I headed into the local hospital for a quick day treatment in a clinic last week.
Two doctors were waiting to see a cluster of us. But the nurse who usually worked that clinic room was on holidays, which had been scheduled for some time.
The hospital hadn't arranged a replacement nurse. One doctor decided he couldn't work without nurse support. So half the patients were sent home to be scheduled for an appointment in another month or two.
That's a good example of the kind of problem the government hopes to fix with "patient-focused funding."
It makes sense. Now, the Health Ministry sets a budget and provides funds for the health authority. The authority allocates the money to different services, including hospitals, and decides how many surgeries, for example, it can do with the cash.
So there are no consequences for cancelling treatments because someone in the hospital didn't arrange a replacement nurse. The patients still have to come back. The hospital doesn't lose any funding.
Under patient-focused funding, that changes. The government holds back more of the block funding it once sent to health authorities. Hospitals and health authorities get paid a set amount per treatment on a per-patient basis.
Under that approach, the failure to get a nurse would be costly. Those cancelled treatments would mean lost revenue. So there would be an incentive to solve the problem.
Just as there would be an incentive to do things faster and at less cost, bringing in more revenue.
A hospital might decide to set up two adjacent operating rooms to do the same procedure, for example. While one patient is being operated on, another can be prepped for surgery. As soon as they're done, the teams switch places and the process starts again.
That would mean lower costs per patient. If the government were paying a set fee, the hospital or authority would have extra money for other projects.
It could even ask hospitals to bid for right to provide hip surgeries, for example, and pick the most cost-efficient.
There are catches, of course. The most obvious is the risk that corners will be cut. The B.C. Medical Association supports the idea, but wants safeguards to make sure cheap and fast doesn't take priority over patients' health and safety.
And the incentives, so far, aren't individual. It's hard to say if the person who didn't line up a replacement nurse would be motivated to act differently by the promise that the hospital would get more money as a result.
The bigger problem is likely that there are no real rewards for success.
The government is still rationing services. So even if a hospital is brilliant at some surgery, getting better results at a much lower cost, the Health Ministry will tell it to stop when the quota is done for the year.
Everyone involved can do great work, with no real reward.
There are solutions. The government, for example, could provide guarantees to medical service plan clients. Hip surgery in six months, or we fly to you to Seattle for the operation and pick up all the bills. Hospitals would know it was worth getting really good at hip replacement, because the ministry wouldn't want to fly patients to the U.S.
The whole initiative is just getting going. The government has set up a Health Services Purchasing Organization, headed by Dr. Les Vertesi (who is also Gordon Campbell's brother-in-law) to manage the process and is looking to have a large share of health spending managed this way.
By next year, the government hopes about $170 million will be taken out of health authority budgets to be spent by the purchasing organization.
There is another issue in all this, large enough to warrant a second column. Vertesi has been a strong advocate of a allowing a private health care alternative for people who can pay more for speedier treatment. And the patient-focused funding, Health Minister Kevin Falcon, could be used to buy services from private clinics.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does raise some serious questions, which I will look at in a future column.
Footnote: Falcon announced an extra $23 million in "patient-focused funding" for tests and surgeries. Up to 33,000 patients would benefit, he said. Which means the $800,000 the government spent on the pro-HST flyer it tossed in the garbage would have helped 1,150 patients on waiting lists.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Honouring Sindi Hawkins
Former Liberal MLA Sindi Hawkins died today after a long battle with cancer, which she turned into an opportunity to raise awareness and money for cancer research and treatment.
Hawkins was a genuine, nice, funny, smart person. She greeted everyone - Liberals, New Democrats, journalists, janitors - with warmth and interest and respect.
She was a sharp and effective health critic when the Liberals were in opposition. But not a jerk or a critic striving for cheap points. She raised real concerns.
After the 2001 election, a former New Democrat staffer noted, when the Liberals had a 77-2 majority and many of the victors were unkind, Hawkins was unfailingly polite and courteous to the opposition. After her first illness, her family cooked an Indian feast and served it at the legislature to thank the staff and politicians from all parties and journalists who had been rooting for her. It was a fine day
Her death is a loss. And it's a sad reminder that political life could be so much better. Sindi Hawkins showed politicians don't have to be foolishly partisan or constantly looking to score points. She showed you can disagree on policy while still respecting the person on the other side of the issue.
Imagine if all MLAs decided to honour Sindi Hawkins by emulating her grace, kindness, courtesy and commitment to the broad public good each time they stepped through the doors of the chamber.
Hawkins was a genuine, nice, funny, smart person. She greeted everyone - Liberals, New Democrats, journalists, janitors - with warmth and interest and respect.
She was a sharp and effective health critic when the Liberals were in opposition. But not a jerk or a critic striving for cheap points. She raised real concerns.
After the 2001 election, a former New Democrat staffer noted, when the Liberals had a 77-2 majority and many of the victors were unkind, Hawkins was unfailingly polite and courteous to the opposition. After her first illness, her family cooked an Indian feast and served it at the legislature to thank the staff and politicians from all parties and journalists who had been rooting for her. It was a fine day
Her death is a loss. And it's a sad reminder that political life could be so much better. Sindi Hawkins showed politicians don't have to be foolishly partisan or constantly looking to score points. She showed you can disagree on policy while still respecting the person on the other side of the issue.
Imagine if all MLAs decided to honour Sindi Hawkins by emulating her grace, kindness, courtesy and commitment to the broad public good each time they stepped through the doors of the chamber.
When did the government really decide to sell B.C. rail?
Interesting post (as is often the case) at pacificgazette.blogspot.com on the timing of the decision to sell B.C. Rail and, more specifically, on conflicts in the government's claims.
Then transportation minister Judith Reid insisted in the summer of 2002 that B.C. Rail would not be sold or privatized. But, pacificgazette notes here, former MLA Paul Nettleton says Gordon Campbell told him and the other Prince George MPs in February 2002 that the promise to maintain the railways as a Crown corporation would be broken.
Which is consistent with evidence at the B.C. rail corruption trial today that in January 2002 the Crown corporation executives were given rich severance agreements to kick in if the railway was sold.
Then transportation minister Judith Reid insisted in the summer of 2002 that B.C. Rail would not be sold or privatized. But, pacificgazette notes here, former MLA Paul Nettleton says Gordon Campbell told him and the other Prince George MPs in February 2002 that the promise to maintain the railways as a Crown corporation would be broken.
Which is consistent with evidence at the B.C. rail corruption trial today that in January 2002 the Crown corporation executives were given rich severance agreements to kick in if the railway was sold.
How Campbell can ease recall's sting
Recall campaigns are ugly.
The goal is to convince voters to fire an MLA. So campaigners talk about the rotten, incompetent person representing the voters in Victoria.
And it looks like we're into recall season.
Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight-HST crowd gave Gordon Campbell a choice this week.
Accept their proposals for how and when the HST referendum would be conducted or face three recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs in January, with an extra campaign launched every month after that.
It was all pretty clever. Vander Zalm even announced a Survivor-style competition for those ridings hoping to be the first to launch recall campaigns. The challenge is to sign up canvassers over the next eight weeks; ridings with the most participants launch recall campaigns first.
Even the five conditions the anti-HST campaigners set were crafted to place Campbell in a tight corner.
Two of the demands - to make the initiative binding and require only a simple majority vote to kill the tax - had already been accepted by Campbell last week in a surprise announcement. (The initiative legislation says the threshold is 50 per cent of all eligible voters, not just those who show up at the pools. Even then, he result isn't binding.)
The other three demands were tougher.
The Fight-HST People wanted the referendum held under some legally binding framework, like the Referendum Act, with spending limits and other safeguards.
They wanted the question to be drafted by Elections BC and approved by "both the government and Fight HST."
And they wanted the referendum held this year.
Pushy. But except for the timing, Fight HST isn't really out of line. Don't forget, the group succeeded in a petition process which was supposed to result in a vote next September on the bill to kill the HST that they had drafted. That's the law.
Now Campbell appears to be making up his own rules.
A little compromise and consensus is in order.
The Liberals certainly won't accept a vote this year. They hope time will ease the anger over the way the HST was introduced and let them convince people the tax is a good thing.
And they want the advantage of being able to draft the question.
But that doesn't mean they have to stand by passively as the recall campaigns are launched.
Recall efforts are damaging for the party in power. The biggest tactical recall effort was Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" which targeted all 40 New Democrat MLAs in 1999.
Falcon maintained he wasn't a Liberal then, though it came out that he had previously been paid about $800 a week by the Liberals on a six-week contract, campaigned in a Lower Mainland riding for the party and gave Campbell "speech ideas, but not complete speeches," as Mike Smyth wrote in the Vancouver Province.
Total Recall flopped. Falcon couldn't raise enough money.
But that didn't really matter. The New Democrats had to focus on the threat to MLAs and, as a result, paid less attention to governing.
Campbell won't accept the Fight-HST proposals. But he should address the underlying the issues.
The commitment to a simple majority and binding outcome needs some legislative backing. It's not enough for a premier, who might not be in the job a year from now, to make a promise he can't keep.
And Campbell can say now how the referendum question will be developed and when the public will see it.
He can also explain why the vote should wait until next September, rather than being held in March. If the HST is really important for investment, the uncertainty is hurting British Columbian. He's changing the rules around other aspects of the vote. Why prolong the pain?
Campbell can't likely stop the recall campaigns. But with the right responses, he can make life a lot easier for the targeted MLAs.
Footnote: To be successful, a recall campaign must collect signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters within a 60-day window. It's a high threshold, which has never been reached. (Although one campaign might have made it; the MLA resigned before the signatures were counted.)
But the anti-HST group starts with a battalion of volunteers and a strong base in most ridings.
The goal is to convince voters to fire an MLA. So campaigners talk about the rotten, incompetent person representing the voters in Victoria.
And it looks like we're into recall season.
Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight-HST crowd gave Gordon Campbell a choice this week.
Accept their proposals for how and when the HST referendum would be conducted or face three recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs in January, with an extra campaign launched every month after that.
It was all pretty clever. Vander Zalm even announced a Survivor-style competition for those ridings hoping to be the first to launch recall campaigns. The challenge is to sign up canvassers over the next eight weeks; ridings with the most participants launch recall campaigns first.
Even the five conditions the anti-HST campaigners set were crafted to place Campbell in a tight corner.
Two of the demands - to make the initiative binding and require only a simple majority vote to kill the tax - had already been accepted by Campbell last week in a surprise announcement. (The initiative legislation says the threshold is 50 per cent of all eligible voters, not just those who show up at the pools. Even then, he result isn't binding.)
The other three demands were tougher.
The Fight-HST People wanted the referendum held under some legally binding framework, like the Referendum Act, with spending limits and other safeguards.
They wanted the question to be drafted by Elections BC and approved by "both the government and Fight HST."
And they wanted the referendum held this year.
Pushy. But except for the timing, Fight HST isn't really out of line. Don't forget, the group succeeded in a petition process which was supposed to result in a vote next September on the bill to kill the HST that they had drafted. That's the law.
Now Campbell appears to be making up his own rules.
A little compromise and consensus is in order.
The Liberals certainly won't accept a vote this year. They hope time will ease the anger over the way the HST was introduced and let them convince people the tax is a good thing.
And they want the advantage of being able to draft the question.
But that doesn't mean they have to stand by passively as the recall campaigns are launched.
Recall efforts are damaging for the party in power. The biggest tactical recall effort was Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" which targeted all 40 New Democrat MLAs in 1999.
Falcon maintained he wasn't a Liberal then, though it came out that he had previously been paid about $800 a week by the Liberals on a six-week contract, campaigned in a Lower Mainland riding for the party and gave Campbell "speech ideas, but not complete speeches," as Mike Smyth wrote in the Vancouver Province.
Total Recall flopped. Falcon couldn't raise enough money.
But that didn't really matter. The New Democrats had to focus on the threat to MLAs and, as a result, paid less attention to governing.
Campbell won't accept the Fight-HST proposals. But he should address the underlying the issues.
The commitment to a simple majority and binding outcome needs some legislative backing. It's not enough for a premier, who might not be in the job a year from now, to make a promise he can't keep.
And Campbell can say now how the referendum question will be developed and when the public will see it.
He can also explain why the vote should wait until next September, rather than being held in March. If the HST is really important for investment, the uncertainty is hurting British Columbian. He's changing the rules around other aspects of the vote. Why prolong the pain?
Campbell can't likely stop the recall campaigns. But with the right responses, he can make life a lot easier for the targeted MLAs.
Footnote: To be successful, a recall campaign must collect signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters within a 60-day window. It's a high threshold, which has never been reached. (Although one campaign might have made it; the MLA resigned before the signatures were counted.)
But the anti-HST group starts with a battalion of volunteers and a strong base in most ridings.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Those B.C. Rail Canucks' tickets
It was probably just a sideshow in terms of the B.C. Rail trial.
But Brian Kenning's time in the witness box offered an interesting look at the deep divides in B.C. these days.
Kenning is a Liberal supporter who was appointed a B.C. Rail director after the 2001 election. He was part of the board that recommended selling the railway. That happened in 2003.
But in 2004, the shrunken corporation spent $72,276 on Canucks tickets. In 2005, the Crown corporation spend $29,000 on BC Lion's tickets. In 2006, $45,349 for prime Canucks seats.
Companies buy hockey tickets in an attempt to influence customers. It wouldn't be seemly to offer the purchasing agent for a client $300, but tickets to a Canucks-Canadiens game are OK.
B.C. Rail really didn't have any potential customers to woo. The corporation was reduced to selling real estate and administering a 40-km spur line used by real railway companies. So spending $150,000 on tickets to pro sports looks suspiciously like self-indulgence.
Meanwhile, Kenning testified he was paid $400,000 for sitting on the corporation's board for eight years. Even when it was down to 50 to 60 employees and less than $20 million in revenue, he collected about a $40,000 a year.
And CEO Kevin Mahoney received $570,000 in salary and benefits for heading a company with $18 million in revenues and a few dozen employees in 2007.
What's striking is that this was all going on as the Liberals were putting every government program through a core review.
Anything not considered essential - support for child sex abuse victims, legal aid for battered wives, courthouses - was getting chopped.
But Canucks' tickets for executives at a Crown corporation, generous directors' fees and big management salaries somehow escaped that kind of scrutiny.
Those at the top of the economic food chain did very well. Those at the other end of the economy did not.
Consider MLAs, for example. In 2002, their pay has risen more than 30 per cent since 2002; the premier's compensation is up more than 55 per cent. (The average wage rose about 22 per cent in the same period; the minimum wage didn't change at all.)
Which, if it was based on real market forces, could be defended. But real market forces wouldn't see directors paid hundreds of thousand of dollars to oversee a tiny Crown corporation.
It all suggests a double standard based in which some spending on average British Columbians received close scrutiny; on the powerful, not so much.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the latest report on the province's finances.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented the first quarterly update for this the fiscal year, covering from April 1 to June 30. Spending is on track, except for - again - higher than expected wildfire-fighting costs.
But, after three months, the government thinks it might have missed the mark on some of the revenue projections. The actual revenue, largely due to higher-than-forecast corporate taxes, will be $2.7 billion higher than expected over four years.
That's enough to let the government move out of deficits a year ahead of schedule. In fact, with a few breaks, it could use the money to deliver a balanced budget next year.
But Hansen said the government has decided about 10 per cent of the money will go to reducing the deficit.
The rest - about $700 million in each of the next three years - will fund tax cuts or program spending.
That's prudent. The current three-year plan freezes spending on the children's ministry and for the solicitor general for three years. It cuts funding for tourism and the arts. Without some extra cash, there will be big problems as the 2013 election draws closer.
And the Liberals would very much like to have some tax cuts to ease the HST anger.
There are tough decisions still ahead. Except, it could appear, when it comes to pricey taxpayer-paid hockey tickets and MLA raises.
Footnote: The quarterly update also included a revised economic forecast, which is mostly positive. Growth is likely to be stronger than forecast this year and the outlook is good, the government says. The big risks include a "double dip" return to recession in the U.S. and a drop in housing demand in Canada.
But Brian Kenning's time in the witness box offered an interesting look at the deep divides in B.C. these days.
