Stephen Harper wasted no time unveiling his first big campaign promise, a proposal to let families with children split their incomes to reduce their tax bills.
It's likely a political winner. But it's bad public policy, especially if the aim is to strengthen families.
The big beneficiaries are the rich - people who least need help with the cost of raising children.
It's also a distant prospect. Harper says the change won't come until the budget is balanced, which isn?t supposed to happen until 2015.
The theory is that some two-parent families with children under 18 should pay less tax.
Harper proposes that they be allowed to shift up to $50,000 in income from the highest paid spouse to the one who earns less, or stays at home. The high earner then drops into a lower tax break and pays less.
The Conservative news release offered examples. Someone earning $70,000 with a stay-a-home spouse could shift half the income. Each parent would pay taxes on $35,000. Because they would be in lower tax brackets, they would save almost $2,000.
But the release didn't set out other scenarios.
For example, someone being paid $200,000 a year could transfer $50,000 to a stay-at-home spouse. That family would pay $7,000 less in taxes.
And a large number of families would get nothing out of the change. Two people both earning $40,000, for example, would see no change in their tax bill.
Neither would any family getting by on a modest income, because they are already paying minimal taxes.
And single parents - most in need of assistance - would be left out entirely.
In short, the people who really need help raising their children would get little benefit; the people who didn't would get the biggest tax cut.
Providing this tax break is expensive. The Conservatives estimate it will cost $2.5 billion a year.
That leaves two options. Other taxes will have to go up to cover the lost revenue, which could mean other taxpayers will pay more to subsidize people already well off.
Or the government will have to cut $2.5 billion worth of services.
Politically, it's not a bad campaign promise. Supporting families always sounds good. People with families vote - especially affluent people with families.
And social conservatives see the tax change as a way of making it easier for families to get by on one income, so moms can stay home and look after the children.
That's not a goal that should be dismissed. There are benefits to having a parent in the home with children, to the family and society. Stay-at-home moms - and a relative handful of dads - also make a big contribution in volunteer roles.
But the tax change won't really do much to achieve that goal. The Conservatives say the average tax reduction would be $1,300. That isn't going to let most families give up a second income.
What was also missing was a consideration of what else a prudent government could do with that $2.5 billion a year. Based on population, that's about $330 million a year for British Columbia.
That much money, targeted to the children and families who really need help, could make a huge difference. Early childhood education, longer parental leave, nurse support for new moms, more affordable day care - there are many options that could improve life - now and for generations - for children starting out in tough circumstances.
That kind of approach would pay a lot greater return than a tax cut that delivered the greatest benefits to people who were being paid two or three times the average wage of British Columbians.
But Conservatives calculated the tax change would play well, or believe affluent families should pay much less in taxes.
That's a legitimate position, of course. But voters assessing the party platforms should be clear about what Harper offered in his first major commitment.
And about who would win, and who would be left behind.
Footnote: Why a promise that won't take effect for four years. The Conservatives said they couldn't agree to NDP demands for more support for seniors, a move which might have averted the non-confidence vote and election, because there is no money. That makes it hard to offer any promises not already in the defeated budget.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Both sides to blame for coming teachers' strike
We're heading toward another teachers' strike in B.C., and parents and taxpayers should be angry at the government and the B.C. Teachers Federation.
The bargaining relationship - or non-bargaining relationship - between the union and the government is needlessly destructive.
Worse, the parties - the BCTF, the school employers bargaining association and government - seem incapable of taking the basic steps to fix it.
The current contract expires June 30. The government says teachers will be subject to same two-year compensation freeze as all other public sector unionized employees. That still leaves room to shuffle money around - higher salaries in return for reduced benefit costs, for example.
The union wants raises to bring salaries in line with Alberta and Ontario; by its assessment, that means a 12- to 20-per-cent wage increase. The BCTF also wants to be able to bargain workload issues like class sizes and the number of special needs students per class.
Bargaining always involves some posturing, positions taken just so they can be given up in a later show of purported good faith. But a bid for a 20 per cent pay increase in these economic times is just silly.
Especially because the only justification is that teachers somewhere else are getting more money.
There is no widespread teacher shortage in B.C. Would-be teachers continue to spend years as substitutes because the prospect of a full-time job is so alluring. University teaching programs are over-subscribed.
The union could argue that teaching is no longer attracting the best people, but it hasn't. (Pay ranges from about $42,000 for a beginning teacher with minimum qualifications to $80,000 for a teacher with years on the job and additional education. Holidays are very good; the work is important and challenging.)
