Tomorrow morning, on Public Eye Radio, Saanich-Gulf Islands Green hopeful Andrew Lewis talks about his bid to oust incumbent Conservative candidate Gary Lunn. And our rabble-rousing panel - Don Anderson, Bob Russell, Alex Tsakumis and Allan Warnke - will debate the week that was in provincial and federal politics. You can listen to Public Eye Radio outside of Victoria by logging into CFAX 1070 between 8:30 and 10:00. If you have a question for one of our guests, you can email us or leave a comment below.
Today, Forests and Range Minister Pat Bell released a booklet to "inform global markets and consumers about B.C. forests and how they produce renewable, climate-friendly products that sequester carbon." That booklet also "highlights forest industry accomplishments with respect to climate change." which is all well and good. But let's not forget this booklet does exactly what the industry wanted government to do. Back in February, International Forest Products Ltd. vice president Ric Slaco delivered a presentation to a Campbell administration climate action meeting. And during that presentation, he argued "Climate Change represents opportunity to revitalize and reposition forest industry." And he urged urged government to "profile forests and forest products as important carbon sinks," "put BC's practices in a world context" and expand "international market development activites."
Federal Liberal Delta-Richmond East candidate Dana Miller says she wasn't comparing the Harper administration's propaganda to that of the Nazis. At issue: on September 5, in a blog posting entitled "John Cummins' Propaganda Part I," Ms. Miller wrote the word propaganda is defined by the Canadian Gage Dictionary as the "systematic efforts to spread opinions or beliefs, especially by distortion and deception: The Nazis were experts in propaganda." The candidate then detailed how the Harper administration has broken three of its 2004 campaign promises, accusing Mr. Cummins - the incumbent Tory candidate - of being "complicit with the distortion and deception of this Conservative government."
Asked for comment, Ms. Miller stated, "I think my intention is fairly clear. I gave a Canadian Gage Dictionary definition of what propaganda is - as per their definition - in quotes. And they happened to illustrate that the Nazis were good at propaganda. At no point in time did I ever suggest or associate any other activity of the Nazis with John Cummins or his party. I am a woman of Jewish-German descent. And so I clearly understand the murderous atrocities of the Nazis and I clearly stated I was only using the Gage definition with respect to propaganda. No offense was ever intended. And I apologize if there was an offense."
In a separate posting, Ms. Miller also accused then future prime minister Stephen Harper of using "racist words" when he told The Report's Kevin Michael Grace in 2004 that "west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." She then added, "Harper's world is a cold world, as cold as his heart toward any person different from what he believes the person should be based upon his religion and values."
But, speaking with Public Eye, Ms. Miller said, "Again, I think I clearly state those particular words could be understood by Canadians as classist and racist from Stephen Harper. But I am not, in any way, suggesting that he himself is a racist."
Since we spoke with Ms. Miller, she has removed the aforementioned blog posts. The reason: "After reviewing the posts I concluded that I could have chosen my words more carefully, and they did not accurately reflect my intent. My intention in this campaign is to debate the issues and I do not want anything to distract from that goal. I have taken down the posts in the event that my words may have offended. In the spirit of openness I make this commitment: should any citizens or media be interested in the original posts please contact my office and I will make them available. Again, I am sincerely sorry to anyone that may have been offended."
The following are complete copies of Ms. Miller's original blog postings.
***
John Cummins' Propaganda Part I
Posted At : September 5, 2008 11:46 PM | Posted By : Dana
Related Categories: Conservative Propaganda
Propaganda: Is defined as the, "systematic efforts to spread opinions or beliefs, especially by distortion and deception: The Nazis were experts in propaganda." (Canadian Gage Dictionary)
Conservative MP John Cummins has been complicit with his silence, compliant in following Stephen Harper propaganda.
During the 2004 federal election Cummins' literature stated that the Conservative Party would be:
1) "Giving more power and teeth to independent watchdogs such as the Auditor General and Ethics Commissioner, protecting whistleblowers from reprisal, and strengthening access to information laws to give citizens the right to know."
The truth is...this Conservative government attempted to censor the independent watchdog such as the Auditor General's authority. Sheila Fraser would not permit censorship, filtering or screening information from her office through the Conservative government, as Harper planned.
The truth is...citizens have been denied "the right to know" information by this Conservative government because Harper has delayed briefings sent to other party MP's and committees for review.
The truth is...Linda Keen, president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, was subjected to reprisal when she was fired from her job by this Conservative government for whistleblowing information regarding safety concerns.
The truth is...Conservative MP's that continued under Harper were complicit with the distortion and deception of this Conservative government.
Only the honourable, honest and brave MP's resigned from this Conservative government, decided to run as a candidate with another party, run as an independent, or not run in the upcoming 2008 federal election.
As of September 3, 2008, a total of 12 Conservative MP's have decided not to run under Harper's direction.
Cummins must be aligned with Harper and complicit with the distortion and deception to continue as the Conservative candidate. Perhaps 14 years of almost $2 million in taxpayer money for no accomplishments is such a good gig Cummins' doesn't want to give it up? It is written in the Bible that greed is a sin. Sin often marches one step ahead of scandal and we know this Conservative government has plenty of scandals.
Perhaps the public relations practitioners working on Cummins' campaign will weave a webbed message, a way out of his conundrum? The question begs, why after numerous examples of broken promises, betrayals, irresponsibility and more, does Cummins continue to follow Harper?
During the 2004 federal election Cummins' literature stated that the Conservative Party would create:
2) "Tough new lobbying rules and an end to the revolving door that allows former ministers, political aides, and top bureaucrats to turn around and lobby the government."
