Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Taking a break
Time for a little change of pace. Blogging will be highly intermittent to non-existent for a while until we return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Moving past the politics of blind division
I admit to being a bit critical of government.
Crabby, you might even say.
I like to think I�m offering useful information and constructive perspective, but not everyone is going to see it that way.
Which is fine. As it�s fine to challenge my arguments or offer an alternate view of the issues. I was charmed by the headline last year on a letter to the editor responding to a column last year � �If Willcocks likes it, it must be bad.�
But it�s puzzling and frustrating when some readers think that a critical look at the policies or actions of the party in power means a writer must support another political party.
And it�s worrisome. It speaks of polarized, mindless divisions and the politics of contempt. People don�t talk about policies. They pick teams. Hell�s Angels versus Bandidos, Leafs versus Canucks.
Policies don�t matter, only loyalties.
I have done this kind of work in five provinces. The attitude toward politics varied widely. In New Brunswick, political loyalty brought direct benefits like a government job (which was at risk if the other party won next time). In Alberta, people united behind a dominant governing regime.
But in B.C., we pick sides. If you criticize the NDP position on the carbon tax, then you are expected to support the Liberal position on minimum wage. If you criticize the Liberals for not having a plan to reduce child poverty, then you must think the NDP is right on private power.
That makes no logical sense. On election day, voters have to choose between candidates and parties. But, except for the hardcore partisans and loyalists, between elections molst of us can worry about policies.
We can be free to praise the party in power for good actions and carp at it for failures.
When we don�t, public discourse is cheapened, reduced to slogans and posturing. It demeans us as thinking, caring people.
And to the extent that people buy into the need to pick sides, we lose the benefit of their intelligence and experience.
The Liberals, for example, are keen to expand private power production for export. There are risks of higher electricity rates for residents as a result.
It�s complex and we would benefit from a discussion. But if people feel compelled to support or oppose it on some party basis, there is no critical discussion of the benefits and costs.
It�s troubling for a columnist. Between elections, the opposition doesn�t much matter. The party in power sets the budget and brings in the policy changes and deals with the problems and opportunities. So you write generally about how it is doing. The opposition criticizes, but sets out few clear policies.
And mostly I write about things that could be done better.
That�s a compliment to readers and our political system. It�s based on the belief that journalism provides information and perspective to people.
That they then weigh all the information and use their good judgment and experience to form their opinions and act on them. And that politicians respond to the public. Otherwise, what�s the point of writing this stuff, or reading it?
It can be negative. Probably a few more columns about successes would be good. But with a couple of columns a week, it seems important to write about a problem that could be fixed or examine an issue that matters.
And it can seem partisan. When the New Democrats were in government and I was writing about their truly dismal performance, I was characterized as a Liberal supporter. Now the topics involve Liberal stumbles � often, sadly, in the same areas � and I�m seen as a shill for the NDP.
Writing about things that the party in power could and should do better by shouldn�t be seen as support for the opposition.
Public policy matters. To reduce it to us versus them undermines democracy and creates more stupid, destructive politics.
Footnote: For the record, I think I have voted for Liberal, Conservative and NDP candidates in federal and provincial elections, depending on the candidates and the policies and issues of the day.
Crabby, you might even say.
I like to think I�m offering useful information and constructive perspective, but not everyone is going to see it that way.
Which is fine. As it�s fine to challenge my arguments or offer an alternate view of the issues. I was charmed by the headline last year on a letter to the editor responding to a column last year � �If Willcocks likes it, it must be bad.�
But it�s puzzling and frustrating when some readers think that a critical look at the policies or actions of the party in power means a writer must support another political party.
And it�s worrisome. It speaks of polarized, mindless divisions and the politics of contempt. People don�t talk about policies. They pick teams. Hell�s Angels versus Bandidos, Leafs versus Canucks.
Policies don�t matter, only loyalties.
I have done this kind of work in five provinces. The attitude toward politics varied widely. In New Brunswick, political loyalty brought direct benefits like a government job (which was at risk if the other party won next time). In Alberta, people united behind a dominant governing regime.
But in B.C., we pick sides. If you criticize the NDP position on the carbon tax, then you are expected to support the Liberal position on minimum wage. If you criticize the Liberals for not having a plan to reduce child poverty, then you must think the NDP is right on private power.
That makes no logical sense. On election day, voters have to choose between candidates and parties. But, except for the hardcore partisans and loyalists, between elections molst of us can worry about policies.
We can be free to praise the party in power for good actions and carp at it for failures.
When we don�t, public discourse is cheapened, reduced to slogans and posturing. It demeans us as thinking, caring people.
And to the extent that people buy into the need to pick sides, we lose the benefit of their intelligence and experience.
The Liberals, for example, are keen to expand private power production for export. There are risks of higher electricity rates for residents as a result.
It�s complex and we would benefit from a discussion. But if people feel compelled to support or oppose it on some party basis, there is no critical discussion of the benefits and costs.
It�s troubling for a columnist. Between elections, the opposition doesn�t much matter. The party in power sets the budget and brings in the policy changes and deals with the problems and opportunities. So you write generally about how it is doing. The opposition criticizes, but sets out few clear policies.
And mostly I write about things that could be done better.
That�s a compliment to readers and our political system. It�s based on the belief that journalism provides information and perspective to people.
That they then weigh all the information and use their good judgment and experience to form their opinions and act on them. And that politicians respond to the public. Otherwise, what�s the point of writing this stuff, or reading it?
It can be negative. Probably a few more columns about successes would be good. But with a couple of columns a week, it seems important to write about a problem that could be fixed or examine an issue that matters.
And it can seem partisan. When the New Democrats were in government and I was writing about their truly dismal performance, I was characterized as a Liberal supporter. Now the topics involve Liberal stumbles � often, sadly, in the same areas � and I�m seen as a shill for the NDP.
Writing about things that the party in power could and should do better by shouldn�t be seen as support for the opposition.
Public policy matters. To reduce it to us versus them undermines democracy and creates more stupid, destructive politics.
Footnote: For the record, I think I have voted for Liberal, Conservative and NDP candidates in federal and provincial elections, depending on the candidates and the policies and issues of the day.
'Rural' tax break for Whistler chalet owner; not for PG renter
There's a certain late-1990s NDP quality in the budget's $200 tax break for "northern and rural homeowners."
By any rational economic or public policy test, the move makes no sense.
The government is collecting $80 million from all taxpayers and then redistributing the money to some people, without any consideration of need or public benefit.
Poor people, who have it really tough, will pay taxes that will be redistributed to multimillionaires who need no help at all.
But the ploy scores political points and spins well - both important to the NDP government of the late-'90s and, apparently, the Campbell government.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the tax credit - an add-on to the homeowner grant - would provide "breathing room" for people in communities hit hardest by the economic downturn.
It does no such thing.
The government decided to give $200 to every homeowner living outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. (More specifically, outside the Greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Capital Regional Districts.)
About 70 per cent of British Columbians live in those three excluded areas. No matter how tough time are for their families, no money for them. They're paying taxes to help other people.
Which, given competent government, could be OK. We accept the notion that those who are doing well will help those who aren't.
