Anyone paying attention - especially people being paid to do just that - could have seen things were going to end badly for the 15-year-old girl with Down's syndrome and her mom.
And things did end badly. The girl spent days alone in a dirty trailer with her mother's decomposing body last fall. She was filthy, emaciated and covered in an angry rash when found - and frightened.
When neighbours came to her rescue, she couldn't hear them. Her hearing aids had stopped working at some point in the past. No one had noticed. She had lived in needless silence.
B.C. Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond reported on the case this week. It is grim reading.
The desperate family's downward spiral occurred over years. There was ample evidence of deteriorating conditions for both mother and daughter. For almost four years, the Ministry of Children and Families had been warned the child was being abused and neglected. Investigations were incomplete and inadequate, failing to take the modest steps needed to get at the truth of the family's collapse.
As all this happened, the government was supposed to be providing children with special needs and their families help with assessment, planning and services. That didn't happen either.
Lord knows the child needed support. She was sickly and weak, needed leg braces and hearing aids and glasses. At 15, she had the intellectual functioning of a pre-schooler.
She was also a warm and loving child, lo9ved in turn by her mother.
In a family with money and savvy, she might have fared well.
But her mother was poor. When her car broke down, she had to give up the two jobs she was working. She was on income assistance � a life of poverty - and sometimes collected cans and bottles to get by. She couldn't afford a phone.
And she battled her own issues with illness, physical and mental, and, apparently, with alcohol.
Families of children with special needs are supposed to be getting support to make sure services are there. But the government shuffled responsibility to Community Living BC from the children's ministry in 2005, then decided that was a bad idea and shuffled them back in 2009. Supports were inadequate, caseloads overwhelming and children fell through gaping cracks.
And all children are supposed to be protected from harm by the ministry of children and families. That's impossible, of course. But in this case, the report found, there were complaints about the home and warning signs of obvious risk. At the least, this family needed support; it's likely the child should have been apprehended.
Instead, things got worse and worse.
Turpel-Lafond also found this case was not just an aberration, or the result of individual failures. "Is this a unique circumstance, a cruel anomaly?" she said. "Tragically, it is not."
One of the government workers responsible for supporting the child had a caseload of 200 families. There is simply no way to do the work properly under those conditions.
The government cut off the mother's income assistance in the month of her death, although it knew she was supporting a disabled child, without visiting the home or warning the children's ministry.
In short, the systems that were supposed to protect children and support those with special needs were structured to fail.
Children's Minister Mary McNeil promised action on the report's recommendations. But the public has heard that before. Only three years ago, Turpel-Lafond outlined the problems with supports for children with special needs. Nothing happened.
There's one simple test of the government's commitment. The report called on the government to assess the services, resources and support required for children with special needs, the province's current commitment and the actions that would be taken to close the gap.
Until that's done and released, it would be foolish to accept yet more promises of improvement.
Footnote: The ministry's initial position was that the case did not involve a "serious injury" so it did not have to report it to the representative. An internal ministry review found "all of the required standards were complied with" in its dealings with the family.
Which confirms that the problems are built into the current system.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Money to fight for BC Rail-scandal secrecy, not for Oppal inquiry
So Attorney General Barry Penner has money in his budget to pay lawyers to go to court and fight the release of documents in the B.C. Rail scandal to NDP MLA Leonard Krog. (They failed, not surprisingly since the documents had already been released to reporters during the trial.)
But he doesn't have money to provide the legal support Wally Oppal says is needed to get answers at the missing and murdered women inquiry.
(For why Penner is wrong on the inquiry funding, read this. For more on the B.C. Rail scandal secrecy, read this.
But he doesn't have money to provide the legal support Wally Oppal says is needed to get answers at the missing and murdered women inquiry.
(For why Penner is wrong on the inquiry funding, read this. For more on the B.C. Rail scandal secrecy, read this.
Auditor fights secrecy on Basi-Virk $6-million payment
Add another question to the mess that is the B.C. Rail scandal.
Why did the provincial government, in handing over $6 million to pay Dave Basi and Bob Virk's legal fees, agree to - or ask for - a secrecy clause so sweeping that it's impossible for the province's auditor general to do his job?
Auditor general John Doyle has been forced to go to B.C. Supreme Court in a bid to get the government to hand over documents about the deal.
Doyle says he needs the information to fulfill his obligations to ensure money was spent legally and properly reported. He's seeking "the approvals, expenditures, records and documents supporting the expenditures" made to cover "the provision of public funds to Basi and Virk," according to the petition to the court.
The government has refused to provide the information. It signed a confidentiality agreement with Basi and Virk, so everything has to stay secret, it says. The auditor general and the public can't know anything about how the decision to spend the $6 million was made.
The government would waive privilege and the confidentiality agreement for the purposes of the audit, it said in a statement. But Basi, Virk and their lawyers haven't.
The legal funding violated government policy. Politicians and government employees are promised funding for lawyers if they end up in work-related legal proceedings. But if they are found guilty of wrongdoing, the legal bills become their responsibility. The government had even registered a mortgage on Basi's home to ensure it could collect at least some of the money.
Basi and Virk admitted guilt in a plea bargain after the government promised it would cover their legal fees. But the government paid the $6 million anyway.
And, it turns out, struck a deal that ensured the details would be kept secret.
Why? The government was handing over $6 million. It had every right to say no to secrecy, but didn't.
The perception is, inevitably, that there was something to hide.
Doyle wants to know details of the payment to cover legal fees for Basi and Virk. The public should too.
The $6 million promise, remember, came after the trial had begun. It was a powerful incentive for Basi and Virk to plead guilty to corruption charges. If they didn't, and were found guilty, they risked losing everything - homes, any savings. The smart move was to accept the plea deal, with the multimillion-dollar sweetener.
And the plea bargain ended the trial, which had already proved embarrassing for the Liberal government. Doyle's review would be welcome.
Premier Christy Clark maintains there is no need to seek further answers in the B.C. Rail scandal.
But many questions remain.
Basi and Virk admitted taking bribes from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist and political foot soldier, and Brian Kieran, a lobbyist and former journalist. The men were lobbyists for one of the bidders for B.C. Rail.
But they were never charged.
In statements to obtain search warrants - not tested in court - police swore Bornman told them he started paying bribes to Basi even before the Liberals were elected in 2001. The money was to pay "his political support, his support in referring clients to my business and for assistance on client matters," Bornman told police.
That suggests other well-connected people were paying for preferential "assistance" in other areas. The government seems uninterested in establishing the facts.
A police search found that Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal activist, lobbyist and Christy Clark's brother, had B.C. Rail sale documents "improperly disclosed" by Basi and Virk. Clark was working for the Washington Marine Group, which was interested in buying the B.C. Rail line to the Roberts Bank superport.
