. Rail corruption trial is to be found here.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
IHA chair thinks two-tier care just fine
The Interior Health Authority chair, responsible for an organization delivering care to 720,000 British Columbians, believes two-tier care should be allowed in Canada.
And he doesn't see why the health care system should be providing residential care for frail seniors who can't live on their own any longer.
You have to admire Norm Embree's candour in raising such radical positions.
And he made it clear he was expressing his personal opinions.
But it's hard to see how most people living in the interior could feel comfortable with Embree as the health authority chair.
There are some big challenges ahead for all the health authorities. Provincial funding isn't enough to meet the care needs. The five regional authorities have to cut $320 million.
Embree's comments raise doubts about his commitment to the basic values and functions of our health care system.
His opinions are legitimate, if extreme, contributions to the discussion on health care. But they raise questions, coming from a B.C. health care leader.
In an interview with Don Plant of the Kelowna Daily Courier, Embree said it might be time to abandon the principles of medicare and allow people to pay for faster, better care.
"We're already multi-tier - we already go to Washington for private care - why not have it here,'' he asked.
Embree, to his credit, took the same position a few days later in an interview with Robert Koopman of the Kamloops Daily News when the issue of two-tier care came up.
"I have no problem with it. We've had two tiers for years, but nobody wants to admit it," he said, citing the ability of patients to the U.S. for speedier treatment.
Not every could afford that, Embree acknowledged.
"That's the nature of two tier - if you can, you do it. If you can't you hang in there," he said. "I've got nothing philosophically against it. As long as we maintain universal access and portability, I've got no problems with it."
That's one view of health care.
The Canadian view, expressed in the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, has been that your income shouldn't determine the kind of health care you receive.
If two little girls are sick, each should get the same care. The fact that one had poor parents wouldn't put her at greater risk. Embree's approach would see the poor child "just hang in there."
Embree's views on residential care for seniors raise as many questions.
"The Canada Health Act doesn't say anything about providing housing for everyone," he said. "Now everyone expects the health-care system to provide a room and a place."
It's true. The Canada Health Act doesn't include residential care and intermediate level nursing home care in the category of covered services.
But more than 5,500 Interior residents are in residential care or assisted living beds. If providing that care is not considered part of the health system, how are they to afford the $4,500 a month for a private care home? Pensions are a fraction of that amount and savings would quickly be exhausted.
So what becomes of the people who can't care for themselves and need help with meals or medical care or bathing?
They get worse and worse, I suppose, until they are admitted to an acute care hospital bed. That's a far more costly option, poorer for the senior and those beds aren't available for the patients who need them. (Between 10 and 15 per cent of acute care beds are already occupied by people waiting for long-term care.)
Embree's comments follow Health Minister Kevin Falcon's musings about allowing two-tier care in an interview with the Vancouver Sun. He later said he only meant for non-essential treatment.
A full debate on health care is welcome. But it's hard to see how the public can have confidence on a government-appointed health authority board chair who doesn't support the most basic principle of Canadian health care.
Footnote: Kelowna radio station AM 1150 tried to find out what Falcon thought of Embree's comments. They were told the minister was not available for comment on the topic "today, tomorrow, next week or indefinitely."
And he doesn't see why the health care system should be providing residential care for frail seniors who can't live on their own any longer.
You have to admire Norm Embree's candour in raising such radical positions.
And he made it clear he was expressing his personal opinions.
But it's hard to see how most people living in the interior could feel comfortable with Embree as the health authority chair.
There are some big challenges ahead for all the health authorities. Provincial funding isn't enough to meet the care needs. The five regional authorities have to cut $320 million.
Embree's comments raise doubts about his commitment to the basic values and functions of our health care system.
His opinions are legitimate, if extreme, contributions to the discussion on health care. But they raise questions, coming from a B.C. health care leader.
In an interview with Don Plant of the Kelowna Daily Courier, Embree said it might be time to abandon the principles of medicare and allow people to pay for faster, better care.
"We're already multi-tier - we already go to Washington for private care - why not have it here,'' he asked.
Embree, to his credit, took the same position a few days later in an interview with Robert Koopman of the Kamloops Daily News when the issue of two-tier care came up.
"I have no problem with it. We've had two tiers for years, but nobody wants to admit it," he said, citing the ability of patients to the U.S. for speedier treatment.
Not every could afford that, Embree acknowledged.
"That's the nature of two tier - if you can, you do it. If you can't you hang in there," he said. "I've got nothing philosophically against it. As long as we maintain universal access and portability, I've got no problems with it."
That's one view of health care.
The Canadian view, expressed in the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, has been that your income shouldn't determine the kind of health care you receive.
If two little girls are sick, each should get the same care. The fact that one had poor parents wouldn't put her at greater risk. Embree's approach would see the poor child "just hang in there."
Embree's views on residential care for seniors raise as many questions.
"The Canada Health Act doesn't say anything about providing housing for everyone," he said. "Now everyone expects the health-care system to provide a room and a place."
It's true. The Canada Health Act doesn't include residential care and intermediate level nursing home care in the category of covered services.
But more than 5,500 Interior residents are in residential care or assisted living beds. If providing that care is not considered part of the health system, how are they to afford the $4,500 a month for a private care home? Pensions are a fraction of that amount and savings would quickly be exhausted.
So what becomes of the people who can't care for themselves and need help with meals or medical care or bathing?
They get worse and worse, I suppose, until they are admitted to an acute care hospital bed. That's a far more costly option, poorer for the senior and those beds aren't available for the patients who need them. (Between 10 and 15 per cent of acute care beds are already occupied by people waiting for long-term care.)
Embree's comments follow Health Minister Kevin Falcon's musings about allowing two-tier care in an interview with the Vancouver Sun. He later said he only meant for non-essential treatment.
A full debate on health care is welcome. But it's hard to see how the public can have confidence on a government-appointed health authority board chair who doesn't support the most basic principle of Canadian health care.
Footnote: Kelowna radio station AM 1150 tried to find out what Falcon thought of Embree's comments. They were told the minister was not available for comment on the topic "today, tomorrow, next week or indefinitely."
Saturday, July 11, 2009
IHA chair backs two-tier care, less support for frail seniors
Interior Health Authority chair Norm Embree told the Kelowna Daily Courier this week that he sees nothing wrong with two-tier heath care. Why shouldn't a person with money be able to buy faster, better treatment if they're sick or injured, he said? (Aside from the provincial and federal laws that say health care should be available based on medical need - that one sick six-year-old shouldn't be treated while a neighbour suffers just because of an accident of birth.)
Embree also said he doesn't see why the health system should provide residential care for sick or frail seniors who can't live on their own.
I wondered if he would retreat. But Embree repeated the positions in an interview with the Kamloops Daily News here.
And columnist Susan Duncan outlines why pushing old people onto the streets is a bad idea here.
Embree also confirmed cuts to services are coming because of underfunding by the province. Expect to hear more on that in the next few days as Health Minister Kevin Falcon gives the health authorities their marching orders.
Embree also said he doesn't see why the health system should provide residential care for sick or frail seniors who can't live on their own.
I wondered if he would retreat. But Embree repeated the positions in an interview with the Kamloops Daily News here.
And columnist Susan Duncan outlines why pushing old people onto the streets is a bad idea here.
Embree also confirmed cuts to services are coming because of underfunding by the province. Expect to hear more on that in the next few days as Health Minister Kevin Falcon gives the health authorities their marching orders.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Budget bad news and big cuts ahead
I resent being treated like I'm stupid. Sure, I'm capable of dumb moments and bad decisions, but, mostly, I'm a responsible, competent person.
That's why the release of the province's public accounts - the final version of the financial statements of the last fiscal year - was irksome.
There are four things to take away from the event.
First, the province avoided a deficit in the fiscal year that ended March 31. The surplus was small - $58 million by the government's reckoning, $8 million, according to the auditor general.
But a surplus, even if tiny, is important for the government's legitimacy.
Second, the government is finally inching toward honesty about the budget projection of a $495-million deficit for this fiscal year.
It's bogus. The revenue assumptions are hopelessly, blatantly optimistic. The expenses were based on million in cuts that had not been identified.
Within a few days of the February budget, it was being questioned. Before long, economists were suggesting the real deficit would be more than $1.5 billion.
No way, said Premier Gordon Campbell, throughout the election campaign and after. The deficit will be $495 million.
No, said Finance Minister Colin Hansen, even weeks ago. We'll meet the budget.
Finally, the government is acknowledging that's just not going to happen.
Hansen said everything changed on June 24, when the federal government sent new tax revenue estimates. Corporate taxes, especially, will be much lower than expected.
I'm a fan of Hansen. He's smart and sensible, and as health minister his command of issues was impressive.
But his claim that up until June 24 he thought the budget was still realistic is just baffling.
Housing starts were way below the budget assumptions. GDP growth was lower. Natural gas prices a fraction of the budget projections. Welfare rolls were climbing. Within two weeks of the budget day, a reasonable person would acknowledge it was wrong.
Third, the bad forecasting is going to be used to justify deep cuts in services and programs.
After the 2001 election, the Liberals brought in a 25-per-cent income tax cut on their first day in office, a $12-billion hit to the budget. That created a revenue crisis and set the stage for a budget focusing on cuts to programs and services.
Now the botched budgeting and determination to keep the deficits small is creating another crisis.
The budget already included cuts to eight of the 19 government ministries this year. Programs and jobs would have to be shed. And the budget was introduced without an actual plan for achieving all the savings.
Even health authorities were being pushed to find $320 million in spending cuts to keep within their funding.
Hansen confirmed the government has also targeted grants to organizations and is prepared to cut deeply.