Parents might as well begin thinking about how to occupy their children this fall during the ritual teachers' strike, followed by a back-to-work order and imposed settlement. Back-to-work legislation is inevitable in a strike. No government can allow long school closures; the NDP has legislated teachers back twice, the Liberals once.
This is all especially discouraging because the parties have been offered two different approaches that could avoid a pointless deadlock.
Vince Ready, asked to look into a 2006 dispute, recommended a new bargaining approach for this round.
Both parties should establish their objectives eight months before the contract expires, he wrote. That would have been last Sept. 30.
A facilitator/mediator - either agreed to by both parties, or appointed by the labour minister - should then immediately begin to meet with them in negotiating sessions, and where helpful make recommendations. A senior government representative should be at the table. And the parties should develop an agreed on statement of facts about the current situation - cost of compensation and benefits, recruitment issues and the rest.
Don Wright, who reviewed bargaining in 2004, recommended another approach. If negotiations failed, he said, a third party should conciliate. If that didn't work, union and employers would submit their best offers and the conciliator would pick one to form the new collective agreement.
Instead, the negotiations are heading down the same pointless path.
The union is far from alone in bearing responsibility. The Liberal government has been both thuggish and incompetent in dealing with the BCTF. It ripped up contracts, broke the law, failed to keep class sizes at reasonable levels and dumped its problems on school districts.
And despite a lot of talk about education, there has been no progress in improved results during the Liberal decade. Schools are good, but not improving.
It's not too late. The parties could adopt Ready's approach and start realistic talks. The government could stick with its no net pay increase mandate. The union could win a commitment to cut class sizes and provide more preparation time. They could bargain.
But in the meantime, if you have kids in school, plan for some down time next fall.
Footnote: Education Minister George Abbott was disarming at the recent BCTF convention and deserves full credit for showing up. And if real bargaining starts, he might wish to talk to Finance Minister Kevin Falcon, whose leadership campaign promises included more money for exceptional teachers.
The bargaining relationship - or non-bargaining relationship - between the union and the government is needlessly destructive.
Worse, the parties - the BCTF, the school employers bargaining association and government - seem incapable of taking the basic steps to fix it.
The current contract expires June 30. The government says teachers will be subject to same two-year compensation freeze as all other public sector unionized employees. That still leaves room to shuffle money around - higher salaries in return for reduced benefit costs, for example.
The union wants raises to bring salaries in line with Alberta and Ontario; by its assessment, that means a 12- to 20-per-cent wage increase. The BCTF also wants to be able to bargain workload issues like class sizes and the number of special needs students per class.
Bargaining always involves some posturing, positions taken just so they can be given up in a later show of purported good faith. But a bid for a 20 per cent pay increase in these economic times is just silly.
Especially because the only justification is that teachers somewhere else are getting more money.
There is no widespread teacher shortage in B.C. Would-be teachers continue to spend years as substitutes because the prospect of a full-time job is so alluring. University teaching programs are over-subscribed.
The union could argue that teaching is no longer attracting the best people, but it hasn't. (Pay ranges from about $42,000 for a beginning teacher with minimum qualifications to $80,000 for a teacher with years on the job and additional education. Holidays are very good; the work is important and challenging.)
Parents might as well begin thinking about how to occupy their children this fall during the ritual teachers' strike, followed by a back-to-work order and imposed settlement. Back-to-work legislation is inevitable in a strike. No government can allow long school closures; the NDP has legislated teachers back twice, the Liberals once.
This is all especially discouraging because the parties have been offered two different approaches that could avoid a pointless deadlock.
Vince Ready, asked to look into a 2006 dispute, recommended a new bargaining approach for this round.
Both parties should establish their objectives eight months before the contract expires, he wrote. That would have been last Sept. 30.
A facilitator/mediator - either agreed to by both parties, or appointed by the labour minister - should then immediately begin to meet with them in negotiating sessions, and where helpful make recommendations. A senior government representative should be at the table. And the parties should develop an agreed on statement of facts about the current situation - cost of compensation and benefits, recruitment issues and the rest.
Don Wright, who reviewed bargaining in 2004, recommended another approach. If negotiations failed, he said, a third party should conciliate. If that didn't work, union and employers would submit their best offers and the conciliator would pick one to form the new collective agreement.
Instead, the negotiations are heading down the same pointless path.
The union is far from alone in bearing responsibility. The Liberal government has been both thuggish and incompetent in dealing with the BCTF. It ripped up contracts, broke the law, failed to keep class sizes at reasonable levels and dumped its problems on school districts.
And despite a lot of talk about education, there has been no progress in improved results during the Liberal decade. Schools are good, but not improving.
It's not too late. The parties could adopt Ready's approach and start realistic talks. The government could stick with its no net pay increase mandate. The union could win a commitment to cut class sizes and provide more preparation time. They could bargain.