But it's never been explained why Basi and Virk shared the material or what Clark did with it. (Christy Clark is now lobbying the federal government to help the same company win a shipbuilding contract.)
The government has consistently ignored important questions raised by the B.C. Rail scandal. The auditor general is standing up for the public interest.
Footnote: Attorney General Barry Penner says it's up to Basi and Virk to decide whether to share the information. But he has refused to order a review of the $6 million deal - including the secrecy clause. The government is reviewing its policies on paying for lawyers.
Why did the provincial government, in handing over $6 million to pay Dave Basi and Bob Virk's legal fees, agree to - or ask for - a secrecy clause so sweeping that it's impossible for the province's auditor general to do his job?
Auditor general John Doyle has been forced to go to B.C. Supreme Court in a bid to get the government to hand over documents about the deal.
Doyle says he needs the information to fulfill his obligations to ensure money was spent legally and properly reported. He's seeking "the approvals, expenditures, records and documents supporting the expenditures" made to cover "the provision of public funds to Basi and Virk," according to the petition to the court.
The government has refused to provide the information. It signed a confidentiality agreement with Basi and Virk, so everything has to stay secret, it says. The auditor general and the public can't know anything about how the decision to spend the $6 million was made.
The government would waive privilege and the confidentiality agreement for the purposes of the audit, it said in a statement. But Basi, Virk and their lawyers haven't.
The legal funding violated government policy. Politicians and government employees are promised funding for lawyers if they end up in work-related legal proceedings. But if they are found guilty of wrongdoing, the legal bills become their responsibility. The government had even registered a mortgage on Basi's home to ensure it could collect at least some of the money.
Basi and Virk admitted guilt in a plea bargain after the government promised it would cover their legal fees. But the government paid the $6 million anyway.
And, it turns out, struck a deal that ensured the details would be kept secret.
Why? The government was handing over $6 million. It had every right to say no to secrecy, but didn't.
The perception is, inevitably, that there was something to hide.
Doyle wants to know details of the payment to cover legal fees for Basi and Virk. The public should too.
The $6 million promise, remember, came after the trial had begun. It was a powerful incentive for Basi and Virk to plead guilty to corruption charges. If they didn't, and were found guilty, they risked losing everything - homes, any savings. The smart move was to accept the plea deal, with the multimillion-dollar sweetener.
And the plea bargain ended the trial, which had already proved embarrassing for the Liberal government. Doyle's review would be welcome.
Premier Christy Clark maintains there is no need to seek further answers in the B.C. Rail scandal.
But many questions remain.
Basi and Virk admitted taking bribes from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist and political foot soldier, and Brian Kieran, a lobbyist and former journalist. The men were lobbyists for one of the bidders for B.C. Rail.
But they were never charged.
In statements to obtain search warrants - not tested in court - police swore Bornman told them he started paying bribes to Basi even before the Liberals were elected in 2001. The money was to pay "his political support, his support in referring clients to my business and for assistance on client matters," Bornman told police.
That suggests other well-connected people were paying for preferential "assistance" in other areas. The government seems uninterested in establishing the facts.
A police search found that Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal activist, lobbyist and Christy Clark's brother, had B.C. Rail sale documents "improperly disclosed" by Basi and Virk. Clark was working for the Washington Marine Group, which was interested in buying the B.C. Rail line to the Roberts Bank superport.
But it's never been explained why Basi and Virk shared the material or what Clark did with it. (Christy Clark is now lobbying the federal government to help the same company win a shipbuilding contract.)
The government has consistently ignored important questions raised by the B.C. Rail scandal. The auditor general is standing up for the public interest.
Footnote: Attorney General Barry Penner says it's up to Basi and Virk to decide whether to share the information. But he has refused to order a review of the $6 million deal - including the secrecy clause. The government is reviewing its policies on paying for lawyers.
Google tramples sex workers' rights
Google censorship isn't just in China. The company refuses to allow a group seeking rights for sex workers to advertise, while it sells ads to a group campaigning to make the work illegal.
Read Jody Paterson here.
Read Jody Paterson here.
CLBC's soaring management salaries and service cuts
Jody Paterson reports here that top managers at CLBC have seen compensation jump more than 55 per cent over four years while services to developmentally disabled clients and their families are cut.
And she looks at the folly of those cuts in a column here.
And she looks at the folly of those cuts in a column here.
Six lessons from a highly predictable riot
It's bizarre that the authorities in Vancouver claim to be surprised by the Stanley Cup riot.
I was on a 9 a.m. ferry from Victoria to Vancouver that day. Within about 30 minutes, it was clear trouble was likely.
The ferry was crowded with young people, mostly male, wearing Canuck's sweaters. They weren't criminals or 'anarchists' (which always suggests a bearded, skinny guy with a round bomb).
They were young fans, ready for a day of drinking and a hockey party. Some of the guys led the passengers in 'Go Canucks go" chants. They had jobs or were in college or university.
One young man in a Luongo jersey told friends he'd been over for Game 5. You had to line up to get into a bar at 2 p.m., he warned them. And you had to keep drinking or you'd lose the table. (Which, he said, was not a problem.)
"Ferry jammed with young people in Canucks' jerseys," I tweeted. "Vancouver police should be biggest cheerers for Canuck win." (Yes, I'm on Twitter.)
I'm no security expert. But it was clear that there would be trouble if the Canucks lost.
My ferry fellow travellers might not set a car on fire or loot a store. But some would watch and cheer, or taunt police, perhaps get in drunken fights if they felt wronged.
People have been drawing an extraordinary range of messages from the riots.
I'd settle for six conclusions.
First, that a proportion of young men are capable of stupid and dangerous behaviour. Destruction and violence please them. The trait must serve some genetic purpose, or it did in the past, but it is a great nuisance today.
It's not a question of intelligence, upbringing, thwarted opportunity or philosophy. Look at Nathan Kotylak, the 17-year-old caught trying to set a police car on fire. His dad is a surgeon. He's a water polo star, set to head off on a university scholarship, a potential Olympian. That's not some loser anarchist wannabe in a hoodie. (And we should also acknowledge that it can be exhilarating to break the usual rules.)
Second, that alcohol remains our most destructive drug. The Canucks' fans on the morning ferry were the usual mix of people, great and not so great, but none of them would do you harm. Many would help if you needed it.
Unless they were drunk. Then, all bets would be off.
And the crowds watching the final game in Vancouver were drunk. People drinking in the street - tens of thousands - were joined by people pouring into the streets after spending six hours drinking in bars.
It was predictable that any incidents would quickly escalate.
Third, that mobs are dangerous. People who would never loot a store or confront police individually can be swept, sheep-like, into stupid and dangerous activities. That conclusion applies just as well to those - generally online - who urged vigilante justice against those involved in the riot. The herd mentality swept them along as well.