We grumble. We certainly worry about waste. But when government can show that our taxes help a sick person get care or a child get a fair chance at life, most of us are willing to write the cheques.
But not so much if we're giving money to people who are already financially better we off than we are.
Which is what the government is doing.
Kelowna is, according to the government, a northern or rural community. People who own houses there will get the $200 from other taxpayers.
The unemployment rate in Kelowna is about six per cent.
In Prince George, unemployment is 12.9 per cent, more than twice the level in Kelowna.
Kelowna's population includes many people who are doing just fine, to their credit. But why would we send money to someone doing well? Especially when the money was being, in part, from people who were doing very poorly, while still paying taxes?
A laid-off forest worker in Sooke won't get the grant because he lives in the CRD; instead, he will pay taxes in part so a person living in a $2-million house in Whistler will get the $200 as a "rural and northern resident."
And the grants only go to homeowners. That would be fine if the goal was to provide a little extra income to people who owned homes.
But Hansen said it was to all help provide "breathing room" for all people in hardhit communities. A lot of the people suffering through this recession are renters, many of them in the middle-income brackets. They get nothing; in fact a portion of their taxes will go to providing a $200 cheque to the neighbour on the next block with a mortgage-free houses.
There is a vaguely sensible public policy buried deeply beneath all the political calculations. The recession's impact has fallen particularly heavily on people in specific communities. And within the community, the blows have fallen hardest on a specific group. People who were really poor before the recession still are; people who were relatively comfortable have some cushion.
But people working for modest wages, with narrow skills and living from pay cheque to pay cheque, have had a tough time. You could argue for targeted aid in some form.
Just tossing out $80 million and hoping for the best doesn't really qualify as targeted aid.
The money could fund career training each year for 8,000 people displaced from their jobs by the recession. It could increase income assistance benefits for families for a time after they employment insurance benefits expired.
There are lots of options. Instead, a single mom working for $14 an hour is going to pay taxes to provide $200 to a millionaire vineyard owner in Oliver.
Footnote: The rural and northern homeowners grant was part of the Liberal government's pre-election budget last year, the one that projected a deficit of $495 million, one-fifth the size of the real shortfall. Despite other cuts, the program is going ahead next year.
By any rational economic or public policy test, the move makes no sense.
The government is collecting $80 million from all taxpayers and then redistributing the money to some people, without any consideration of need or public benefit.
Poor people, who have it really tough, will pay taxes that will be redistributed to multimillionaires who need no help at all.
But the ploy scores political points and spins well - both important to the NDP government of the late-'90s and, apparently, the Campbell government.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the tax credit - an add-on to the homeowner grant - would provide "breathing room" for people in communities hit hardest by the economic downturn.
It does no such thing.
The government decided to give $200 to every homeowner living outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. (More specifically, outside the Greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Capital Regional Districts.)
About 70 per cent of British Columbians live in those three excluded areas. No matter how tough time are for their families, no money for them. They're paying taxes to help other people.
Which, given competent government, could be OK. We accept the notion that those who are doing well will help those who aren't.
We grumble. We certainly worry about waste. But when government can show that our taxes help a sick person get care or a child get a fair chance at life, most of us are willing to write the cheques.
But not so much if we're giving money to people who are already financially better we off than we are.
Which is what the government is doing.
Kelowna is, according to the government, a northern or rural community. People who own houses there will get the $200 from other taxpayers.
The unemployment rate in Kelowna is about six per cent.
In Prince George, unemployment is 12.9 per cent, more than twice the level in Kelowna.
Kelowna's population includes many people who are doing just fine, to their credit. But why would we send money to someone doing well? Especially when the money was being, in part, from people who were doing very poorly, while still paying taxes?
A laid-off forest worker in Sooke won't get the grant because he lives in the CRD; instead, he will pay taxes in part so a person living in a $2-million house in Whistler will get the $200 as a "rural and northern resident."
And the grants only go to homeowners. That would be fine if the goal was to provide a little extra income to people who owned homes.
But Hansen said it was to all help provide "breathing room" for all people in hardhit communities. A lot of the people suffering through this recession are renters, many of them in the middle-income brackets. They get nothing; in fact a portion of their taxes will go to providing a $200 cheque to the neighbour on the next block with a mortgage-free houses.
There is a vaguely sensible public policy buried deeply beneath all the political calculations. The recession's impact has fallen particularly heavily on people in specific communities. And within the community, the blows have fallen hardest on a specific group. People who were really poor before the recession still are; people who were relatively comfortable have some cushion.
But people working for modest wages, with narrow skills and living from pay cheque to pay cheque, have had a tough time. You could argue for targeted aid in some form.
Just tossing out $80 million and hoping for the best doesn't really qualify as targeted aid.
The money could fund career training each year for 8,000 people displaced from their jobs by the recession. It could increase income assistance benefits for families for a time after they employment insurance benefits expired.
There are lots of options. Instead, a single mom working for $14 an hour is going to pay taxes to provide $200 to a millionaire vineyard owner in Oliver.
Footnote: The rural and northern homeowners grant was part of the Liberal government's pre-election budget last year, the one that projected a deficit of $495 million, one-fifth the size of the real shortfall. Despite other cuts, the program is going ahead next year.
Cut steals communication from the disabled
Many of us fear being trapped in our bodies in old age, unable to communicate.
For some people, that's a reality long before they're old.
An amazing initiative has been changing that reality � and people's lives. But now the provincial government has eliminated its modest support for the program.
Giving the gift of communication to people with disabilities isn't a priority.
The name is a little dull - Communication Assistance for Youth and Adults, or CAYA.
But the work is astonishing. It combines advanced technology, therapy and ingenuity. The results are life changing.
Imagine being 29, and suffering from a spinal cord injury or illness that meant you couldn't speak or sign or communicate. When doctors asked about pain, you couldn't answer. You couldn't ask for something you badly wanted or tell someone how much you cared.
CAYA changes that. The speech pathologists work with clients to find the best way to communicate. The tech people identify the best communication device. There's training and support.
Imagine that gift for you or someone you care about.
The CAYA website has some wonderful client stories. People freed from the prison of their bodies to work and share life. You should read them. It's heartening and humbling to see the enthusiastic embrace of life from people dealing with such big challenges.
Like Melissa Yaretz of Sicamous. She's 19. She has struggled to survive physically. But she was an academic star in high school, thanks to advanced communications technology.
"Without a communication system there would have been no grades and no proof that I am all that I am." Yaretz wrote. "I would have just sat in the back of the room looking cute. Cute only works for so long. Without communication, to the rest of the world I am just a woman in a wheelchair with a severe disability, who is dependent for everything."
Or Andrea Paterson of Abbotsford. Her Lightwriter voice communication device gives her a voice and allowed her to move into a group home.
"I use my Lightwriter to help the staff at my new group home know what I like to do, to eat, or how I am feeling," Paterson says. "Once when I was sick I wrote 'I want to go home.' I love to have fun and to tease the staff and the Lightwriter helps me do that. I love it here!"
Government revenues are down and costs must be balanced against benefits.
But cutting a small amount of funding that produced huge changes in people's lives betrays the values most of us live by.
Since 1989, SET - Special Education Technology B.C. - has been working to help school-age children communicate. In 2005, CAYA was created to extend the effort to adults, with government support.