But in the meantime, if you have kids in school, plan for some down time next fall.
Footnote: Education Minister George Abbott was disarming at the recent BCTF convention and deserves full credit for showing up. And if real bargaining starts, he might wish to talk to Finance Minister Kevin Falcon, whose leadership campaign promises included more money for exceptional teachers.
Budget shouldn't have provoked an election
OK, the federal budget wasn't a great effort - mediocre even.
But there was also nothing in it that justifies the apparent decision by all three opposition parties to force an election. Unless something changes, Canadians could be going to the polls - or staying home - as early as May 2.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget presentation Tuesday pretty much offered a status quo approach, one consistent with the Conservative's past practices and election platforms.
The government is on track to eliminate the deficits - ramped up after the 2008 economic meltdown - by 2015. It went ahead with planned corporate tax cuts.
And while spending will be tightly controlled, the budget numbers did not suggest draconian cuts lie ahead. Overall spending in the next three years is to rise by about 2.5 per cent a year. Given inflation and population growth, that means some curbs, but not deep cuts.
Uninspiring, perhaps, but hardly outrageous.
The opposition parties disagree. Liberal leader Michael Igantieff says the government's priorities are wrong, urging more spending on social initiatives and less on defence. (The jet fighter purchase will figure prominently in a Liberal campaign.)
Bloc Qu�b�cois Leader Gilles Duceppe wants, as always, more money for his Quebec.
And NDP Leader Jack Layton says the budget failed to deliver on the issues he had set out as critical for winning the party's support, including measures to help poor seniors, pension reform and the elimination of the GST on home heating.
The Conservatives could have made a better effort to find common ground with Layton and reduce the chance of an election.
The budget did offer a $50 a month increase in the old age supplement for the poorest seniors, a benefit that will help some 500,000 people. And it extends the EcoENERGY Retrofit program that subsidized home renovations to reduce energy use, another Layton demand.
But instead of addressing the other issues, the budget included measures that seem more aimed at providing photo ops in an election campaign.
The budget creates a Children's Art Tax Credit, which lets parents claim a tax deduction for the first $500 spent on art classes or music lessons. It should be politically popular, but it's foolish policy. Effectively all other taxpayers will be subsidizing people affluent enough to afford private lessons for their kids.
Volunteer firefighters will get a similar tax break.
And, more usefully, people who care for ill relatives will get a tax credit worth about $400 a year - small, but welcome, and a nice campaign plank.
It was tough to find any specific measures aimed at B.C. in the budget - so much so that a news service roundup of regional initiatives left the province out entirely.
There is $60 million in funding for forest-sector research across Canada.
But forest-dependent communities across B.C. face a looming crisis as pone-beetle-killed wood is harvested and future timber is decades away from being harvestable. They need support now, for economic diversification efforts and retraining.
There is still a chance an election could be avoided, by a measure as simple as having a few opposition MPs skip the coming non-confidence vote.
But it appears that within the next 10 days - and perhaps by the end of the week - the Harper government will have fallen and Canadians will be facing an election campaign.
That's likely to be a destructive effort. Not just because the campaigns will feature more of the attack ads that discredit all involved, but because polls suggest voters have no great enthusiasm for any of the parties or their leaders. Too many of us will hold our noses and vote for the least offensive party - or simply stay home.
And worse, the polls also suggest that the outcome will most likely be a return of the Conservatives with another minority government.
That's a lot of disruption just to maintain the status quo.
Footnote: A federal election hands Premier Christy Clark a challenge. The provincial Liberals are a coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. A hard-fought campaign risks leaving bruised feelings and divisions. The campaign could also limit Clark's flexibility in calling a provincial vote.
But there was also nothing in it that justifies the apparent decision by all three opposition parties to force an election. Unless something changes, Canadians could be going to the polls - or staying home - as early as May 2.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget presentation Tuesday pretty much offered a status quo approach, one consistent with the Conservative's past practices and election platforms.
The government is on track to eliminate the deficits - ramped up after the 2008 economic meltdown - by 2015. It went ahead with planned corporate tax cuts.
And while spending will be tightly controlled, the budget numbers did not suggest draconian cuts lie ahead. Overall spending in the next three years is to rise by about 2.5 per cent a year. Given inflation and population growth, that means some curbs, but not deep cuts.
Uninspiring, perhaps, but hardly outrageous.
The opposition parties disagree. Liberal leader Michael Igantieff says the government's priorities are wrong, urging more spending on social initiatives and less on defence. (The jet fighter purchase will figure prominently in a Liberal campaign.)