That's bad news for communities. Grant support economic development efforts and social service delivery and seniors' support and organizations that educate children about drug risks. The services are close to the community and generally delivered in a cost-effective way.
Now, more than three months into the fiscal year, those organizations face surprise cuts, or even the elimination of provincial funding, Hansen said.
Government should always ensure money is being used effectively.
But the Liberals have had eight years to winnow weak or duplicate efforts. These cuts will do real harm.
And fourth, the public was cheated in the election campaign. Campbell's claim that the deficit would not exceed $495 million and that the budget was credible were not true.
But they prevented a real debate on how the province should respond to the recession. (The New Democrats were complicit; they chose to accept the budget numbers and use them as the basis for their own plans.)
British Columbians were sold a pig in a poke. When the real budget is finally released in September, expect a pretty ugly beast to emerge from the sack.
Footnote: How deep will the cuts be? The government has already cut help for people on income assistance who need literacy upgrading or other support to get off welfare and into a job. Job cuts are already planned in some ministries. It's an odd strategy when other governments have accepted the need for simulus spending.
That's why the release of the province's public accounts - the final version of the financial statements of the last fiscal year - was irksome.
There are four things to take away from the event.
First, the province avoided a deficit in the fiscal year that ended March 31. The surplus was small - $58 million by the government's reckoning, $8 million, according to the auditor general.
But a surplus, even if tiny, is important for the government's legitimacy.
Second, the government is finally inching toward honesty about the budget projection of a $495-million deficit for this fiscal year.
It's bogus. The revenue assumptions are hopelessly, blatantly optimistic. The expenses were based on million in cuts that had not been identified.
Within a few days of the February budget, it was being questioned. Before long, economists were suggesting the real deficit would be more than $1.5 billion.
No way, said Premier Gordon Campbell, throughout the election campaign and after. The deficit will be $495 million.
No, said Finance Minister Colin Hansen, even weeks ago. We'll meet the budget.
Finally, the government is acknowledging that's just not going to happen.
Hansen said everything changed on June 24, when the federal government sent new tax revenue estimates. Corporate taxes, especially, will be much lower than expected.
I'm a fan of Hansen. He's smart and sensible, and as health minister his command of issues was impressive.
But his claim that up until June 24 he thought the budget was still realistic is just baffling.
Housing starts were way below the budget assumptions. GDP growth was lower. Natural gas prices a fraction of the budget projections. Welfare rolls were climbing. Within two weeks of the budget day, a reasonable person would acknowledge it was wrong.
Third, the bad forecasting is going to be used to justify deep cuts in services and programs.
After the 2001 election, the Liberals brought in a 25-per-cent income tax cut on their first day in office, a $12-billion hit to the budget. That created a revenue crisis and set the stage for a budget focusing on cuts to programs and services.
Now the botched budgeting and determination to keep the deficits small is creating another crisis.
The budget already included cuts to eight of the 19 government ministries this year. Programs and jobs would have to be shed. And the budget was introduced without an actual plan for achieving all the savings.
Even health authorities were being pushed to find $320 million in spending cuts to keep within their funding.
Hansen confirmed the government has also targeted grants to organizations and is prepared to cut deeply.
That's bad news for communities. Grant support economic development efforts and social service delivery and seniors' support and organizations that educate children about drug risks. The services are close to the community and generally delivered in a cost-effective way.
Now, more than three months into the fiscal year, those organizations face surprise cuts, or even the elimination of provincial funding, Hansen said.
Government should always ensure money is being used effectively.
But the Liberals have had eight years to winnow weak or duplicate efforts. These cuts will do real harm.
And fourth, the public was cheated in the election campaign. Campbell's claim that the deficit would not exceed $495 million and that the budget was credible were not true.
But they prevented a real debate on how the province should respond to the recession. (The New Democrats were complicit; they chose to accept the budget numbers and use them as the basis for their own plans.)
British Columbians were sold a pig in a poke. When the real budget is finally released in September, expect a pretty ugly beast to emerge from the sack.
Footnote: How deep will the cuts be? The government has already cut help for people on income assistance who need literacy upgrading or other support to get off welfare and into a job. Job cuts are already planned in some ministries. It's an odd strategy when other governments have accepted the need for simulus spending.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
What's wrong with two-tier care?
Interesting and worrying story in the Kelowna Daily Courier.
Norm Embree, chair of the Interior Health Authority, speaks candidly about cuts to care because of inadequate funding. He should get full marks for accountability.
But read on. What's wrong with two-tier health care, he asks?
He also questions whether residential care for seniors unable to live on their own should really be a health care responsibility, which raises a lot of questions, which, hopefully, he will answer.
Read the story here.
Norm Embree, chair of the Interior Health Authority, speaks candidly about cuts to care because of inadequate funding. He should get full marks for accountability.
But read on. What's wrong with two-tier health care, he asks?
He also questions whether residential care for seniors unable to live on their own should really be a health care responsibility, which raises a lot of questions, which, hopefully, he will answer.
Read the story here.
OK, Hansen finally admits, cuts are coming
All those community groups, social service agencies and service providers who have been getting the runaround about their provincial funding for this year should now know why.
As Sean Holman reports here, the government is looking to cut those grants to save money. Everything is on the block, from drug prevention to programs to women's shelters to literacy efforts to support for seniors. Provincial grants make up their core budget; cuts - or elimination - would be devastating.
The government's plan has been to stall the groups. Some are more likely to make their concerns public now that they know what's going on.
As Sean Holman reports here, the government is looking to cut those grants to save money. Everything is on the block, from drug prevention to programs to women's shelters to literacy efforts to support for seniors. Provincial grants make up their core budget; cuts - or elimination - would be devastating.
The government's plan has been to stall the groups. Some are more likely to make their concerns public now that they know what's going on.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Child poverty meeting rejected by premier
It seemed a reasonable request.
The Representative for Children and Youth asked Premier Gordon Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to meet with her on the growing problem of child poverty.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative, is worried. For six years in a row, Statistics Canada reported, B.C. has had the highest child poverty rate in Canada.
And the recession has greatly increased the number of children at risk.
Children's lives today, and their futures, should be above partisan considerations. Turpel-Lafond invited the two leaders to sit down and talk about what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
James said yes.
Campbell said no. He refused even a meeting, brushing off the Children and Youth Representative and the issue of child poverty.
There are reasons for the premier to worry. The representative might point out problems - that is part of the job, created in as a result of the damning Hughes' report on the government's failures on children's issues. James might look for political advantage.
But the plight of some 126,000 B.C. children - with that number growing each week - seems more important than those political considerations.
The problems are serious. For six years, Statistics Canada has reported that B.C. has the highest proportion of children in poverty. You can quarrel about the definition of poverty, but StatsCan is comparing provinces on the same basis. And year after year, B.C. ranks at the bottom.
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children fell below the poverty line. That is an improvement.
But not enough to move B.C. out of last place on child poverty. And it still meant 126,000 children in B.C. were living on the margins.
That number is much higher now. The recession has sent families on a downward spiral. Jobs are lost - there were 103,000 fewer people with full-time jobs in May than a year earlier.
Some people find work at lower wages. Others go on unemployment insurance. When that runs out - and any savings are gone - they end up on welfare, now known as income assistance. The government has kept life on income assistance pretty miserable. The focus should be on helping those who can work to find a job, the Liberals maintained.
It's a defensible position when the economy is growing and employers are hiring.
But it not when families with no options are forced to live in grinding poverty.
In four months, the number of children living on welfare has jumped almost nine per cent. A single parent with two children who is considered employable receives up to $660 a month on income assistance for rent. It's tough to find a decent one-bedroom - for three people - for that amount.
In addition, the family on assistance gets $650 a month for everything else. Try it. Put $650 in a jar and see if you and two children can make it through the month.
Bus passes, food, insurance, clothes, school trips, a movie with friends for your daughter, swimming lessons. Which will you drop?
If you get reckless, and spend $7 a day on food for each of the three people, all the income assistance is gone.
That's a long digression, but with a point. Times are grim for a lot of children in B.C. - for a higher percentage here than anywhere else in Canada). We benefit when children make the most of their potential.
But Campbell refused a meeting to talk about how we could give more children a chance to build great lives here.
Other provinces have already set out plans for reducing child poverty, with timelines and actions and targets to measure progress. B.C. has not taken that basic step.
The children's representative offered a simple opportunity to look at a critical problem. And the premier said no.
Footnote: Campbell said the representative should discuss child poverty with the legislative committee on children and youth. The committee has not met in almost eight months, and in any case has no power to direct the government or bring about improvements.
The Representative for Children and Youth asked Premier Gordon Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to meet with her on the growing problem of child poverty.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative, is worried. For six years in a row, Statistics Canada reported, B.C. has had the highest child poverty rate in Canada.
And the recession has greatly increased the number of children at risk.
Children's lives today, and their futures, should be above partisan considerations. Turpel-Lafond invited the two leaders to sit down and talk about what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
James said yes.
Campbell said no. He refused even a meeting, brushing off the Children and Youth Representative and the issue of child poverty.
There are reasons for the premier to worry. The representative might point out problems - that is part of the job, created in as a result of the damning Hughes' report on the government's failures on children's issues. James might look for political advantage.
But the plight of some 126,000 B.C. children - with that number growing each week - seems more important than those political considerations.
The problems are serious. For six years, Statistics Canada has reported that B.C. has the highest proportion of children in poverty. You can quarrel about the definition of poverty, but StatsCan is comparing provinces on the same basis. And year after year, B.C. ranks at the bottom.
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children fell below the poverty line. That is an improvement.
But not enough to move B.C. out of last place on child poverty. And it still meant 126,000 children in B.C. were living on the margins.