Two years ago, then education minister Shirley Bond and income assistance minister Claude Richmond announced a $500,000 grant for CAYA. "Our government wants every British Columbian to achieve their very best, both in school and in life," said Bond.
"I know that CAYA will continue to make a tremendous difference in the lives of those with severe communication disabilities," Richmond said.
But now the government has eliminated funding. A disabled person with a chance of employment or a volunteer role can apply to CAYA, which will dip into the money it has left to help.
Otherwise, disabled people are apparently not worth the money it would take to allow them to communicate.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible, said government recognizes the program's effectiveness and how lives have been changed.
"However, the economic downturn has placed significant pressure on our programs and we are no longer able to provide funding to the CAYA project," Coleman wrote. (MLAs, beyond having forgone a one-per-cent wage increase, haven't cut their wages or benefits.)
Last word to Melissa Yaretz.
"What about Love? I too desire love from life and all that it can mean. How can someone love me if they don't know me? How can they know me if they don't understand me? To be able to communicate all my thoughts and feelings allows others to know all of me inside and out. As I desire an equal place in life, I also desire the same of love."
Sorry, the government says. Too expensive. Go away.
For some people, that's a reality long before they're old.
An amazing initiative has been changing that reality � and people's lives. But now the provincial government has eliminated its modest support for the program.
Giving the gift of communication to people with disabilities isn't a priority.
The name is a little dull - Communication Assistance for Youth and Adults, or CAYA.
But the work is astonishing. It combines advanced technology, therapy and ingenuity. The results are life changing.
Imagine being 29, and suffering from a spinal cord injury or illness that meant you couldn't speak or sign or communicate. When doctors asked about pain, you couldn't answer. You couldn't ask for something you badly wanted or tell someone how much you cared.
CAYA changes that. The speech pathologists work with clients to find the best way to communicate. The tech people identify the best communication device. There's training and support.
Imagine that gift for you or someone you care about.
The CAYA website has some wonderful client stories. People freed from the prison of their bodies to work and share life. You should read them. It's heartening and humbling to see the enthusiastic embrace of life from people dealing with such big challenges.
Like Melissa Yaretz of Sicamous. She's 19. She has struggled to survive physically. But she was an academic star in high school, thanks to advanced communications technology.
"Without a communication system there would have been no grades and no proof that I am all that I am." Yaretz wrote. "I would have just sat in the back of the room looking cute. Cute only works for so long. Without communication, to the rest of the world I am just a woman in a wheelchair with a severe disability, who is dependent for everything."
Or Andrea Paterson of Abbotsford. Her Lightwriter voice communication device gives her a voice and allowed her to move into a group home.
"I use my Lightwriter to help the staff at my new group home know what I like to do, to eat, or how I am feeling," Paterson says. "Once when I was sick I wrote 'I want to go home.' I love to have fun and to tease the staff and the Lightwriter helps me do that. I love it here!"
Government revenues are down and costs must be balanced against benefits.
But cutting a small amount of funding that produced huge changes in people's lives betrays the values most of us live by.
Since 1989, SET - Special Education Technology B.C. - has been working to help school-age children communicate. In 2005, CAYA was created to extend the effort to adults, with government support.
Two years ago, then education minister Shirley Bond and income assistance minister Claude Richmond announced a $500,000 grant for CAYA. "Our government wants every British Columbian to achieve their very best, both in school and in life," said Bond.
"I know that CAYA will continue to make a tremendous difference in the lives of those with severe communication disabilities," Richmond said.
But now the government has eliminated funding. A disabled person with a chance of employment or a volunteer role can apply to CAYA, which will dip into the money it has left to help.
Otherwise, disabled people are apparently not worth the money it would take to allow them to communicate.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible, said government recognizes the program's effectiveness and how lives have been changed.
"However, the economic downturn has placed significant pressure on our programs and we are no longer able to provide funding to the CAYA project," Coleman wrote. (MLAs, beyond having forgone a one-per-cent wage increase, haven't cut their wages or benefits.)
Last word to Melissa Yaretz.
"What about Love? I too desire love from life and all that it can mean. How can someone love me if they don't know me? How can they know me if they don't understand me? To be able to communicate all my thoughts and feelings allows others to know all of me inside and out. As I desire an equal place in life, I also desire the same of love."
Sorry, the government says. Too expensive. Go away.
It would save lives, but photo radar is not returning
Photo radar saves lives and reduces injuries and health care costs.
It's simple. Drivers pay more attention to speed limits if they're worried about tickets. And when they obey the posted speed limits, fewer people are maimed and killed.
There is no real debate about those basic facts. The global research and the evidence from B.C. are overwhelming.
That doesn't mean people must support photo radar. They can argue the money spent on the equipment could produce greater safety improvements if it was used in some other way.
Or they can maintain that some laws shouldn't really be enforced too rigorously, though it's hard to see the logic of that position. Or that photo radar is unfair in some unspecified way.
But the reality is that B.C. politicians have decided it's not worth getting yelled at over an unpopular measure, even if better law enforcement would save lives. That's why the NDP and Liberals both reject the return of photo radar and run like scared cats when the issue comes up.
Mostly. NDP MLA John Horgan did a radio interview in Victoria and said he personally supports photo radar because it saves lives.
Which prompted a quick response from the Liberal caucus communications people (whose salary you pay).
"NDP wants to resurrect failed photo radar plan," the title said.
The staffers crafted imaginary quotes for Solicitor General Kash Heed. Photo radar was a "total failure" in B.C., they imagined Heed saying. "Only the NDP would want to resurrect a plan to use police as tax collectors rather than having them on the street fighting crime and targeting problem drivers."
Crash deaths fell 15 per cent in 2008 compared with 2007, the release noted. Other policing efforts have worked to make the roads safer.
But that's not really true. Photo radar caught speeders in B.C. for six years. The average number of people who died in crashes was 408.
In the six previous years, the toll had averaged 534.
In the same period after photo radar was eliminated, the average number of people killed in crashes was 439.
So despite the new measures, the lives of 30 more families each year were shattered. Many were victims of someone else's speeding, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thousands more people were injured. The costs to us all were huge, from health care to higher insurance rates.
A study that looked at the first year of photo radar in the province found a "dramatic reduction" in speed at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the report said.
Another review analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies around the world. Crashes were reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent. Fatalities by 40 to 46 per cent.
There's lots of support for photo radar. The RCMP and ICBC and Surrey council all sought photo radar for the Patullo Bridge.
And a 2007 poll for the Canada Safety Council found 75 per cent of British Columbians supported photo radar on the highways - and 90 per cent in school zones.
Politically, it's still poison. The NDP photo-radar was tainted by the government's unpopularity. The program was wasteful, with a police officer in each van. And people felt the predatory locations were chosen to boost revenue.
But there are effective alternatives. Boxes for photo radar - or speed cameras - could be mounted on traffic lights or utility poles at high-risk areas. Cameras could be rotated from location to location. Speeders would be caught and more people would drive closer to the speed limit.
Lives would be saved, hospital costs reduced and insurance rates kept lower - and families protected from tragedy.