Kenning is a Liberal supporter who was appointed a B.C. Rail director after the 2001 election. He was part of the board that recommended selling the railway. That happened in 2003.
But in 2004, the shrunken corporation spent $72,276 on Canucks tickets. In 2005, the Crown corporation spend $29,000 on BC Lion's tickets. In 2006, $45,349 for prime Canucks seats.
Companies buy hockey tickets in an attempt to influence customers. It wouldn't be seemly to offer the purchasing agent for a client $300, but tickets to a Canucks-Canadiens game are OK.
B.C. Rail really didn't have any potential customers to woo. The corporation was reduced to selling real estate and administering a 40-km spur line used by real railway companies. So spending $150,000 on tickets to pro sports looks suspiciously like self-indulgence.
Meanwhile, Kenning testified he was paid $400,000 for sitting on the corporation's board for eight years. Even when it was down to 50 to 60 employees and less than $20 million in revenue, he collected about a $40,000 a year.
And CEO Kevin Mahoney received $570,000 in salary and benefits for heading a company with $18 million in revenues and a few dozen employees in 2007.
What's striking is that this was all going on as the Liberals were putting every government program through a core review.
Anything not considered essential - support for child sex abuse victims, legal aid for battered wives, courthouses - was getting chopped.
But Canucks' tickets for executives at a Crown corporation, generous directors' fees and big management salaries somehow escaped that kind of scrutiny.
Those at the top of the economic food chain did very well. Those at the other end of the economy did not.
Consider MLAs, for example. In 2002, their pay has risen more than 30 per cent since 2002; the premier's compensation is up more than 55 per cent. (The average wage rose about 22 per cent in the same period; the minimum wage didn't change at all.)
Which, if it was based on real market forces, could be defended. But real market forces wouldn't see directors paid hundreds of thousand of dollars to oversee a tiny Crown corporation.
It all suggests a double standard based in which some spending on average British Columbians received close scrutiny; on the powerful, not so much.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the latest report on the province's finances.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented the first quarterly update for this the fiscal year, covering from April 1 to June 30. Spending is on track, except for - again - higher than expected wildfire-fighting costs.
But, after three months, the government thinks it might have missed the mark on some of the revenue projections. The actual revenue, largely due to higher-than-forecast corporate taxes, will be $2.7 billion higher than expected over four years.
That's enough to let the government move out of deficits a year ahead of schedule. In fact, with a few breaks, it could use the money to deliver a balanced budget next year.
But Hansen said the government has decided about 10 per cent of the money will go to reducing the deficit.
The rest - about $700 million in each of the next three years - will fund tax cuts or program spending.
That's prudent. The current three-year plan freezes spending on the children's ministry and for the solicitor general for three years. It cuts funding for tourism and the arts. Without some extra cash, there will be big problems as the 2013 election draws closer.
And the Liberals would very much like to have some tax cuts to ease the HST anger.
There are tough decisions still ahead. Except, it could appear, when it comes to pricey taxpayer-paid hockey tickets and MLA raises.
Footnote: The quarterly update also included a revised economic forecast, which is mostly positive. Growth is likely to be stronger than forecast this year and the outlook is good, the government says. The big risks include a "double dip" return to recession in the U.S. and a drop in housing demand in Canada.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The cloud over Elections B.C.
The Times Colonist on Elections B.C.
"It's troubling -- and wrong -- that Elections B.C. is being restructured when the party in power has weakened its independence.
"It is also troubling that the Liberal government failed to take the basic steps to preserve the non-partisan nature of the office that oversees elections, recall campaigns and initiatives in the province....
"The government knew for eight years a new chief electoral officer would be required in June, but failed to take the basic steps to ensure a smooth transition. Its failure has created controversy around Elections B.C.'s handling of the anti-HST petition and, now, this restructuring.
If, as expected, recall campaigns are launched, more concern about the office's independence is likely.
The restructuring should stop until a new chief electoral officer is in place. And the government should be prepared to recall the legislature this fall to ensure that happens as soon as possible."
The rest of the editorial can be found here.
"It's troubling -- and wrong -- that Elections B.C. is being restructured when the party in power has weakened its independence.
"It is also troubling that the Liberal government failed to take the basic steps to preserve the non-partisan nature of the office that oversees elections, recall campaigns and initiatives in the province....
"The government knew for eight years a new chief electoral officer would be required in June, but failed to take the basic steps to ensure a smooth transition. Its failure has created controversy around Elections B.C.'s handling of the anti-HST petition and, now, this restructuring.
If, as expected, recall campaigns are launched, more concern about the office's independence is likely.
The restructuring should stop until a new chief electoral officer is in place. And the government should be prepared to recall the legislature this fall to ensure that happens as soon as possible."
The rest of the editorial can be found here.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Campbell gambles with an HST flipflop
The twists and turns on the HST roller coaster are getting dizzying.
Premier Gordon Campbell delivered the latest sudden change of direction this week.
After insisting the harmonized sales tax is critical to the province’s future and maintaining that he was prepared to pay the political price for bringing it in, Campbell abruptly abandoned that tack.
The Liberals on the legislative committee considering the anti-HST petition rejected an NDP proposal to send the bill to the legislature immediately, one of two options allowed under the act.
Instead, it will go to a referendum next Sept. 24.
The Liberals had signalled they were leaning toward that option.
That appeared to mean the anti-HST effort was doomed.
Under the initiative act, a majority of all registered voters would have to vote to kill the tax for the initiative to go ahead - not a majority of those who voted.
That means some 1.5 million people would have to vote to axe the tax - more than the number who voted for the Liberals and New Democrats together in 2009.
And in the tiny event that the initiative passed, it would not be binding.
The tax, it seemed, was here to stay.
But hours after the committee made its decision, Campbell changed everything. "If people decide they want to get rid of the HST next September, then I guess we'll get rid of the HST next September," he said.
Campbell was more specific. If a simple majority of those who vote in the referendum next oppose the tax a year from now, his government will repeal it.
It’s a remarkable flip-flop and a significant gamble.
What prompted the change? Perhaps Liberals inside and outside caucus convinced Campbell that the party’s bungled handling of the tax - especially its insistence that voters were just to dim to know what was good for them - was doing massive damage.
Perhaps he’s looking to stall recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs by arguing that the public will get a say on the tax.
Certainly Campbell is counting on being able to sell the benefits of the HST - and the complications of removing it - over the next 12 months.
That’s not a sure thing. The Liberals’ actions in bringing in the tax won’t soon be forgotten.
And there is a risk that the effort to sell the tax - with taxpayers’ money or the support of business groups - will backfire.
Meanwhile, expect the political squabbling to continue. Bill Vander Zalm, the anti-HST champion, wants Campbell to bring back the legislature and give his commitments the force of law by amending the initiatives act.
Concerns are already being raised about the referendum question and whether Elections B.C. or cabinet gets to draft it. It’s unclear whether a mail ballot - cost about $12 million - or a polling station approach - cost about $30 million - will be used.
Economically, the uncertainty is bad news. Will a homeowner considering a major renovation start the work next spring or put it off to see if the HST is defeated, cutting the cost significantly?
Companies considering an investment now have no way of knowing what taxes they would pay in the province.
And all this will keep the damaging issue front and centre for another year, taking the Liberals that much closer to the 2013 election.
The change of position on the HST smacks of desperation. But that’s not surprising. Campbell and the Liberals are desperate.
And many are likely realizing how much of this damage is self-inflicted. Rejecting the tax in the election campaign, starting work on introducing it days after the vote, failing to consult anyone, wasting $800,000 on pro-HST flyers and then throwing them in the garbage - it’s been a gong show.
The referendum might buy the Liberals some time. It’s not likely to write them a happy ending to this story.
Footnote: The government got $1.6 billion from the federal government to bring in the HST, which would have to be returned if the tax is killed. About $1.4 billion is budgeted for this year and next. The government would be prudent to remove that money from its budget plans until after the referendum, especially given projections of a smaller-than-expected deficit.
Premier Gordon Campbell delivered the latest sudden change of direction this week.
After insisting the harmonized sales tax is critical to the province’s future and maintaining that he was prepared to pay the political price for bringing it in, Campbell abruptly abandoned that tack.
The Liberals on the legislative committee considering the anti-HST petition rejected an NDP proposal to send the bill to the legislature immediately, one of two options allowed under the act.
Instead, it will go to a referendum next Sept. 24.
The Liberals had signalled they were leaning toward that option.
That appeared to mean the anti-HST effort was doomed.
Under the initiative act, a majority of all registered voters would have to vote to kill the tax for the initiative to go ahead - not a majority of those who voted.
That means some 1.5 million people would have to vote to axe the tax - more than the number who voted for the Liberals and New Democrats together in 2009.
And in the tiny event that the initiative passed, it would not be binding.
The tax, it seemed, was here to stay.
But hours after the committee made its decision, Campbell changed everything. "If people decide they want to get rid of the HST next September, then I guess we'll get rid of the HST next September," he said.
Campbell was more specific. If a simple majority of those who vote in the referendum next oppose the tax a year from now, his government will repeal it.
It’s a remarkable flip-flop and a significant gamble.
What prompted the change? Perhaps Liberals inside and outside caucus convinced Campbell that the party’s bungled handling of the tax - especially its insistence that voters were just to dim to know what was good for them - was doing massive damage.
Perhaps he’s looking to stall recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs by arguing that the public will get a say on the tax.
Certainly Campbell is counting on being able to sell the benefits of the HST - and the complications of removing it - over the next 12 months.
That’s not a sure thing. The Liberals’ actions in bringing in the tax won’t soon be forgotten.
And there is a risk that the effort to sell the tax - with taxpayers’ money or the support of business groups - will backfire.
Meanwhile, expect the political squabbling to continue. Bill Vander Zalm, the anti-HST champion, wants Campbell to bring back the legislature and give his commitments the force of law by amending the initiatives act.
Concerns are already being raised about the referendum question and whether Elections B.C. or cabinet gets to draft it. It’s unclear whether a mail ballot - cost about $12 million - or a polling station approach - cost about $30 million - will be used.
Economically, the uncertainty is bad news. Will a homeowner considering a major renovation start the work next spring or put it off to see if the HST is defeated, cutting the cost significantly?
Companies considering an investment now have no way of knowing what taxes they would pay in the province.
And all this will keep the damaging issue front and centre for another year, taking the Liberals that much closer to the 2013 election.
The change of position on the HST smacks of desperation. But that’s not surprising. Campbell and the Liberals are desperate.
And many are likely realizing how much of this damage is self-inflicted. Rejecting the tax in the election campaign, starting work on introducing it days after the vote, failing to consult anyone, wasting $800,000 on pro-HST flyers and then throwing them in the garbage - it’s been a gong show.
The referendum might buy the Liberals some time. It’s not likely to write them a happy ending to this story.
Footnote: The government got $1.6 billion from the federal government to bring in the HST, which would have to be returned if the tax is killed. About $1.4 billion is budgeted for this year and next. The government would be prudent to remove that money from its budget plans until after the referendum, especially given projections of a smaller-than-expected deficit.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Nine years after 9/11
And I think the column I wrote on the first anniversary stands up.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002
A licence to extend the state's power
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's something at once wrong and frightening about the fervent celebration of the attack on the World Trade Centre one year ago.
Wrong, because it rests on the false pretence that Sept. 11 was a defining moment that changed everything, for everyone.
And frightening because it is being used to justify mindless conformity, an erosion of individual rights in favour of the state - and even war.
It was a terrible day. But most people have placed that devastating event into some appropriate place among the other terrible and joyous moments that define a life. About 40,000 children were born in B.C. last year. For those families, 2001 won't be the year the World Trade Centre was destroyed; that pales beside the wonder of a new life beginning. About 315 British Columbians killed themselves last year. For those families, it will be the year that someone was lost, and something in them died too.
The attacks were terrible. But they were not different in purpose or effect than the decades of horrors that the current generation has witnessed.
Even their scale is not beyond comparison. Some 3,000 people died last Sept. 11. Twenty times as many died when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki; twice as many died in Bhopal after the 1994 Union Carbide disaster; about the same number of Africans will die of AIDS while you are at work today.
Last Sept. 11 was an awful day, but everything didn't change because of it. We still go to work, look for happiness, slide into despair. We raise our children. Just like always.
And one year later, I am much less frightened of a terror attack than I am of the governments supposedly on my side.
The state - Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq - always wants to increase its power over the people. It's not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier - surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it's an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.
For a year governments have been using Sept. 11 as a licence to extend the state's power. And an uncertain public has failed to push back.
Airport security may have needed upgrading, perhaps through improved training. But after last Sept. 11 Ottawa introduced a $24-per-ticket security surcharge, taking $400 million a year from travellers' pockets and wounding regional airlines and the communities they serve. The take from Vancouver alone will be enough to hire more than 600 extra security staff; the need has never been demonstrated.
The federal government likewise made no effective case for $8 billion in increased security spending over the next five years, money it could never find to help Canada's poorest children or reduce the tax burden.
And now the U.S. government is pressuring Canada to spend more on defence, even after a 10-per-cent increase this year. (The Americans spend $400 billion a year on their military, more than the next 25 countries combined. To match their level of per-capita spending, Canada would have to more than triple its defence budget.)
Sadly, it's not just about money. The Bush administration quickly passed the "USA Patriot Act" (the name, commanding mindless acquiescence, should sound alarm bells). Americans lost rights they had treasured for 200 years. The right to legal representation, to a speedy and public trial, to protection from unjustified searches - all gone. Americans can now be jailed indefinitely and secretly, without a trial.
Canada didn't go as far. But the prime minister can now outlaw groups based on secret evidence. Police gained the right to arrest someone who has broken no law on the suspicion that they are involved in terrorist activities. You can now be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.
And then there is war. Canada fought in Afghanistan, to little obvious effect. And now we are being asked to fight in Iraq, not because of anything that nation has done, but because the U.S. believes Saddam Hussein may someday do something. This is not a war on terrorism; it's a beating for a nation the U.S. simply wishes had a different leader.
Enough. Everything did not change in a few terrible hours one year ago. We have rights and freedoms and values worth defending, and a commitment to the rule of law that should not be abandoned when a government finds it convenient.
We will betray our past and our future if instead we allow ourselves to be defined by a single day of terror.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002
A licence to extend the state's power
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's something at once wrong and frightening about the fervent celebration of the attack on the World Trade Centre one year ago.
Wrong, because it rests on the false pretence that Sept. 11 was a defining moment that changed everything, for everyone.
And frightening because it is being used to justify mindless conformity, an erosion of individual rights in favour of the state - and even war.
It was a terrible day. But most people have placed that devastating event into some appropriate place among the other terrible and joyous moments that define a life. About 40,000 children were born in B.C. last year. For those families, 2001 won't be the year the World Trade Centre was destroyed; that pales beside the wonder of a new life beginning. About 315 British Columbians killed themselves last year. For those families, it will be the year that someone was lost, and something in them died too.
The attacks were terrible. But they were not different in purpose or effect than the decades of horrors that the current generation has witnessed.
Even their scale is not beyond comparison. Some 3,000 people died last Sept. 11. Twenty times as many died when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki; twice as many died in Bhopal after the 1994 Union Carbide disaster; about the same number of Africans will die of AIDS while you are at work today.
Last Sept. 11 was an awful day, but everything didn't change because of it. We still go to work, look for happiness, slide into despair. We raise our children. Just like always.
And one year later, I am much less frightened of a terror attack than I am of the governments supposedly on my side.
The state - Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq - always wants to increase its power over the people. It's not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier - surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it's an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.
For a year governments have been using Sept. 11 as a licence to extend the state's power. And an uncertain public has failed to push back.
Airport security may have needed upgrading, perhaps through improved training. But after last Sept. 11 Ottawa introduced a $24-per-ticket security surcharge, taking $400 million a year from travellers' pockets and wounding regional airlines and the communities they serve. The take from Vancouver alone will be enough to hire more than 600 extra security staff; the need has never been demonstrated.
The federal government likewise made no effective case for $8 billion in increased security spending over the next five years, money it could never find to help Canada's poorest children or reduce the tax burden.
And now the U.S. government is pressuring Canada to spend more on defence, even after a 10-per-cent increase this year. (The Americans spend $400 billion a year on their military, more than the next 25 countries combined. To match their level of per-capita spending, Canada would have to more than triple its defence budget.)