Fourth, that we need to at least consider whether our culture - the things our society celebrates - is increasing the risk of such violence and disruption. Hockey did not make people set fire to cars. But it's not unreasonable to wonder if commentators who celebrated violence and actions outside the game's rules legitimized similar acts on the streets. Or whether a steady diet of TV that makes stars of the selfish, stupid, rude and violent influences behaviour.
Fifth, that Vancouver blew it. The police presence was inadequate, several smaller public venues - ideally in open areas - would have been safer, and it's baffling that city staff and police were caught by surprise.
Sixth, that parents should recognize that some of the rioters were people like their own children (or sons, to be more accurate). It's a good chance to point out the perils of drunken gatherings.
We're never going to eliminate stupidity and violence. We can do a lot better than we did this week.
Footnote: Premier Christy Clark ordered a review and promised swift justice and public humiliation for rioters. That led Attorney General Barry Penner to reverse his decision to cut sheriff's hours, a cost-saving measure that had led to even longer delays and more dismissed charges in the courts.
De-spinning the HST numbers
It�s not easy to sort the HST facts from the spinning by both sides in the tax debate.
Start with Finance Minister Kevin Falcon�s claim that going back to the PST would blow a $3 billion hole in B.C.�s fiscal plan over this year and the next three.
That�s a stretch. The analysis by the independent panel that reviewed the HST�s impact suggests a much smaller hit.
This column will be a heavy on numbers. But numbers matter.
The referendum will result in one of two options: A return to the old PST/GST taxes; or staying with the HST, with promised future rate reductions, some new rebates, corporate tax increases and cancellation of the plan to eliminate the small business tax.
Going back to the PST would bring some costs. The federal government took over sales tax administration when the HST was introduced; the province would have to spend $20 million to re-establish the PST collection office and about $35 million a year to keep it operating, the panel found.
Axing the tax could result in reduced economic growth, reducing provincial revenues by $80 million a year, it estimated.
And the panel noted the province would have to pay back $1.6 billion the federal government put up to encourage adoption of the new tax.
The panel � including former Alberta finance minister Jim DInning and ex-B.C. auditor general George Morfitt � judged the impact of that would be an extra $85 million a year in interest costs because of the increased provincial debt.
And, based on the panel�s analysis, the PST would deliver about $610 million a year less in tax revenue for government than the HST, even if reduced from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. (That, of course, means a saving for families.)
But the panel also noted that the government would save about $441 million a year because it could cancel the rebates and tax reductions brought into cushion the HST�s impact.
All in, based on the panel�s analysis, going back to the PST would cost the government about $362 million a year, mainly because families would pay less tax.
Falcon�s estimate is much higher. The main reason is that he concludes, based on preliminary advice from the province�s comptroller general, that the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid immediately and counted as an expense.
Accounting debates aside, the panel offers a more realistic view. Provincial taxpayers wouldn�t suddenly pony up $1.6 billion; they would pay the long-term interest costs.
The claims about impacts on families are just as muddled.
Christy Clark says the revised HST would see taxpayers pay less than under the PST.
That would eventually be true. But not until 2014. In the meantime, individuals and families would be paying more in sales taxes than under the PST.
Based on the panel�s analysis, individuals and families are paying an extra $1.3 billion in sales taxes this year because of the HST�s wider reach. (The portion of a typical families� spending subject to provincial sales tax jumped by almost 60 per cent under the HST, the panel found.)
Even with the first rate reduction, from 12 to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012, families would still pay $690 million more in sales taxes in the next fiscal year under the HST. The following year, they would pay $430 million more than under the PST.
It�s not until the following fiscal year � 2014/15 � and another one-point cut in the rate, that families would pay less than they would have under the HST - about $330 million less. That amount would increase in future years.
So families would have spent an extra $2.5 billion in sales taxes over three years before they started seeing lower taxes than under the HST. (Rebates to low-income seniors and all families with children would reduce that by about $200 million.)
There are other reasons for voting to keep or kill the HST. But understanding the numbers is a a good starting point.
Footnote: A problem with any look at the numbers is that the government did not ask the independent panel to report on its estimates after announcing the HST rate cut and corporate tax increases. Given the government�s dismal record in providing accurate HST information, that raises serious doubts. Check hstinbc.ca for more on these numbers.
Start with Finance Minister Kevin Falcon�s claim that going back to the PST would blow a $3 billion hole in B.C.�s fiscal plan over this year and the next three.
That�s a stretch. The analysis by the independent panel that reviewed the HST�s impact suggests a much smaller hit.
This column will be a heavy on numbers. But numbers matter.
The referendum will result in one of two options: A return to the old PST/GST taxes; or staying with the HST, with promised future rate reductions, some new rebates, corporate tax increases and cancellation of the plan to eliminate the small business tax.
Going back to the PST would bring some costs. The federal government took over sales tax administration when the HST was introduced; the province would have to spend $20 million to re-establish the PST collection office and about $35 million a year to keep it operating, the panel found.
Axing the tax could result in reduced economic growth, reducing provincial revenues by $80 million a year, it estimated.
And the panel noted the province would have to pay back $1.6 billion the federal government put up to encourage adoption of the new tax.
The panel � including former Alberta finance minister Jim DInning and ex-B.C. auditor general George Morfitt � judged the impact of that would be an extra $85 million a year in interest costs because of the increased provincial debt.
And, based on the panel�s analysis, the PST would deliver about $610 million a year less in tax revenue for government than the HST, even if reduced from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. (That, of course, means a saving for families.)
But the panel also noted that the government would save about $441 million a year because it could cancel the rebates and tax reductions brought into cushion the HST�s impact.
All in, based on the panel�s analysis, going back to the PST would cost the government about $362 million a year, mainly because families would pay less tax.
Falcon�s estimate is much higher. The main reason is that he concludes, based on preliminary advice from the province�s comptroller general, that the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid immediately and counted as an expense.
Accounting debates aside, the panel offers a more realistic view. Provincial taxpayers wouldn�t suddenly pony up $1.6 billion; they would pay the long-term interest costs.
The claims about impacts on families are just as muddled.
Christy Clark says the revised HST would see taxpayers pay less than under the PST.
That would eventually be true. But not until 2014. In the meantime, individuals and families would be paying more in sales taxes than under the PST.
Based on the panel�s analysis, individuals and families are paying an extra $1.3 billion in sales taxes this year because of the HST�s wider reach. (The portion of a typical families� spending subject to provincial sales tax jumped by almost 60 per cent under the HST, the panel found.)
Even with the first rate reduction, from 12 to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012, families would still pay $690 million more in sales taxes in the next fiscal year under the HST. The following year, they would pay $430 million more than under the PST.
It�s not until the following fiscal year � 2014/15 � and another one-point cut in the rate, that families would pay less than they would have under the HST - about $330 million less. That amount would increase in future years.