Perhaps police officers watching for traffic offenders would be even more effective. But the government is not likely to hire a lot more of them.
Or, sadly, to bring back photo radar.
Footnote: Give credit to Horgan for a straight answer. Many MLAs - not all - would have responded to a question about an issue like photo radar with blather, determinedly saying nothing. Honesty and straight talk are refreshing.
It's simple. Drivers pay more attention to speed limits if they're worried about tickets. And when they obey the posted speed limits, fewer people are maimed and killed.
There is no real debate about those basic facts. The global research and the evidence from B.C. are overwhelming.
That doesn't mean people must support photo radar. They can argue the money spent on the equipment could produce greater safety improvements if it was used in some other way.
Or they can maintain that some laws shouldn't really be enforced too rigorously, though it's hard to see the logic of that position. Or that photo radar is unfair in some unspecified way.
But the reality is that B.C. politicians have decided it's not worth getting yelled at over an unpopular measure, even if better law enforcement would save lives. That's why the NDP and Liberals both reject the return of photo radar and run like scared cats when the issue comes up.
Mostly. NDP MLA John Horgan did a radio interview in Victoria and said he personally supports photo radar because it saves lives.
Which prompted a quick response from the Liberal caucus communications people (whose salary you pay).
"NDP wants to resurrect failed photo radar plan," the title said.
The staffers crafted imaginary quotes for Solicitor General Kash Heed. Photo radar was a "total failure" in B.C., they imagined Heed saying. "Only the NDP would want to resurrect a plan to use police as tax collectors rather than having them on the street fighting crime and targeting problem drivers."
Crash deaths fell 15 per cent in 2008 compared with 2007, the release noted. Other policing efforts have worked to make the roads safer.
But that's not really true. Photo radar caught speeders in B.C. for six years. The average number of people who died in crashes was 408.
In the six previous years, the toll had averaged 534.
In the same period after photo radar was eliminated, the average number of people killed in crashes was 439.
So despite the new measures, the lives of 30 more families each year were shattered. Many were victims of someone else's speeding, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thousands more people were injured. The costs to us all were huge, from health care to higher insurance rates.
A study that looked at the first year of photo radar in the province found a "dramatic reduction" in speed at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the report said.
Another review analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies around the world. Crashes were reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent. Fatalities by 40 to 46 per cent.
There's lots of support for photo radar. The RCMP and ICBC and Surrey council all sought photo radar for the Patullo Bridge.
And a 2007 poll for the Canada Safety Council found 75 per cent of British Columbians supported photo radar on the highways - and 90 per cent in school zones.
Politically, it's still poison. The NDP photo-radar was tainted by the government's unpopularity. The program was wasteful, with a police officer in each van. And people felt the predatory locations were chosen to boost revenue.
But there are effective alternatives. Boxes for photo radar - or speed cameras - could be mounted on traffic lights or utility poles at high-risk areas. Cameras could be rotated from location to location. Speeders would be caught and more people would drive closer to the speed limit.
Lives would be saved, hospital costs reduced and insurance rates kept lower - and families protected from tragedy.
Perhaps police officers watching for traffic offenders would be even more effective. But the government is not likely to hire a lot more of them.
Or, sadly, to bring back photo radar.
Footnote: Give credit to Horgan for a straight answer. Many MLAs - not all - would have responded to a question about an issue like photo radar with blather, determinedly saying nothing. Honesty and straight talk are refreshing.
Glowing HST report too little, too late
There are two big problems with the economic analysis the government released this week to try and win support for the HST.
It's a year too late.
And it only addresses the questions the Liberal government wanted answered - not the issues British Columbians have with the new harmonized sales tax.
The approach to HST represents one of the great government fumbles. The tax isn't an easy sell, but in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces the governments figured out a way to take it to the public for a real discussion.
Not here. The Liberals vowed not to introduce the HST during the election campaign 10 months ago because it would be bad for B.C.
Weeks after winning the election, they decided to bring in the tax. According to the Liberal line, which isn't convincing many people, they had some sort of epiphany in the weeks after the election.
The HST was suddenly revealed to be not just OK, but critical to the province's future.
The analysis from Jack Mintz, a University of Calgary economist and former head of the C.D. Howe Institute, supports the decision. The government paid him $12,000 for a 12-page report on the impact of the new tax.
It's a great move, he concluded. The HST shifts the costs of government services from businesses to individuals and families.
Companies will pay less tax in capital investments in B.C. - things like new equipment or expanded operations. Lower taxes mean higher return on investment, so companies will choose to invest here rather than in some other jurisdiction. That, mostly, creates jobs.
Mintz estimates that by 2020 the HST will have resulted in $11.5 billion in additional capital investment - new equipment and factories and business start-ups.
Overall, Mintz predicts, the tax will mean a net additional 113,000 jobs by 2020. That's about five per cent more than the current number of jobs.
Mintz has a PhD in economics. I have an English degree and one economics course.
But there are a couple of legitimate questions here.
If the HST was such an obvious way to attract $11.5 billion in investment and bring 113,000 new jobs, why weren't Gordon Campbell and Hansen alert to that possibility a year or two ago? How could they be clued out about the benefits?
And given that this is a big change - a $1.9 billion a year tax shift from business to individuals and families - why is the first analysis being done nine months after the government decided to bring in the new tax?
According to Campbell, the government didn't one study or review of the impact on British Columbia before it decided to introduce the tax. That's an admission of incompetence.
The other problem is that the Mintz review doesn't look at the impact on ordinary British Columbians.
Budget documents show most British Columbians - aside from the poor - will pay more in total taxes to the provincial government this year, with the HST the biggest factor.
The budget offers six examples of the way different people will be affected. Seniors with an income of $30,000 and a single person with income of $25,000 will pay less.
The other four examples provided will pay between 2.1 per cent and and 6.2 per cent more. A family of four with a household income of $60,000 faces a 5.4 per cent increase in provincial taxes and fees.
The review doesn't analyze the higher cost of living as a result of the tax, which TD Economics put at 0.7 per cent. And it doesn't offer any information on the effect on wages.
The HST is quite likely a positive measure.
But the questions for the Liberals remain. If the HST was so great for B.C., why did Campbell reject it during the election campaign? What sort of government introduces a huge tax change with no studies or consultation?
And how can the public trust a party that promises one thing, and does the opposite?
It will take more than a 12-page report to answer those questions.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder in Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a scathing report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder of Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a damning report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
It's a year too late.
And it only addresses the questions the Liberal government wanted answered - not the issues British Columbians have with the new harmonized sales tax.
The approach to HST represents one of the great government fumbles. The tax isn't an easy sell, but in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces the governments figured out a way to take it to the public for a real discussion.
Not here. The Liberals vowed not to introduce the HST during the election campaign 10 months ago because it would be bad for B.C.
Weeks after winning the election, they decided to bring in the tax. According to the Liberal line, which isn't convincing many people, they had some sort of epiphany in the weeks after the election.
The HST was suddenly revealed to be not just OK, but critical to the province's future.
The analysis from Jack Mintz, a University of Calgary economist and former head of the C.D. Howe Institute, supports the decision. The government paid him $12,000 for a 12-page report on the impact of the new tax.
It's a great move, he concluded. The HST shifts the costs of government services from businesses to individuals and families.