Sadly, it's not just about money. The Bush administration quickly passed the "USA Patriot Act" (the name, commanding mindless acquiescence, should sound alarm bells). Americans lost rights they had treasured for 200 years. The right to legal representation, to a speedy and public trial, to protection from unjustified searches - all gone. Americans can now be jailed indefinitely and secretly, without a trial.
Canada didn't go as far. But the prime minister can now outlaw groups based on secret evidence. Police gained the right to arrest someone who has broken no law on the suspicion that they are involved in terrorist activities. You can now be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.
And then there is war. Canada fought in Afghanistan, to little obvious effect. And now we are being asked to fight in Iraq, not because of anything that nation has done, but because the U.S. believes Saddam Hussein may someday do something. This is not a war on terrorism; it's a beating for a nation the U.S. simply wishes had a different leader.
Enough. Everything did not change in a few terrible hours one year ago. We have rights and freedoms and values worth defending, and a commitment to the rule of law that should not be abandoned when a government finds it convenient.
We will betray our past and our future if instead we allow ourselves to be defined by a single day of terror.
Liberals might risk HST referendum
It actually appears the Liberals are seriously considering sending the anti-HST initiative to a provincewide vote next year.
And that seems a remarkably dangerous way to handle an issue that has already done such damage.
The initiative, with its bill to rescind the harmonized sales tax, has made it to the legislative initiatives committee.
The committee - composed of six Liberal and four New Democrat MLAs - has two choices. They can send the bill to the legislature or send it to a provincewide vote Sept. 24, 2011.
In either case, the government doesn't have to actually repeal the tax or even call a vote on the bill. The provincial vote on the tax wouldn't be binding. The bill to eliminate the HST could be left on the order paper or, if the government chose, voted down.
The committee met for the first time Wednesday, in what appeared to be a fairly bumbling start to the process.
The New Democrats were quick to move the bill be sent to the legislature for consideration this fall.
The Liberals said the motion was too hasty. They needed more information on the options, especially on a referendum, the Liberals said.
What would it cost? Could other questions be added to the ballot.
And they proposed compiling a list of questions which the committee's clerk would ask Elections B.C. She would then report on the answers.
The New Democrats thought that inefficient. What if the response raised other questions, they asked?
They proposed just inviting acting Chief Electoral Officer Craig James to answer questions at the next meeting.
Liberal Terry Lake, elected to chair the group, wasn't sure if the committee was allowed to do that. After about 45 minutes of confusion, it was agreed the committee could indeed invite James. (That does seem like the kind of basic question that could have been sorted out in advance.)
That suggested the Liberals believe a referendum might be a good idea. Lake reinforced that view in comments outside the committee room. The anti-HST petition was only signed by 19 per cent of registered voters, he said, and many were misled into supporting the initiative. A referendum might reflect the public will more accurately. (Finance Minister Colin Hansen later used the same talking points.)
It's a risky argument. After all, the Liberals were elected with the support of 26 per cent of registered voters. And the referendum is certain to irk many of the 575,000 people who signed the petitions.
The thinking, according to those in the Liberal camp, is that by the time the referendum is held the anger over the HST will have eased and people will have come to understand the tax is good for them.
And to kill the tax, the anti-HST side would have to get the support of 50 per cent of registered voters - close to 1.5 million votes, or about twice the number the Liberals got in 2009.
So the vote would fail and people would accept the HST and move on.
That could be a serious miscalculation. The anger is not directed just at the tax. Many people believe the government has been arrogant and dishonest in implementing it.
A referendum - at a cost of at least $10 million and likely significantly more - isn't going to reduce that anger. Rather, it will help fuel it as the 2013 election grows closer.
And in the meantime, recall campaigns will likely begin against some Liberal MLAs in November. The Liberals know how disruptive and distracting those campaigns are, based on Kevin Falcon's "Total recall" campaign against the NDP in 1999.
The committee is to meet Monday, hopefully with a representative from Elections B.C., to consider options.
There is no good way for the Liberals to escape this morass.
But keeping the anger alive for another year, through recall efforts and a referendum campaign, seems like a very bad choice.
Footnote: Liberal cabinet ministers all offered great support for Premier Gordon Campbell on their way into a meeting last week. But cracks are starting to appear in the party's base. The skill - or lack of it - in handling the issue in committee will be a factor in quieting or fuelling calls for a change at the top.
And that seems a remarkably dangerous way to handle an issue that has already done such damage.
The initiative, with its bill to rescind the harmonized sales tax, has made it to the legislative initiatives committee.
The committee - composed of six Liberal and four New Democrat MLAs - has two choices. They can send the bill to the legislature or send it to a provincewide vote Sept. 24, 2011.
In either case, the government doesn't have to actually repeal the tax or even call a vote on the bill. The provincial vote on the tax wouldn't be binding. The bill to eliminate the HST could be left on the order paper or, if the government chose, voted down.
The committee met for the first time Wednesday, in what appeared to be a fairly bumbling start to the process.
The New Democrats were quick to move the bill be sent to the legislature for consideration this fall.
The Liberals said the motion was too hasty. They needed more information on the options, especially on a referendum, the Liberals said.
What would it cost? Could other questions be added to the ballot.
And they proposed compiling a list of questions which the committee's clerk would ask Elections B.C. She would then report on the answers.
The New Democrats thought that inefficient. What if the response raised other questions, they asked?
They proposed just inviting acting Chief Electoral Officer Craig James to answer questions at the next meeting.
Liberal Terry Lake, elected to chair the group, wasn't sure if the committee was allowed to do that. After about 45 minutes of confusion, it was agreed the committee could indeed invite James. (That does seem like the kind of basic question that could have been sorted out in advance.)
That suggested the Liberals believe a referendum might be a good idea. Lake reinforced that view in comments outside the committee room. The anti-HST petition was only signed by 19 per cent of registered voters, he said, and many were misled into supporting the initiative. A referendum might reflect the public will more accurately. (Finance Minister Colin Hansen later used the same talking points.)
It's a risky argument. After all, the Liberals were elected with the support of 26 per cent of registered voters. And the referendum is certain to irk many of the 575,000 people who signed the petitions.
The thinking, according to those in the Liberal camp, is that by the time the referendum is held the anger over the HST will have eased and people will have come to understand the tax is good for them.
And to kill the tax, the anti-HST side would have to get the support of 50 per cent of registered voters - close to 1.5 million votes, or about twice the number the Liberals got in 2009.
So the vote would fail and people would accept the HST and move on.
That could be a serious miscalculation. The anger is not directed just at the tax. Many people believe the government has been arrogant and dishonest in implementing it.
A referendum - at a cost of at least $10 million and likely significantly more - isn't going to reduce that anger. Rather, it will help fuel it as the 2013 election grows closer.
And in the meantime, recall campaigns will likely begin against some Liberal MLAs in November. The Liberals know how disruptive and distracting those campaigns are, based on Kevin Falcon's "Total recall" campaign against the NDP in 1999.
The committee is to meet Monday, hopefully with a representative from Elections B.C., to consider options.
There is no good way for the Liberals to escape this morass.
But keeping the anger alive for another year, through recall efforts and a referendum campaign, seems like a very bad choice.
Footnote: Liberal cabinet ministers all offered great support for Premier Gordon Campbell on their way into a meeting last week. But cracks are starting to appear in the party's base. The skill - or lack of it - in handling the issue in committee will be a factor in quieting or fuelling calls for a change at the top.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
The RCMP is betting $1 billion against a move to a provincial police force
The government's major project inventory report is a useful look at big capital projects being built or considered.
The news releases always go a little overboard - the latest one celebrates $198 billion in projects "planned or underway." Planned is a bit of overstatement; the list includes, for example, a gravel quarry near Port Alberni that has been counted in the inventory since 2004 without moving out of the planned category.
Still, it's a valuable snapshot.
The latest release also notes that the largest project underway is the "the $966-million RCMP E-Division Headquarters in Surrey." The building is a private-public partnership. The private partners get almost $1 billion and agree to build the centre and maintain it for 25 years.
But the RCMP wouldn't need 2,700 people in its B.C. headquarters if it wasn't delivering municipal and regional police services across the province. Which suggests the force is very confident the the government will sign another 20-year contract when the current agreement expires in 2012
The news releases always go a little overboard - the latest one celebrates $198 billion in projects "planned or underway." Planned is a bit of overstatement; the list includes, for example, a gravel quarry near Port Alberni that has been counted in the inventory since 2004 without moving out of the planned category.
Still, it's a valuable snapshot.
The latest release also notes that the largest project underway is the "the $966-million RCMP E-Division Headquarters in Surrey." The building is a private-public partnership. The private partners get almost $1 billion and agree to build the centre and maintain it for 25 years.
But the RCMP wouldn't need 2,700 people in its B.C. headquarters if it wasn't delivering municipal and regional police services across the province. Which suggests the force is very confident the the government will sign another 20-year contract when the current agreement expires in 2012
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
The HST debacle wouldn't happen in a functioning democracy
It would be useful if the HST debacle convinced all parties to question giving their leaders so much power.
Some Liberals are now publicly saying Premier Gordon Campbell has to go quickly. A mandatory leadership vote, now underway at meetings of Liberal riding associations, might add to the pressure.
Campbell has said he might try to lead the Liberals into the next election in 2013.
But his time is over, thanks mainly to the HST and the way it was introduced. And the Liberal party's future is bleak.
I wonder it this could have been avoided if so much power wasn't concentrated in the premier's office.
The first step toward the HST came when the Liberals tabled a pre-election budget forecasting a $495-million deficit.
It was never credible. And it was a huge leap from past conservative budgets.
But Campbell, through the election campaign, insisted the deficit would not rise above that projection. (Although Finance Ministry officials warned him during the campaign that the budget was unravelling.)
There is a lot of experience and knowledge shared among the 48 Liberal MLAs. Given a chance, some of them might have suggested it would be a mistake to campaign on dubious deficit projection. They might have raised good questions about revenue forecasts.
It doesn't work that way.
After the election, Campbell accepted reality. But he maintains he was still shocked and sent Finance Ministry officials to find ways to reduce the growing deficit.
And they came up with signing for the HST and getting $1.6 billion from Ottawa as an incentive.
Great, Campbell said.
Sure, the party had said it would not introduce a harmonized sales tax during the election campaign. It had reports suggesting long-term benefits, but warning of job and wage losses for more than five years.
And the ministry briefing noted that the tax could be controversial. The HST shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families. That's the equivalent of a 28-per-cent across the board personal income tax increase.
Again, if Campbell had submitted the new tax idea to the other 47 Liberal MLAs for discussion, perhaps some concerns would be raised. They might suggest their constituents wouldn't be so keen on the tax. That perhaps it would be best to do some consultations and analysis before plunging ahead.
That, as Hansen said during the election campaign, "it's clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on."
But the MLAs never had the chance to raise those concerns. Campbell told the caucus the government was imposing the HST on July 21 - less than 48 hours before the public was told.
The MLAs, representing voters across the province, weren't asked what they thought or given time to consider how the new tax would affect the ridings.
They were told the decision had been made and their job was to defend it. Trust in the wisdom and experience of your leaders.
Good luck, little campers.
And so the Liberal MLAs marched out into an angry public backlash and the threat of recall to defend a tax policy they had absolutely role in introducing.
Leave aside the HST for the moment.
There is something wrong when any major, controversial policy can be imposed without a meaningful discussion involving those elected to represent the public.
No taxation without representation, the British colonists complained in the 18th century, before the American Revolution. No taxes or levies unless they were approved by elected representatives of the people who would pay.
Some 250 years later, British Columbians might have the same complaint. The HST was not really imposed with the consent of those elected to represent the people.
The premier decided. The Liberal MLAs voted as instructed. The New Democrats MLAs all voted no.
Such a waste of peoples' talents and judgment. Such a waste of a democratic system that could offer so much more.
Footnote: Liberal MLAs are apparently happy with Campbell's leadership. But others in the party are suggesting the premier should announce he's stepping down before the Liberal convention in Pentiction Nov. 19-20, in part to avoid getting bad news from a leadership confidence vote being held by constituency associations at pre-convention meetings. (The party's constitution requires the vote.)
Some Liberals are now publicly saying Premier Gordon Campbell has to go quickly. A mandatory leadership vote, now underway at meetings of Liberal riding associations, might add to the pressure.
Campbell has said he might try to lead the Liberals into the next election in 2013.
But his time is over, thanks mainly to the HST and the way it was introduced. And the Liberal party's future is bleak.
I wonder it this could have been avoided if so much power wasn't concentrated in the premier's office.
The first step toward the HST came when the Liberals tabled a pre-election budget forecasting a $495-million deficit.
It was never credible. And it was a huge leap from past conservative budgets.
But Campbell, through the election campaign, insisted the deficit would not rise above that projection. (Although Finance Ministry officials warned him during the campaign that the budget was unravelling.)
There is a lot of experience and knowledge shared among the 48 Liberal MLAs. Given a chance, some of them might have suggested it would be a mistake to campaign on dubious deficit projection. They might have raised good questions about revenue forecasts.
It doesn't work that way.
After the election, Campbell accepted reality. But he maintains he was still shocked and sent Finance Ministry officials to find ways to reduce the growing deficit.
And they came up with signing for the HST and getting $1.6 billion from Ottawa as an incentive.
Great, Campbell said.
Sure, the party had said it would not introduce a harmonized sales tax during the election campaign. It had reports suggesting long-term benefits, but warning of job and wage losses for more than five years.
And the ministry briefing noted that the tax could be controversial. The HST shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families. That's the equivalent of a 28-per-cent across the board personal income tax increase.
Again, if Campbell had submitted the new tax idea to the other 47 Liberal MLAs for discussion, perhaps some concerns would be raised. They might suggest their constituents wouldn't be so keen on the tax. That perhaps it would be best to do some consultations and analysis before plunging ahead.
That, as Hansen said during the election campaign, "it's clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on."
But the MLAs never had the chance to raise those concerns. Campbell told the caucus the government was imposing the HST on July 21 - less than 48 hours before the public was told.
The MLAs, representing voters across the province, weren't asked what they thought or given time to consider how the new tax would affect the ridings.
They were told the decision had been made and their job was to defend it. Trust in the wisdom and experience of your leaders.
Good luck, little campers.
And so the Liberal MLAs marched out into an angry public backlash and the threat of recall to defend a tax policy they had absolutely role in introducing.
Leave aside the HST for the moment.
There is something wrong when any major, controversial policy can be imposed without a meaningful discussion involving those elected to represent the public.
No taxation without representation, the British colonists complained in the 18th century, before the American Revolution. No taxes or levies unless they were approved by elected representatives of the people who would pay.
Some 250 years later, British Columbians might have the same complaint. The HST was not really imposed with the consent of those elected to represent the people.
The premier decided. The Liberal MLAs voted as instructed. The New Democrats MLAs all voted no.
Such a waste of peoples' talents and judgment. Such a waste of a democratic system that could offer so much more.
Footnote: Liberal MLAs are apparently happy with Campbell's leadership. But others in the party are suggesting the premier should announce he's stepping down before the Liberal convention in Pentiction Nov. 19-20, in part to avoid getting bad news from a leadership confidence vote being held by constituency associations at pre-convention meetings. (The party's constitution requires the vote.)
Monday, September 06, 2010
Brian Peckford versus Gordon Campbell
This report is interesting.
Peckford is six years older than Gordon Campbell. He won two elections as Newfoundland premier, casting himself as a champion battling for the province's interests against a distant federal government. If he's serious about advising a provincial B.C. Conservative party, that's not good for the Liberals, or centre-right voters in the province.
Peckford is six years older than Gordon Campbell. He won two elections as Newfoundland premier, casting himself as a champion battling for the province's interests against a distant federal government. If he's serious about advising a provincial B.C. Conservative party, that's not good for the Liberals, or centre-right voters in the province.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
HST saga gets still worse for the Liberals
No matter how much Finance Minister Colin Hansen and Premier Gordon Campbell protest, few British Columbians will believe their claims the harmonized sales tax was “not on our radar” in advance of the May 2009 election.
The latest blow comes from documents released this week under a Freedom of Information request.