Bloc Qu�b�cois Leader Gilles Duceppe wants, as always, more money for his Quebec.
And NDP Leader Jack Layton says the budget failed to deliver on the issues he had set out as critical for winning the party's support, including measures to help poor seniors, pension reform and the elimination of the GST on home heating.
The Conservatives could have made a better effort to find common ground with Layton and reduce the chance of an election.
The budget did offer a $50 a month increase in the old age supplement for the poorest seniors, a benefit that will help some 500,000 people. And it extends the EcoENERGY Retrofit program that subsidized home renovations to reduce energy use, another Layton demand.
But instead of addressing the other issues, the budget included measures that seem more aimed at providing photo ops in an election campaign.
The budget creates a Children's Art Tax Credit, which lets parents claim a tax deduction for the first $500 spent on art classes or music lessons. It should be politically popular, but it's foolish policy. Effectively all other taxpayers will be subsidizing people affluent enough to afford private lessons for their kids.
Volunteer firefighters will get a similar tax break.
And, more usefully, people who care for ill relatives will get a tax credit worth about $400 a year - small, but welcome, and a nice campaign plank.
It was tough to find any specific measures aimed at B.C. in the budget - so much so that a news service roundup of regional initiatives left the province out entirely.
There is $60 million in funding for forest-sector research across Canada.
But forest-dependent communities across B.C. face a looming crisis as pone-beetle-killed wood is harvested and future timber is decades away from being harvestable. They need support now, for economic diversification efforts and retraining.
There is still a chance an election could be avoided, by a measure as simple as having a few opposition MPs skip the coming non-confidence vote.
But it appears that within the next 10 days - and perhaps by the end of the week - the Harper government will have fallen and Canadians will be facing an election campaign.
That's likely to be a destructive effort. Not just because the campaigns will feature more of the attack ads that discredit all involved, but because polls suggest voters have no great enthusiasm for any of the parties or their leaders. Too many of us will hold our noses and vote for the least offensive party - or simply stay home.
And worse, the polls also suggest that the outcome will most likely be a return of the Conservatives with another minority government.
That's a lot of disruption just to maintain the status quo.
Footnote: A federal election hands Premier Christy Clark a challenge. The provincial Liberals are a coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. A hard-fought campaign risks leaving bruised feelings and divisions. The campaign could also limit Clark's flexibility in calling a provincial vote.
Minimum wage increase good policy and politics
Christy Clark�s quick action on the minimum wage is both good public policy and politically smart.
Clark made increasing the minimum wage one of her first acts. The wage - stuck at $8 since 2001 - will go to $8.75 May 1, $9.50 on Nov. 1 and $10.25 the following May.
That will more than make up for lost ground over the last decade.
Practically, the change makes sense. About 40,000 employees in the province are paid minimum wage. Some work for minimum wage briefly, or are part-time workers supplementing family income.
But some are living and even raising families on the wage. Leaving them without an increase for a decade, mired in worsening poverty, is simply wrong and exploitive.
Most of the business community have accepted the need for an increase for some time, even as Gordon Campbell refused to act.
The increase still rankled with some. The restaurant industry warned about job losses.
But B.C. went from having the highest minimum wage in Canada in 2001 to the lowest today. Even after first increase to $8.75 in May, B.C. will still have the lowest.
If restaurants in every other province can operate successfully with higher minimum wages, surely managers and owners in B.C. can.
Some businesses warn that raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect - that all low-income workers will be affected.
But again, businesses in other provinces deal with that. B.C. businesses were able to pay higher real wages in 2001, based on the minimum wage then. Why not now?
And businesses worried about the size of the increase can reflect on their failure over the last decade to support small, regular incremental increases.
There�s an underlying philosophical issue at play.
A free market is generally a good way to determine pay. Employees offer their services; employers bid for them. Those with skills and a track record command more; if they contribute to a company�s success they are rewarded out of fear they might leave. (In real life, it�s not quite so tidy.)
But we�ve agreed people without bargaining clout, who do a fair day�s work, shouldn�t be protected from the effects of market forces. Just because some can only command $10 a day doesn�t mean an employer should be able to pay that little.
Or most of us have. The Campbell government�s long refusal to increase the minimum wage began to leave the impression it didn�t really believe in the concept.
Clark�s quick and significant action signalled a different approach, emphasized when she said the increase was �long overdue.� By phasing in the increase, she gave companies time to plan. And she linked it all to the �family first� theme.
The move was also quite a contrast to Campbell�s first act in government, a reckless 25-per-cent income tax cut that hadn�t been mentioned in the 2001 campaign and plunged the province into a deep deficit.