Companies will pay less tax in capital investments in B.C. - things like new equipment or expanded operations. Lower taxes mean higher return on investment, so companies will choose to invest here rather than in some other jurisdiction. That, mostly, creates jobs.
Mintz estimates that by 2020 the HST will have resulted in $11.5 billion in additional capital investment - new equipment and factories and business start-ups.
Overall, Mintz predicts, the tax will mean a net additional 113,000 jobs by 2020. That's about five per cent more than the current number of jobs.
Mintz has a PhD in economics. I have an English degree and one economics course.
But there are a couple of legitimate questions here.
If the HST was such an obvious way to attract $11.5 billion in investment and bring 113,000 new jobs, why weren't Gordon Campbell and Hansen alert to that possibility a year or two ago? How could they be clued out about the benefits?
And given that this is a big change - a $1.9 billion a year tax shift from business to individuals and families - why is the first analysis being done nine months after the government decided to bring in the new tax?
According to Campbell, the government didn't one study or review of the impact on British Columbia before it decided to introduce the tax. That's an admission of incompetence.
The other problem is that the Mintz review doesn't look at the impact on ordinary British Columbians.
Budget documents show most British Columbians - aside from the poor - will pay more in total taxes to the provincial government this year, with the HST the biggest factor.
The budget offers six examples of the way different people will be affected. Seniors with an income of $30,000 and a single person with income of $25,000 will pay less.
The other four examples provided will pay between 2.1 per cent and and 6.2 per cent more. A family of four with a household income of $60,000 faces a 5.4 per cent increase in provincial taxes and fees.
The review doesn't analyze the higher cost of living as a result of the tax, which TD Economics put at 0.7 per cent. And it doesn't offer any information on the effect on wages.
The HST is quite likely a positive measure.
But the questions for the Liberals remain. If the HST was so great for B.C., why did Campbell reject it during the election campaign? What sort of government introduces a huge tax change with no studies or consultation?
And how can the public trust a party that promises one thing, and does the opposite?
It will take more than a 12-page report to answer those questions.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder in Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a scathing report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder of Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a damning report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
Going backward on support for families who step up to help children
The B.C. Association of Social Workers offers informed and balanced analysis. Thus the concerns about changes to supports for grandparents and other family members who step up to care for children should be given serious consideration. Children need families.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BC ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
MARCH 11, 2010
�EXTENDED FAMILY PROGRAM� OFFERS IMPROVED SUPPORTS FOR SOME, BUT DISQUALIFIES TOO MANY OTHERS
Effective April 1st, the provincial government will institute changes to support services for family members/family friends who have stepped in to care for a child whose parents cannot look after them. The Child in a Home of a Relative (CIHR) program under the Ministry of Housing and Social Development will be phased out, with no new applications accepted after March 31st, 2010. The new Extended Family Program (EFP) under the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), heralded by the provincial government as a way to �support strong, stable home environments and ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth who are temporarily unable to live with their parents,� states its most important goal is to �improve outcomes for children and youth.�
The majority of these children will be living with their grandparents. In fact, there are more children being raised by their grandparents in BC than there are in the foster care system. A recent survey by Parent Support Services Society of BC and the University of Victoria School of Social Work indicated that half the grandparents raising their grandchildren had the children placed with them by MCFD. Grandparents have been referred to as �the underground foster care system� for good reason.
The BC Association of Social Workers has reviewed the new Extended Family Program, and has identified some major concerns:
Although anyone currently in receipt of CIHR benefits will continue to be covered under that program until the child reaches the age of majority, after March 31st, the only apparent option for a relative who undertakes the care of a child is through the Extended Family Program. If they do not qualify, they will be left with very few supports � and indeed many will not qualify. Two major flaws are apparent in the planning for the EFP:
� The only gateway to the new program is through the child�s parent, who must request and agree to the arrangement. Too often that parent cannot be found, suffers from a mental illness or addiction, may be incarcerated or street engaged, may have an estranged relationship with the grandparents or simply may be unwilling or unable to cooperate for a variety of reasons.
� The new policy disqualifies any relative with legal guardianship of the child to receive services, even if they have great need. This is despite the fact that MCFD staff and often lawyers advise grandparents (or other relatives) to obtain legal guardianship because of the protection it affords the child and the grandparents in decision making and acquiring services for the child.
Unlike the CIHR plan, which covers children until they age out, the service plan under the Extended Family Program will be reviewed every six months, and supports will continue �as long as there is an assessed need and the parent agrees that the out-of-home placement remains the best option for the child.� This leaves relatives unable to plan far into the future as all or some supports could disappear in a very short time. The agreements are �not expected to continue beyond 24 months maximum... unless an assessment of the child�s needs supports a longer timeline.� Two years in the life of a child who has likely experienced substantial turmoil, and whose parents may have chronic problems that interfere with their ability to parent, is extraordinarily brief. Many grandparents hope that their child will be able to parent again when well. Sometimes that is possible. Often the children stay with their grandparents until they are grown or the grandparents are too old or ill to care for them. But this program can only assure them they will receive help for between 6 and 24 months.
As for the screenings and assessments, we are concerned that these procedures now become the responsibility of MCFD. No new funding or staffing has been allocated to handle the additional workloads in an already under-resourced ministry. While we support the need for in- depth assessments, adding this task to social work caseloads which are already too high in most regions will only result in critical delays across the board to families needing help, and create untenable situations for professional staff.
We do not note any appeal system for people refused under the new program, nor is there any increased advocacy funding or service to assist with navigation, clarification, problem solving etc. In fact, it has been reduced, with the elimination of LawLINE, which was often the first step in receiving legal rights information.
We applaud the services the new Extended Family Program will provide � financial help, respite care, medical, optical and dental benefits, increased access to counselling services � it�s all good. But why, we ask, has this program been designed to deliberately exclude many of the families who need it most � the family members who cannot locate or have an estranged relationship with the child�s parent, the grandparents or other relatives who fought for legal guardianship to protect the child�s best interests � many of whom live near or beneath the poverty line or struggle on fixed incomes, and who have undertaken responsibility for a child or children who may have many special needs.
Currently, 4500 families receive benefits under CIHR and less than 200 under Kith and Kin agreements. With the tight screening criteria of the Extended Family Program, it is likely that few families will qualify. For those who do, it will be a wonderful benefit. For the vast majority who do not, it will be devastating.