So families would have spent an extra $2.5 billion in sales taxes over three years before they started seeing lower taxes than under the HST. (Rebates to low-income seniors and all families with children would reduce that by about $200 million.)
There are other reasons for voting to keep or kill the HST. But understanding the numbers is a a good starting point.
Footnote: A problem with any look at the numbers is that the government did not ask the independent panel to report on its estimates after announcing the HST rate cut and corporate tax increases. Given the government�s dismal record in providing accurate HST information, that raises serious doubts. Check hstinbc.ca for more on these numbers.
Falcon heads to New York to explain two years of chaos
It's not surprising that Finance Minister Kevin Falcon went to New York to reassure big lenders about the province's books.
The last two years have been a fiscal gong show. The government's erratic policy stumbles are the kind of behaviour that makes lenders and bond rating agencies edgy.
Start with the government's botched deficit forecast in the 2009 campaign budget. The deficit, then premier Gordon Campbell vowed in the May election campaign, would not exceed $495 million.
Four months later, the government said the deficit would actually be $2.8 billion.
That's a spectacular failure, the kind that makes lenders wonder what else the government is messing up.
Then, of course, there is the HST. The Liberals ruled it out during the election campaign and then, two months later, announced the introduction of the new tax.
Leave aside the pros and cons for a moment. There is no debate that lenders and investors like stability in tax policy.
A surprise introduction of a major tax change, especially one that had been rejected months earlier, does not increase confidence. And especially when the government concedes it made the tax change without any economic analysis of its impact. (Falcon acknowledges cabinet ministers were heavily focused on the chance to get $1.6 billion from Ottawa to reduce the deficit problem.)
Then things got more erratic.
As public anger about the HST increased, Campbell went on television in November and announced a 15-per-cent income tax cut. That would knock about $1 billion a year off provincial revenues; there was no clear plan for dealing with the shortfall.
Again, a well-considered, affordable tax cut would likely find favour with rating agencies and lenders. This looked like an impulsive effort to shore up a failing government. That impression was confirmed a few weeks later, when Campbell quit and the Liberals said they weren't going ahead with the promised tax cut.
If you're watching this from a New York investment fund or bank, you are likely getting nervous about the competence and stability of the government.
How much more chaotic could things get?
Quite a bit more, it turned out. Because the government last month announced more surprise tax changes. The HST would be reduced in two steps if it survived the referendum, Premier Christy Clark said.
She had rejected that during her leadership campaign. It would be akin to bribing people with their own money and leave the province short of revenue for health care and other needed services, she said.
And the government would raise corporate taxes 20 per cent, said Clark, reversing past cuts - the most recent less than six months ago. (NDP leader Adrian Dix proposed the same increase during his campaign. George Abbott said the idea represented the "leading age of 18-century socialism." Mike de Jong said an increase would be "chasing jobs and investment away.")
You can debate all these individual changes, their benefits and costs.
But taken together, they paint a picture of an erratic, incompetent government that doesn't have a coherent tax policy.
Add to that the government's inability to provide accurate information on the HST. It claimed the tax would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020; a credible independent panel report commissioned by the government estimated 24,400. It said the tax was revenue-neutral; the panel found it was a tax increase; it said a middle-income family would pay $100 more a year under the HST; the panel said it would be five times that much.
No wonder Falcon needed to head to New York. The last two years of lurching, incoherent tax policy would likely alarm any lender or bond rating agency.
Clark should also be wondering if the last two years have alarmed B.C. voters as well. Because if so, a fall election could be highly risky for a party that has always claimed to offer stable, consistent administration.
Footnote: The latest Angus Reid poll found 56 per cent of decided voters would vote yes to get rid of the HST. It also found 40 per cent of those surveyed considered Clark credible on the tax; 35 per cent considered Dix credible; and 47 per cent thought Bill Vander Zalm credible (he's not). The media came in at 37 per cent (sigh).
The last two years have been a fiscal gong show. The government's erratic policy stumbles are the kind of behaviour that makes lenders and bond rating agencies edgy.
Start with the government's botched deficit forecast in the 2009 campaign budget. The deficit, then premier Gordon Campbell vowed in the May election campaign, would not exceed $495 million.
Four months later, the government said the deficit would actually be $2.8 billion.
That's a spectacular failure, the kind that makes lenders wonder what else the government is messing up.
Then, of course, there is the HST. The Liberals ruled it out during the election campaign and then, two months later, announced the introduction of the new tax.
Leave aside the pros and cons for a moment. There is no debate that lenders and investors like stability in tax policy.
A surprise introduction of a major tax change, especially one that had been rejected months earlier, does not increase confidence. And especially when the government concedes it made the tax change without any economic analysis of its impact. (Falcon acknowledges cabinet ministers were heavily focused on the chance to get $1.6 billion from Ottawa to reduce the deficit problem.)
Then things got more erratic.
As public anger about the HST increased, Campbell went on television in November and announced a 15-per-cent income tax cut. That would knock about $1 billion a year off provincial revenues; there was no clear plan for dealing with the shortfall.
Again, a well-considered, affordable tax cut would likely find favour with rating agencies and lenders. This looked like an impulsive effort to shore up a failing government. That impression was confirmed a few weeks later, when Campbell quit and the Liberals said they weren't going ahead with the promised tax cut.
If you're watching this from a New York investment fund or bank, you are likely getting nervous about the competence and stability of the government.
How much more chaotic could things get?
Quite a bit more, it turned out. Because the government last month announced more surprise tax changes. The HST would be reduced in two steps if it survived the referendum, Premier Christy Clark said.
She had rejected that during her leadership campaign. It would be akin to bribing people with their own money and leave the province short of revenue for health care and other needed services, she said.
And the government would raise corporate taxes 20 per cent, said Clark, reversing past cuts - the most recent less than six months ago. (NDP leader Adrian Dix proposed the same increase during his campaign. George Abbott said the idea represented the "leading age of 18-century socialism." Mike de Jong said an increase would be "chasing jobs and investment away.")
You can debate all these individual changes, their benefits and costs.
But taken together, they paint a picture of an erratic, incompetent government that doesn't have a coherent tax policy.
Add to that the government's inability to provide accurate information on the HST. It claimed the tax would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020; a credible independent panel report commissioned by the government estimated 24,400. It said the tax was revenue-neutral; the panel found it was a tax increase; it said a middle-income family would pay $100 more a year under the HST; the panel said it would be five times that much.
No wonder Falcon needed to head to New York. The last two years of lurching, incoherent tax policy would likely alarm any lender or bond rating agency.
Clark should also be wondering if the last two years have alarmed B.C. voters as well. Because if so, a fall election could be highly risky for a party that has always claimed to offer stable, consistent administration.