Clark didn�t take the next logical steps. The minimum wage should be indexed to the cost of living or the average wage in the province � like MLAs� salaries - so big catch-up jumps wouldn�t be needed.
And she could have announced action to help another group of dirt-poor British Columbians who have seen their real incomes eroded over the last decade - people living on income and disability assistance.
You can�t really have a family first agenda when children are being raised in dire poverty. But income assistance for a single parent with two children, deemed employable, is less than $300 a week (and less than a minimum wage job). Those children are in trouble.
Still, changes to rates or to give people on income assistance the chance to earn a few dollars without being penalized - a move that would cost the government nothing - might be just ahead.
Meanwhile, give Clark credit for �long overdue� and equitable action on the minimum wage.
Footnote: Clark also eliminated the $6 "training wage" employers were allowed to pay new hires.
But she announced a $9 minimum wage for servers in establishments with liquor licences. Their income generally includes tips which take them above the minimum wage level.
Clark made increasing the minimum wage one of her first acts. The wage - stuck at $8 since 2001 - will go to $8.75 May 1, $9.50 on Nov. 1 and $10.25 the following May.
That will more than make up for lost ground over the last decade.
Practically, the change makes sense. About 40,000 employees in the province are paid minimum wage. Some work for minimum wage briefly, or are part-time workers supplementing family income.
But some are living and even raising families on the wage. Leaving them without an increase for a decade, mired in worsening poverty, is simply wrong and exploitive.
Most of the business community have accepted the need for an increase for some time, even as Gordon Campbell refused to act.
The increase still rankled with some. The restaurant industry warned about job losses.
But B.C. went from having the highest minimum wage in Canada in 2001 to the lowest today. Even after first increase to $8.75 in May, B.C. will still have the lowest.
If restaurants in every other province can operate successfully with higher minimum wages, surely managers and owners in B.C. can.
Some businesses warn that raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect - that all low-income workers will be affected.
But again, businesses in other provinces deal with that. B.C. businesses were able to pay higher real wages in 2001, based on the minimum wage then. Why not now?
And businesses worried about the size of the increase can reflect on their failure over the last decade to support small, regular incremental increases.
There�s an underlying philosophical issue at play.
A free market is generally a good way to determine pay. Employees offer their services; employers bid for them. Those with skills and a track record command more; if they contribute to a company�s success they are rewarded out of fear they might leave. (In real life, it�s not quite so tidy.)
But we�ve agreed people without bargaining clout, who do a fair day�s work, shouldn�t be protected from the effects of market forces. Just because some can only command $10 a day doesn�t mean an employer should be able to pay that little.
Or most of us have. The Campbell government�s long refusal to increase the minimum wage began to leave the impression it didn�t really believe in the concept.
Clark�s quick and significant action signalled a different approach, emphasized when she said the increase was �long overdue.� By phasing in the increase, she gave companies time to plan. And she linked it all to the �family first� theme.
The move was also quite a contrast to Campbell�s first act in government, a reckless 25-per-cent income tax cut that hadn�t been mentioned in the 2001 campaign and plunged the province into a deep deficit.
Clark didn�t take the next logical steps. The minimum wage should be indexed to the cost of living or the average wage in the province � like MLAs� salaries - so big catch-up jumps wouldn�t be needed.
And she could have announced action to help another group of dirt-poor British Columbians who have seen their real incomes eroded over the last decade - people living on income and disability assistance.
You can�t really have a family first agenda when children are being raised in dire poverty. But income assistance for a single parent with two children, deemed employable, is less than $300 a week (and less than a minimum wage job). Those children are in trouble.
Still, changes to rates or to give people on income assistance the chance to earn a few dollars without being penalized - a move that would cost the government nothing - might be just ahead.
Meanwhile, give Clark credit for �long overdue� and equitable action on the minimum wage.
Footnote: Clark also eliminated the $6 "training wage" employers were allowed to pay new hires.
But she announced a $9 minimum wage for servers in establishments with liquor licences. Their income generally includes tips which take them above the minimum wage level.
Harry Bloy and the problem with politicians
New cabinet minister Harry Bloy's performance after the swearing in Tuesday was described as "fatuous" by Vaughn Palmer.
And it was. Bloy was taking his turn answering reporters' questions about his appointment and his new job as social development minister.
But instead of answering, he just kept repeating meaningless talking points that seemed to come from some pre-event briefing by communications staff. He looked dim, evasive and insincere.
It's wrong to single out Bloy. Politicians routinely let themselves be turned into the equivalent of Chatty Cathy dolls. No matter what the question, it's as if someone pulled a string in the back of their neck and they repeat irrelevant prerecorded messages.