Briefing notes for Hansen and reports and e-mails between Finance Ministry managers support one of two conclusions: Either the HST was on the government’s agenda before the campaign, or it so obviously should have been that their competence is doubtful.
The Liberals were asked about the HST during the campaign. They responded, in writing, that “a harmonized goods and services tax is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal election platform.”
But within weeks of the election, Hansen was discussing an HST deal with the federal government.
Campbell and Hansen insist they only discovered the need for the HST in the days after they were elected.
Hansen said he hadn’t paid attention to Ontario’s decision to bring in the HST — first suggested in January and formally announced in the March 25 budget — because the election was looming. (He said later that Ontario’s adoption of the tax made it absolutely necessary for B.C. to do the same.)
But surely he didn’t quit paying attention to a major tax-competitveness issue months before the vote. Even the Ontario budget came eight weeks before B.C.’s election day and long before the Liberals assured concerned business groups they wouldn’t bring in the tax.
Especially since the FOI documents include a heavily censored briefing note on Ontario and the HST sent to Hansen March 12, two months before the election. That was followed by another briefing note after the Ontario budget.
Hansen said he might have glanced at the briefing notes, but didn’t register the significance of Ontario’s tax change. That’s surprising; Hansen has always been remarkably in command of the details of his portfolios.
The FOI documents raise other questions.
Campbell told the legislature that B.C. officials did not even discuss the HST with their federal counterparts until well after the election. Hansen said the same thing in answer to a specific NDP question. There was absolutely no contact of any kind between federal and B.C. officials until late May, he said.
But there was. The documents show discussions and e-mail exchanges between the B.C. officials long before the campaign began.
Hansen’s explanation is that he did not know any of this when he answered. Anyway, he said, officials should be talking to their federal counterparts about tax changes.
And the documents show the government was selective in releasing information on the impact of the tax. The documents support the contention that the $1.9-billion tax shift from businesses to individuals and families would bring growth in the long term.
But they also forecast a short-term loss of jobs and economic activity. It could take more than five years before wages and jobs recover, says a report from the C.D. Howe Institute.
Hansen says that information is out of date; changes negotiated in the HST implementation reduced the problems. The government has yet to release an analysis supporting that argument. Other reports, he notes, have been more positive.
Finally, the documents include a transcript of Hansen’s HST comments in a radio interview before the election campaign. “It’s clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on,” he said.
But the government didn’t seek any input. Even Liberal MLAs were kept out of the loop. There was no consultation or analysis. The option of delaying the tax for a year to allow those things was not considered.
And the Liberals are paying a huge price.
Footnote: The documents topped the news reports in all the major media in the province on Thursday, thanks to another government bungle. CBC Radio reporter Jeff Davies submitted the FOI request. The government said it would charge $800 to produce the material. Davies approached seven other news outlets to split the cost and all receive the documents at the same time. The result was an avalanche of bad news.
The latest blow comes from documents released this week under a Freedom of Information request.
Briefing notes for Hansen and reports and e-mails between Finance Ministry managers support one of two conclusions: Either the HST was on the government’s agenda before the campaign, or it so obviously should have been that their competence is doubtful.
The Liberals were asked about the HST during the campaign. They responded, in writing, that “a harmonized goods and services tax is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal election platform.”
But within weeks of the election, Hansen was discussing an HST deal with the federal government.
Campbell and Hansen insist they only discovered the need for the HST in the days after they were elected.
Hansen said he hadn’t paid attention to Ontario’s decision to bring in the HST — first suggested in January and formally announced in the March 25 budget — because the election was looming. (He said later that Ontario’s adoption of the tax made it absolutely necessary for B.C. to do the same.)
But surely he didn’t quit paying attention to a major tax-competitveness issue months before the vote. Even the Ontario budget came eight weeks before B.C.’s election day and long before the Liberals assured concerned business groups they wouldn’t bring in the tax.
Especially since the FOI documents include a heavily censored briefing note on Ontario and the HST sent to Hansen March 12, two months before the election. That was followed by another briefing note after the Ontario budget.
Hansen said he might have glanced at the briefing notes, but didn’t register the significance of Ontario’s tax change. That’s surprising; Hansen has always been remarkably in command of the details of his portfolios.
The FOI documents raise other questions.
Campbell told the legislature that B.C. officials did not even discuss the HST with their federal counterparts until well after the election. Hansen said the same thing in answer to a specific NDP question. There was absolutely no contact of any kind between federal and B.C. officials until late May, he said.
But there was. The documents show discussions and e-mail exchanges between the B.C. officials long before the campaign began.
Hansen’s explanation is that he did not know any of this when he answered. Anyway, he said, officials should be talking to their federal counterparts about tax changes.
And the documents show the government was selective in releasing information on the impact of the tax. The documents support the contention that the $1.9-billion tax shift from businesses to individuals and families would bring growth in the long term.
But they also forecast a short-term loss of jobs and economic activity. It could take more than five years before wages and jobs recover, says a report from the C.D. Howe Institute.
Hansen says that information is out of date; changes negotiated in the HST implementation reduced the problems. The government has yet to release an analysis supporting that argument. Other reports, he notes, have been more positive.
Finally, the documents include a transcript of Hansen’s HST comments in a radio interview before the election campaign. “It’s clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on,” he said.
But the government didn’t seek any input. Even Liberal MLAs were kept out of the loop. There was no consultation or analysis. The option of delaying the tax for a year to allow those things was not considered.
And the Liberals are paying a huge price.
Footnote: The documents topped the news reports in all the major media in the province on Thursday, thanks to another government bungle. CBC Radio reporter Jeff Davies submitted the FOI request. The government said it would charge $800 to produce the material. Davies approached seven other news outlets to split the cost and all receive the documents at the same time. The result was an avalanche of bad news.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The HST disaster continues for the Liberals
Check the websites for the major media this afternoon - the Times Colonist, Sun, Province, Globe and Mail, CBC - and you'll find coverage of documents released under FOI which challenge the Liberals' claims that the HST was "not on the radar" before the 2009 election and raise large doubts about their optimistic statements about the economic benefits of the tax.
As well as revealing big problems with the implementation of the HST, this qualifies, I'd say, as a great communications disaster. The government could have released the documents at any time. It could have waived the processing fee on the first FOI request.
Instead, it set an $800 fee for processing and releasing the public documents. The media apparently decided to share the costs and the documents, while developing their own reports based on the information - to be released at the same time.
Which was very bad for the Liberals.
The Times Colonist editorial here offers a useful perspective.
As well as revealing big problems with the implementation of the HST, this qualifies, I'd say, as a great communications disaster. The government could have released the documents at any time. It could have waived the processing fee on the first FOI request.
Instead, it set an $800 fee for processing and releasing the public documents. The media apparently decided to share the costs and the documents, while developing their own reports based on the information - to be released at the same time.
Which was very bad for the Liberals.
The Times Colonist editorial here offers a useful perspective.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Resource sales risk shortchanging future British Columbians
The provincial auditor general and the government are in a tussle, again, over the way more than $440 million in annual subsidies to the oil and gas industry are being handled.
It's tough to get people interested in accounting issues (until their RRSPs plummet because some company cooked the books and the auditors didn't provide the warning they were supposed to).
But the dispute raises broader issues, including the temptation for governments to hold a fire sale on non-renewable resources to pay the bills today and leaving future generations with nothing.
First, the accounting battle.
Auditor General John Doyle says the government is violating Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by failing to record the generous incentives to companies as expenses.
The government disagrees and says other provinces handle their incentives to lure companies in the same way.
I don't know who is right. My experience as a mid-level corporate guy was that the auditors had the last word. They were charged with certifying that the company was following the rules and the financial statements accurately represented reality.
If they expressed reservations about the financial statements - as Doyle has done - it was a bad thing and could even increase the cost of borrowing. Lenders and bond rating agencies like clean financial statements.
The accounting dispute raises more fundamental issues.
We own the natural gas resources under the ground.
The government of the day, on our behalf, sells companies the right to find and develop them. Leases are auctioned each month, giving companies the right to explore and develop.
If natural gas is found, the government, on our behalf, charges royalties on the gas taken from the ground. It's big money, about $1.2 billion this year.
Setting royalties is inexact. Try for too high a price and the energy companies head off - or threaten to head off - to Alberta or Montana or Nigeria.
The government is trying to be competitive enough to attract the energy companies, while ensuring that the owners - the people of B.C. now and in the future - get a good price for the gas we're selling.
But any government has a conflict of interest.
It wants the resource revenues - and the jobs and economic activity -now. There is unavoidable pressure to cut royalty levels to encourage companies to explore and develop gas wells as quickly as possible.
Even if the smart thing, in terms of the province's long-term interests, might be to keep royalty rates high and accept that development will take place over a longer term. That's especially true when natural gas prices are low, as royalties are based on the value of the resource.
The incentives - royalty cuts for deep wells and other harder to get gas, subsidies to help companies build roads and the like - apparently work. The government maintains each dollar in subsidies brings a substantial increase in royalties and drilling.
But the big winners are the energy customers, as jurisdictions cut the price of their resources to compete with each other. The Alberta government commissioned a review of its royalty rates and found they were too low; the public was losing about $2 billion a year. B.C. has never done such a review.
The big losers, arguably, are future generations.
We're selling a non-renewable public resource today and spending the money on ourselves.
When the gas - or coal or oil - is gone, the royalty revenue stops. A future generation will be left with government spending based on a revenue stream that no longer exists.
There is a simple solution. Other jurisdictions have set up heritage funds for all or part of non-renewable resource revenues.
That provides a cushion for the day the resource runs out.
And it reduces the temptation for governments to sell too cheaply in pursuit of short-term benefits.
Footnote: The outlook for natural gas prices is weak. The government based its budget on prices around $6.20 per gigajoule; prices have been more than $1 below that through the year. Each dollar that the price falls below the forecast means about $300 million in lost revenue.
It's tough to get people interested in accounting issues (until their RRSPs plummet because some company cooked the books and the auditors didn't provide the warning they were supposed to).
But the dispute raises broader issues, including the temptation for governments to hold a fire sale on non-renewable resources to pay the bills today and leaving future generations with nothing.
First, the accounting battle.
Auditor General John Doyle says the government is violating Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by failing to record the generous incentives to companies as expenses.
The government disagrees and says other provinces handle their incentives to lure companies in the same way.
I don't know who is right. My experience as a mid-level corporate guy was that the auditors had the last word. They were charged with certifying that the company was following the rules and the financial statements accurately represented reality.
If they expressed reservations about the financial statements - as Doyle has done - it was a bad thing and could even increase the cost of borrowing. Lenders and bond rating agencies like clean financial statements.
The accounting dispute raises more fundamental issues.
We own the natural gas resources under the ground.
The government of the day, on our behalf, sells companies the right to find and develop them. Leases are auctioned each month, giving companies the right to explore and develop.
If natural gas is found, the government, on our behalf, charges royalties on the gas taken from the ground. It's big money, about $1.2 billion this year.
Setting royalties is inexact. Try for too high a price and the energy companies head off - or threaten to head off - to Alberta or Montana or Nigeria.
The government is trying to be competitive enough to attract the energy companies, while ensuring that the owners - the people of B.C. now and in the future - get a good price for the gas we're selling.
But any government has a conflict of interest.
It wants the resource revenues - and the jobs and economic activity -now. There is unavoidable pressure to cut royalty levels to encourage companies to explore and develop gas wells as quickly as possible.
Even if the smart thing, in terms of the province's long-term interests, might be to keep royalty rates high and accept that development will take place over a longer term. That's especially true when natural gas prices are low, as royalties are based on the value of the resource.
The incentives - royalty cuts for deep wells and other harder to get gas, subsidies to help companies build roads and the like - apparently work. The government maintains each dollar in subsidies brings a substantial increase in royalties and drilling.
But the big winners are the energy customers, as jurisdictions cut the price of their resources to compete with each other. The Alberta government commissioned a review of its royalty rates and found they were too low; the public was losing about $2 billion a year. B.C. has never done such a review.
The big losers, arguably, are future generations.
We're selling a non-renewable public resource today and spending the money on ourselves.
When the gas - or coal or oil - is gone, the royalty revenue stops. A future generation will be left with government spending based on a revenue stream that no longer exists.
There is a simple solution. Other jurisdictions have set up heritage funds for all or part of non-renewable resource revenues.
That provides a cushion for the day the resource runs out.
And it reduces the temptation for governments to sell too cheaply in pursuit of short-term benefits.
Footnote: The outlook for natural gas prices is weak. The government based its budget on prices around $6.20 per gigajoule; prices have been more than $1 below that through the year. Each dollar that the price falls below the forecast means about $300 million in lost revenue.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Government shouldn't set terms of Pickton inquiry
Ernie Crey's sister was murdered after Robert Pickton should have been caught.
He wants an independent inquiry. And he doesn't want the government to control the questions the inquiry asks or how it is structured.
"Should it all fall to the government to decide what those terms of reference are?" Crey told the Times Colonist in a story here. "Like Michael de Jong and a bunch of lawyers on his staff and some cops? No, it shouldn't.
"And if that were the case, that's what would heighten the level the suspicion. People would lose confidence [in] an inquiry of that nature."
It makes sense. The government's role should be the subject of an inquiry. It would create a perception of bias to have it set the terms of reference and place some areas off limits - like prosecutors' 1998 decision to stay an attempted murder charge for an attack on a woman. The government should name a panel - perhaps a retired judge, a First Nations representative. the Children's Representative and the Police Complaints Commissioner - to set up the inquiry and appoint a commissioner.
You also read a column by Lindsay Kines on Rich Coleman's response to the release of the Vancouver Police Department internal review of them Pickton investigation.
Coleman's dismissive comments were poorly informed and indicated the government had no plans to do a serious review of what wrong. They show, Kines writes, exactly why a fully independent inquiry is needed.
He wants an independent inquiry. And he doesn't want the government to control the questions the inquiry asks or how it is structured.
"Should it all fall to the government to decide what those terms of reference are?" Crey told the Times Colonist in a story here. "Like Michael de Jong and a bunch of lawyers on his staff and some cops? No, it shouldn't.
"And if that were the case, that's what would heighten the level the suspicion. People would lose confidence [in] an inquiry of that nature."
It makes sense. The government's role should be the subject of an inquiry. It would create a perception of bias to have it set the terms of reference and place some areas off limits - like prosecutors' 1998 decision to stay an attempted murder charge for an attack on a woman. The government should name a panel - perhaps a retired judge, a First Nations representative. the Children's Representative and the Police Complaints Commissioner - to set up the inquiry and appoint a commissioner.
You also read a column by Lindsay Kines on Rich Coleman's response to the release of the Vancouver Police Department internal review of them Pickton investigation.
Coleman's dismissive comments were poorly informed and indicated the government had no plans to do a serious review of what wrong. They show, Kines writes, exactly why a fully independent inquiry is needed.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Alberta oilsands boycotts bad news for B.C. tourism
Alberta's oilsands - and its government - are about to become a big problem for B.C.
Advocacy groups have targeted the energy megaprojects, pointing to environmental destruction and the big greenhouse-gas emissions involved in getting the sticky oil out of the ground.
And this summer, they dusted off one of their most effective tactics - a call for a tourism boycott.
That's bad news for B.C.'s tourist industry, already facing what managers like to call "challenges."
Consider this headline in The Guardian: "Think twice about visiting Canada until it abandons tar sands destruction."
I couldn't determine if the column appeared in the print edition of the British national newspaper or just online. It doesn't really matter: The newspaper claims about 1.2 million readers a day; the web version actually has more visitors.
Note the headline doesn't urge people to stay away from Alberta. Shun Canada, it says.
It wouldn't make much of a difference even if the distinction were made. I just finished an RV trip from Victoria through the mountains to Calgary, Drumheller and back.
Most of the people in the campgrounds and at the big attractions were from Canada. But there were visitors from Germany, England, Italy, Asia. Many weren't visiting Alberta. They were touring Canada's two western provinces.
If the boycott message is effective, some travellers will head to another destination
The campaign is a problem for B.C. And worse, it has no direct ability to manage the response.
Alberta has done a mediocre job so far.
That's typical. B.C. governments complained about the unfairness of international campaigns against old-growth logging, but were ineffectual in countering them.
Graham Thomson is an astute Edmonton Journal columnist who spent a year on fellowship learning about the oilsands and their impacts.