That number is much higher now. The recession has sent families on a downward spiral. Jobs are lost - there were 103,000 fewer people with full-time jobs in May than a year earlier.
Some people find work at lower wages. Others go on unemployment insurance. When that runs out - and any savings are gone - they end up on welfare, now known as income assistance. The government has kept life on income assistance pretty miserable. The focus should be on helping those who can work to find a job, the Liberals maintained.
It's a defensible position when the economy is growing and employers are hiring.
But it not when families with no options are forced to live in grinding poverty.
In four months, the number of children living on welfare has jumped almost nine per cent. A single parent with two children who is considered employable receives up to $660 a month on income assistance for rent. It's tough to find a decent one-bedroom - for three people - for that amount.
In addition, the family on assistance gets $650 a month for everything else. Try it. Put $650 in a jar and see if you and two children can make it through the month.
Bus passes, food, insurance, clothes, school trips, a movie with friends for your daughter, swimming lessons. Which will you drop?
If you get reckless, and spend $7 a day on food for each of the three people, all the income assistance is gone.
That's a long digression, but with a point. Times are grim for a lot of children in B.C. - for a higher percentage here than anywhere else in Canada). We benefit when children make the most of their potential.
But Campbell refused a meeting to talk about how we could give more children a chance to build great lives here.
Other provinces have already set out plans for reducing child poverty, with timelines and actions and targets to measure progress. B.C. has not taken that basic step.
The children's representative offered a simple opportunity to look at a critical problem. And the premier said no.
Footnote: Campbell said the representative should discuss child poverty with the legislative committee on children and youth. The committee has not met in almost eight months, and in any case has no power to direct the government or bring about improvements.
Some portions of reconciliation act discussion paper rejected, says chiefs
The "seismic change" for relations between First Nations and the province, which I wrote about here seems to be hitting some bumps in consultations with First Nations. It's too early for consultations with non-native British Columbians, says aboriginal affairs minister George Abbott.
NDP’S Proposal is Premature
PRESS RELEASE - July 6, 2009
The UBCIC Executive has reviewed and discussed the BC New Democratic Party’s June 30th letter to Premier Campbell proposing that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be mandated to consult with British Columbians on the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs stated “Without the availability of the draft legislation to substantially discuss, it is premature for a legislative committee to trek through the province asking for input to a Discussion Paper. Our fear is that an ill-defined, ill-instructed committee will only serve to polarize the issue of reconciliation and act as an open-invitation for those who oppose the recognition of our Title and Rights.”
The Union of BC Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit and the BC Assembly of First Nations have hosted several regional sessions and have presented at community meetings on the Discussion Paper that contemplates a proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.
“It is clear from the community sessions that elements of the Discussion Paper have been rejected and other elements require further reconsideration and refinement. We have heard that a more collaborative and inclusive process is needed for First Nations” said Grand Chief Phillip. “If through that process, there is agreement to proceed to a legislative proposal, the UBCIC anticipates it will require a significant departure from the proposed model in the Discussion Paper.”
NDP’S Proposal is Premature
PRESS RELEASE - July 6, 2009
The UBCIC Executive has reviewed and discussed the BC New Democratic Party’s June 30th letter to Premier Campbell proposing that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be mandated to consult with British Columbians on the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs stated “Without the availability of the draft legislation to substantially discuss, it is premature for a legislative committee to trek through the province asking for input to a Discussion Paper. Our fear is that an ill-defined, ill-instructed committee will only serve to polarize the issue of reconciliation and act as an open-invitation for those who oppose the recognition of our Title and Rights.”
The Union of BC Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit and the BC Assembly of First Nations have hosted several regional sessions and have presented at community meetings on the Discussion Paper that contemplates a proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.
“It is clear from the community sessions that elements of the Discussion Paper have been rejected and other elements require further reconsideration and refinement. We have heard that a more collaborative and inclusive process is needed for First Nations” said Grand Chief Phillip. “If through that process, there is agreement to proceed to a legislative proposal, the UBCIC anticipates it will require a significant departure from the proposed model in the Discussion Paper.”
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Government paralysis
First, the reports were that subsidies to allow the poorest B.C. kids to camp were at risk. Then aid for leaky condo owners. Now even the Vancouver Island marmot is on the government chopping block. Funding for the marmot recovery program is uncertain, more than three months into the fiscal year.
Those are only the examples that have drawn public notice. Cuts are being planned across government, in secrecy, as this editorial notes.
One result of this process is paralysis, in government and the agencies that do its work. Three months into the fiscal year, funding for most projects is uncertain. Action is on hold. The public won't find out what is going on until September, when a new budget is presented.
The Liberals claim they need until then to rework the numbers. But in 2001, facing the task of replacing the NDP budget with one of their own, the Liberals were able to table a plan by July 30.
Those are only the examples that have drawn public notice. Cuts are being planned across government, in secrecy, as this editorial notes.
One result of this process is paralysis, in government and the agencies that do its work. Three months into the fiscal year, funding for most projects is uncertain. Action is on hold. The public won't find out what is going on until September, when a new budget is presented.
The Liberals claim they need until then to rework the numbers. But in 2001, facing the task of replacing the NDP budget with one of their own, the Liberals were able to table a plan by July 30.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
A smart and scary article on health care
Our inability to manage health care is one of the great public policy failures of the last 25 years, at least. The same issues and the same lack of information come up again and again and again.
Given Kevin Falcon's musings on private and two-tier care, this New Yorker article is must reading.
Given Kevin Falcon's musings on private and two-tier care, this New Yorker article is must reading.
Falcon fumbles on two-tier health care
Kevin Falcon is off to a bumbling and alarming start as health minister.
Falcon sat down with the Vancouver Sun's health reporter and said he saw nothing wrong with letting affluent people pay for speedier treatment than the rest of British Columbians.
"I do not have any objection to people using their own money just as they do for dental care or sending their kids to private school," he told Pamela Fayerman. "I think choice is a good thing."
That's a radical shift away from equal, universal access to health care as promised under medicare.
After Fayerman sat down to write, Falcon phoned.
He should only have been talking about plastic surgery or treatments that aren't medically necessary, he said.
The Canada Health Act bars paying for better or faster care in any other case.
I'm new on the job, he explained.
Which is troubling on at least three levels. First, any cabinet minister - anyone who has been paying attention - should have known about the two-tier care issue and the basics of the Canada Health Act. But it appears Falcon only caught on when his handlers boxed his ears.
Second, Falcon's retreat was less than reassuring for those who think equal access to health care is important.
He didn't say he believed in the principles of the Canada Health Act or supported equal access to care. Just that it was the law and the official Liberal position was to support it, so he would.
And third, Falcon hardly came across as a medicare supporter. When he called Fayerman to clarify what he meant to say, he had this comment: "If we're talking about medically necessary care, we don't have the right to allow people to do that. Frankly, in my second week in the health portfolio, I haven't yet got my mind wrapped around that."
Before you take the health job, you should have "your mind around that." It's the law, federally and provincially. If you haven't decided whether you understand or support the principle, health might not be the right ministry.
It matters that Falcon didn't support equal access to care in the first interview.
And that even in the correction call, he talked about the law, not principle.
A full debate on health policy is important. But some principles are also important.
And Falcon's stumbling is telling.
What Canadians have said, so far, is that the right to health care shouldn't be restricted by wealth.
If two little girls are sick they should get treatment based on their needs. A child with rich parents shouldn't get speedy treatment help, while another child suffers on a waiting list. The sickest child should get the promptest care.
That's not what would happen if people could pay for better, faster treatment.
Nor would two-tier care reduce health costs. In fact, it would inevitably increase them. More money would be spent on the same treatment as extra charges were piled on. If proponents of two-tier care were proved right, and more procedures were done overall, then costs would rise even faster.
Falcon's comments came as three private clinics are suing the government, claiming the right to extra-bill patients for faster or better care.
The government has been fighting the case, pointing to the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, which both bar extra-billing.
Falcon's confused and confusing comments won't help the case.
Two-tier care has been increasing in the province for about 15 years, as NDP and Liberal governments turned a blind eye to a growing number of private clinics that charge a fee to those who can afford speedier treatment.
The increase has at least been slowed by occasional government threats to crack down on the practice, although the clinics now treat some 50,000 patients a year who can pay to beat the public system's waiting lists.
Falcon's failure to state a clear, principled position on two-tier care will be a great encouragement to the private providers.
Footnote: The debate about extra fees, queue-jumping and two-tier care is separate from a discussion of the best way to deliver services under a universal, public plan. Private providers already play a significant role in the system. The benefits and risks rate a separate column.
Falcon sat down with the Vancouver Sun's health reporter and said he saw nothing wrong with letting affluent people pay for speedier treatment than the rest of British Columbians.
"I do not have any objection to people using their own money just as they do for dental care or sending their kids to private school," he told Pamela Fayerman. "I think choice is a good thing."
That's a radical shift away from equal, universal access to health care as promised under medicare.
After Fayerman sat down to write, Falcon phoned.
He should only have been talking about plastic surgery or treatments that aren't medically necessary, he said.
The Canada Health Act bars paying for better or faster care in any other case.
I'm new on the job, he explained.
Which is troubling on at least three levels. First, any cabinet minister - anyone who has been paying attention - should have known about the two-tier care issue and the basics of the Canada Health Act. But it appears Falcon only caught on when his handlers boxed his ears.
Second, Falcon's retreat was less than reassuring for those who think equal access to health care is important.
He didn't say he believed in the principles of the Canada Health Act or supported equal access to care. Just that it was the law and the official Liberal position was to support it, so he would.