BCASW asks the government to review this program in the light of our concerns, and institute the changes that will ensure no children are excluded from the help they need to live in a safe and secure family environment. Specifically, we ask that:
� Legal guardians be considered eligible for the EFP � Caregivers be allowed to apply for the EFP in circumstances that preclude a parent from giving consent
� The program be reframed from a �temporary� stopgap to one that offers help until a child reaches the age of majority, where it is in the child�s best interests. � Funding be increased to MCFD to handle the additional workload � MCFD establish an external advisory body that includes social workers, legal advocates and other stakeholders
� MCFD recognize the unique hardships and contributions of grandparents and other relatives/close family friends and demonstrate its commitment to supporting children to remain with extended family on a long term basis if needed.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BC ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
MARCH 11, 2010
�EXTENDED FAMILY PROGRAM� OFFERS IMPROVED SUPPORTS FOR SOME, BUT DISQUALIFIES TOO MANY OTHERS
Effective April 1st, the provincial government will institute changes to support services for family members/family friends who have stepped in to care for a child whose parents cannot look after them. The Child in a Home of a Relative (CIHR) program under the Ministry of Housing and Social Development will be phased out, with no new applications accepted after March 31st, 2010. The new Extended Family Program (EFP) under the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), heralded by the provincial government as a way to �support strong, stable home environments and ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth who are temporarily unable to live with their parents,� states its most important goal is to �improve outcomes for children and youth.�
The majority of these children will be living with their grandparents. In fact, there are more children being raised by their grandparents in BC than there are in the foster care system. A recent survey by Parent Support Services Society of BC and the University of Victoria School of Social Work indicated that half the grandparents raising their grandchildren had the children placed with them by MCFD. Grandparents have been referred to as �the underground foster care system� for good reason.
The BC Association of Social Workers has reviewed the new Extended Family Program, and has identified some major concerns:
Although anyone currently in receipt of CIHR benefits will continue to be covered under that program until the child reaches the age of majority, after March 31st, the only apparent option for a relative who undertakes the care of a child is through the Extended Family Program. If they do not qualify, they will be left with very few supports � and indeed many will not qualify. Two major flaws are apparent in the planning for the EFP:
� The only gateway to the new program is through the child�s parent, who must request and agree to the arrangement. Too often that parent cannot be found, suffers from a mental illness or addiction, may be incarcerated or street engaged, may have an estranged relationship with the grandparents or simply may be unwilling or unable to cooperate for a variety of reasons.
� The new policy disqualifies any relative with legal guardianship of the child to receive services, even if they have great need. This is despite the fact that MCFD staff and often lawyers advise grandparents (or other relatives) to obtain legal guardianship because of the protection it affords the child and the grandparents in decision making and acquiring services for the child.
Unlike the CIHR plan, which covers children until they age out, the service plan under the Extended Family Program will be reviewed every six months, and supports will continue �as long as there is an assessed need and the parent agrees that the out-of-home placement remains the best option for the child.� This leaves relatives unable to plan far into the future as all or some supports could disappear in a very short time. The agreements are �not expected to continue beyond 24 months maximum... unless an assessment of the child�s needs supports a longer timeline.� Two years in the life of a child who has likely experienced substantial turmoil, and whose parents may have chronic problems that interfere with their ability to parent, is extraordinarily brief. Many grandparents hope that their child will be able to parent again when well. Sometimes that is possible. Often the children stay with their grandparents until they are grown or the grandparents are too old or ill to care for them. But this program can only assure them they will receive help for between 6 and 24 months.
As for the screenings and assessments, we are concerned that these procedures now become the responsibility of MCFD. No new funding or staffing has been allocated to handle the additional workloads in an already under-resourced ministry. While we support the need for in- depth assessments, adding this task to social work caseloads which are already too high in most regions will only result in critical delays across the board to families needing help, and create untenable situations for professional staff.
We do not note any appeal system for people refused under the new program, nor is there any increased advocacy funding or service to assist with navigation, clarification, problem solving etc. In fact, it has been reduced, with the elimination of LawLINE, which was often the first step in receiving legal rights information.
We applaud the services the new Extended Family Program will provide � financial help, respite care, medical, optical and dental benefits, increased access to counselling services � it�s all good. But why, we ask, has this program been designed to deliberately exclude many of the families who need it most � the family members who cannot locate or have an estranged relationship with the child�s parent, the grandparents or other relatives who fought for legal guardianship to protect the child�s best interests � many of whom live near or beneath the poverty line or struggle on fixed incomes, and who have undertaken responsibility for a child or children who may have many special needs.
Currently, 4500 families receive benefits under CIHR and less than 200 under Kith and Kin agreements. With the tight screening criteria of the Extended Family Program, it is likely that few families will qualify. For those who do, it will be a wonderful benefit. For the vast majority who do not, it will be devastating.
BCASW asks the government to review this program in the light of our concerns, and institute the changes that will ensure no children are excluded from the help they need to live in a safe and secure family environment. Specifically, we ask that:
� Legal guardians be considered eligible for the EFP � Caregivers be allowed to apply for the EFP in circumstances that preclude a parent from giving consent
� The program be reframed from a �temporary� stopgap to one that offers help until a child reaches the age of majority, where it is in the child�s best interests. � Funding be increased to MCFD to handle the additional workload � MCFD establish an external advisory body that includes social workers, legal advocates and other stakeholders
� MCFD recognize the unique hardships and contributions of grandparents and other relatives/close family friends and demonstrate its commitment to supporting children to remain with extended family on a long term basis if needed.
Health care cuts for disabled cost us all
The latest cuts to health services for the poorest British Columbians crossed a line.
The income assistance and disability benefit cuts are cruel, wasteful and petty.
And the hypocrisy and contempt for the public - everyone, not just those disabled and poor people hurt by the cuts - is shameful.
The cuts weren't announced as part of the budget last week or included in the ministry's service plan.
Instead, the public affairs bureau - the government's $26-million-a-year communications arm - put out a news release headlined "Province protects services for low-income clients."
In fact, it was cutting services for those people.
The basic goal is to reduce the health benefits for people living on provincial disability benefits and income assistance.
They are already dirt poor. A disabled person in B.C., unable to work and with no other income, gets $906 a month, with $375 of that for housing. That's $10,872 a year, including $4,500 for housing.
Meanwhile, MLAs can claim up to $19,000 just for an apartment to use while they�re in Victoria. And Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for income assistance, billed taxpayers $18,654 in the most recent reporting period just for meals and accommodation while he was in the capital.
Yet he says people paying all their bills from an income barely half that much should find money for medical costs (most of which MLAs don't have to pay).
Disability and income assistance benefits have included some medical equipment and supplies necessary "to help reduce serious health risks."
But the program was too generous, the government decided.
For example, the benefit plan recognized that people on income assistance or disability benefits couldn't afford birth control and covered the cost of IUDs. No more.
So people who were not good at taking birth control pills or couldn't use them for medical reasons are now at greater risk of pregnancy. The result will be more unwanted children born to poor families, or more abortions. Neither seems desirable for a sensible government.
The government will no longer pay for medical testing devices such as glucometers for diabetics. People with the illness - often called a disease of poverty - are supposed to find the money themselves out of an income equivalent to a full-time job paying $5.75 an hour.
Most won't. Glucometers are essential for measuring glucose levels in the blood and managing diabetes. Without monitoring, which lets individuals manage their illness, the risks of medical complications and much more expensive care rise sharply.
What can be dumber than measures that increase illness, abortions and unwanted pregnancies?
And what can be smaller than beating up on these people to save, in the case of the cuts to medical equipment and supplies, $3 million this year and $6 million next year?
The government had no hesitation in giving MLAs a raise last April (though salaries are frozen this year). And it spent $16.4 million last year to enrich pensions for MLAs - more than all these cuts to the vulnerable will save annually.
Petty and wasteful seem covered.
Cruel is more subjective. But consider this cut. The government has provided a minimum shelter allowance to people between 59 and 65 even if they were homeless or not paying rent. It was only $75 a month, but it helped.