He gives the Alberta government poor grades for addressing the international criticism.
Conservative Premier Ed Stelmach has defended the oilsands and the companies. The environmental groups are stretching the truth, he says. Environmental rules are effective. The critics are wrong.
The denial response plays well in Alberta, Thomson writes. But it won't ease doubts about the oilsands around the world.
"The best way for the Alberta government and energy companies to win the public relations battle over environmental concerns is through actions, not more public relations battles," he wrote last month.
The problem - for Alberta and now B.C. - is that there are real concerns about the costs of extracting the oil given current technology.
The oilsands - or tarsands as they used to be called - have vast amounts of oil mixed with sand. To make money, the companies have to scoop up the sand and process it with boiling water or steam. The oil, or bitumen, a precursor, is separated and can be sent off by pipeline. The nasty waste is pumped into giant tailing ponds or underground. (Yes, this is grossly oversimplified.)
Generating all that hot water and steam means burning lots of natural gas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found producing a barrel of oil from the Alberta sands resulted in 82 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average barrel produced in the U.S.
Which means the oil might be shunned in U.S. and state climate-change plans.
Then there's a federal parliamentary committee on the environment, which has been looking at the oilsands. MPs from the four parties couldn't agree on a report. Liberal MPs have released their version, which found the Alberta government has failed to protect water quality and the health of First Nations.
The boycott campaign - Rethink Alberta - includes billboards in the U.S. and England showing oil-soaked ducks in a tailing pond and calling Alberta "the other oil disaster," comparing it with BP's Gulf spill.
It might not be fair, but that doesn't matter. The campaigns work unless governments move quickly and effectively to make their case.
And unless they make real changes to address legitimate concerns.
Alberta isn't doing either. And the B.C. tourism industry will pay the price.
Footnote: In a move reminiscent of the campaign over B.C. logging practices, the anti-oilsands forces are also pressuring U.S. companies to shun oilsands-based energy. The drugstore chain Walgrens has said it will switch fuel suppliers to avoid the Alberta product. The Gap, Timberland and Levi Strauss they'll look for non-oilsands energy.
Advocacy groups have targeted the energy megaprojects, pointing to environmental destruction and the big greenhouse-gas emissions involved in getting the sticky oil out of the ground.
And this summer, they dusted off one of their most effective tactics - a call for a tourism boycott.
That's bad news for B.C.'s tourist industry, already facing what managers like to call "challenges."
Consider this headline in The Guardian: "Think twice about visiting Canada until it abandons tar sands destruction."
I couldn't determine if the column appeared in the print edition of the British national newspaper or just online. It doesn't really matter: The newspaper claims about 1.2 million readers a day; the web version actually has more visitors.
Note the headline doesn't urge people to stay away from Alberta. Shun Canada, it says.
It wouldn't make much of a difference even if the distinction were made. I just finished an RV trip from Victoria through the mountains to Calgary, Drumheller and back.
Most of the people in the campgrounds and at the big attractions were from Canada. But there were visitors from Germany, England, Italy, Asia. Many weren't visiting Alberta. They were touring Canada's two western provinces.
If the boycott message is effective, some travellers will head to another destination
The campaign is a problem for B.C. And worse, it has no direct ability to manage the response.
Alberta has done a mediocre job so far.
That's typical. B.C. governments complained about the unfairness of international campaigns against old-growth logging, but were ineffectual in countering them.
Graham Thomson is an astute Edmonton Journal columnist who spent a year on fellowship learning about the oilsands and their impacts.
He gives the Alberta government poor grades for addressing the international criticism.
Conservative Premier Ed Stelmach has defended the oilsands and the companies. The environmental groups are stretching the truth, he says. Environmental rules are effective. The critics are wrong.
The denial response plays well in Alberta, Thomson writes. But it won't ease doubts about the oilsands around the world.
"The best way for the Alberta government and energy companies to win the public relations battle over environmental concerns is through actions, not more public relations battles," he wrote last month.
The problem - for Alberta and now B.C. - is that there are real concerns about the costs of extracting the oil given current technology.
The oilsands - or tarsands as they used to be called - have vast amounts of oil mixed with sand. To make money, the companies have to scoop up the sand and process it with boiling water or steam. The oil, or bitumen, a precursor, is separated and can be sent off by pipeline. The nasty waste is pumped into giant tailing ponds or underground. (Yes, this is grossly oversimplified.)
Generating all that hot water and steam means burning lots of natural gas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found producing a barrel of oil from the Alberta sands resulted in 82 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average barrel produced in the U.S.
Which means the oil might be shunned in U.S. and state climate-change plans.
Then there's a federal parliamentary committee on the environment, which has been looking at the oilsands. MPs from the four parties couldn't agree on a report. Liberal MPs have released their version, which found the Alberta government has failed to protect water quality and the health of First Nations.
The boycott campaign - Rethink Alberta - includes billboards in the U.S. and England showing oil-soaked ducks in a tailing pond and calling Alberta "the other oil disaster," comparing it with BP's Gulf spill.
It might not be fair, but that doesn't matter. The campaigns work unless governments move quickly and effectively to make their case.
And unless they make real changes to address legitimate concerns.
Alberta isn't doing either. And the B.C. tourism industry will pay the price.
Footnote: In a move reminiscent of the campaign over B.C. logging practices, the anti-oilsands forces are also pressuring U.S. companies to shun oilsands-based energy. The drugstore chain Walgrens has said it will switch fuel suppliers to avoid the Alberta product. The Gap, Timberland and Levi Strauss they'll look for non-oilsands energy.
Getting tough on crime means more dead women
Good Times Colonist column here on the latest wrinkle in the Conservatives' "get tough on crime" plans.
Running a bawdy house is now punishable by a sentence of up to two years; the government plans to impose a five-year minimum jail term.
Jody Paterson notes that the inevitable result would be to drive escorts and other sex-trade workers onto the streets — where Robert Pickton found his victims.
Running a bawdy house is now punishable by a sentence of up to two years; the government plans to impose a five-year minimum jail term.
Jody Paterson notes that the inevitable result would be to drive escorts and other sex-trade workers onto the streets — where Robert Pickton found his victims.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
An ex-officer's perspective on the Pickton case
Bob Cooper is a retired Vancouver police officer who walked a beat, worked in the Asian organized crime section and the homicide squad.
He is not much optimistic about the promise of a review of the Pickton investigation promised by acting solicitor general Rich Coleman.
"Aside from the irony of a Liberal cabinet minister using the word ‘transparent’, it’s well known in law enforcement that as long as Gordon Campbell is premier the re-signing of the RCMP’s contract in 2012 is a foregone conclusion and Victoria doesn’t want anything rocking that boat. A ‘transparent review’ will take forever to set up and even longer to run its course. This scores the government political points for calling it and buys them time while allowing them to deflect any questions about the case."
I recommend reading the rest of his blog post here.
He is not much optimistic about the promise of a review of the Pickton investigation promised by acting solicitor general Rich Coleman.
"Aside from the irony of a Liberal cabinet minister using the word ‘transparent’, it’s well known in law enforcement that as long as Gordon Campbell is premier the re-signing of the RCMP’s contract in 2012 is a foregone conclusion and Victoria doesn’t want anything rocking that boat. A ‘transparent review’ will take forever to set up and even longer to run its course. This scores the government political points for calling it and buys them time while allowing them to deflect any questions about the case."
I recommend reading the rest of his blog post here.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Pickton, ministers' willful blindness and dumping the RCMP
The Vancouver Police Department's internal review of the Robert Pickton investigation is grim reading.
Deputy chief Doug LePard sets out - over 400-plus pages - an unblinking look at the failures, mistakes and conflicts that allowed Pickton to keep on killing years after he should have been caught. Long enough, in fact, to have killed another 13 women.
The report was completed four years ago. It couldn't be released publicly then, as Pickton's jury trial wasn't concluded.
But the findings were so important, then Vancouver chief Jamie Graham tried to share the report with John Les, the solicitor general.
Les refused.
Last year, current Vancouver chief Jimmy Chu set out to alert the government once again. He offered Kash Heed, the solicitor general at the time, a copy of the report and a briefing.
Heed said no.
The ministers' almost identical responses said they didn't want to know about the report because the matter was before the courts.
That's ridiculous. Pickton's right to a fair trial would not be affected if the solicitor general, responsible for policing, read a report on problems with the investigation. There is nothing in the law or tradition that says government ministers must remain ignorant about serious public policy issues because a trial is underway.
Especially when their willful blindness puts the public at risk.
LePard's report sets out police missteps and failures. The Vancouver department was slow to take an interest in the reports that women were disappearing from Vancouver's rougher streets and refused to accept the evidence that serial killer was at work. Petty internal rivalries undermined efforts to investigate.
And the report concludes the fragmented policing structure in the Lower Mainland helped allow Pickton to keep killing. The victims were from Vancouver; the murders were on his farm in Coquitlam.
As evidence against Pickton increased, Vancouver police asked the Coquitlam RCMP to co-operate in a joint investigation. The Mounties said no.
The report found the RCMP detachment let the file languish for months and failed to move the investigation forward.
When the RCMP's provincial unsolved homicide unit became involved, its officers decided that the information from a key witness wasn't credible. But they had no reason for the decision, LePard notes. "Personalities or opinions about credibility without supporting evidence should never have derailed a murder investigation," he reports. "Neither that opinion nor the lack of resources in the Coquitlam RCMP detachment should have been sufficient to derail an investigation when the allegations were so serious."
The bizarre policing structure in the Lower Mainland - and in the capital region - have been identified as problems for years. Heed, as West Vancouver chief, called for a regional force to combat organized crime. (Les, as solicitor general, called Heed's boss, the mayor, to complain about the comments.)
Yet the government has resisted change. Surely, the report would have helped it make an informed policy decision.
At the same time, the government has been pushing ahead on a new 20-year contract with the RCMP for policing in the province. The current deal expires in 2012.
Again, surely the information in the report - which the ministers refused to read - should have been considered in that process.
The Vancouver police department review was released after Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines obtained a leaked copy. The government had hoped to stall release until next month. (Kines's work on the missing women with the Vancouver Sun and the Times Colonist has been an example of journalism at its best.)
That reporting forced acting Solicitor General Rich Coleman to promise some sort of review. The government had up until then refused to commit to an inquiry.
But Coleman dismissed the Vancouver police report as "finger-pointing." (Which suggests he could not have read it.)
It's just one side of the story, he said.
Perhaps the RCMP review of the investigation, completed eight years ago, does have other, useful information.
But it remains secret, which says much about the force's sense of its accountability to British Columbians.
Footnote: A shift away from the RCMP to a provincial force would be difficult. But the Mounties' problems have been well documented even before the failures in the Pickton investigation. Officers are employed, and rewarded or punished, by the national force, not by a provincial or municipal police department. They do not even accept the provincial police complaints process.
Deputy chief Doug LePard sets out - over 400-plus pages - an unblinking look at the failures, mistakes and conflicts that allowed Pickton to keep on killing years after he should have been caught. Long enough, in fact, to have killed another 13 women.
The report was completed four years ago. It couldn't be released publicly then, as Pickton's jury trial wasn't concluded.
But the findings were so important, then Vancouver chief Jamie Graham tried to share the report with John Les, the solicitor general.
Les refused.
Last year, current Vancouver chief Jimmy Chu set out to alert the government once again. He offered Kash Heed, the solicitor general at the time, a copy of the report and a briefing.
Heed said no.
The ministers' almost identical responses said they didn't want to know about the report because the matter was before the courts.
That's ridiculous. Pickton's right to a fair trial would not be affected if the solicitor general, responsible for policing, read a report on problems with the investigation. There is nothing in the law or tradition that says government ministers must remain ignorant about serious public policy issues because a trial is underway.
Especially when their willful blindness puts the public at risk.
LePard's report sets out police missteps and failures. The Vancouver department was slow to take an interest in the reports that women were disappearing from Vancouver's rougher streets and refused to accept the evidence that serial killer was at work. Petty internal rivalries undermined efforts to investigate.
And the report concludes the fragmented policing structure in the Lower Mainland helped allow Pickton to keep killing. The victims were from Vancouver; the murders were on his farm in Coquitlam.
As evidence against Pickton increased, Vancouver police asked the Coquitlam RCMP to co-operate in a joint investigation. The Mounties said no.
The report found the RCMP detachment let the file languish for months and failed to move the investigation forward.
When the RCMP's provincial unsolved homicide unit became involved, its officers decided that the information from a key witness wasn't credible. But they had no reason for the decision, LePard notes. "Personalities or opinions about credibility without supporting evidence should never have derailed a murder investigation," he reports. "Neither that opinion nor the lack of resources in the Coquitlam RCMP detachment should have been sufficient to derail an investigation when the allegations were so serious."
The bizarre policing structure in the Lower Mainland - and in the capital region - have been identified as problems for years. Heed, as West Vancouver chief, called for a regional force to combat organized crime. (Les, as solicitor general, called Heed's boss, the mayor, to complain about the comments.)
Yet the government has resisted change. Surely, the report would have helped it make an informed policy decision.
At the same time, the government has been pushing ahead on a new 20-year contract with the RCMP for policing in the province. The current deal expires in 2012.
Again, surely the information in the report - which the ministers refused to read - should have been considered in that process.
The Vancouver police department review was released after Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines obtained a leaked copy. The government had hoped to stall release until next month. (Kines's work on the missing women with the Vancouver Sun and the Times Colonist has been an example of journalism at its best.)
That reporting forced acting Solicitor General Rich Coleman to promise some sort of review. The government had up until then refused to commit to an inquiry.
But Coleman dismissed the Vancouver police report as "finger-pointing." (Which suggests he could not have read it.)
It's just one side of the story, he said.
Perhaps the RCMP review of the investigation, completed eight years ago, does have other, useful information.
But it remains secret, which says much about the force's sense of its accountability to British Columbians.
Footnote: A shift away from the RCMP to a provincial force would be difficult. But the Mounties' problems have been well documented even before the failures in the Pickton investigation. Officers are employed, and rewarded or punished, by the national force, not by a provincial or municipal police department. They do not even accept the provincial police complaints process.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Why Campbell is likely to leave soon
Jordan Bateman is a Langley Township councillor and active Liberal party member. (He's president of Rich Coleman's riding association.)
So his suggestion that Gordon Campbell will announce his departure soon — perhaps before the party's November convention in Pentiction - is worth reading here.
So his suggestion that Gordon Campbell will announce his departure soon — perhaps before the party's November convention in Pentiction - is worth reading here.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Court turfs business HST challenge; more Liberal bad news
The big business attempt to derail the anti-HST initiative was an amazing bungle.
The six business associations made things worse for the Liberals by launching the last-minute legal challenge to the petition signed by some 705,000 British Columbians.
And B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman quickly dismissed their arguments Friday, ruling that the anti-HST effort "complies with the spirit and the letter" of the initiative legislation.
Bauman noted Premier Gordon Campbell had even described the initiative petition as "a victory for democracy." (Which, naturally, raises questions about what the business groups were attempting to achieve.)
It was a thorough slapdown for the legal challenge.
Lawyers for the business groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - argued the Chief Electoral Officer should never have approved the initiative.
Initiatives can only be launched on issues within provincial jurisdiction. The HST was imposed by the federal government and isn't a provincial tax at all, the business groups argued. The draft bill extinguishing the tax, part of the initiative process, was therefore fatally flawed.
Leave aside the legal issues for a second and just consider the argument based on common sense. The federal government says it didn't bring the HST. The business groups are arguing the provincial government didn't bring it in either. A new tax, apparently, just happened - maybe the tax fairy brought it.
Bauman rejected the argument on legal grounds. There might be constitutional problems in repealing the tax, he agreed.
But the standard set out in the initiative act is simply that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the province. Bauman noted the draft bill calls for the cancellation of the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
That's the agreement to introduce the tax and, he noted, it's clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
The business groups also argued the draft bill that would end the HST wasn't clear enough. Bauman said that just wasn't true.
It was a rout. All the business groups succeeded in doing was angering many members of the public, who objected to an attempt to subvert a successful grassroots democratic effort. (One lauded by the premier, remember.) And they reminded people that businesses are paying $1.9 billion less in taxes under the HST, while individuals and families are paying $1.9 billion more.