And third, Falcon hardly came across as a medicare supporter. When he called Fayerman to clarify what he meant to say, he had this comment: "If we're talking about medically necessary care, we don't have the right to allow people to do that. Frankly, in my second week in the health portfolio, I haven't yet got my mind wrapped around that."
Before you take the health job, you should have "your mind around that." It's the law, federally and provincially. If you haven't decided whether you understand or support the principle, health might not be the right ministry.
It matters that Falcon didn't support equal access to care in the first interview.
And that even in the correction call, he talked about the law, not principle.
A full debate on health policy is important. But some principles are also important.
And Falcon's stumbling is telling.
What Canadians have said, so far, is that the right to health care shouldn't be restricted by wealth.
If two little girls are sick they should get treatment based on their needs. A child with rich parents shouldn't get speedy treatment help, while another child suffers on a waiting list. The sickest child should get the promptest care.
That's not what would happen if people could pay for better, faster treatment.
Nor would two-tier care reduce health costs. In fact, it would inevitably increase them. More money would be spent on the same treatment as extra charges were piled on. If proponents of two-tier care were proved right, and more procedures were done overall, then costs would rise even faster.
Falcon's comments came as three private clinics are suing the government, claiming the right to extra-bill patients for faster or better care.
The government has been fighting the case, pointing to the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, which both bar extra-billing.
Falcon's confused and confusing comments won't help the case.
Two-tier care has been increasing in the province for about 15 years, as NDP and Liberal governments turned a blind eye to a growing number of private clinics that charge a fee to those who can afford speedier treatment.
The increase has at least been slowed by occasional government threats to crack down on the practice, although the clinics now treat some 50,000 patients a year who can pay to beat the public system's waiting lists.
Falcon's failure to state a clear, principled position on two-tier care will be a great encouragement to the private providers.
Footnote: The debate about extra fees, queue-jumping and two-tier care is separate from a discussion of the best way to deliver services under a universal, public plan. Private providers already play a significant role in the system. The benefits and risks rate a separate column.
Friday, June 26, 2009
'Seismic change' for First Nations needs close look
I have no idea what to make of Gordon Campbell's proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act. There's just not enough information.
The Liberals think it's huge, in a good way.
Some critics - business and First Nations - think it's huge, in a worrying way.
The initiative was born in quiet talks between a few First Nations leaders and the premier's office. The only public document from the government is a discussion paper of less than five pages, plus a map showing the province divided into 23 "sovereign indigenous nations."
It's thin gruel to explain a proposal billed as bringing "seismic change" to the relationship with First Nations.
The First Nations' leadership has started limited consultations in a handful of communities.
But there has been no apparent process for talking to business, municipalities or the non-native public. No public hearings are planned. The legislature's aboriginal affairs committee, inactive since 2001, hasn't been the chance to consider the changes.
Broadly, the act would bring about three sweeping changes.
First, the government would recognize aboriginal title and rights. The province now requires First Nations to prove they have occupied or used territory over generations before it accepts their claims. Under the act, title could be acknowledged without those tests.
Second, the provincial government would accept a First Nations' role in decisions on land and resource use and revenue sharing. A government-to-government partnership would be in effect.
Third, in return, First Nations would make it easier for the government - and industry - to deal with them. Now, the government deals with 203 councils and bands. The act envisions a shift to 20 to 30 "sovereign indigenous nations" that could speak for aboriginals within a region.
The discussion paper includes a map that shows the province carved up into 23 sovereign indigenous nations. The Secwepemc nation, for example, would stretch from Kamloops to Williams Lake to Golden (and into Alberta).
The discussion paper sets out a three-stage approach to implementing the new relationship. The initial level offers a little more joint decision-making then the status quo. The farther First Nations move toward the "indigenous nation" model, the greater the commitment to their right to shared decision-making, a claim on resource revenues and government-to-government relations.
The new act would override all other provincial land and resource legislation, the government says. But it would not apply to private land or current Crown tenures.
The aim is laudable. After 17 years and some $1.5 billion, the treaty process has produced few results. Life in most First Nations is still substandard by economic and social measures. It's hard to defend sticking with the same approach.
But the concerns about the act - in part because of the secrecy - are piling up. Municipalities, especially regional districts, worry they'll lose planning authority to the new indigenous nations. Companies wonder if the nations' share of resource revenues will come from the provincial government's current take, or result in higher payments. The whole notion of a new form of government, with unclear powers, worries some.
At the same time, some First Nations are rejecting the act. They argue the form of title it conveys is too weak and falls short of the standard set in court rulings.
And they're suspicious of the new form of government too, worried about giving up the local authority of a band or tribal council for an as-yet undefined sovereign indigenous nation.
The government hoped to pass the act in the spring, but abandoned the plan at the last minute in the face of concerns. Campbell says it's still a priority.
But this isn't the kind of change to be made without consultation and debate about the impacts.
The best option would be to introduce the bill as soon as possible and put off the debate and vote until the spring, allowing all British Columbians a chance to consider and discuss the implications of this "seismic change."
Footnote: The act never became an election issue, in part because the New Democrats are - at least broadly - sympathetic to the direction the government is going. That increases the onus on First Nations communities, municipalities, business, MLAs and individuals to make sure the act gets a thorough review.
The Liberals think it's huge, in a good way.
Some critics - business and First Nations - think it's huge, in a worrying way.
The initiative was born in quiet talks between a few First Nations leaders and the premier's office. The only public document from the government is a discussion paper of less than five pages, plus a map showing the province divided into 23 "sovereign indigenous nations."
It's thin gruel to explain a proposal billed as bringing "seismic change" to the relationship with First Nations.
The First Nations' leadership has started limited consultations in a handful of communities.
But there has been no apparent process for talking to business, municipalities or the non-native public. No public hearings are planned. The legislature's aboriginal affairs committee, inactive since 2001, hasn't been the chance to consider the changes.
Broadly, the act would bring about three sweeping changes.
First, the government would recognize aboriginal title and rights. The province now requires First Nations to prove they have occupied or used territory over generations before it accepts their claims. Under the act, title could be acknowledged without those tests.
Second, the provincial government would accept a First Nations' role in decisions on land and resource use and revenue sharing. A government-to-government partnership would be in effect.
Third, in return, First Nations would make it easier for the government - and industry - to deal with them. Now, the government deals with 203 councils and bands. The act envisions a shift to 20 to 30 "sovereign indigenous nations" that could speak for aboriginals within a region.
The discussion paper includes a map that shows the province carved up into 23 sovereign indigenous nations. The Secwepemc nation, for example, would stretch from Kamloops to Williams Lake to Golden (and into Alberta).
The discussion paper sets out a three-stage approach to implementing the new relationship. The initial level offers a little more joint decision-making then the status quo. The farther First Nations move toward the "indigenous nation" model, the greater the commitment to their right to shared decision-making, a claim on resource revenues and government-to-government relations.
The new act would override all other provincial land and resource legislation, the government says. But it would not apply to private land or current Crown tenures.
The aim is laudable. After 17 years and some $1.5 billion, the treaty process has produced few results. Life in most First Nations is still substandard by economic and social measures. It's hard to defend sticking with the same approach.
But the concerns about the act - in part because of the secrecy - are piling up. Municipalities, especially regional districts, worry they'll lose planning authority to the new indigenous nations. Companies wonder if the nations' share of resource revenues will come from the provincial government's current take, or result in higher payments. The whole notion of a new form of government, with unclear powers, worries some.
At the same time, some First Nations are rejecting the act. They argue the form of title it conveys is too weak and falls short of the standard set in court rulings.
And they're suspicious of the new form of government too, worried about giving up the local authority of a band or tribal council for an as-yet undefined sovereign indigenous nation.
The government hoped to pass the act in the spring, but abandoned the plan at the last minute in the face of concerns. Campbell says it's still a priority.
But this isn't the kind of change to be made without consultation and debate about the impacts.
The best option would be to introduce the bill as soon as possible and put off the debate and vote until the spring, allowing all British Columbians a chance to consider and discuss the implications of this "seismic change."
Footnote: The act never became an election issue, in part because the New Democrats are - at least broadly - sympathetic to the direction the government is going. That increases the onus on First Nations communities, municipalities, business, MLAs and individuals to make sure the act gets a thorough review.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Liberals heading back into 2001-style change, cuts
It's looking liken the Liberals are ready to launch their third term as they did their first - with a full-tilt overhaul of government, conducted on so many fronts and so quickly that critics are left behind.
Speculation, of course. Gordon Campbell and company are not chatty about their intentions.
But the signs are there. In 2001, the Liberals blindly cut taxes by 25 per cent and then set out to shrink government to make up the $1.2-billion in lost revenue.
This time, the shortfall will be much greater. Instead of tax cuts, overly optimistic revenue projections will be the cause. Economic growth, natural gas prices, housing starts - the budget over-estimated them all.
Campbell still says the deficit this year will be close to the $495 million in the budget. That number relied on spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries.
Now another $1 billion or more in savings are needed.
It sets the stage for a repeat of the 18 months following the 2001, when the Liberals rolled out massive change.
In health, for example, the government created five regional health authorities and a provincial authority for specialized care.
The core review was hunting for anything government could stop doing.
And the Liberals were preparing a destructive treaty referendum, which they almost immediately repudiated.
Now, the health authorities are being pushed to find up to $320 million in spending cuts. That's before the next round of cost control to deal with the faulty budget numbers. Another re-org is also rumoured. And Kevin Falcon is the new health minister. Falcon is underestimated; his willingness to say what he thinks should get more credit. But he brings a bulldozer history to a ministry where problems are often best faced with a scalpel.
And once again, something much like the core review is under way. The main order of business for new ministers, said Campbell, is looking for savings. Rich Coleman has cancelled, at least so far, a program that allowed poor and disabled children to go to summer camp to save about $365,000. Shameful, and an indication of how deep the coming cuts will go.