Footnote: The latest Angus Reid poll found 56 per cent of decided voters would vote yes to get rid of the HST. It also found 40 per cent of those surveyed considered Clark credible on the tax; 35 per cent considered Dix credible; and 47 per cent thought Bill Vander Zalm credible (he's not). The media came in at 37 per cent (sigh).
I just like this obituary on 'the Lindbergh of hobbyists'
From a Wall Street Journal obit:
"On a clear Saturday evening in early August of 2003, Maynard Hill stood on a hillside on Cape Spear, Newfoundland, started the motor on his model airplane and heaved it into a light wind.
Thirty-eight hours and nearly 1,900 miles later, the 11-pound plane with a six-foot wingspan landed in Ireland, the first radio-controlled model to make a trans-Atlantic crossing.
Mr. Hill, who died Tuesday at 85, was the dean of model airplane hobbyists and spent decades setting records for altitude, duration, speed and distance. His planes outflew those of the Soviets in competitions during the Cold War.
During the 1980s and 1990s, he developed unmanned aircraft for the armed forces, expendable models carrying radar-jamming equipment, cameras and antitank weaponry.
But despite decades spent convincing Pentagon brass to embrace his ideas, Mr. Hill was a poor fit with the gold-plated contractor's culture and dropped out of defense work.
'He didn't believe his planes should be used for war,' said his wife, Gay Hill."
The rest is here.
"On a clear Saturday evening in early August of 2003, Maynard Hill stood on a hillside on Cape Spear, Newfoundland, started the motor on his model airplane and heaved it into a light wind.
Thirty-eight hours and nearly 1,900 miles later, the 11-pound plane with a six-foot wingspan landed in Ireland, the first radio-controlled model to make a trans-Atlantic crossing.
Mr. Hill, who died Tuesday at 85, was the dean of model airplane hobbyists and spent decades setting records for altitude, duration, speed and distance. His planes outflew those of the Soviets in competitions during the Cold War.
During the 1980s and 1990s, he developed unmanned aircraft for the armed forces, expendable models carrying radar-jamming equipment, cameras and antitank weaponry.
But despite decades spent convincing Pentagon brass to embrace his ideas, Mr. Hill was a poor fit with the gold-plated contractor's culture and dropped out of defense work.
'He didn't believe his planes should be used for war,' said his wife, Gay Hill."
The rest is here.
A patient's perspective on mental health emergency services
The route to in-patient mental health care on Vancouver Island is through the Archie Courtnall Centre, or psychiatric emergency services. Patients can wait more than a week, sleeping in chairs, before a bed becomes available.
Tara Levis offers a patient's perspective.
"Psychiatric emergency services is nothing short of a nightmare. It is a holding cell for people at rock bottom, waiting for a transfer to the in-patient unit. It is a small room, overseen by a glassed-off nursing station, that at some points holds over a dozen people.
Claustrophobia sets in the minute I walk through the secured doors and if I'm not on edge to begin with, I most certainly am bordering on psychosis when the door shuts and I am confined at the mercy of an overburdened health-care system.
My personal items are examined with a fine-tooth comb and promptly locked away until further notice. I am allowed to keep a journal and a book. I want to cry when they take away my cellphone, my last connection to the outside world apart from the public phone they provide, which is always in use. The items on my person must be guarded at all times as theft is rampant in PES. Blink and my stuff would be gone, likely to be sold for cigarettes."
Read the rest, please, here.
Tara Levis offers a patient's perspective.
"Psychiatric emergency services is nothing short of a nightmare. It is a holding cell for people at rock bottom, waiting for a transfer to the in-patient unit. It is a small room, overseen by a glassed-off nursing station, that at some points holds over a dozen people.
Claustrophobia sets in the minute I walk through the secured doors and if I'm not on edge to begin with, I most certainly am bordering on psychosis when the door shuts and I am confined at the mercy of an overburdened health-care system.
My personal items are examined with a fine-tooth comb and promptly locked away until further notice. I am allowed to keep a journal and a book. I want to cry when they take away my cellphone, my last connection to the outside world apart from the public phone they provide, which is always in use. The items on my person must be guarded at all times as theft is rampant in PES. Blink and my stuff would be gone, likely to be sold for cigarettes."
Read the rest, please, here.
Nurse-family initiative means better lives
It's proven. Support disadvantaged women during pregnancy and through the first two years of their children's lives and you produce positive changes in their lives.
The B.C. government deserves full credit for being the first in Canada to launch a nurse-family partnership program that will see nurses work closely with first-time moms who need support.
Specially trained public health nurses will connect with women early in their pregnancies beginning next year. The nurses will visit once a week during pregnancy and in the infant's first months, with visits tapering to monthly by the time the child turns two.
It's not a new idea. The approach has been used in the U.S. for more than 30 years and results rigorously tracked. And they are impressive.
That's not surprising. Lots of women have great support networks when they become pregnant, and the skills and resources to solve any problems that do come up. They've learned useful lessons growing up they can apply to the challenges of pregnancy and child-rearing.
But others don't. They're poor, perhaps alone in the world or less well-educated. Some have more experience with bad parenting than with good examples.
The program targets those women, likely about 5,000 a year in this province.
The nurse visits to talk about healthy eating and living during pregnancy, planning for the birth, relationship issues -- really, anything the women wants to talk about. For women without real support or advice, the presence of one caring, competent person in their lives makes a huge difference.
The visits continue after the baby is born, with the same goals of providing support, skills and helping mothers make smart decisions and plans.
The benefits seem obvious.
But major long-term research on U.S. versions of the program, which in some cases followed the life course of the mothers and children for almost two decades, are shocking (in a good way).
Dr. Charlotte Waddell, director of the Children's Health Policy Centre in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University, says nurse visits can mean dramatic improvements in life for mothers and children.
"Even if that's all you do, you can track the mother and child 15 or 20 years later and find that not only is the mom doing much better, but the kids stayed in school," she says. "They didn't get involved in crime, they were at less risk of substance abuse, and there was a significant reduction in conduct disorder."
On one level, it's stunning that a brief intervention -- less than three years -- in the lives of mother and child can set them on a course that helps determine, 19 years later, a teen will be less likely to be involved in crime.
But on another, it's not that surprising. The program sets in a motion a whole range of changes which cascade through the participants' lives.
The research found, for example, that mothers in the program tended to delay any subsequent pregnancies for a longer period than peers who did not have nurse-family support. That meant more time for their first child, and more opportunity to find work and maintain a stable life.
The research also found that mothers who had received the support were more likely to be economically self-sufficient and in stable relationships in future years.
Children were healthier and one study found a 48 per cent reduction in cases of child abuse and neglect, and a 56 per cent reduction in emergency room visits during the child's second year of life. They also did better in school.
The B.C. program is part of a $23-million Health Start effort aimed at mothers and young children.