I have no reason to think Bloy couldn't have answered the relatively straightforward questions. His resume is vague, even by political standards, but he's been elected three times. He should be able to deal with questions effectively.
But he didn't.
Sean Holman has the event on video here. You can decide if talking points really work politically. Or, more importantly, serve the public interest.
And it was. Bloy was taking his turn answering reporters' questions about his appointment and his new job as social development minister.
But instead of answering, he just kept repeating meaningless talking points that seemed to come from some pre-event briefing by communications staff. He looked dim, evasive and insincere.
It's wrong to single out Bloy. Politicians routinely let themselves be turned into the equivalent of Chatty Cathy dolls. No matter what the question, it's as if someone pulled a string in the back of their neck and they repeat irrelevant prerecorded messages.
I have no reason to think Bloy couldn't have answered the relatively straightforward questions. His resume is vague, even by political standards, but he's been elected three times. He should be able to deal with questions effectively.
But he didn't.
Sean Holman has the event on video here. You can decide if talking points really work politically. Or, more importantly, serve the public interest.
Clark puts together a reasonable first cabinet
Christy Clark's first cabinet seems pretty astute. That's not surprising; Clark is good at this kind of stuff.
She made Kevin Falcon, the close runner-up in the leadership race, finance minister and deputy premier. Falcon was the business choice for premier. He's tight with federal Conservatives. (Clark is a federal Liberal.)
So by giving him good jobs, Clark reduces the chance of Liberal supporters defecting to a provincial Conservative party and strengthens the province's hand in negotiations with Ottawa if the HST is rejected in a referendum. (There is still that $1.6 billion in federal incentives to discuss if the tax is dumped.)
Other leadership contenders also got decent posts. George Abbott is education minister; Mike de Jong is health minister. It will be interesting to see whether they bring energy and ideas to the ministries. Both have been in cabinet for a decade; it's easy to become jaded about the prospects for real change. De Jong, particularly, doesn't have a track record of achievements in past ministerial posts.
Clark also wanted to show a fresh start - that this isn't the Gordon Campbell government version two.
Which, perhaps, explains Colin Hansen's dumping. Hansen was remarkably competent over the last decade, but the HST taint seemed to seal his fate, probably unfairly.
The other striking exclusion was Dr. Moira Stilwell. She's a doctor and radiologist and nuclear medicine expert. She ran a good outsider campaign for the leadership before withdrawing and supporting Abbott.
But she didn't get a cabinet job, while some lesser lights - at least on paper - did.
Clark did elevate other outsiders while dumping Campbell ministers. The biggest jump came for Mary McNeil, the Vancouver MLA who is now the children and families minister, replacing Mary Polak, who is moved to aboriginal affairs.
It's a good sign for the troubled ministry. Polak seemed trapped as a defender of the sad status quo and failed to deal effectively with the oversight of the Representative for Children and Youth.
Clark also replaced Lesley du Toit, Gordon Campbell's handpicked choice to manage the ministry. That change was overdue; the ministry has been mired in a never-ending "transformation" project that has had little apparent effect in improving frontline services.
Overall, Clark shrank the cabinet. It's down to 18 ministers, including the premier, from 24. That's a welcome change; some of the Gordon Campbell cabinet jobs - like a junior minister for building code renewal - were bizarre. It was, however, bad news for Kevin Krueger, Murray Coell, Stilwell and others who were squeezed out.
But the apparent shrinkage is misleading. Clark also appointed 10 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries to help with the workload (and ease hurt feelings). (Ministers get $51,000 on top of the base pay of $102,000; parliamentary secretaries get $15,000.)
Clark also attempted to sort out the confusion Campbell created with a poorly executed re-org of ministries involved in land-decisions.
Energy and mines are also once again under one minister - Rich Coleman, who keeps responsibility for housing as well.
And forests, lands and natural resource operations are all one ministry under Steve Thomson of the Okanagan.
The only new ministry is jobs, tourism and innovation, under Pat Bell of Prince George. Clark has promised action to improve the province's disappointing job situation; it remains to be seen if the ministry has the tools to make a difference.
Clark maintained that emphasis with a new cabinet committee on jobs and economic growth and another on open government and engagement, each with Liberal ministers and MLAs on board.
Their effectiveness - and the chance for cabinet ministers to make a difference - will depend on Clark. Campbell started out as an enthusiastic supporter of strong caucus committees, but a penchant for centralized control saw them dwindle in usefulness.
On balance, Clark and the transition team deserve credit for a well-constructed cabinet.
Footnote: The cabinet changes stripped Coleman of his longstanding responsibility for gambling and liquor sales. But, sadly, it failed to address the conflict in having one minister - now Solicitor General Shirley Bond - responsible for both promoting increased gambling and bigger average losses by British Columbians and dealing with the resulting crime and addictions.