Instead of a referendum aimed, hopelessly and irrelevantly, at curtailing First Nation rights, Campbell is embarked on a dramatic - "seismic" - effort to recognize them and enshrine co-government and shared decision-making and revenue.
It's an effective tactic. If you want to make big changes in any setting, create a crisis. People become more willing to accept disruption, lost services and haste. Those opposed to any policy are overwhelmed by the flood of changes.
For example, the coming Recognition and Reconciliation Act, redefining relations with First Nations, would be a tough sell in normal times. (I'll look at it a subsequent column.)
For everyone - First Nations, business, non-aboriginals, municipalities - the act means big changes. And aboriginal, business, municipal representatives are nervous about this deal, basically reached behind closed doors.
But, as with the forgotten treaty referendum, the government is pressing ahead.
There are a few big differences between now and 2001. The fiscal pressures haven't been created by tax cuts; the economic is real.
There aren't just two opposition MLAs this time to try and keep track of the sweeping changes. The New Democrats have a chance to help make sure the public gets a chance to consider the impact of cuts and changes. That didn't happen in the Liberals' first years.
Nor do the Liberals have the same mandate. About 46 per cent of voters supported the party, down from 58 per cent in 2001. A majority of voters wanted another party in power.
But our system has somehow turned into a winner-takes-all event. We elect, more or less, a dictator for four years and then get to decide how we feel about the results.
Expect wild times, much more like the Liberals' first years after the 2001 election than their second term.
Footnote: Campbell has promised a revised budget Sept. 1. The next financial news will come in mid-July, when the auditor general releases the final numbers for the fiscal year that ended on March 31.
Speculation, of course. Gordon Campbell and company are not chatty about their intentions.
But the signs are there. In 2001, the Liberals blindly cut taxes by 25 per cent and then set out to shrink government to make up the $1.2-billion in lost revenue.
This time, the shortfall will be much greater. Instead of tax cuts, overly optimistic revenue projections will be the cause. Economic growth, natural gas prices, housing starts - the budget over-estimated them all.
Campbell still says the deficit this year will be close to the $495 million in the budget. That number relied on spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries.
Now another $1 billion or more in savings are needed.
It sets the stage for a repeat of the 18 months following the 2001, when the Liberals rolled out massive change.
In health, for example, the government created five regional health authorities and a provincial authority for specialized care.
The core review was hunting for anything government could stop doing.
And the Liberals were preparing a destructive treaty referendum, which they almost immediately repudiated.
Now, the health authorities are being pushed to find up to $320 million in spending cuts. That's before the next round of cost control to deal with the faulty budget numbers. Another re-org is also rumoured. And Kevin Falcon is the new health minister. Falcon is underestimated; his willingness to say what he thinks should get more credit. But he brings a bulldozer history to a ministry where problems are often best faced with a scalpel.
And once again, something much like the core review is under way. The main order of business for new ministers, said Campbell, is looking for savings. Rich Coleman has cancelled, at least so far, a program that allowed poor and disabled children to go to summer camp to save about $365,000. Shameful, and an indication of how deep the coming cuts will go.
Instead of a referendum aimed, hopelessly and irrelevantly, at curtailing First Nation rights, Campbell is embarked on a dramatic - "seismic" - effort to recognize them and enshrine co-government and shared decision-making and revenue.
It's an effective tactic. If you want to make big changes in any setting, create a crisis. People become more willing to accept disruption, lost services and haste. Those opposed to any policy are overwhelmed by the flood of changes.
For example, the coming Recognition and Reconciliation Act, redefining relations with First Nations, would be a tough sell in normal times. (I'll look at it a subsequent column.)
For everyone - First Nations, business, non-aboriginals, municipalities - the act means big changes. And aboriginal, business, municipal representatives are nervous about this deal, basically reached behind closed doors.
But, as with the forgotten treaty referendum, the government is pressing ahead.
There are a few big differences between now and 2001. The fiscal pressures haven't been created by tax cuts; the economic is real.
There aren't just two opposition MLAs this time to try and keep track of the sweeping changes. The New Democrats have a chance to help make sure the public gets a chance to consider the impact of cuts and changes. That didn't happen in the Liberals' first years.
Nor do the Liberals have the same mandate. About 46 per cent of voters supported the party, down from 58 per cent in 2001. A majority of voters wanted another party in power.
But our system has somehow turned into a winner-takes-all event. We elect, more or less, a dictator for four years and then get to decide how we feel about the results.
Expect wild times, much more like the Liberals' first years after the 2001 election than their second term.
Footnote: Campbell has promised a revised budget Sept. 1. The next financial news will come in mid-July, when the auditor general releases the final numbers for the fiscal year that ended on March 31.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
New faces get big roles in big cabinet
Governing must be harder than it looks from the outside.
Back in 1996, then opposition leader Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat's 18-person cabinet was way too big - bloated, expensive and out of touch. The Liberal platform promised no more than 12 ministers in cabinet.
That was then. This week, Campbell appointed a 25-member cabinet (including himself). The Liberals only have 49 MLAs; more than half of them are now cabinet ministers. By the time various committee jobs and other posts are handed out, almost everyone should get a little recognition - and extra money.
There were no huge shocks, but some chaåçnges were significant.
Campbell dumped four ministers - Linda Reid, John van Dongen, Gordon Hogg and Joan McIntyre.
That made room for some new faces, including a couple of brand new MLAs thrust into high-profile jobs.
Kash Heed, the former West Vancouver police chief, steps in as solicitor general, responsible for crime, gambling enforcement, ICBC and the coroners. Given concerns about gang violence and RCMP accountability - and Heed's support for regional policing - it is a place he could shine.
Margaret MacDiarmid , another Vancouver rookie, gets education. But she's far from a neophyte. A doctor, MacDiarmid was the B.C. Medical Association president in 2006-7. That meant a lot of work with government. She still faces a tough challenge, as school districts cope with underfunding.
Steve Thomson, a highly respected newcomer from the Okanagan, gets agriculture and lands.
In total, there will be nine new faces around the cabinet table, including seven elected for the first time last month.
The biggest promotion - sort of - went to Langley's Mary Polak, who went from health living to the ministry of children and families. Polak has been typecast, inaccurately, as a hardcore social conservative. But she still faces an immense challenge dealing with a ministry that continues to struggle and faces big money problems. Its budget is projected to grow at less than one per cent a year, as demand rises.
The other minister facing a huge challenge is Kevin Falcon, who goes from transportation to health. Falcon is underestimated. He's not one of cabinet's deep thinkers, but he has shown an ability to set a goal and plow toward it. But health, like children and families, faces big budget problems - health authorities have are looking for ways to comply with a provincial edict to help cut $320 million in spending. And Falcon's partisan approach could backfire when the issue becomes waits for hip replacement or long-term care.
George Abbott, his predecessor in health, gets aboriginal affairs. The issue will be a focus of the government, especially with its new recognition and reconciliation act. But the effort is being driven from the premier's office.
And Shirley Bond goes from education to transportation. Perhaps a Prince George MLA in the job will mean more attention to issues outside the Lower Mainland. Or perhaps not.
Three key ministers stay put. Pat Bell remains in forests. He was only appointed a year ago, but so far has not made much of a mark.
Rich Coleman keeps housing and social development. He seems keen on housing; but less so on the problems for people on - or unable to get - the dismal welfare payments.
And Colin Hansen - an eerily competent minister most of the time - stays in finance.
You do wonder about some of the jobs. Does B.C. really need both a minister of healthy living and sport and a minister for the Olympics and ActNow B.C., which promotes healthy living and sport? Or a minister for climate action, or intergovernmental relations?
But cabinet posts keep MLAs happy and loyal. And who knows, perhaps the new ministers - especially those just elected - will bring a fresh attitude and frankness to cabinet meetings.
That hasn't happened in the past - at least based on the Liberal experiment with open meetings - but you can hope.
Footnote: Cabinet ministers get an extra $50,000 on top of the $100,000 MLAs are paid. But it's not about the money for most. They get access to the premier and staff to walk them to meetings and arrange their days and a chance to feel they're making a difference. They are the cool kids, which is powerful given their nerd roots.
Back in 1996, then opposition leader Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat's 18-person cabinet was way too big - bloated, expensive and out of touch. The Liberal platform promised no more than 12 ministers in cabinet.
That was then. This week, Campbell appointed a 25-member cabinet (including himself). The Liberals only have 49 MLAs; more than half of them are now cabinet ministers. By the time various committee jobs and other posts are handed out, almost everyone should get a little recognition - and extra money.
There were no huge shocks, but some chaåçnges were significant.
Campbell dumped four ministers - Linda Reid, John van Dongen, Gordon Hogg and Joan McIntyre.
That made room for some new faces, including a couple of brand new MLAs thrust into high-profile jobs.
Kash Heed, the former West Vancouver police chief, steps in as solicitor general, responsible for crime, gambling enforcement, ICBC and the coroners. Given concerns about gang violence and RCMP accountability - and Heed's support for regional policing - it is a place he could shine.
Margaret MacDiarmid , another Vancouver rookie, gets education. But she's far from a neophyte. A doctor, MacDiarmid was the B.C. Medical Association president in 2006-7. That meant a lot of work with government. She still faces a tough challenge, as school districts cope with underfunding.
Steve Thomson, a highly respected newcomer from the Okanagan, gets agriculture and lands.
In total, there will be nine new faces around the cabinet table, including seven elected for the first time last month.