While governments are often not good at long-term efforts, particularly on social issues, this is an example of just how great the benefits can be.
Not just economically, although society can count on reduced future costs and greater contribution from those involved.
But we will, for a relatively small investment, be changing lives.
Footnote: The details will matter. Success depends, for example, on finding the right nurses to do the work and stability in the nurse-family relationship. It takes time to build trust and understanding; changes that disrupt the relationship undermine results.
The B.C. government deserves full credit for being the first in Canada to launch a nurse-family partnership program that will see nurses work closely with first-time moms who need support.
Specially trained public health nurses will connect with women early in their pregnancies beginning next year. The nurses will visit once a week during pregnancy and in the infant's first months, with visits tapering to monthly by the time the child turns two.
It's not a new idea. The approach has been used in the U.S. for more than 30 years and results rigorously tracked. And they are impressive.
That's not surprising. Lots of women have great support networks when they become pregnant, and the skills and resources to solve any problems that do come up. They've learned useful lessons growing up they can apply to the challenges of pregnancy and child-rearing.
But others don't. They're poor, perhaps alone in the world or less well-educated. Some have more experience with bad parenting than with good examples.
The program targets those women, likely about 5,000 a year in this province.
The nurse visits to talk about healthy eating and living during pregnancy, planning for the birth, relationship issues -- really, anything the women wants to talk about. For women without real support or advice, the presence of one caring, competent person in their lives makes a huge difference.
The visits continue after the baby is born, with the same goals of providing support, skills and helping mothers make smart decisions and plans.
The benefits seem obvious.
But major long-term research on U.S. versions of the program, which in some cases followed the life course of the mothers and children for almost two decades, are shocking (in a good way).
Dr. Charlotte Waddell, director of the Children's Health Policy Centre in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University, says nurse visits can mean dramatic improvements in life for mothers and children.
"Even if that's all you do, you can track the mother and child 15 or 20 years later and find that not only is the mom doing much better, but the kids stayed in school," she says. "They didn't get involved in crime, they were at less risk of substance abuse, and there was a significant reduction in conduct disorder."
On one level, it's stunning that a brief intervention -- less than three years -- in the lives of mother and child can set them on a course that helps determine, 19 years later, a teen will be less likely to be involved in crime.
But on another, it's not that surprising. The program sets in a motion a whole range of changes which cascade through the participants' lives.
The research found, for example, that mothers in the program tended to delay any subsequent pregnancies for a longer period than peers who did not have nurse-family support. That meant more time for their first child, and more opportunity to find work and maintain a stable life.
The research also found that mothers who had received the support were more likely to be economically self-sufficient and in stable relationships in future years.
Children were healthier and one study found a 48 per cent reduction in cases of child abuse and neglect, and a 56 per cent reduction in emergency room visits during the child's second year of life. They also did better in school.
The B.C. program is part of a $23-million Health Start effort aimed at mothers and young children.
While governments are often not good at long-term efforts, particularly on social issues, this is an example of just how great the benefits can be.
Not just economically, although society can count on reduced future costs and greater contribution from those involved.
But we will, for a relatively small investment, be changing lives.
Footnote: The details will matter. Success depends, for example, on finding the right nurses to do the work and stability in the nurse-family relationship. It takes time to build trust and understanding; changes that disrupt the relationship undermine results.
HST adds $5 million to B.C. Ferries expenses
From B.C. Ferries latest financial report:
"On July 1, 2010, the harmonized sales tax (HST) became effective, combining the existing 7% provincial sales tax with the 5% federal goods and services tax (GST) into a single tax of 12%. We expect this tax to add approximately $5 to $6 million annually to the cost of our operations. The HST will also increase the price to our customers for our food and certain retail offerings. Our vehicle and passenger tariffs which were exempt from GST will be exempt from HST."
Which means the HST will also result in higher ferry fares,
"On July 1, 2010, the harmonized sales tax (HST) became effective, combining the existing 7% provincial sales tax with the 5% federal goods and services tax (GST) into a single tax of 12%. We expect this tax to add approximately $5 to $6 million annually to the cost of our operations. The HST will also increase the price to our customers for our food and certain retail offerings. Our vehicle and passenger tariffs which were exempt from GST will be exempt from HST."
Which means the HST will also result in higher ferry fares,
Liberals just won't face persistent poverty problem
A Times Colonist editorial thought it "baffling" that the government has repeatedly refused to set out a plan to reduce poverty.
Any competent manager understands the need for plans, the editorial observed, and the Liberals have campaigned on claims of competence.
It's not baffling. I've been a manager. I was keen on plans for people who reported to me. If they set out their targets and what they would do to achieve them, I could look at results and assess their effectiveness.
The government wants to avoid that kind of accountability.
It's a shabby position. Especially for a government that, after a decade in power, has still left more than 500,000 people - and 87,000 children - living in poverty.
There has been progress in reducing the number of people whose lives are blighted by poverty.
But, objectively, not much. The B.C. Progress Board, set up by Gordon Campbell to provide reports on government effectiveness, tracks the poverty rate.
It has found B.C. has ranked tenth among provinces every year since the board was created in 2002. More people live in poverty here, year after year, than in any other province. Their numbers have been reduced, but not enough to move B.C. from last place.
B.C. has also had the highest rate of child poverty, according to StatsCan, for seven straight years. The number of children living in poverty has decreased, but, again, not fast enough to move B.C. from its ranking as the worst in Canada.
That's hard to reconcile with Gordon Campbell's claims about the best place on Earth, or Christy Clark's talk about families first.
This should be a fundamental issue for any government. Research has shown that growing up poor greatly increases the likelihood of a lifetime of problems. The Progress Board notes that "people with low income may experience more physical and mental health problems, rely more on charity, attain lower levels of education or have higher secondary school dropout rates."
Leaving aside the human cost and suffering, poverty loads costs on to future generations just as surely as large government deficits do.
The Campbell government repeatedly refused to accept the need for a plan to reduce poverty, and Premier Christy Clark has so far taken the same position. The Liberals say they are doing lots of things that reduce poverty, from policies to increase employment to tax cuts.
But it's striking that when the government decided climate change was an issue, it set legislated, specific targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and developed a plan to meet them.
As it's striking that, after 10 years, progress hasn't been enough to raise B.C. from its ranking as the most poverty-ridden province.
The editorial was right. "Any competent manager" knows a plan is the first step toward achieving goals.
In this case, it would start with an analysis of the current situation - the causes of poverty, the demographics, the policies that have been tried. It would look at anti-poverty efforts in other jurisdictions and learn from success and failures.
And then it would set targets and action plans with timelines, accountability and budgets. Progress would be assessed and the plan adjusted.
It's an obvious, necessary approach to dealing with any problem.