None of this means the tax will be repealed.
The anti-HST effort now goes to the legislative initiatives committee, which has six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats. The committee has 90 days to choose one of two courses.
It can pass the draft bill to repeal the tax on to the legislature. The government is free to ignore it, amend it or use its majority to vote it down.
Or it can send the measure to a province-wide referendum in September 2011.
That might be appealing in some ways. The standards for success in a referendum are daunting. To pass, the anti-HST side would need the support of more than 50 per cent of registered voters across the province and in at least two-thirds of riding.
The key words there are "registered voters." It's not a question of getting a majority of the people who turn out to vote; it has to be a more than 50 per cent of those on the voters' list. Those who don't show up - about 45 per cent in the 2009 election - would be counted as supporting the HST.
And even if the anti-HST side is successful, the result isn't binding.
There are no good choices for the Liberals.
Assuming they won't retreat on the tax, public anger will continue and recall campaigns will soon be launched against vulnerable MLAs.
The Campbell government has dug a very deep hole for itself.
Footnote: The initiatives committee is chaired by Terry Lake, a first-term Liberal MLA from Kamloops. The other Liberals are Eric Foster and John Slater from the Okanagan, Pat Pimm of Peace River North and Richard Lee and Dave Hayer from the Lower Mainland.
The New Democrats are Jenny Kwan and Mike Farnworth from the Lower Mainland, Katrine Conroy from Kootenay West and Rob Fleming from Victoria.
The Liberals should start worrying about how the committee process is going to go.
The six business associations made things worse for the Liberals by launching the last-minute legal challenge to the petition signed by some 705,000 British Columbians.
And B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman quickly dismissed their arguments Friday, ruling that the anti-HST effort "complies with the spirit and the letter" of the initiative legislation.
Bauman noted Premier Gordon Campbell had even described the initiative petition as "a victory for democracy." (Which, naturally, raises questions about what the business groups were attempting to achieve.)
It was a thorough slapdown for the legal challenge.
Lawyers for the business groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - argued the Chief Electoral Officer should never have approved the initiative.
Initiatives can only be launched on issues within provincial jurisdiction. The HST was imposed by the federal government and isn't a provincial tax at all, the business groups argued. The draft bill extinguishing the tax, part of the initiative process, was therefore fatally flawed.
Leave aside the legal issues for a second and just consider the argument based on common sense. The federal government says it didn't bring the HST. The business groups are arguing the provincial government didn't bring it in either. A new tax, apparently, just happened - maybe the tax fairy brought it.
Bauman rejected the argument on legal grounds. There might be constitutional problems in repealing the tax, he agreed.
But the standard set out in the initiative act is simply that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the province. Bauman noted the draft bill calls for the cancellation of the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
That's the agreement to introduce the tax and, he noted, it's clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
The business groups also argued the draft bill that would end the HST wasn't clear enough. Bauman said that just wasn't true.
It was a rout. All the business groups succeeded in doing was angering many members of the public, who objected to an attempt to subvert a successful grassroots democratic effort. (One lauded by the premier, remember.) And they reminded people that businesses are paying $1.9 billion less in taxes under the HST, while individuals and families are paying $1.9 billion more.
None of this means the tax will be repealed.
The anti-HST effort now goes to the legislative initiatives committee, which has six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats. The committee has 90 days to choose one of two courses.
It can pass the draft bill to repeal the tax on to the legislature. The government is free to ignore it, amend it or use its majority to vote it down.
Or it can send the measure to a province-wide referendum in September 2011.
That might be appealing in some ways. The standards for success in a referendum are daunting. To pass, the anti-HST side would need the support of more than 50 per cent of registered voters across the province and in at least two-thirds of riding.
The key words there are "registered voters." It's not a question of getting a majority of the people who turn out to vote; it has to be a more than 50 per cent of those on the voters' list. Those who don't show up - about 45 per cent in the 2009 election - would be counted as supporting the HST.
And even if the anti-HST side is successful, the result isn't binding.
There are no good choices for the Liberals.
Assuming they won't retreat on the tax, public anger will continue and recall campaigns will soon be launched against vulnerable MLAs.
The Campbell government has dug a very deep hole for itself.
Footnote: The initiatives committee is chaired by Terry Lake, a first-term Liberal MLA from Kamloops. The other Liberals are Eric Foster and John Slater from the Okanagan, Pat Pimm of Peace River North and Richard Lee and Dave Hayer from the Lower Mainland.
The New Democrats are Jenny Kwan and Mike Farnworth from the Lower Mainland, Katrine Conroy from Kootenay West and Rob Fleming from Victoria.
The Liberals should start worrying about how the committee process is going to go.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Liberals set scene for Elections B.C. controversy
The controversy over interim Chief Electoral Officer Craig James’s decision on the anti-HST initiative is another self-inflicted wound for the Liberals.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
Liberals set scene for Elections B.C. controversy
The controversy over interim Chief Electoral Officer Craig James’s decision on the anti-HST initiative is another self-inflicted wound for the Liberals.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
HST mess gets worse for the Liberals
Big business groups in B.C. are the NDP's best allies right now.
Just when the Liberals thought the anti-HST anger might be fading, six big business associations have got voters riled up again.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
They filed a legal challenge one day before the proponents delivered petitions with 700,000 names calling for the tax to be rescinded.
The challenge, along with a counter argument from opponents that the HST itself is illegal because the legislature never approved it, are being heard in B.C. Supreme Court this week. Chief Justice Robert Bauman will decide the merits of the arguments.
But the Liberals have already been badly hurt, no matter what Bauman decides.
The government had decided people's anger was easing. That's why Finance Minister Colin Hansen took the heat for dumping 1.6 million pro-HST flyers in the garbage. Being criticized for waste was considered better than sending out brochures reminding people about the new tax.
But the legal challenges and resulting complications have fuelled new anger about the tax and the way it was introduced.
For starters, the business groups' lawsuit is a reminder that they're the big winners with the HST.
Companies get to pay $1.9 billion less in taxes. Families and individuals will pay an extra $1.9 billion to pay for the break for the business community.
And the case reinforces some voters' impression idea that the Liberals place the interests of companies ahead of the citizens. That suspicion is heightened by the six groups $380,000 in political contributions to the Liberals since 2001. (Their members have contributed millions more.)
Things got even worse for the government after Elections B.C.'s fumbled its handling of the anti-HST initiative. It finished a review of the petitions and concluded the opponents had the required signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in all 85 ridings.
But interim chief electoral officer Craig James decided he would not send the petition and proposed legislation to rescind the tax to a committee of MLAs, the next step in the process, until after the court cases are resolved.
Worse, James refused to provide a public explanation for the decision until this week, when he responded to a letter from NDP MLA Leonard Krog.
James said he sought independent legal advice. The lawyer for the business groups also urged him not to send the initiative to the legislative committee, he noted.
The delay wouldn't be long, James concluded, and it would be prudent to sit on the petition until after a court decision.
It's a defensible argument, but not compelling.
The committee would not likely have been in any rush to deal with the issues until after the court rulings anyway. Simply passing on the initiative - which Elections B.C. had already approved - wouldn't undermine the independence of the courts.
Right or wrong, the decision ramped up public anger. The anti-HST forces had succeeded in getting more than 700,000 names on the petitions, meeting a standard many considered impossible.
Then not only did big business launch a legal attack, but Elections B.C. wouldn't send the initiative to the committee.
For a lot of voters, this started to look like their legitimate efforts to exercise their democratic rights were being thwarted. The rhetoric about political interference was over the top, but it reflected real anger.
The court case is expected to finish this week. Bauman will then rule on whether the HST was never properly passed by the legislature, as the opponents allege, and whether the anti-HST initiative is fatally flaws, as the business groups claim.
In the meantime, voter anger over the tax, the way it was introduced and the government's response is aboil once again.
Footnote: If the initiative goes ahead after the court challenges, the committee of MLAs has 90 days to send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a non-binding referendum or to send the bill rescinding the tax to the legislature. In either case, the Liberal majority can ultimately vote to defeat the legislation and keep the tax.
Which would mean, though, conceding the next election to the NDP.
Just when the Liberals thought the anti-HST anger might be fading, six big business associations have got voters riled up again.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
They filed a legal challenge one day before the proponents delivered petitions with 700,000 names calling for the tax to be rescinded.
The challenge, along with a counter argument from opponents that the HST itself is illegal because the legislature never approved it, are being heard in B.C. Supreme Court this week. Chief Justice Robert Bauman will decide the merits of the arguments.
But the Liberals have already been badly hurt, no matter what Bauman decides.
The government had decided people's anger was easing. That's why Finance Minister Colin Hansen took the heat for dumping 1.6 million pro-HST flyers in the garbage. Being criticized for waste was considered better than sending out brochures reminding people about the new tax.
But the legal challenges and resulting complications have fuelled new anger about the tax and the way it was introduced.
For starters, the business groups' lawsuit is a reminder that they're the big winners with the HST.
Companies get to pay $1.9 billion less in taxes. Families and individuals will pay an extra $1.9 billion to pay for the break for the business community.
And the case reinforces some voters' impression idea that the Liberals place the interests of companies ahead of the citizens. That suspicion is heightened by the six groups $380,000 in political contributions to the Liberals since 2001. (Their members have contributed millions more.)
Things got even worse for the government after Elections B.C.'s fumbled its handling of the anti-HST initiative. It finished a review of the petitions and concluded the opponents had the required signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in all 85 ridings.
But interim chief electoral officer Craig James decided he would not send the petition and proposed legislation to rescind the tax to a committee of MLAs, the next step in the process, until after the court cases are resolved.
Worse, James refused to provide a public explanation for the decision until this week, when he responded to a letter from NDP MLA Leonard Krog.
James said he sought independent legal advice. The lawyer for the business groups also urged him not to send the initiative to the legislative committee, he noted.
The delay wouldn't be long, James concluded, and it would be prudent to sit on the petition until after a court decision.
It's a defensible argument, but not compelling.
The committee would not likely have been in any rush to deal with the issues until after the court rulings anyway. Simply passing on the initiative - which Elections B.C. had already approved - wouldn't undermine the independence of the courts.
Right or wrong, the decision ramped up public anger. The anti-HST forces had succeeded in getting more than 700,000 names on the petitions, meeting a standard many considered impossible.
Then not only did big business launch a legal attack, but Elections B.C. wouldn't send the initiative to the committee.
For a lot of voters, this started to look like their legitimate efforts to exercise their democratic rights were being thwarted. The rhetoric about political interference was over the top, but it reflected real anger.
The court case is expected to finish this week. Bauman will then rule on whether the HST was never properly passed by the legislature, as the opponents allege, and whether the anti-HST initiative is fatally flaws, as the business groups claim.
In the meantime, voter anger over the tax, the way it was introduced and the government's response is aboil once again.
Footnote: If the initiative goes ahead after the court challenges, the committee of MLAs has 90 days to send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a non-binding referendum or to send the bill rescinding the tax to the legislature. In either case, the Liberal majority can ultimately vote to defeat the legislation and keep the tax.
Which would mean, though, conceding the next election to the NDP.
Friday, July 30, 2010
You lose, they keep the money; you win, they keep the money
I can see why Mike Lee is unhappy.
Back in 2007, the Vancouver Island man knew he had a gambling problem. He was losing too much money and couldn't stop.
So he signed up for B.C. Lotteries' voluntary self-exclusion program. That's supposed to bar you from bingo halls and casinos and online betting. Staff will be on the alert to keep you out, the corporation says, and you can be fined up to $5,000 for breaking the agreement.
And, the current rules say, you can't keep your winnings if you go back into a casino and beat the odds.
But Lee says he was able to keep on gambling, winning sometimes but mostly losing. B.C. Lotteries didn't keep up its end of the bargain when it came to preventing him from gambling.
Until January, when he won $42,500 in a VLT at Duncan's mini-casino.
Sorry, the casino said. You're on the self-exclusion list and you don't get the money. It will subsidize B.C. Lotteries' harm-reduction programs.
Lee's lawyer is fighting the decision. Partly, it's a technical question of whether Lee ever agreed to forfeit any winnings.
But on a more basic level, the issue is fairness.
Despite all the talk about helping gamblers save themselves, B.C. Lotteries didn't enforce Lee's exclusion when he was losing money and increasing its profits. Only when he won did the Crown corporation and its agents leap into action.
You could write this off as an aberration, a one-off.
Except the self-exclusion program has been around for 11 years. And so far, not one fine has been levied against a gambler for sneaking into casinos.
Another gambler is suing over the self-exclusion program. Joyce May Ross. She too registered to be barred from betting in 2007. Since then, she has lost $331,000. There was no serious effort to stop her from gambling, she alleges. Casino staff knew she was a participant in the self-exclusion program, but didn't stop her from gambling, she claims.
It does suggest a double standard. The program isn't great at catching gamblers, until they win.
The notion of giving protecting addicted people from their illness is appealing. (This has to be an illness. Imagine someone who can think of no way to stop gambling and losing except by making a public declaration and being barred.)
But the reality, in B.C., is flimsy.
Casino employees are supposed to memorize 6,600 pictures of British Columbians who have asked to be kept out of casinos and then confront them. They're filed in big binders. (Ontario is considering cameras and facial recognition technology to help. It is facing a proposed $3.5-billion class action lawsuit on behalf of addicted gamblers who claim they asked to be barred, but were allowed to keep losing.)
And they do. B.C. gambling establishments turned away people on the list about 8,200 times last year, according to a Vancouver Province review of the issue. They kept 102 people on the exclusion list from claiming a jackpot.
But is that good? When people put themselves on the list, they are acknowledging they no longer can control their gambling addictions. They need someone to stand at the door of the bingo hall or casino and say you can't come in.
If there are 6,600 of them, and they each test the safeguards every couple of weeks, then the program is catching about five per cent of people who have asked to be barred.
Rich Coleman, responsible for increasing gambling, reducing harm and limiting gambling-related crime, acknowledges the program has problems. But the addicted gamblers have to take responsibility too, he says.
Except that's why it's called an addiction - they can't stop. And that's why they sign up for the self-exclusion program.
It's depressing. The government knows that for every 1,000 new gamblers, some 40 will have problems. Their lives will be worse - often a lot worse.
But it still is setting out to recruit about 240,000 new gamblers per year.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government's online gambling site remains closed until further notice after the botched launch, privacy violations and less-than-honest communication. The shutdown is costing the B.C.Lottery Corp. about $800,000 a week. But it's saving gamblers money.
Back in 2007, the Vancouver Island man knew he had a gambling problem. He was losing too much money and couldn't stop.
So he signed up for B.C. Lotteries' voluntary self-exclusion program. That's supposed to bar you from bingo halls and casinos and online betting. Staff will be on the alert to keep you out, the corporation says, and you can be fined up to $5,000 for breaking the agreement.
And, the current rules say, you can't keep your winnings if you go back into a casino and beat the odds.
But Lee says he was able to keep on gambling, winning sometimes but mostly losing. B.C. Lotteries didn't keep up its end of the bargain when it came to preventing him from gambling.
Until January, when he won $42,500 in a VLT at Duncan's mini-casino.
Sorry, the casino said. You're on the self-exclusion list and you don't get the money. It will subsidize B.C. Lotteries' harm-reduction programs.
Lee's lawyer is fighting the decision. Partly, it's a technical question of whether Lee ever agreed to forfeit any winnings.
But on a more basic level, the issue is fairness.
Despite all the talk about helping gamblers save themselves, B.C. Lotteries didn't enforce Lee's exclusion when he was losing money and increasing its profits. Only when he won did the Crown corporation and its agents leap into action.
You could write this off as an aberration, a one-off.
Except the self-exclusion program has been around for 11 years. And so far, not one fine has been levied against a gambler for sneaking into casinos.
Another gambler is suing over the self-exclusion program. Joyce May Ross. She too registered to be barred from betting in 2007. Since then, she has lost $331,000. There was no serious effort to stop her from gambling, she alleges. Casino staff knew she was a participant in the self-exclusion program, but didn't stop her from gambling, she claims.
It does suggest a double standard. The program isn't great at catching gamblers, until they win.
The notion of giving protecting addicted people from their illness is appealing. (This has to be an illness. Imagine someone who can think of no way to stop gambling and losing except by making a public declaration and being barred.)