The biggest promotion - sort of - went to Langley's Mary Polak, who went from health living to the ministry of children and families. Polak has been typecast, inaccurately, as a hardcore social conservative. But she still faces an immense challenge dealing with a ministry that continues to struggle and faces big money problems. Its budget is projected to grow at less than one per cent a year, as demand rises.
The other minister facing a huge challenge is Kevin Falcon, who goes from transportation to health. Falcon is underestimated. He's not one of cabinet's deep thinkers, but he has shown an ability to set a goal and plow toward it. But health, like children and families, faces big budget problems - health authorities have are looking for ways to comply with a provincial edict to help cut $320 million in spending. And Falcon's partisan approach could backfire when the issue becomes waits for hip replacement or long-term care.
George Abbott, his predecessor in health, gets aboriginal affairs. The issue will be a focus of the government, especially with its new recognition and reconciliation act. But the effort is being driven from the premier's office.
And Shirley Bond goes from education to transportation. Perhaps a Prince George MLA in the job will mean more attention to issues outside the Lower Mainland. Or perhaps not.
Three key ministers stay put. Pat Bell remains in forests. He was only appointed a year ago, but so far has not made much of a mark.
Rich Coleman keeps housing and social development. He seems keen on housing; but less so on the problems for people on - or unable to get - the dismal welfare payments.
And Colin Hansen - an eerily competent minister most of the time - stays in finance.
You do wonder about some of the jobs. Does B.C. really need both a minister of healthy living and sport and a minister for the Olympics and ActNow B.C., which promotes healthy living and sport? Or a minister for climate action, or intergovernmental relations?
But cabinet posts keep MLAs happy and loyal. And who knows, perhaps the new ministers - especially those just elected - will bring a fresh attitude and frankness to cabinet meetings.
That hasn't happened in the past - at least based on the Liberal experiment with open meetings - but you can hope.
Footnote: Cabinet ministers get an extra $50,000 on top of the $100,000 MLAs are paid. But it's not about the money for most. They get access to the premier and staff to walk them to meetings and arrange their days and a chance to feel they're making a difference. They are the cool kids, which is powerful given their nerd roots.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
It's pay the tax you want day, says Catalyst
Property taxes are too high, complains Catalyst Paper Corp. (Like a lot of big industrial taxpayers in communities across B.C.)
Can't pay, won't pay, the corporation insists, to quote Italian playwright Dario Fo.
Instead, Catalyst's president says it will write cheques to four B.C. municipalities based on what it has decided its taxes should be, based on services used.
And that's about one-quarter the tax the municipalities - Campbell River, Port Alberni, Powell River and North Cowichan - have been receiving.
Catalyst says it's willing to pay $1.5 million in Campbell River. Its actual tax bill is $4.6 million, down 10 per cent from last year.
That would leave the municipality $3.1 million short this year, with two solutions. It could raises taxes 20 per cent for residents and small business to make up the difference. Or it could start laying off staff and cutting services for residents.
And Campbell River is in relatively goååçod shape. North Cowichan residents would face a 70-per-cent tax increase to make up the amount Catalyst has decided not to pay.
Catalyst is playing rough. If the municipalities don't go along, the company says it will close one of the four mills, based on tax rates and the willingness of the union local to accept concessions.
It's also challenging the tax levies in B.C. Supreme Court under the Local Government Act, arguing the taxes are "unreasonable." (That actually might be good news for the municipalities. The section of the act the company is relying on says that taxes or fees must be paid even if they are being challenged.)
This isn't really about Catalyst. It's about the end of B.C's. first 150 years. The colony, and then province, has offered extraordinary riches. Big trees, easy to get from the woods and highly sought after. Gold, coal, energy. A lot of buyers and not too many competitors. And money for everyone - owners, companies, employees and towns.
Times have changed, and the adjustments are wrenching - and mostly unhappy.
The mill and mine owners weren't just being kindly when they took on a big share of municipal costs. They needed employees and wanted a stable workforce, which meant families had to be lured. Paying taxes for an arena and policing and parks created the kind of community that ensured a stable workforce. The companies had the money, in those days. And there was even some goodwill and social responsibility involved.
Now, Catalyst looks at competitors in other places paying one-tenth as much in taxes and decides its responsibility to shareholders comes first.
There's no easy good guy/bad guy choice in all this. Industries have a legitimate grievance. Municipalities have been trying to address the issue - they have cut the company's taxes by a combined 11 per cent this year, after several of tax cuts.
This isn't a new issue. More than three years ago, the B.C. Competition Council - chaired by former NDP premier Dan Miller - said industrial taxes were putting operations at risk of closure. It called for a 50-per-cent cut. (Catalyst is proposing a 75-per-cent cut.) The Premier's Progress Board has raised similar concerns.
But the province hasn't acted on the warnings. (Rich Coleman suggested towns across B.C. should cut spending to reduce the industrial tax burden.)
Catalyst and the municipal governments agree on one thing - the provincial government should be involved in this dispute.
Catalyst acknowledges the municipalities would be in big trouble if it didn't pay its tax bills. It says the province should provide several years of transitional funding to allow them to cut services or shift the costs onto other taxpayers.
That too has risks, especially if this is to be repeated across the province.
But the current deadlock is destructive for everyone involved.
It's time for the provincial government to get off its hands and lead.
Footnote: The Liberals' lack of interest in the issue could be strategic - staying out of the negotiations creates a pressure on Catalyst and the municipalities to compromise. Or principled - letting the market decide on business and jobs survival. Or lack of interest.
Can't pay, won't pay, the corporation insists, to quote Italian playwright Dario Fo.
Instead, Catalyst's president says it will write cheques to four B.C. municipalities based on what it has decided its taxes should be, based on services used.
And that's about one-quarter the tax the municipalities - Campbell River, Port Alberni, Powell River and North Cowichan - have been receiving.
Catalyst says it's willing to pay $1.5 million in Campbell River. Its actual tax bill is $4.6 million, down 10 per cent from last year.
That would leave the municipality $3.1 million short this year, with two solutions. It could raises taxes 20 per cent for residents and small business to make up the difference. Or it could start laying off staff and cutting services for residents.
And Campbell River is in relatively goååçod shape. North Cowichan residents would face a 70-per-cent tax increase to make up the amount Catalyst has decided not to pay.
Catalyst is playing rough. If the municipalities don't go along, the company says it will close one of the four mills, based on tax rates and the willingness of the union local to accept concessions.
It's also challenging the tax levies in B.C. Supreme Court under the Local Government Act, arguing the taxes are "unreasonable." (That actually might be good news for the municipalities. The section of the act the company is relying on says that taxes or fees must be paid even if they are being challenged.)
This isn't really about Catalyst. It's about the end of B.C's. first 150 years. The colony, and then province, has offered extraordinary riches. Big trees, easy to get from the woods and highly sought after. Gold, coal, energy. A lot of buyers and not too many competitors. And money for everyone - owners, companies, employees and towns.
Times have changed, and the adjustments are wrenching - and mostly unhappy.
The mill and mine owners weren't just being kindly when they took on a big share of municipal costs. They needed employees and wanted a stable workforce, which meant families had to be lured. Paying taxes for an arena and policing and parks created the kind of community that ensured a stable workforce. The companies had the money, in those days. And there was even some goodwill and social responsibility involved.
Now, Catalyst looks at competitors in other places paying one-tenth as much in taxes and decides its responsibility to shareholders comes first.
There's no easy good guy/bad guy choice in all this. Industries have a legitimate grievance. Municipalities have been trying to address the issue - they have cut the company's taxes by a combined 11 per cent this year, after several of tax cuts.
This isn't a new issue. More than three years ago, the B.C. Competition Council - chaired by former NDP premier Dan Miller - said industrial taxes were putting operations at risk of closure. It called for a 50-per-cent cut. (Catalyst is proposing a 75-per-cent cut.) The Premier's Progress Board has raised similar concerns.
But the province hasn't acted on the warnings. (Rich Coleman suggested towns across B.C. should cut spending to reduce the industrial tax burden.)
Catalyst and the municipal governments agree on one thing - the provincial government should be involved in this dispute.
Catalyst acknowledges the municipalities would be in big trouble if it didn't pay its tax bills. It says the province should provide several years of transitional funding to allow them to cut services or shift the costs onto other taxpayers.
That too has risks, especially if this is to be repeated across the province.
But the current deadlock is destructive for everyone involved.
It's time for the provincial government to get off its hands and lead.
Footnote: The Liberals' lack of interest in the issue could be strategic - staying out of the negotiations creates a pressure on Catalyst and the municipalities to compromise. Or principled - letting the market decide on business and jobs survival. Or lack of interest.
Monday, June 08, 2009
An optimistic view of newspapers' future
Leaving aside the personal vested interest, I'd argue the future of newspapers, journalism and community are all closely linked.
The industry is struggling to come up with a working business model, as they say. If it can't, who will pay for people to spend their days gathering news and information? There's a ready market for specialized information - companies and individuals will pay significant money for corporate news or updates on legal judgments.
But it's much less clear who will pay for reporters to sit in Victoria courts or cover health authority issues or even report on provincial politics. (The point, for now, is not how well the existing commercial media are doing the job. It's whether anyone will do it.)
And without that reporting to provide a common starting point for communities, what will happen to then. Back in my early days in newspapers, the small daily I worked for was read by more than 70 per cent of adults each day. If we did a decent job on an issue, people had a shared base of information and were motivated to talk about it at work or over the back fence.
Today, about 40 per cent of residents read that paper each day. So where is the common concerns and starting point for considering issues?
Which leads, in a rambling way, to an interesting piece in The Tyee on Glacier Media, a newspaper operator with significant B.C. holdings that sees a future.
The industry is struggling to come up with a working business model, as they say. If it can't, who will pay for people to spend their days gathering news and information? There's a ready market for specialized information - companies and individuals will pay significant money for corporate news or updates on legal judgments.