Such a review would identify easy first steps. About 37,000 children are in families living on disability or income assistance. There are among those living in poverty; a single parent with two children who is deemed employable gets up to $660 a month for housing and another $623 a month for everything else. That's poverty. Addressing that - by letting parents earn some income without being cut off, or increasing rates for families - would cut child poverty by 40 per cent.
But the first step is a plan. And by refusing to accept the need - and the accountability for results - the government is ensuring too many British Columbians remain mired in destructive poverty.
Footnote: The New Democrats introduced the Poverty Reduction Act on the last day of the legislative session, which set out a reasonable approach to developing a poverty plan. The Liberals won't support it, but if Clark is serious about "families first," they should announce their own plan.
Any competent manager understands the need for plans, the editorial observed, and the Liberals have campaigned on claims of competence.
It's not baffling. I've been a manager. I was keen on plans for people who reported to me. If they set out their targets and what they would do to achieve them, I could look at results and assess their effectiveness.
The government wants to avoid that kind of accountability.
It's a shabby position. Especially for a government that, after a decade in power, has still left more than 500,000 people - and 87,000 children - living in poverty.
There has been progress in reducing the number of people whose lives are blighted by poverty.
But, objectively, not much. The B.C. Progress Board, set up by Gordon Campbell to provide reports on government effectiveness, tracks the poverty rate.
It has found B.C. has ranked tenth among provinces every year since the board was created in 2002. More people live in poverty here, year after year, than in any other province. Their numbers have been reduced, but not enough to move B.C. from last place.
B.C. has also had the highest rate of child poverty, according to StatsCan, for seven straight years. The number of children living in poverty has decreased, but, again, not fast enough to move B.C. from its ranking as the worst in Canada.
That's hard to reconcile with Gordon Campbell's claims about the best place on Earth, or Christy Clark's talk about families first.
This should be a fundamental issue for any government. Research has shown that growing up poor greatly increases the likelihood of a lifetime of problems. The Progress Board notes that "people with low income may experience more physical and mental health problems, rely more on charity, attain lower levels of education or have higher secondary school dropout rates."
Leaving aside the human cost and suffering, poverty loads costs on to future generations just as surely as large government deficits do.
The Campbell government repeatedly refused to accept the need for a plan to reduce poverty, and Premier Christy Clark has so far taken the same position. The Liberals say they are doing lots of things that reduce poverty, from policies to increase employment to tax cuts.
But it's striking that when the government decided climate change was an issue, it set legislated, specific targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and developed a plan to meet them.
As it's striking that, after 10 years, progress hasn't been enough to raise B.C. from its ranking as the most poverty-ridden province.
The editorial was right. "Any competent manager" knows a plan is the first step toward achieving goals.
In this case, it would start with an analysis of the current situation - the causes of poverty, the demographics, the policies that have been tried. It would look at anti-poverty efforts in other jurisdictions and learn from success and failures.
And then it would set targets and action plans with timelines, accountability and budgets. Progress would be assessed and the plan adjusted.
It's an obvious, necessary approach to dealing with any problem.
Such a review would identify easy first steps. About 37,000 children are in families living on disability or income assistance. There are among those living in poverty; a single parent with two children who is deemed employable gets up to $660 a month for housing and another $623 a month for everything else. That's poverty. Addressing that - by letting parents earn some income without being cut off, or increasing rates for families - would cut child poverty by 40 per cent.
But the first step is a plan. And by refusing to accept the need - and the accountability for results - the government is ensuring too many British Columbians remain mired in destructive poverty.
Footnote: The New Democrats introduced the Poverty Reduction Act on the last day of the legislative session, which set out a reasonable approach to developing a poverty plan. The Liberals won't support it, but if Clark is serious about "families first," they should announce their own plan.
Would you buy this submarine?
From today's Times Colonist, a photo of the HMCS Corner Brook, one of the four used British submarines Canada bought in 1998.
And the Corner Brook is actually supposed to be in good shape.
The submarine is in the news because it struck the ocean bottom in exercises this week, the latest chapter in a sad and costly bungled purchase, which I explored here.
Clerk's appointment violates democratic principles
From a good Times Colonist editorial on the appointment of Craig James as clerk of the legislature.
"Our political system includes measures designed to keep a check on potential abuses by the party in power. A key principle is that some positions must be seen to be entirely non-partisan.
"Once again, the Liberal government has violated that principle.
"This week, the government imposed its candidate for clerk of the legislature, a lifetime appointment. The quaint title doesn't reflect the position's importance. The clerk, through advice to the Speaker, interprets the rules of the legislature for MLAs from all parties."
Read the rest here.
For background, here's the column I did on the same issue when James was appointed interim chief electoral officer by the Liberals - another post that's supposed to be made by all parties.
The clerk appointment highlights how wrong the Liberals were in putting James in the chief electoral officer role for 15 months. The officer is supposed to be completely independent and serves a fixed term of two elections plus one year.
But the inevitable perception is that James knew he was a candidate for the $250,000-a-year clerk job during his times as interim chief electoral officer. And that taints the public view of his true independence in making decisions on recall efforts, the HST initiatives and other issues.
"Our political system includes measures designed to keep a check on potential abuses by the party in power. A key principle is that some positions must be seen to be entirely non-partisan.
"Once again, the Liberal government has violated that principle.
"This week, the government imposed its candidate for clerk of the legislature, a lifetime appointment. The quaint title doesn't reflect the position's importance. The clerk, through advice to the Speaker, interprets the rules of the legislature for MLAs from all parties."
Read the rest here.
For background, here's the column I did on the same issue when James was appointed interim chief electoral officer by the Liberals - another post that's supposed to be made by all parties.
The clerk appointment highlights how wrong the Liberals were in putting James in the chief electoral officer role for 15 months. The officer is supposed to be completely independent and serves a fixed term of two elections plus one year.
But the inevitable perception is that James knew he was a candidate for the $250,000-a-year clerk job during his times as interim chief electoral officer. And that taints the public view of his true independence in making decisions on recall efforts, the HST initiatives and other issues.
Maybe we just don't need MLAs any more
Do we really need MLAs?
They're nice enough people. But as the legislative session ended Thursday after just 24 sitting days, I wondered if we need to pay 85 people salaries starting at $100,000 a year to fill the seats in the red-carpeted chamber.
At least as it operates now.
It's not as if they changed anything in the 24 days. The government introduced its budget. The Liberal MLAs voted for every element of it; the NDP voted against.
There was debate on spending, but because the session was so short MLAs were reviewing and approving about $2.5 billion in spending a day. People spend more time choosing a new sofa.
Bills were passed, but the debates and votes were largely irrelevant. Once the governing party introduced the legislation, passage was a done deal.
There were some excellent private members' bills - legislation advanced by MLAs without official government support. But they went nowhere, as is the norm.