She made Kevin Falcon, the close runner-up in the leadership race, finance minister and deputy premier. Falcon was the business choice for premier. He's tight with federal Conservatives. (Clark is a federal Liberal.)
So by giving him good jobs, Clark reduces the chance of Liberal supporters defecting to a provincial Conservative party and strengthens the province's hand in negotiations with Ottawa if the HST is rejected in a referendum. (There is still that $1.6 billion in federal incentives to discuss if the tax is dumped.)
Other leadership contenders also got decent posts. George Abbott is education minister; Mike de Jong is health minister. It will be interesting to see whether they bring energy and ideas to the ministries. Both have been in cabinet for a decade; it's easy to become jaded about the prospects for real change. De Jong, particularly, doesn't have a track record of achievements in past ministerial posts.
Clark also wanted to show a fresh start - that this isn't the Gordon Campbell government version two.
Which, perhaps, explains Colin Hansen's dumping. Hansen was remarkably competent over the last decade, but the HST taint seemed to seal his fate, probably unfairly.
The other striking exclusion was Dr. Moira Stilwell. She's a doctor and radiologist and nuclear medicine expert. She ran a good outsider campaign for the leadership before withdrawing and supporting Abbott.
But she didn't get a cabinet job, while some lesser lights - at least on paper - did.
Clark did elevate other outsiders while dumping Campbell ministers. The biggest jump came for Mary McNeil, the Vancouver MLA who is now the children and families minister, replacing Mary Polak, who is moved to aboriginal affairs.
It's a good sign for the troubled ministry. Polak seemed trapped as a defender of the sad status quo and failed to deal effectively with the oversight of the Representative for Children and Youth.
Clark also replaced Lesley du Toit, Gordon Campbell's handpicked choice to manage the ministry. That change was overdue; the ministry has been mired in a never-ending "transformation" project that has had little apparent effect in improving frontline services.
Overall, Clark shrank the cabinet. It's down to 18 ministers, including the premier, from 24. That's a welcome change; some of the Gordon Campbell cabinet jobs - like a junior minister for building code renewal - were bizarre. It was, however, bad news for Kevin Krueger, Murray Coell, Stilwell and others who were squeezed out.
But the apparent shrinkage is misleading. Clark also appointed 10 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries to help with the workload (and ease hurt feelings). (Ministers get $51,000 on top of the base pay of $102,000; parliamentary secretaries get $15,000.)
Clark also attempted to sort out the confusion Campbell created with a poorly executed re-org of ministries involved in land-decisions.
Energy and mines are also once again under one minister - Rich Coleman, who keeps responsibility for housing as well.
And forests, lands and natural resource operations are all one ministry under Steve Thomson of the Okanagan.
The only new ministry is jobs, tourism and innovation, under Pat Bell of Prince George. Clark has promised action to improve the province's disappointing job situation; it remains to be seen if the ministry has the tools to make a difference.
Clark maintained that emphasis with a new cabinet committee on jobs and economic growth and another on open government and engagement, each with Liberal ministers and MLAs on board.
Their effectiveness - and the chance for cabinet ministers to make a difference - will depend on Clark. Campbell started out as an enthusiastic supporter of strong caucus committees, but a penchant for centralized control saw them dwindle in usefulness.
On balance, Clark and the transition team deserve credit for a well-constructed cabinet.
Footnote: The cabinet changes stripped Coleman of his longstanding responsibility for gambling and liquor sales. But, sadly, it failed to address the conflict in having one minister - now Solicitor General Shirley Bond - responsible for both promoting increased gambling and bigger average losses by British Columbians and dealing with the resulting crime and addictions.
Radiation Exposure; What is Radiation Exposure?
Radiation Exposure; What is Radiation Exposure?
Radiation Exposure; What is Radiation Exposure?
Radiation exposure can take many forms. It depends on the source. Exposure to ionizing radiation over an extended period of time is called chronic exposure. The natural background radiation is chronic exposure, but a normal level is difficult to determine due to variations. Geographic location and occupation often affect chronic exposure. Acute radiation exposure is an exposure to ionizing radiation which occurs during a short period of time. There are routine brief exposures, and the boundary at which it becomes significant is difficult to identify.