But it's much less clear who will pay for reporters to sit in Victoria courts or cover health authority issues or even report on provincial politics. (The point, for now, is not how well the existing commercial media are doing the job. It's whether anyone will do it.)
And without that reporting to provide a common starting point for communities, what will happen to then. Back in my early days in newspapers, the small daily I worked for was read by more than 70 per cent of adults each day. If we did a decent job on an issue, people had a shared base of information and were motivated to talk about it at work or over the back fence.
Today, about 40 per cent of residents read that paper each day. So where is the common concerns and starting point for considering issues?
Which leads, in a rambling way, to an interesting piece in The Tyee on Glacier Media, a newspaper operator with significant B.C. holdings that sees a future.
Friday, June 05, 2009
B.C. worst for child poverty for sixth year
The good news is that fewer B.C. kids were living in poverty in 2007.
The bad news is that the “Best Place on Earth” has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, according to Statistics Canada.
Worse, perhaps, is the fact that despite six consecutive years of that dismal distinction, poor children — children generally — weren’t mentioned much in the provincial election campaign.
That bothered Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislature’s Representative for Children and Youth. Turpel-Lafond, the first representative appointed after Ted Hughes’ damning report called for an advocate and watchdog for children and families, was hoping for more.
“I was quite disappointed with the fact that the situation for children was not a central issue,” said Turpel-Lafond. It’s not just child poverty, she noted. There are also the grim stats for aboriginal children, on indicators from health to education to their over-representation in government care, and a list of other issues.
Instead, Turpel-Lafond said the campaign seemed to focus on the leaders’ personalities, with a nod to the economy and the environment as issues.
Based on her travels and contacts with British Columbians, Turpel-Lafond says the politicians are out of touch. The public cares about issues affecting children and expects non-partisan action.
That’s what she’s hoping for the new session. The representative reports to a legislative committee, which was supposed to be working for children and youth but too often bogged down in politics — “The government side was there to defend and the opposition side was there to attack.” She’s hoping all MLAs — especially the chair and vice-chair — will set aside past differences.
The need for effective action is greater now. Turpel-Lafond says the situation for children has deteriorated with the economy. Services like legal aid and family court are underfunded and demand is mounting.
But often, she says, the focus seems to be on managing the way the public views issues rather than actually tackling the problems.
There’s another risk as government looks at spending cuts to reduce a deficit soaring far beyond the budgeted $495 million. The Ministry of Children and Families was to get a 1.8 per cent budget increase to cover this year and the next two. Not 1.8 per cent a year; that’s the total increase over three years to cope with increasing caseloads and rising costs.
“The bottom line is when you cut services and programs there is one group affected more than anybody — poor people,” Turpel-Lafond says. “Poor kids get hurt.”
Which leads back to child poverty. If you want to predict children’s futures, don’t look at IQ, where they were born, age of parents, gender, race or any other factors.
Look at family income. Poor kids start in a deep hole.
You can have an interesting debate about how to define poor or low income. Statistics Canada uses the low-income cutoff (LICO). If a family spends more than 70 per cent of its pre-tax income on shelter, food and clothing, it is low income.
On average, an urban Canadian family of four with a total pre-tax income of less than $40,000 is considered low income. That’s two parents, working full-time at $10.25 an hour. Which sounds poor to me.
Across Canada, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children do. Since 2001, B.C. has had a higher proportion of children living in poverty than any other province.
That was through, for the most part, pretty good times. As the economy worsens, more and more children fall into poverty.
Yet the provincial government has no plan specifically aimed at reducing child poverty. There are no targets or timelines or accountability measures.
Turpel-Lafond says there is nothing mysterious or magical about improving life for children in B.C. “We know what to do, we just aren’t doing it.”
The needs are greater than ever before. We’ll know in the next few months how seriously the government takes its responsibility.
Footnote: The representative’s role, as recommended by Hughes, includes monitoring and reporting on the ministry’s progress. The next update is due soon.
The impression from outside is that the ministry continues to struggle; the report should provide a decent briefing paper for whoever succeeds the retired Tom Christensen as minister — the fifth person to hold the job since the Liberals were elected.
The bad news is that the “Best Place on Earth” has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, according to Statistics Canada.
Worse, perhaps, is the fact that despite six consecutive years of that dismal distinction, poor children — children generally — weren’t mentioned much in the provincial election campaign.
That bothered Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislature’s Representative for Children and Youth. Turpel-Lafond, the first representative appointed after Ted Hughes’ damning report called for an advocate and watchdog for children and families, was hoping for more.
“I was quite disappointed with the fact that the situation for children was not a central issue,” said Turpel-Lafond. It’s not just child poverty, she noted. There are also the grim stats for aboriginal children, on indicators from health to education to their over-representation in government care, and a list of other issues.
Instead, Turpel-Lafond said the campaign seemed to focus on the leaders’ personalities, with a nod to the economy and the environment as issues.
Based on her travels and contacts with British Columbians, Turpel-Lafond says the politicians are out of touch. The public cares about issues affecting children and expects non-partisan action.
That’s what she’s hoping for the new session. The representative reports to a legislative committee, which was supposed to be working for children and youth but too often bogged down in politics — “The government side was there to defend and the opposition side was there to attack.” She’s hoping all MLAs — especially the chair and vice-chair — will set aside past differences.
The need for effective action is greater now. Turpel-Lafond says the situation for children has deteriorated with the economy. Services like legal aid and family court are underfunded and demand is mounting.
But often, she says, the focus seems to be on managing the way the public views issues rather than actually tackling the problems.
There’s another risk as government looks at spending cuts to reduce a deficit soaring far beyond the budgeted $495 million. The Ministry of Children and Families was to get a 1.8 per cent budget increase to cover this year and the next two. Not 1.8 per cent a year; that’s the total increase over three years to cope with increasing caseloads and rising costs.
“The bottom line is when you cut services and programs there is one group affected more than anybody — poor people,” Turpel-Lafond says. “Poor kids get hurt.”
Which leads back to child poverty. If you want to predict children’s futures, don’t look at IQ, where they were born, age of parents, gender, race or any other factors.
Look at family income. Poor kids start in a deep hole.
You can have an interesting debate about how to define poor or low income. Statistics Canada uses the low-income cutoff (LICO). If a family spends more than 70 per cent of its pre-tax income on shelter, food and clothing, it is low income.
On average, an urban Canadian family of four with a total pre-tax income of less than $40,000 is considered low income. That’s two parents, working full-time at $10.25 an hour. Which sounds poor to me.
Across Canada, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children do. Since 2001, B.C. has had a higher proportion of children living in poverty than any other province.
That was through, for the most part, pretty good times. As the economy worsens, more and more children fall into poverty.
Yet the provincial government has no plan specifically aimed at reducing child poverty. There are no targets or timelines or accountability measures.
Turpel-Lafond says there is nothing mysterious or magical about improving life for children in B.C. “We know what to do, we just aren’t doing it.”
The needs are greater than ever before. We’ll know in the next few months how seriously the government takes its responsibility.
Footnote: The representative’s role, as recommended by Hughes, includes monitoring and reporting on the ministry’s progress. The next update is due soon.
The impression from outside is that the ministry continues to struggle; the report should provide a decent briefing paper for whoever succeeds the retired Tom Christensen as minister — the fifth person to hold the job since the Liberals were elected.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Welfare too low, Campbell says, but no action promised
Gordon Campbell has discovered that the province's low welfare rates are hurting people and communities.
A bit late, in terms of the poverty problem in the province, but still welcome.
Or it would be, if there was a clearer sense that the government is prepared to do something about it.
Campbell's epiphany has come as more and more British Columbians are being thrown out of work. They are either unable to access employment insurance benefits or have used up their benefits.
The next step, for those who qualify, is welfare.
Campbell is pressing the federal government for two main reforms to employment insurance. Most attention was paid to his call for a uniform standard across Canada. Right now, people in high unemployment areas can get benefits after fewer weeks of work and for longer periods than those who lose their jobs in low unemployment areas. A laid-off forestry worker on north Vancouver Island, for example, can collect benefits for up to 47 weeks. In Victoria, benefits last 43 weeks. In Cape Breton, 50 weeks. The number of weeks required to earn eligibility are also lower in areas where unemployment is greater.
That's wrong, says Campbell, especially now. There is no place in Canada where it's an easy matter to find new work. Treatment should be equal. Some regions would lose, and some gain, under a standardized system.
But Campbell went farther in his pitch for change.
It's important to head off a flood of out-of-work people falling on to welfare, he said. The federal government should reach a deal with B.C. The province will send chip in what it would have spent on welfare on each person; the federal government should add money to that and keep them on employment insurance for up to two years.
Why? Campbell made the case in an op-ed column in The Globe and Mail.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
He's right. An employable single mom with two school-age children on welfare receives about $650 a month, plus up to $660 for accommodation. (Where can a family of three live in this region for $660 in rent?) That's $150 a week for food, clothes, transportation, birthdays, everything for three people.
But Campbell's government has maintained this is adequate and touted successful efforts to help some people find work.
Now, he's not sure.
"The reality is that as long as a worker is on EI, they tend to have more hope about their eventual job prospects and the temporary nature of their predicament," he wrote. "Many workers are now faced with the reality or prospect of exhausting their EI benefits - and they're scared."
And what they're scared of is a "bleak" financial future and the chance they will "wind up on welfare."
Campbell is right about the bleakness and hopelessness of life for many, or most, welfare recipients in B.C.
And his bid to try and get the federal government to top up welfare payments, at least for new recipients, is worth a try. The Harper Conservatives have proven willing to step up with taxpayers' dollars to meet regional deeds, as the automakers' bailouts have shown.