The opposition got the chance to raise issues in question period, which is 30 minutes each day. But maybe there's a cheaper, better way to accomplish that. Issues were raised in other debates, but who reads Hansard?
Really, the elected MLAs could have stayed home. A few performers could have read the expected lines from both sides of the house, MLAs could have given their proxies to the party leaders and nothing would be much different.
MLAs do other work, of course. But constituents' issues could he handled by a competent manager in each riding. And I am unconvinced that the views of a backbench member often have a great role in shaping party policy.
And if MLAs hadn't shown up, they would have been spared the embarrassment of thumping their desks on cue and shouting insults - or watching as their peers shouted - across the floor.
In fact, do we even need candidates to stand for election in 85 ridings, if their role is peripheral? Perhaps it would be more efficient to just let people vote for the parties in each riding, and give the leaders chits for each one they win. They could then use those to cast votes in the legislature.
Since the 2009 election, the legislature has sat for less than 120 days. That's not an indication that there is much pressing work to do.
It might seem radical to suggest MLAs' time in the legislature is largely irrelevant.
But Liberal House leader Rich Coleman apparently shares the view.
The New Democrats had suggested spending another two weeks to deal properly with the budget and the legislation.
But Coleman said no, the government would use closure to end debate on any outstanding business and force bills and budget through the legislature.
He could offer no reason for shutting down the legislature. It's not as if MLAs are exhausted after 24 days, or have somewhere else pressing to be.
Coleman is not out on some partisan limb here. The New Democrat governments of the 1990s showed no more respect for MLAs and the legislature. (Though they did have the legislature in session about 76 days a year, much more than the Liberals have done since 2001.)
I'm overstating the case. Debate can be useful and even, on occasion, bring improvements to bills. MLAs get a chance to raise issues of concern to constituents, or propose legislation. (Independent MLA Bob Simpson had several useful proposals.)
But those are the exceptions.
It's not supposed to be like this. Traditionally, voters would elect MLAs. Those who won the most seats would chose someone to be premier. The premier would owe allegiance to MLAs, who would have the support of voters. We've turned the relationship upside down. And as MLAs' roles have shrunk, the pay scale has risen.
Party leaders have little interest in giving up power. That means MLAs have to find some way to demand it - more Independent MLAs would be a start - or voters have to reward a party committed to real change.
Footnote: It was interesting to see the attention focused on the way Simpson and fellow Independent Vicki Huntington voted on the HST changes. (They both supported them, without saying they supported the tax.) Presumably, their votes mattered because they were the only two MLAs actually using their own judgment on the issue.
They're nice enough people. But as the legislative session ended Thursday after just 24 sitting days, I wondered if we need to pay 85 people salaries starting at $100,000 a year to fill the seats in the red-carpeted chamber.
At least as it operates now.
It's not as if they changed anything in the 24 days. The government introduced its budget. The Liberal MLAs voted for every element of it; the NDP voted against.
There was debate on spending, but because the session was so short MLAs were reviewing and approving about $2.5 billion in spending a day. People spend more time choosing a new sofa.
Bills were passed, but the debates and votes were largely irrelevant. Once the governing party introduced the legislation, passage was a done deal.
There were some excellent private members' bills - legislation advanced by MLAs without official government support. But they went nowhere, as is the norm.
The opposition got the chance to raise issues in question period, which is 30 minutes each day. But maybe there's a cheaper, better way to accomplish that. Issues were raised in other debates, but who reads Hansard?
Really, the elected MLAs could have stayed home. A few performers could have read the expected lines from both sides of the house, MLAs could have given their proxies to the party leaders and nothing would be much different.
MLAs do other work, of course. But constituents' issues could he handled by a competent manager in each riding. And I am unconvinced that the views of a backbench member often have a great role in shaping party policy.
And if MLAs hadn't shown up, they would have been spared the embarrassment of thumping their desks on cue and shouting insults - or watching as their peers shouted - across the floor.
In fact, do we even need candidates to stand for election in 85 ridings, if their role is peripheral? Perhaps it would be more efficient to just let people vote for the parties in each riding, and give the leaders chits for each one they win. They could then use those to cast votes in the legislature.
Since the 2009 election, the legislature has sat for less than 120 days. That's not an indication that there is much pressing work to do.
It might seem radical to suggest MLAs' time in the legislature is largely irrelevant.
But Liberal House leader Rich Coleman apparently shares the view.
The New Democrats had suggested spending another two weeks to deal properly with the budget and the legislation.
But Coleman said no, the government would use closure to end debate on any outstanding business and force bills and budget through the legislature.
He could offer no reason for shutting down the legislature. It's not as if MLAs are exhausted after 24 days, or have somewhere else pressing to be.
Coleman is not out on some partisan limb here. The New Democrat governments of the 1990s showed no more respect for MLAs and the legislature. (Though they did have the legislature in session about 76 days a year, much more than the Liberals have done since 2001.)
I'm overstating the case. Debate can be useful and even, on occasion, bring improvements to bills. MLAs get a chance to raise issues of concern to constituents, or propose legislation. (Independent MLA Bob Simpson had several useful proposals.)
But those are the exceptions.
It's not supposed to be like this. Traditionally, voters would elect MLAs. Those who won the most seats would chose someone to be premier. The premier would owe allegiance to MLAs, who would have the support of voters. We've turned the relationship upside down. And as MLAs' roles have shrunk, the pay scale has risen.
Party leaders have little interest in giving up power. That means MLAs have to find some way to demand it - more Independent MLAs would be a start - or voters have to reward a party committed to real change.
Footnote: It was interesting to see the attention focused on the way Simpson and fellow Independent Vicki Huntington voted on the HST changes. (They both supported them, without saying they supported the tax.) Presumably, their votes mattered because they were the only two MLAs actually using their own judgment on the issue.
Only dead sex workers get our support
From Jody Paterson's column:
"So we�ve got an inquiry into a B.C. mass murder headed up by a man tainted by his political connections, presiding over a process that shuts out almost everyone on the side of the victims.
"Yup, that sounds like a solid way to get at the truth about the Robert Pickton case.
"Only sex workers could draw straws this short. Then again, only sex workers would be left to go missing and murdered on our streets for so long in the first place. It�s baffling and heartbreaking, this misery we sustain in the name of 'morality.'"
It's worth reading the rest here.
"So we�ve got an inquiry into a B.C. mass murder headed up by a man tainted by his political connections, presiding over a process that shuts out almost everyone on the side of the victims.
"Yup, that sounds like a solid way to get at the truth about the Robert Pickton case.
"Only sex workers could draw straws this short. Then again, only sex workers would be left to go missing and murdered on our streets for so long in the first place. It�s baffling and heartbreaking, this misery we sustain in the name of 'morality.'"
It's worth reading the rest here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SUBCRIBE TO BREAKING NEWS
Posts
All Comments