But the reality, in B.C., is flimsy.
Casino employees are supposed to memorize 6,600 pictures of British Columbians who have asked to be kept out of casinos and then confront them. They're filed in big binders. (Ontario is considering cameras and facial recognition technology to help. It is facing a proposed $3.5-billion class action lawsuit on behalf of addicted gamblers who claim they asked to be barred, but were allowed to keep losing.)
And they do. B.C. gambling establishments turned away people on the list about 8,200 times last year, according to a Vancouver Province review of the issue. They kept 102 people on the exclusion list from claiming a jackpot.
But is that good? When people put themselves on the list, they are acknowledging they no longer can control their gambling addictions. They need someone to stand at the door of the bingo hall or casino and say you can't come in.
If there are 6,600 of them, and they each test the safeguards every couple of weeks, then the program is catching about five per cent of people who have asked to be barred.
Rich Coleman, responsible for increasing gambling, reducing harm and limiting gambling-related crime, acknowledges the program has problems. But the addicted gamblers have to take responsibility too, he says.
Except that's why it's called an addiction - they can't stop. And that's why they sign up for the self-exclusion program.
It's depressing. The government knows that for every 1,000 new gamblers, some 40 will have problems. Their lives will be worse - often a lot worse.
But it still is setting out to recruit about 240,000 new gamblers per year.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government's online gambling site remains closed until further notice after the botched launch, privacy violations and less-than-honest communication. The shutdown is costing the B.C.Lottery Corp. about $800,000 a week. But it's saving gamblers money.
Harper’s self-destructive census bungle
Maybe Stephen Harper, in his heart, has mixed feelings about being in power.
Perhaps he fears it means he has sold out.
That’s one explanation for the Conservative government’s bizarre decision to turn the census into some sort of do-or-die issue.
The census hasn’t been top of mind for most Canadians. Or even bottom of mind, really.
But it’s a big deal for researchers and governments and businesses and policy advocates. Every five years, Canadians fill out census forms. The data is rolled up into a portrait of the country and how it’s changing.
Provincial governments and municipalities use it to assess programs and future needs; business groups monitor the state of the economy and the challenges ahead; school boards plan for future needs; researchers try to figure out what is changing - and why - in the lives of Canadians.
The Conservatives, for no compelling reason, want to make the data less reliable, the census less useful and comparisons with previous years difficult.
Most Canadians fill out a short census form every five years. Twenty per cent of us get the mandatory long census form, which asks more questions. That sample, randomly selected, provides Statistics Canada with reliable date.
The Conservatives, with no consultation or warning, are making the long form voluntary.
That’s a mistake, according to virtually every statistician, researcher and census user.
The decision means the census sample is no longer random. Single moms working two jobs might not fill out the forms; retired people might be happy to take the time. Natives living in remote reserves and hard-charging business executives might not get around to the census.
The portrait of a nation is skewed. Which means decisions made on the basis of the information is also unreliable.
So why would the Conservatives risk wrecking the census with a decision that is being denounced as wrongheaded by almost everyone involved?
Three answers make sense.
Harper could genuinely believe that the benefits of an accurate census aren’t enough to make it mandatory for Canadians to fill out the long form.
Or the Conservatives could be trying to please the portion of their base that sees government as the enemy and the requirement to fill out the census form as Big Brother run wild.
Or they figured the census wasn’t likely to attract attention and didn’t anticipate just how widespread and credible the opposition would be.
Whatever happened, it’s turned into a big problem.
I expect the Conservative strategists were right about the census as an issue.
But this isn’t about the census anymore.
The government stands accused - by everyone from the Conference Board of Canada to the province of Ontario to big unions - of making a bad decision.
The National Statistics Council - appointed by the government to advise Statistics Canada - wants the mandatory forum used in 2011 and proposes an overall review of the census before the next survey in five yhears. (The council includes former TD Bank vice-president Don Drummond, born and raised in Victoria. He found it shocking that the decision was made without consulting the council.)
And it has been dishonest. Cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office have claimed that Canadians were up in arms about the census. But Statistics Canada said it sent out 12 million forms in 2006 and had only 166 complaints about all aspects of the census.
They talked about the threat of jail and bureaucrats knocking on people’s doors in the night to demand answers.
But no one has ever been jailed for not completing the census form. And no one has faced a late-night call from the man.
Most seriously, Industry Minister Tony Clement said StatsCan supported the change. The agency’s head, Munir Sheikh, said that was not true and resigned as a matter of integrity. Who should you believe - the career government employee who resigned in protest, or the glib minister?
The changes to the census were a mistake. The Conservatives’ arrogance and dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that are doing much more damage.
Footnote: An Ottawa Citizen editorial suggested another motive. “Ideologues don’t just ignore research,” the editorial argued. “They actually abhor it, because it gets in their way. If you approach the problem of drug addiction from an ideological point of view, then you have nothing but contempt for medical researchers who can show that safe injection sites reduce the harm of illegal drugs… This contempt for empirical research is not the Canadian way, but it has become the Conservative way.”
Perhaps he fears it means he has sold out.
That’s one explanation for the Conservative government’s bizarre decision to turn the census into some sort of do-or-die issue.
The census hasn’t been top of mind for most Canadians. Or even bottom of mind, really.
But it’s a big deal for researchers and governments and businesses and policy advocates. Every five years, Canadians fill out census forms. The data is rolled up into a portrait of the country and how it’s changing.
Provincial governments and municipalities use it to assess programs and future needs; business groups monitor the state of the economy and the challenges ahead; school boards plan for future needs; researchers try to figure out what is changing - and why - in the lives of Canadians.
The Conservatives, for no compelling reason, want to make the data less reliable, the census less useful and comparisons with previous years difficult.
Most Canadians fill out a short census form every five years. Twenty per cent of us get the mandatory long census form, which asks more questions. That sample, randomly selected, provides Statistics Canada with reliable date.
The Conservatives, with no consultation or warning, are making the long form voluntary.
That’s a mistake, according to virtually every statistician, researcher and census user.
The decision means the census sample is no longer random. Single moms working two jobs might not fill out the forms; retired people might be happy to take the time. Natives living in remote reserves and hard-charging business executives might not get around to the census.
The portrait of a nation is skewed. Which means decisions made on the basis of the information is also unreliable.
So why would the Conservatives risk wrecking the census with a decision that is being denounced as wrongheaded by almost everyone involved?
Three answers make sense.
Harper could genuinely believe that the benefits of an accurate census aren’t enough to make it mandatory for Canadians to fill out the long form.
Or the Conservatives could be trying to please the portion of their base that sees government as the enemy and the requirement to fill out the census form as Big Brother run wild.
Or they figured the census wasn’t likely to attract attention and didn’t anticipate just how widespread and credible the opposition would be.
Whatever happened, it’s turned into a big problem.
I expect the Conservative strategists were right about the census as an issue.
But this isn’t about the census anymore.
The government stands accused - by everyone from the Conference Board of Canada to the province of Ontario to big unions - of making a bad decision.
The National Statistics Council - appointed by the government to advise Statistics Canada - wants the mandatory forum used in 2011 and proposes an overall review of the census before the next survey in five yhears. (The council includes former TD Bank vice-president Don Drummond, born and raised in Victoria. He found it shocking that the decision was made without consulting the council.)
And it has been dishonest. Cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office have claimed that Canadians were up in arms about the census. But Statistics Canada said it sent out 12 million forms in 2006 and had only 166 complaints about all aspects of the census.
They talked about the threat of jail and bureaucrats knocking on people’s doors in the night to demand answers.
But no one has ever been jailed for not completing the census form. And no one has faced a late-night call from the man.
Most seriously, Industry Minister Tony Clement said StatsCan supported the change. The agency’s head, Munir Sheikh, said that was not true and resigned as a matter of integrity. Who should you believe - the career government employee who resigned in protest, or the glib minister?
The changes to the census were a mistake. The Conservatives’ arrogance and dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that are doing much more damage.
Footnote: An Ottawa Citizen editorial suggested another motive. “Ideologues don’t just ignore research,” the editorial argued. “They actually abhor it, because it gets in their way. If you approach the problem of drug addiction from an ideological point of view, then you have nothing but contempt for medical researchers who can show that safe injection sites reduce the harm of illegal drugs… This contempt for empirical research is not the Canadian way, but it has become the Conservative way.”
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Who should you believe on children's safety?
About six weeks ago, I wrote a column about a Representative for Children and Youth audit of a child support program. It found children were being put at risk and called for an effort to make sure they were safe.
Children's Minister Mary Polak said no. I wondered what she was thinking, as the audit found more than 1,000 children could be at risk.
Polak, or the Public Affairs Bureau, wrote a letter to newspapers that ran the column.
"Based on an audit of the program, Mr. Willcocks feels it is appropriate that the ministry now knock on the door of every CIHR recipient and suggest that while we may not have a specific concern about the care you as an uncle, aunt or grandparent provide - we are going to examine your individual care-giving situation," she wrote. "That audit which involved more than 1,200 CIHR cases, turned up concerns in four instances which the Representative for Children and Youth reported to MCFD."
That's not actually what the column said, but it's a response.
But not an accurate one, according to a letter to the same newspapers from the Children's Representative.
"The minister's letter incorrectly states that my audit 'turned up concerns in four instances...' This statement misrepresents my audit findings, and seriously misinforms the public.
"In reality we found that in 28 per cent of files audited, serious issues of safety and evidence of risk were identified, including relating to either a prior ministry child welfare contact or a criminal record of concern. Based on 4,500 children, this could equate to more than 1,000 cases with evidence of risk. Conclusions in this rigorous audit are reliable at a 95 per cent confidence level, giving us a precise overview of the risk this group of children face.
"Most of the children in this program are safely supported by relatives, to whom we owe a deep debt of gratitude for their commitment and dedication to supporting a child in need, a child who might otherwise come into foster care."
But, the representative concluded, there is an "urgent need to go back and do the screening right" to ensure children are safe.
Children's Minister Mary Polak said no. I wondered what she was thinking, as the audit found more than 1,000 children could be at risk.
Polak, or the Public Affairs Bureau, wrote a letter to newspapers that ran the column.
"Based on an audit of the program, Mr. Willcocks feels it is appropriate that the ministry now knock on the door of every CIHR recipient and suggest that while we may not have a specific concern about the care you as an uncle, aunt or grandparent provide - we are going to examine your individual care-giving situation," she wrote. "That audit which involved more than 1,200 CIHR cases, turned up concerns in four instances which the Representative for Children and Youth reported to MCFD."
That's not actually what the column said, but it's a response.
But not an accurate one, according to a letter to the same newspapers from the Children's Representative.
"The minister's letter incorrectly states that my audit 'turned up concerns in four instances...' This statement misrepresents my audit findings, and seriously misinforms the public.
"In reality we found that in 28 per cent of files audited, serious issues of safety and evidence of risk were identified, including relating to either a prior ministry child welfare contact or a criminal record of concern. Based on 4,500 children, this could equate to more than 1,000 cases with evidence of risk. Conclusions in this rigorous audit are reliable at a 95 per cent confidence level, giving us a precise overview of the risk this group of children face.
"Most of the children in this program are safely supported by relatives, to whom we owe a deep debt of gratitude for their commitment and dedication to supporting a child in need, a child who might otherwise come into foster care."
But, the representative concluded, there is an "urgent need to go back and do the screening right" to ensure children are safe.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Court costs no worry when taxpayers pick up tab
It's time to rethink the idea that governments should automatically pick up the tab when politicians or managers get into legal disputes.
Taxpayers in North Saanich, a Victoria-area community, are on the hook for $170,000 in extra costs after Coun. Peter Chandler was found to have made false statements that damaged the reputation of Donald Hunter, who lives in the community.
The award was only $15,000. The Municipal Insurance Association paid it, along with the district's legal fees above a $25,000 deductible.
But the municipality's insurance rates will now rise $144,000 over the next eight years as the insurer gets its money back. Add the $25,000 deductible and taxpayers are out about $170,000.
That didn't have to happen. When Hunter felt Chandler had attacked his integrity in a damaging way, he didn't immediately sue.
"There followed an exchange of letters between counsel in which an apology was requested and refused," the B.C. Supreme Court judgment noted. "Litigation was then commenced. Mr. Chandler has neither retracted nor apologized."
The taxpayers might have been spared any costs with an apology. A negotiated settlement could easily have been reached, cutting the costs by at least $120,000.
Instead taxpayers funded a losing legal battle and will be paying for it over the next eight years.
Chandler likely believed he was doing the right thing in refusing to apologize or settle.
But would he have committed $170,000 of his own money to pursuing the principles involved?
Even if he would have, that doesn't mean residents share his enthusiasm.
Most disputes are settled outside the court system because people look at the costs, rewards and risks of full-scale legal battles and settle.
It's not just a municipal issue. The B.C. government has funded expensive legal battles when settlement would have made sense. And taxpayers paid something like $2 million to the six lawyers representing Brian Mulroney's at the inquiry into his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber.
And it's also not just a question of the cost to taxpayers.
For starters, there is a big fairness issue. Individuals or small companies, paying their own legal bills, find themselves facing governments with unlimited resources and the ability to wage a legal war of attrition.
Willow Kinloch sued the Victoria police after she was tethered in cells and pinned against a door for four hours. She had been picked up as a drunk 15-year-old.
Months before trial, her lawyer offered to settle for the lawsuit $40,000.
Instead of making a counter offer, lawyers for the police and city didn't respond.
The case went to trial. Kinloch was awarded $60,000 and the city spent something over $100,000 on its legal costs.
And the court ordered the city to pay her legal bills because it had been "unco-operative and difficult" during the litigation. Lawyers for the city and police had needlessly engaged in activities that increased for both sides, the Supreme Court judgment noted.
Which leads to conclusions of either gouging or a strategic attempt to make it too expensive for a 15-year-old to get access to the justice system. (The city appealed the award, then dropped the challenge and reached a confidential settlement.)
And then there are the messages sent when governments are so quick to turn to the courts.
Victoria's response to the Kinloch suit indicated to police officers and the public that it violating prisoners rights - the jury's conclusion -- was acceptable.
It's right to pay the legal bills of politicians and employees - government or private - who end up in court as a result of doing their jobs in good faith. Without that protection, they might shy away from issues for fear of legal action.
But when protection is automatic and the legal bills the taxpayers' problem, there is a risk governments will become bullies and waste taxpayers' money on unnecessary court battles.
It's time for governments to acknowledge the risk and turn decisions on legal case management - including negotiated settlements - over to an independent expert panel.
Taxpayers in North Saanich, a Victoria-area community, are on the hook for $170,000 in extra costs after Coun. Peter Chandler was found to have made false statements that damaged the reputation of Donald Hunter, who lives in the community.
The award was only $15,000. The Municipal Insurance Association paid it, along with the district's legal fees above a $25,000 deductible.
But the municipality's insurance rates will now rise $144,000 over the next eight years as the insurer gets its money back. Add the $25,000 deductible and taxpayers are out about $170,000.
That didn't have to happen. When Hunter felt Chandler had attacked his integrity in a damaging way, he didn't immediately sue.
"There followed an exchange of letters between counsel in which an apology was requested and refused," the B.C. Supreme Court judgment noted. "Litigation was then commenced. Mr. Chandler has neither retracted nor apologized."
The taxpayers might have been spared any costs with an apology. A negotiated settlement could easily have been reached, cutting the costs by at least $120,000.
Instead taxpayers funded a losing legal battle and will be paying for it over the next eight years.
Chandler likely believed he was doing the right thing in refusing to apologize or settle.
But would he have committed $170,000 of his own money to pursuing the principles involved?
Even if he would have, that doesn't mean residents share his enthusiasm.
Most disputes are settled outside the court system because people look at the costs, rewards and risks of full-scale legal battles and settle.
It's not just a municipal issue. The B.C. government has funded expensive legal battles when settlement would have made sense. And taxpayers paid something like $2 million to the six lawyers representing Brian Mulroney's at the inquiry into his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber.
And it's also not just a question of the cost to taxpayers.
For starters, there is a big fairness issue. Individuals or small companies, paying their own legal bills, find themselves facing governments with unlimited resources and the ability to wage a legal war of attrition.