Now it's taking that money away.
So a 62-year-old woman who had been getting by on the basic disability income - $531 a month - plus the $75 shelter allowance, will now face a 12-per-cent cut in income.
If she makes it to 65, the federal pension of $1,170 a month will be will be $640 higher than the amount the Liberal government thinks seniors should be able to survive on.
The Liberals didn't run on cuts to support for disabled British Columbians.
And Coleman has no studies or analysis to show this makes sense. It would be hard to find a doctor in B.C., outside the Liberal caucus, at least, who would support them.
Dumb, small, mean - and incompetent.
Footnote: Coleman said the cuts are needed because more people are on income assistance. That hardly seems unexpected. The economic slowdown has meant more people have lost their jobs. For too many, once EI benefits and their savings run out, income assistance is the only option.
The income assistance and disability benefit cuts are cruel, wasteful and petty.
And the hypocrisy and contempt for the public - everyone, not just those disabled and poor people hurt by the cuts - is shameful.
The cuts weren't announced as part of the budget last week or included in the ministry's service plan.
Instead, the public affairs bureau - the government's $26-million-a-year communications arm - put out a news release headlined "Province protects services for low-income clients."
In fact, it was cutting services for those people.
The basic goal is to reduce the health benefits for people living on provincial disability benefits and income assistance.
They are already dirt poor. A disabled person in B.C., unable to work and with no other income, gets $906 a month, with $375 of that for housing. That's $10,872 a year, including $4,500 for housing.
Meanwhile, MLAs can claim up to $19,000 just for an apartment to use while they�re in Victoria. And Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for income assistance, billed taxpayers $18,654 in the most recent reporting period just for meals and accommodation while he was in the capital.
Yet he says people paying all their bills from an income barely half that much should find money for medical costs (most of which MLAs don't have to pay).
Disability and income assistance benefits have included some medical equipment and supplies necessary "to help reduce serious health risks."
But the program was too generous, the government decided.
For example, the benefit plan recognized that people on income assistance or disability benefits couldn't afford birth control and covered the cost of IUDs. No more.
So people who were not good at taking birth control pills or couldn't use them for medical reasons are now at greater risk of pregnancy. The result will be more unwanted children born to poor families, or more abortions. Neither seems desirable for a sensible government.
The government will no longer pay for medical testing devices such as glucometers for diabetics. People with the illness - often called a disease of poverty - are supposed to find the money themselves out of an income equivalent to a full-time job paying $5.75 an hour.
Most won't. Glucometers are essential for measuring glucose levels in the blood and managing diabetes. Without monitoring, which lets individuals manage their illness, the risks of medical complications and much more expensive care rise sharply.
What can be dumber than measures that increase illness, abortions and unwanted pregnancies?
And what can be smaller than beating up on these people to save, in the case of the cuts to medical equipment and supplies, $3 million this year and $6 million next year?
The government had no hesitation in giving MLAs a raise last April (though salaries are frozen this year). And it spent $16.4 million last year to enrich pensions for MLAs - more than all these cuts to the vulnerable will save annually.
Petty and wasteful seem covered.
Cruel is more subjective. But consider this cut. The government has provided a minimum shelter allowance to people between 59 and 65 even if they were homeless or not paying rent. It was only $75 a month, but it helped.
Now it's taking that money away.
So a 62-year-old woman who had been getting by on the basic disability income - $531 a month - plus the $75 shelter allowance, will now face a 12-per-cent cut in income.
If she makes it to 65, the federal pension of $1,170 a month will be will be $640 higher than the amount the Liberal government thinks seniors should be able to survive on.
The Liberals didn't run on cuts to support for disabled British Columbians.
And Coleman has no studies or analysis to show this makes sense. It would be hard to find a doctor in B.C., outside the Liberal caucus, at least, who would support them.
Dumb, small, mean - and incompetent.
Footnote: Coleman said the cuts are needed because more people are on income assistance. That hardly seems unexpected. The economic slowdown has meant more people have lost their jobs. For too many, once EI benefits and their savings run out, income assistance is the only option.
Detectors of Radioactive Emissions(Radioactivity-Nuclear)
RADIOACTIVITY-NUCLEAR
Cloud Chambers
Cloud Chambers
Cloud Chamber is used to detect the tracks of the radiations. The tracks produced are in white colour. A cloud chamber is basically a plastic box which consists of two compartments. Dry ice is first put in the lower compartment to cool the lower region of the upper compartment.
Then the felt ring around the rim of the chamber is soaked with alcohol. When the alcohol vapour diffuses to the lower region of the upper compartment, it is cooled and ready to condense.
A layer of supersaturated vapour is formed at the lower region. A radioactive source is often placed in this region. When a radiation is emitted, it ionises the air molecules along its path, which provides a chance for the alcohol vapour to condense readily on the ions and forms white tracks in the chamber.
Each track shown in the chamber corresponds to the path of a radiation and the shape of the tracks characterises different types of radiations.
RADIOACTIVITY-NUCLEAR (Detectors of Radioactive Emissions)
Low point, again
Question: How can this committee encourage more strongly positive collaboration and engagement between the ministry and the children's representative?
Answer, from Lesley du Toit, deputy minister, Children and Families.
I can only reiterate that it has been our intention from the day that the representative arrived here, and it will continue to be our intention, and it is certainly built into our practice. We have built in systems, processes and various other mechanisms. I will ask Mark Sieben to talk to some of this, but it is our fundamental commitment to work together with anybody else who is committed to the children and families of this province. I will not accept that we will not do that.
What I was saying earlier on does not take away from the fact�. In fact, I was trying to emphasize that our job as two professional organizations committed to children across this province is to put our heads down � and sometimes, hopefully, together � and focus on the children of this province and figure out ways in which we can do that together.
I'm committed to doing that. My team is committed to doing that. We could spend probably the next hour or two explaining every possible process and mechanism that we've put into place to make sure that we honour that, including an interface unit which you, I think, have a report on in the package. It is fundamentally there to do nothing else but make sure that the representative gets what she needs to be successful in doing her job.
I want to make sure that everybody understands that that is our commitment, and I would like to ask Mark if he can add to that.
Answer, from Lesley du Toit, deputy minister, Children and Families.
I can only reiterate that it has been our intention from the day that the representative arrived here, and it will continue to be our intention, and it is certainly built into our practice. We have built in systems, processes and various other mechanisms. I will ask Mark Sieben to talk to some of this, but it is our fundamental commitment to work together with anybody else who is committed to the children and families of this province. I will not accept that we will not do that.
What I was saying earlier on does not take away from the fact�. In fact, I was trying to emphasize that our job as two professional organizations committed to children across this province is to put our heads down � and sometimes, hopefully, together � and focus on the children of this province and figure out ways in which we can do that together.
I'm committed to doing that. My team is committed to doing that. We could spend probably the next hour or two explaining every possible process and mechanism that we've put into place to make sure that we honour that, including an interface unit which you, I think, have a report on in the package. It is fundamentally there to do nothing else but make sure that the representative gets what she needs to be successful in doing her job.
I want to make sure that everybody understands that that is our commitment, and I would like to ask Mark if he can add to that.