Electromagnetic radiation is that of sunlight, ultraviolet, radio, XRay and Cosmic radiation. This is not harmful except at certain wavelengths. Xray and Cosmic is known to harm cells, and microwaves fry them. Such exposure is not transmissible unless you are carrying a microwave, radar or Xray device on you. By the way, risk of cosmic radiation exposure increases by flying at hig altitudes where the protection of the atmosphere decreases.Radioactive Isotopes emit various radiation types, commonly Alpha, Beta and gamma radiation. Alpha is very damaging but can be shielded by a piece of paper or by your skin. If you ingest it or inhale it, it may be harmful to you and you may be carrying it in your body. But in that case, your body itself may shield others from the particles, unless you spew the radioactive material from your stomach or lungs onto others.
Plutonium is a very deadly poison in way. The noted Polonium poisoning case in the UK is one where ingestion of isotopes of Polonium caused death within a month. Polonium is only available through synthesis by scientists, so that is why the poisoning is so suspect. Beta and gamma are similar effects to electromagnetic radiation. You may have cellular effects, but as you move the source, you cannot carry it any further. One of the dangers of living is certain areas of the US is that naturally occuring radioactive radon gas seeps into homes. If unventillated, the person that breathes it may find a risk of lung cancer.
In other words it's quantinity of absorbed particles. Special devices used for counting exposure doses. For example The Radalert 100(geiger counter). Materials(unstable isotopes) emit particles. the flow of them call "radiation", mostly applied to ionizing radiation. Depending on element here can be alpha, beta of gamma.
Therefore, patients should not be concerned about radiation exposure from medical tests as the benefits of these procedures far outweigh the potential risks from their. Cbrne - radiation emergencies: emedicine emergency medicine information about exposure to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation during military service, possible health problems, and related va benefits. Radiation update: risk considered small oregon's cancer is considered by most people the primary health effect from radiation exposure simply put, cancer is the uncontrolled growth of cells. Despite fears, radiation health risk remains low regulatory requirements all nuclear plants have radiation safety programs intended to minimize worker and public exposure to radiation title 10 code of federal. Radiation safety there are few environmental risks that appalled people more of the radioactivity there is certainly no country in the world can come through this fear than the.
Radiation exposure in x-ray and ct examinations health effects of radiation exposure radiation affects the body in different ways, but the adverse health consequences of exposure may not be. Japan pm: radiation leaking from damaged plant - world news - asia at the exposure rate now being reported at the boundary of the fukushima daiichi plant, it would take many weeks before people exposed would notice any symptoms. Several plant workers are ill, but radiation risk search results. Radiation exposure poses range of potential health problems for "we have no evidence of harmful radiation exposure" from monday's blast, deputy cabinet secretary noriyuki shikata told reporters on saturday, a similar.
Health effects radiation protection us epa cancer can take decades to appear as a result of radiation exposure, and epidemiological studies have found an increased risk of cancer in people who were near. Cbrne - radiation emergencies: emedicine emergency medicine american experts monitoring the situation agreed, saying that reported radiation exposure remains far lower than normal exposure from background radiation in. Radiation exposure concerns in japan: signs of to make a donation, go to the red cross website and donate to the japan earthquake and pacific tsunami you can also donate $10 by texting redcross to 90999 to. Effects of radiation exposure after whole-body radiation exposure, appropriate decontamination should occur patients who present with prodromal symptoms should be treated supportively with. Types of radiation exposure upcoming events 23rd annual nrc regulatory information conference 8-10 march 2011 bethesda, maryland 56th annual meeting of the health physics society.
Nih - what we know about radiation i have been having abdominal pain since january along with weight loss and no one can figure out what is quite wrong in the past 6 months here are all the tests that i. Radiation exposure - family medicine - medhelp introduction basics of radiation detection measurement safety around radiation sources types of radiation exposure external irradiation contamination. Bing: radiation exposure after whole-body radiation exposure, appropriate decontamination should occur patients who present with prodromal symptoms should be treated supportively with. Radiation: when to worry safety topics concerning magnetic resonance imaging mri and x-ray exams. Radiation exposure washington post radiation exposure poses range of potential health problems for japanese thousands of people living around the japanese nuclear power plant most.
Radiation Exposure; What is Radiation Exposure?
Early looks at Clark's cabinet
The Times Colonist has an editorial online here.
One of the most interesting developments is the sacking of Lesley du Toit as deputy minister in the children and families ministry. The ministry floundered under her five-year tenure; Clark is signalling a new approach. The replacement - Stephen Brown - has been working in the health ministry and has an encouraging bio here.
The ministry also gets a new political leader in Mary McNeil. It's a needed fresh start.
One of the most interesting developments is the sacking of Lesley du Toit as deputy minister in the children and families ministry. The ministry floundered under her five-year tenure; Clark is signalling a new approach. The replacement - Stephen Brown - has been working in the health ministry and has an encouraging bio here.
The ministry also gets a new political leader in Mary McNeil. It's a needed fresh start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