But, as Campbell points out, there is only one taxpayer, whether the money comes from the federal or provincial government.
The government has kept rates low because a "bleak" existence was an incentive for diligent job hunts.
Campbell acknowledges diligence isn't enough right now. It's hard to see a justification for deciding some unemployed people deserve additional income, while leaving others to suffer under income assistance rates the government acknowledges are destructive.
Footnote: It's a bold move for Campbell, who has followed a policy of playing nice with whoever is prime minister. Further EI changes have been rejected by Harper and supported by the federal Liberals. The B.C. government's bid for reform and additional benefits is bound to strain relationships at least a little.
A bit late, in terms of the poverty problem in the province, but still welcome.
Or it would be, if there was a clearer sense that the government is prepared to do something about it.
Campbell's epiphany has come as more and more British Columbians are being thrown out of work. They are either unable to access employment insurance benefits or have used up their benefits.
The next step, for those who qualify, is welfare.
Campbell is pressing the federal government for two main reforms to employment insurance. Most attention was paid to his call for a uniform standard across Canada. Right now, people in high unemployment areas can get benefits after fewer weeks of work and for longer periods than those who lose their jobs in low unemployment areas. A laid-off forestry worker on north Vancouver Island, for example, can collect benefits for up to 47 weeks. In Victoria, benefits last 43 weeks. In Cape Breton, 50 weeks. The number of weeks required to earn eligibility are also lower in areas where unemployment is greater.
That's wrong, says Campbell, especially now. There is no place in Canada where it's an easy matter to find new work. Treatment should be equal. Some regions would lose, and some gain, under a standardized system.
But Campbell went farther in his pitch for change.
It's important to head off a flood of out-of-work people falling on to welfare, he said. The federal government should reach a deal with B.C. The province will send chip in what it would have spent on welfare on each person; the federal government should add money to that and keep them on employment insurance for up to two years.
Why? Campbell made the case in an op-ed column in The Globe and Mail.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
He's right. An employable single mom with two school-age children on welfare receives about $650 a month, plus up to $660 for accommodation. (Where can a family of three live in this region for $660 in rent?) That's $150 a week for food, clothes, transportation, birthdays, everything for three people.
But Campbell's government has maintained this is adequate and touted successful efforts to help some people find work.
Now, he's not sure.
"The reality is that as long as a worker is on EI, they tend to have more hope about their eventual job prospects and the temporary nature of their predicament," he wrote. "Many workers are now faced with the reality or prospect of exhausting their EI benefits - and they're scared."
And what they're scared of is a "bleak" financial future and the chance they will "wind up on welfare."
Campbell is right about the bleakness and hopelessness of life for many, or most, welfare recipients in B.C.
And his bid to try and get the federal government to top up welfare payments, at least for new recipients, is worth a try. The Harper Conservatives have proven willing to step up with taxpayers' dollars to meet regional deeds, as the automakers' bailouts have shown.
But, as Campbell points out, there is only one taxpayer, whether the money comes from the federal or provincial government.
The government has kept rates low because a "bleak" existence was an incentive for diligent job hunts.
Campbell acknowledges diligence isn't enough right now. It's hard to see a justification for deciding some unemployed people deserve additional income, while leaving others to suffer under income assistance rates the government acknowledges are destructive.
Footnote: It's a bold move for Campbell, who has followed a policy of playing nice with whoever is prime minister. Further EI changes have been rejected by Harper and supported by the federal Liberals. The B.C. government's bid for reform and additional benefits is bound to strain relationships at least a little.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Oppal’s defeat, independent MLA a chance for progress
It’s good news that Wally Oppal was defeated in Delta South, at least barring a new result from a judicial recount. That sounds harsh, I suppose. Oppal is pleasant. His reputation as a judge and in the community is good.
But he was an ineffective cabinet minister. After four years as attorney general, accomplishments are scant to non-existent. The list of unaddressed issues - gang violence, lobbyist legislation, FOI reform, court delays and costs - is long. Oppal often seemed out of touch, as if he hadn’t even read the summaries of reports that other ministers would pore over.
So, objectively, his departure from the scene isn’t really a bad thing. And the election of an independent MLA, that’s a great thing. Oppal lost to Vicki Huntington, the first independent elected in 60 years. The voters in Delta South - or 43 per cent of them - decided they didn’t want a representative tied to a party. They thought Huntington could represent them in the legislature, using her own good judgment.
It was a big slap at Gordon Campbell and the Liberals. In a 1999 byelection, at the NDP’s nadir, only 433 voters - one in 40 - supported the New Democrats. This should be a Liberal riding. But it wasn’t, despite a supposed star candidate. The election of Huntington is encouraging. No party leader or communications staffers will tell her what to do or say or how to vote. She only has to think about her constituents and her conscience. After a decade watching the legislature from the press gallery, that strikes me as a very fine thing.
MLAs are good people. That’s why they get elected, because the voters back in their ridings respect them and think they will do a good job representing them in the legislature.
And then they lose their minds. Not all of them, but most. They shout and heckle, like schoolyard goons, in question period. They reduce complex issues in the lives of the people who elected them to talking points. Huntington doesn’t have to do that. She can speak for the people in Delta South, not a political party.
The result is an aberration, admittedly. The people in Delta South feel profoundly betrayed by the Campbell Liberals. They’ve seen farmland lost, hospital problems, new highways and unwanted power lines. And their Liberal MLA, Val Roddick, has been perceived - in the classic description - as the party’s representative in the riding, not the community’s voice in Victoria.
It would be wonderful to have the most of the 85 MLAs in the legislature thinking about the people back in their ridings, not the other MLAs or the leaders’ offices or the communications staff and strategists.
That’s the chance Huntington has.
It will be challenging. The New Democrats and Liberals have caucus budgets. Huntington can expect to be shut out. It will be lonely, but liberating, to be outside the clubs.
And the main parties should respect the voters’ choice and ensure Huntington is called on in question period, gets committee assignments and has a full chance to do the job.
The results are a good wake-up call for the political parties. Delta South was supposed to be safe Liberal seat, especially with Oppal as the candidate. The voters disagreed. That’s good. The voters pay MLAs $100,000 a year. They are entitled to strong representation. If Roddick had been allowed to fill that role and represent constituents’ interests, especially on local issues, then Oppal would likely be preparing for a second term as attorney general today. Our system is based on parties and adherence to a set of share broad principles is required.
But that doesn’t need to mean that MLAs must shuffle along like zombies behind the party leaders.
It won’t be easy. But British Columbians should be rooting for Huntington. She has the chance to change politics for the better. F
ootnote: The pundits are predicting a tough time for Huntington as an independent and questioning her effectiveness outside a party. But there are many advantages in her position.
But he was an ineffective cabinet minister. After four years as attorney general, accomplishments are scant to non-existent. The list of unaddressed issues - gang violence, lobbyist legislation, FOI reform, court delays and costs - is long. Oppal often seemed out of touch, as if he hadn’t even read the summaries of reports that other ministers would pore over.
So, objectively, his departure from the scene isn’t really a bad thing. And the election of an independent MLA, that’s a great thing. Oppal lost to Vicki Huntington, the first independent elected in 60 years. The voters in Delta South - or 43 per cent of them - decided they didn’t want a representative tied to a party. They thought Huntington could represent them in the legislature, using her own good judgment.
It was a big slap at Gordon Campbell and the Liberals. In a 1999 byelection, at the NDP’s nadir, only 433 voters - one in 40 - supported the New Democrats. This should be a Liberal riding. But it wasn’t, despite a supposed star candidate. The election of Huntington is encouraging. No party leader or communications staffers will tell her what to do or say or how to vote. She only has to think about her constituents and her conscience. After a decade watching the legislature from the press gallery, that strikes me as a very fine thing.
MLAs are good people. That’s why they get elected, because the voters back in their ridings respect them and think they will do a good job representing them in the legislature.
And then they lose their minds. Not all of them, but most. They shout and heckle, like schoolyard goons, in question period. They reduce complex issues in the lives of the people who elected them to talking points. Huntington doesn’t have to do that. She can speak for the people in Delta South, not a political party.
The result is an aberration, admittedly. The people in Delta South feel profoundly betrayed by the Campbell Liberals. They’ve seen farmland lost, hospital problems, new highways and unwanted power lines. And their Liberal MLA, Val Roddick, has been perceived - in the classic description - as the party’s representative in the riding, not the community’s voice in Victoria.
It would be wonderful to have the most of the 85 MLAs in the legislature thinking about the people back in their ridings, not the other MLAs or the leaders’ offices or the communications staff and strategists.
That’s the chance Huntington has.
It will be challenging. The New Democrats and Liberals have caucus budgets. Huntington can expect to be shut out. It will be lonely, but liberating, to be outside the clubs.
And the main parties should respect the voters’ choice and ensure Huntington is called on in question period, gets committee assignments and has a full chance to do the job.
The results are a good wake-up call for the political parties. Delta South was supposed to be safe Liberal seat, especially with Oppal as the candidate. The voters disagreed. That’s good. The voters pay MLAs $100,000 a year. They are entitled to strong representation. If Roddick had been allowed to fill that role and represent constituents’ interests, especially on local issues, then Oppal would likely be preparing for a second term as attorney general today. Our system is based on parties and adherence to a set of share broad principles is required.
But that doesn’t need to mean that MLAs must shuffle along like zombies behind the party leaders.
It won’t be easy. But British Columbians should be rooting for Huntington. She has the chance to change politics for the better. F
ootnote: The pundits are predicting a tough time for Huntington as an independent and questioning her effectiveness outside a party. But there are many advantages in her position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