This is a low point
Watch the video from publiceyeonline.com, and consider if this is the response you want from those in positions of power.
Bad news budget
The main news from the budget is that life in B.C. is going to be worse for most people over the next several years.
For all our crabbing about government, it provides useful services for individuals and communities.
And this week�s budget sets the stages for cuts in almost every aspect of government services, from environment to health care to schools.
The Liberal government is sticking with its September commitment to balance the budget by 2013-14. That means tight controls on spending.
More than half the ministries - that�s 11 of 20 - are projected to spend less in 2012 than they did in the fiscal year that is just ending.
In many cases the cuts are deep. The aboriginal relations budget, for example, is to fall from $67 million to $37 million. (The money for reaching treaties has been cut by 80 per cent.) The forest ministry budget is cut from $1 billion this year to $606 million.
Some changes are understandable. The government sees no significant recovery for forestry, so the ministry is likely to shrink.
The cuts aren�t just in those areas. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the budget aimed to support children and families.
The children and families ministry gets a 1.2-per-cent increase this year and then faces a funding freeze for the next two years, despite inflation, population growth and growing demand.
Funding for universities and colleges is effectively frozen for the next three years.
Even health care faces a continued squeeze. Funding for health regions will go up 4.3 per cent in the 2010 budget, which is significant.
But it�s also a lower increase than the health authorities received this year, which resulted in cancelled surgeries and reduced care.
The education budget increased 2.8 per cent, to cover the costs of introducing kindergarten. But the extra money - $140 million - is less than half the shortfall school districts across the province are reporting. And the per-pupil grant will only rise 1.3 per cent this year.
The bottom line is that government will be doing much less. In theory, people often like the idea. But when their children sit in crowded classes or their community�s water supply is contaminated, they aren�t quite so keen.
Especially when they are paying more. There were no tax surprises in the budget.
But the harmonized sales tax is coming, which will mean about $270 in increased sales taxes for a middle-income family of four. MSP premiums are increasing by $84 a year for most families. And B.C. Hydro rates are forecast to jump an average eight per cent a year.
The government did face real pressures. The global economic meltdown reduced its revenues sharply. Maintaining services would mean either higher taxes or deficits for a longer period. (The federal government has opted for the second approach.)
But the Liberals - who vowed never to run deficits - have opted instead for reduced services as part of a short-term effort.
Overall, the budget is counting on healthy revenue recovery - 5.8 per cent this year - and program spending increases are to be held to less than half that amount.
The impact will be significant, and not just in services. The plan calls for the elimination of about government 4,000 jobs, or about 10 per cent of the workforce. (The government is also attempting to freeze wages for the next three years as contracts expire.)
And the news isn�t good for anyone already looking for work. The government predicts it will take two years for employment to grow to the level it was at the beginning of 2009.
The budget reflects short-term thinking. The goal is to eliminate the deficits as soon as possible, accepting reduced services. That reduces future debt, but as the government points out in the budget documents, B.C.�s debt is manageable.
And it reflects some wishful thinking as well. The return to balanced budgets, for example, counts on limiting the health spending increase in the final year of the plan to 2.9 per cent. That�s highly unlikely.
It�s going to be a tough three years, especially for those who need government services that just aren�t there.
Footnote: The hokiest part of the budget was the announcement that HST revenue would be dedicated to health care. It�s an obvious attempt at phoney spin; all the money flows into general government coffers and is allocated as the politicians choose.
For all our crabbing about government, it provides useful services for individuals and communities.
And this week�s budget sets the stages for cuts in almost every aspect of government services, from environment to health care to schools.
The Liberal government is sticking with its September commitment to balance the budget by 2013-14. That means tight controls on spending.
More than half the ministries - that�s 11 of 20 - are projected to spend less in 2012 than they did in the fiscal year that is just ending.
In many cases the cuts are deep. The aboriginal relations budget, for example, is to fall from $67 million to $37 million. (The money for reaching treaties has been cut by 80 per cent.) The forest ministry budget is cut from $1 billion this year to $606 million.
Some changes are understandable. The government sees no significant recovery for forestry, so the ministry is likely to shrink.
The cuts aren�t just in those areas. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the budget aimed to support children and families.
The children and families ministry gets a 1.2-per-cent increase this year and then faces a funding freeze for the next two years, despite inflation, population growth and growing demand.
Funding for universities and colleges is effectively frozen for the next three years.
Even health care faces a continued squeeze. Funding for health regions will go up 4.3 per cent in the 2010 budget, which is significant.
But it�s also a lower increase than the health authorities received this year, which resulted in cancelled surgeries and reduced care.
The education budget increased 2.8 per cent, to cover the costs of introducing kindergarten. But the extra money - $140 million - is less than half the shortfall school districts across the province are reporting. And the per-pupil grant will only rise 1.3 per cent this year.
The bottom line is that government will be doing much less. In theory, people often like the idea. But when their children sit in crowded classes or their community�s water supply is contaminated, they aren�t quite so keen.
Especially when they are paying more. There were no tax surprises in the budget.
But the harmonized sales tax is coming, which will mean about $270 in increased sales taxes for a middle-income family of four. MSP premiums are increasing by $84 a year for most families. And B.C. Hydro rates are forecast to jump an average eight per cent a year.
The government did face real pressures. The global economic meltdown reduced its revenues sharply. Maintaining services would mean either higher taxes or deficits for a longer period. (The federal government has opted for the second approach.)
But the Liberals - who vowed never to run deficits - have opted instead for reduced services as part of a short-term effort.
Overall, the budget is counting on healthy revenue recovery - 5.8 per cent this year - and program spending increases are to be held to less than half that amount.
The impact will be significant, and not just in services. The plan calls for the elimination of about government 4,000 jobs, or about 10 per cent of the workforce. (The government is also attempting to freeze wages for the next three years as contracts expire.)
And the news isn�t good for anyone already looking for work. The government predicts it will take two years for employment to grow to the level it was at the beginning of 2009.
The budget reflects short-term thinking. The goal is to eliminate the deficits as soon as possible, accepting reduced services. That reduces future debt, but as the government points out in the budget documents, B.C.�s debt is manageable.
And it reflects some wishful thinking as well. The return to balanced budgets, for example, counts on limiting the health spending increase in the final year of the plan to 2.9 per cent. That�s highly unlikely.
It�s going to be a tough three years, especially for those who need government services that just aren�t there.
Footnote: The hokiest part of the budget was the announcement that HST revenue would be dedicated to health care. It�s an obvious attempt at phoney spin; all the money flows into general government coffers and is allocated as the politicians choose.
Stents
I wrote about heart surgery not long ago. The issue was whether health authorities should be restricting access to the use of stents in treating clogged and weakened arteries.
It used to be that doctors treated abdominal artery problems by cutting open the patient's chest and using a plastic tube to patch weak points.
Stents are newish. Instead of prying open your chest, surgeons make a small slit in your groin, slide the stents up into the right place and then use a balloon to expand the little metal mesh tube. The artery is kept open. Drugs built into the stent keep the cells from growing back around.
Is it worth the big money? Read this, a link from a knowledgeable reader
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SUBCRIBE TO BREAKING NEWS
Posts
All Comments