Willow Kinloch sued the Victoria police after she was tethered in cells and pinned against a door for four hours. She had been picked up as a drunk 15-year-old.
Months before trial, her lawyer offered to settle for the lawsuit $40,000.
Instead of making a counter offer, lawyers for the police and city didn't respond.
The case went to trial. Kinloch was awarded $60,000 and the city spent something over $100,000 on its legal costs.
And the court ordered the city to pay her legal bills because it had been "unco-operative and difficult" during the litigation. Lawyers for the city and police had needlessly engaged in activities that increased for both sides, the Supreme Court judgment noted.
Which leads to conclusions of either gouging or a strategic attempt to make it too expensive for a 15-year-old to get access to the justice system. (The city appealed the award, then dropped the challenge and reached a confidential settlement.)
And then there are the messages sent when governments are so quick to turn to the courts.
Victoria's response to the Kinloch suit indicated to police officers and the public that it violating prisoners rights - the jury's conclusion -- was acceptable.
It's right to pay the legal bills of politicians and employees - government or private - who end up in court as a result of doing their jobs in good faith. Without that protection, they might shy away from issues for fear of legal action.
But when protection is automatic and the legal bills the taxpayers' problem, there is a risk governments will become bullies and waste taxpayers' money on unnecessary court battles.
It's time for governments to acknowledge the risk and turn decisions on legal case management - including negotiated settlements - over to an independent expert panel.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Liberals, lotteries need to face hide gambling and crime links
Sometimes you have to call people on the rubbish they speak. The B.C. Lottery Corp. scandal is one of those times.
Start with Michael Graydon, the $300,000-a-year CEO. After the news broke that the Crown corporation had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing, Graydon denied any real problem.
Nothing to see here, he said on Global TV. The fines were levied because B.C. Lottery filed reports late because of computer problems and others had minor technical errors.
That wasn't true. B.C. Lottery was fined for 1,020 infractions. About 40 per cent were for late filing - but 366 reports had errors and 227 lacked accurate information to detect criminal activity.
In eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000. They were asked to come back with the information, a trusting approach by those charged with preventing money laundering.
B.C. Lottery was also fined for failing to introduce a program to help identify signs of money laundering.
Solicitor General Mike de Jong said he's worried about organized crime, casinos and online betting. "If some of these early reports are true, yes, it is troubling," he said.
But it's not de Jong's file. Housing Minister Rich Coleman is responsible both for increasing gambling revenue and enforcing the laws. That conflict should be ended immediately.
And if de Jong is only troubled now, he hasn't been paying attention to a string of warnings about criminal activity. The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, revealed a crime explosion at casinos and mini-casinos. Investigations into offences such as money laundering and loan sharking more than doubled in a year.
Criminals like casinos. They are good places to move counterfeit money and launder the proceeds of crime. Buy $9,000 worth of chips with cash from a drug deal, make a few safe bets and leave with a casino cheque that legitimizes the money.
And desperate gamblers are good customers for loan sharks.
In 2008-9, the gaming enforcement branch launched 877 investigations into suspected counterfeiting, money laundering and loan sharking. Not a single charge was laid.
Despite the crime surge, the government last year shut down the specialized police unit created in 2004 to help fight gambling-related crime.
Coleman was next to weigh in, with a response much like Graydon's. Technical errors, minor problems, old news, the province will appeal, de Jong and everyone else who has concerns are wrong.
But the agency that levied the fines - the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC - said that was untrue.
Fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law" and when, despite intensive work with the offender, "they just don't get it." The agency had warned B.C. Lottery about problems with its anti-crime efforts in 2008.
These are serious failures. About one-fifth of the money laundering and terrorism financing cases discovered in 2008-9 took place in casinos, FINTRAC reports. Drug dealers and organized crime are the main groups using casinos to launder money.
Yet Coleman and Graydon persist in denying a real problem that almost everyone else - including the solicitor general - acknowledges.
Again, that's because they are in a conflict. Both are charged with increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the amount each one loses and the total take.
Making the effort to track transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers, who, for whatever reason, want to keep a low profile.
Critics have warned the Liberals have lost their way on gambling. Denying a serious problem in fighting money laundering by big-time criminals shows how far they have fallen.
Footnote: Coleman also insisted it is just a coincidence that the weekly loss limit for online gambling was increased from $120 last year to $9,999 - just $1 below the level that would require reporting transactions to FINTRAC to help prevent money laundering or activities aimed at funding terrorism. The claim is not credible.
Start with Michael Graydon, the $300,000-a-year CEO. After the news broke that the Crown corporation had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing, Graydon denied any real problem.
Nothing to see here, he said on Global TV. The fines were levied because B.C. Lottery filed reports late because of computer problems and others had minor technical errors.
That wasn't true. B.C. Lottery was fined for 1,020 infractions. About 40 per cent were for late filing - but 366 reports had errors and 227 lacked accurate information to detect criminal activity.
In eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000. They were asked to come back with the information, a trusting approach by those charged with preventing money laundering.
B.C. Lottery was also fined for failing to introduce a program to help identify signs of money laundering.
Solicitor General Mike de Jong said he's worried about organized crime, casinos and online betting. "If some of these early reports are true, yes, it is troubling," he said.
But it's not de Jong's file. Housing Minister Rich Coleman is responsible both for increasing gambling revenue and enforcing the laws. That conflict should be ended immediately.
And if de Jong is only troubled now, he hasn't been paying attention to a string of warnings about criminal activity. The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, revealed a crime explosion at casinos and mini-casinos. Investigations into offences such as money laundering and loan sharking more than doubled in a year.
Criminals like casinos. They are good places to move counterfeit money and launder the proceeds of crime. Buy $9,000 worth of chips with cash from a drug deal, make a few safe bets and leave with a casino cheque that legitimizes the money.
And desperate gamblers are good customers for loan sharks.
In 2008-9, the gaming enforcement branch launched 877 investigations into suspected counterfeiting, money laundering and loan sharking. Not a single charge was laid.
Despite the crime surge, the government last year shut down the specialized police unit created in 2004 to help fight gambling-related crime.
Coleman was next to weigh in, with a response much like Graydon's. Technical errors, minor problems, old news, the province will appeal, de Jong and everyone else who has concerns are wrong.
But the agency that levied the fines - the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC - said that was untrue.
Fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law" and when, despite intensive work with the offender, "they just don't get it." The agency had warned B.C. Lottery about problems with its anti-crime efforts in 2008.
These are serious failures. About one-fifth of the money laundering and terrorism financing cases discovered in 2008-9 took place in casinos, FINTRAC reports. Drug dealers and organized crime are the main groups using casinos to launder money.
Yet Coleman and Graydon persist in denying a real problem that almost everyone else - including the solicitor general - acknowledges.
Again, that's because they are in a conflict. Both are charged with increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the amount each one loses and the total take.
Making the effort to track transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers, who, for whatever reason, want to keep a low profile.
Critics have warned the Liberals have lost their way on gambling. Denying a serious problem in fighting money laundering by big-time criminals shows how far they have fallen.
Footnote: Coleman also insisted it is just a coincidence that the weekly loss limit for online gambling was increased from $120 last year to $9,999 - just $1 below the level that would require reporting transactions to FINTRAC to help prevent money laundering or activities aimed at funding terrorism. The claim is not credible.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Failing the test on gambling
The Times Colonist has a good editorial on the wretched performance of B.C. Lotteries and the government this week.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A really good idea
The Canadian Forces Pacific base is in Esquimalt and the capital region. It owns about 41 square kilometres, worth some $3 billion.
"Why not move the Pacific Fleet Base to Prince Rupert," asks Bernard von Schulmann.
The federal government could sell most of the land around Victoria, reducing the deficit and easing housing prices. Prince Rupert needs the jobs.
So why not?
"Why not move the Pacific Fleet Base to Prince Rupert," asks Bernard von Schulmann.
The federal government could sell most of the land around Victoria, reducing the deficit and easing housing prices. Prince Rupert needs the jobs.
So why not?
Online gambling expansion off to shaky start
Another milestone. B.C. is now the best place on Earth, or at least in North America, to lose serious money gambling in your own home.
Drunk, desperate, addicted, the B.C. government is giving every citizen the chance to lose more than $500,000 a year.
The government launched full-scale Internet gambling last week, becoming the first jurisdiction in North America to decide that letting people bet from home was a good idea.
It's a good idea for government revenues, to be sure. Gambling losses - lottery tickets, slots and the rest - are a big cash source for governments.
Since 2001, when the Liberals were elected on a promise to halt gambling expansion because it was destroying lives, government gambling revenues - and British Columbians' losses - have doubled.
Adults in B.C. lose an average $590 a year betting against the government. (Organized crime gave bettors a better deal when it ran Vegas.)
But about one-third of us don't gamble or just spend a small amount in scratch-and-lose tickets. The average loss for B.C. Lotteries core customers is more like $890,
The prize customers are the gamblers that casinos describe as "whales," the people who will keep on betting as they lose huge amounts.
It's a great business model. Set yourself up as a monopoly supplier of an addictive product - drugs, alcohol, gambling.
And then wait for your most lucrative customers - affluent, out-of-control addicts.
The Globe and Mail did a fine series last year on gambling. The newspaper filed freedom of information requests about the B.C. Lotteries "Gold Players Card." That's a customer loyalty program designed to keep big losers coming back to lose more. The card lets casinos and the Crown corporation know where the whales bet, how much they lose and the snacks they like.
The FOI request revealed 10 B.C. gamblers lost a combined $11.7 million in the previous year. Eight people gambled away more than $1 million each.
The 100 biggest losers lost an average $270,000 in the previous year.
Some of them might have been able to afford to lose $5,000 a week.
But some are suffering because of their gambling. So are their families.
Like any addict, the government can't get enough gambling revenue. New casinos, mini-casinos in smaller communities, small-time online betting - they all introduced to take more money from British Columbians.
The first online casino in North America offers the chance for another big leap in the amount of money we lose.
The government thinks so. Online B.C. Lotteries losses were limited to $120 a week up until last year. The goal was help keep people from falling into addiction and disaster.
But then the cabinet decided to raise the limit so gamblers could lose $9,999 a week. (At $10,000, the transaction would have to be reported to the federal government because of concerns about criminal money laundering. B.C. Lotteries revealed this week it has been fined $500,000 this week for violating federal anti-money laundering laws.)
The new online casino crashed when it was launched last Friday. B.C. Lotteries had been offering cash incentives to get more people to bet; at first the corporation blamed the problems on high demand.
On Tuesday, it revealed that the site's security had broken down. Some 130 gamblers' accounts - some with sensitive information - could be accessed by others. B.C. Lotteries is hiring a security firm to see if hackers were at work.
Gambling Minister Rich Coleman justified the expansion into online gambling by noting some British Columbians were already betting on the Internet using unregulated site. Better to provide them with a controlled gambling opportunity and keep the money in the province, he said.
But that's not really what the government is doing. It's promoting online gambling heavily and hopes to triple the take, to $100 million, in three years.
Online gambling is just another way for government to recruit more gamblers and increase the average amount each person loses - both approved goals for the lottery corporation each year.
Footnote: Online gambling poses greater risks of addiction and big losses, according to the government's responsible gambling website. A study released last year found online gamblers "play"
more frequently and bet more aggressively than people who go to casinos.
Their gambling was easier to hide from friends and family.
About 35,000 British Columbians already have a severe gambling problem, according the B.C. Medical Association.
Drunk, desperate, addicted, the B.C. government is giving every citizen the chance to lose more than $500,000 a year.
The government launched full-scale Internet gambling last week, becoming the first jurisdiction in North America to decide that letting people bet from home was a good idea.
It's a good idea for government revenues, to be sure. Gambling losses - lottery tickets, slots and the rest - are a big cash source for governments.
Since 2001, when the Liberals were elected on a promise to halt gambling expansion because it was destroying lives, government gambling revenues - and British Columbians' losses - have doubled.
Adults in B.C. lose an average $590 a year betting against the government. (Organized crime gave bettors a better deal when it ran Vegas.)
But about one-third of us don't gamble or just spend a small amount in scratch-and-lose tickets. The average loss for B.C. Lotteries core customers is more like $890,
The prize customers are the gamblers that casinos describe as "whales," the people who will keep on betting as they lose huge amounts.
It's a great business model. Set yourself up as a monopoly supplier of an addictive product - drugs, alcohol, gambling.
And then wait for your most lucrative customers - affluent, out-of-control addicts.
The Globe and Mail did a fine series last year on gambling. The newspaper filed freedom of information requests about the B.C. Lotteries "Gold Players Card." That's a customer loyalty program designed to keep big losers coming back to lose more. The card lets casinos and the Crown corporation know where the whales bet, how much they lose and the snacks they like.
The FOI request revealed 10 B.C. gamblers lost a combined $11.7 million in the previous year. Eight people gambled away more than $1 million each.
The 100 biggest losers lost an average $270,000 in the previous year.
Some of them might have been able to afford to lose $5,000 a week.
But some are suffering because of their gambling. So are their families.
Like any addict, the government can't get enough gambling revenue. New casinos, mini-casinos in smaller communities, small-time online betting - they all introduced to take more money from British Columbians.
The first online casino in North America offers the chance for another big leap in the amount of money we lose.
The government thinks so. Online B.C. Lotteries losses were limited to $120 a week up until last year. The goal was help keep people from falling into addiction and disaster.
But then the cabinet decided to raise the limit so gamblers could lose $9,999 a week. (At $10,000, the transaction would have to be reported to the federal government because of concerns about criminal money laundering. B.C. Lotteries revealed this week it has been fined $500,000 this week for violating federal anti-money laundering laws.)
The new online casino crashed when it was launched last Friday. B.C. Lotteries had been offering cash incentives to get more people to bet; at first the corporation blamed the problems on high demand.
On Tuesday, it revealed that the site's security had broken down. Some 130 gamblers' accounts - some with sensitive information - could be accessed by others. B.C. Lotteries is hiring a security firm to see if hackers were at work.
Gambling Minister Rich Coleman justified the expansion into online gambling by noting some British Columbians were already betting on the Internet using unregulated site. Better to provide them with a controlled gambling opportunity and keep the money in the province, he said.
But that's not really what the government is doing. It's promoting online gambling heavily and hopes to triple the take, to $100 million, in three years.
Online gambling is just another way for government to recruit more gamblers and increase the average amount each person loses - both approved goals for the lottery corporation each year.
Footnote: Online gambling poses greater risks of addiction and big losses, according to the government's responsible gambling website. A study released last year found online gamblers "play"
more frequently and bet more aggressively than people who go to casinos.
Their gambling was easier to hide from friends and family.
About 35,000 British Columbians already have a severe gambling problem, according the B.C. Medical Association.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The new $17-million protected area (or $7 billion)
Back in February, the throne speech announced a ban on mining and oil and gas exploration in the East Kootenay Flathead Valley.
That was a big deal for people living across the border in Montana. The Flathead flows into the state and is an important river. The prospect of mining or gas development alarmed the Americans. Barack Obama even got involved.
It also meant some companies would get the boot after spending money to develop claims in the valley.
Then mines minister Blair Lekstrom said then that he didn't know if the provincial government would owe the companies compensation.
But Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer was much clearer. The B.C. government was on the hook for a big compensation expense, he said, and the U.S. government should help.
Gordon Campbell has now made things clearer. The two companies most affected should get something like $17 million, the premier told the Flathead Beacon, a good Montana weekly.
Schweitzer praised Campbell as the key play in the agreement, "walking away from $7 billion" worth of economic activity in order to protect the Flathead.
That was a big deal for people living across the border in Montana. The Flathead flows into the state and is an important river. The prospect of mining or gas development alarmed the Americans. Barack Obama even got involved.
It also meant some companies would get the boot after spending money to develop claims in the valley.
Then mines minister Blair Lekstrom said then that he didn't know if the provincial government would owe the companies compensation.
But Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer was much clearer. The B.C. government was on the hook for a big compensation expense, he said, and the U.S. government should help.
Gordon Campbell has now made things clearer. The two companies most affected should get something like $17 million, the premier told the Flathead Beacon, a good Montana weekly.
Schweitzer praised Campbell as the key play in the agreement, "walking away from $7 billion" worth of economic activity in order to protect the Flathead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