The truth is...Harper continues patronage appointments.
The truth is...Harper ignored the objections of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and stacked an independent judicial advisory committee with police officers.
The truth is...weak lobbyist restrictions were still not brought into force as of early 2008. The truth is...Harper broke 21 election promises relating to conflict of interest.
Can Canadians trust an MP that consents with his silence on the scandals of his government?
Can Canadians trust an MP that is complicit with Harper as he systematically deceives Canadians?
During the 2004 federal election Cummins' literature stated that the Conservative Party would be:
3) "Ending the influence of big money in politics by banning corporate and union political donations, and limiting individual donations to $1000."
The truth is...Liberal Prime Minister Chretien changed the Elections Act to prevent big money in politics from corporations and unions.
The truth is...Harper changed the Elections Act so that individuals could no longer donate up to $5,000 per individual.
The truth is...Harper changed the Elections Act to reduce donations to $1,100 per individual.
The truth is...Harper changed the Elections Act to allow anonymous donations of $20(and under)from any individual.
The truth is...anonymous individuals could be corporate owners or union workers with large "families" frequenting fundraising events donating $20 per person multiple times.
The truth is...this isn't accountability, this is a loophole that needs to be closed.
The truth is...after Elections Canada found that 17 Conservative MP's falsely claimed millions in rebates, known as the "In and Out" scheme, Harper retaliated by suing Elections Canada.
Harper failed to be accountable or responsible. Cummins failed to be accountable or responsible by following Harper's lead.
In summation, I leave you with a Cummins quirky quote, "I don't dislike Mr. Harper or disrespect his abilities, but it didn't happen." (March 10, 2004 Richmond News)Cummins' doubted Harper's leadership qualities.
Flip flop...
"Harper has demonstrated real leadership on managing parliament." (Feb. 28, 2008 Straight.com)
Yet, Harper said parliament is not working. Either Cummins didn't get the directive or Harper is finally admitting what Cummins' suspected 4 years ago, that Harper is not a leader...he's just a brooding bully-boy.
Too bad Cummins joined the circus by following this Harper clown. Read the Parliamentary records of Hansard on-line to see how Cummins' voted. Also, I have multiple letters wherein Cummins supported Harper's propaganda direction.
Sincerely,
Dana L. Miller Liberal Party of Canada candidate for Delta-Richmond East
***
Classist and racist words from Stephen Harper
Posted At : September 9, 2008 7:48 PM | Posted By : Dana
Related Categories: Human Rights
"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." - Stephen Harper, The Report newsmagazine, January 22, 2001
In the heartless Harper world you are an insider or an outsider and you are worthy of Harper's attention based upon his perception of your economic status. This is classism.
Harper essentially tells new Canadians, leave your culture in your birth place and integrate into Harper's world. This is racism.
Harper's world is a cold world, as cold as his heart toward any person different from what he believes the person should be based upon his religion and values.
Why should any Canadian in a position of authority be permitted to thrust their beliefs and values upon another person?
Harper's comment's are classist and racist and do not belong in the mind or mouth of Canada's Prime Minister. Fire Stephen Harper from his job.
In the world of Liberals, the rights of one person end where the next person's rights begin. The Liberal world is a far more socially just world that is compassionate and logical. Hire Stephane Dion for Prime Minister.
The writing is on the wall for what Canadians need to do in Election 2008.
Sincerely,
Dana L. Miller Liberal Party of Canada candidate for Delta-Richmond East
In December 2005, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Bill Barisoff appointed provincial Liberal campaigner Louise Burgart to the supposedly non-partisan electoral boundaries commission. But that appointment didn't work out too well because - three months later - Ms. Burgart resigned following sustained coverage of her partisan background. Still, don't feel too sorry for the Apex Mountain Resort owner. After all, last Thursday, the Campbell administration appointed the former BC School Superintendents' Association president to the University of North British Columbia's board of governors. Fancy that!
Earlier, we reported the "apolitical" Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre donated four tickets that were auctioned off at the provincial Liberal's annual Leader's Open Golf Tournament. But this isn't the first time the aquarium, a registered charity, has made political headlines. In 2005, The Georgia Straight's Charlie Smith reported the aquarium's president and chief executive officer John Nightingale sent an email to the charity's members prior to the last civic election "highlighting" statements made by various park board candidates. According to Mr. Smith, Mr. Nightingale noted "the aquarium couldn't tell its members which candidates to support." Although the aquarium president did state, "If you care about your Aquarium, and the animals that live there, don't let a small group of activists decide our future. Vote wisely on November 19 and ask your friends and family to do the same."
The Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre, a registered charity, bills itself as "apolitical." But it donated free tickets to a provincial Liberal fundraiser. And, as a result of the incident, the aquarium says it will now be reviewing its donation policy. Four tickets (valued at $19.95 each) were part of a silent auction at the provincial Liberal's annual Leader's Open Golf Tournament, held earlier this month and attended by Gordon Campbell. In an interview with Public Eye, aquarium spokesman Kent Hurl explained, "We had a prizing request that actually came through one of our partner PR firms" - PACE Communications Group Inc., the company headed by prominent Liberal supporter Norman Stowe. "So we donated prizing to that event in the same way we donated prizing to hundreds of other community and charity events through the year…It's just based on a promotional opportunity."
In fact, Mr. Hurl says the aquarium thought those tickets weren't going to be given away rather than auctioned off. "And, if we had known that, that's not something we'd condone."
Asked whether the aquarium had donated any other tickets to the Liberals in the past, Mr. Hurl said, "I believe the answer to that is yes."
But Mr. Hurl says the aquarium doesn’t have any record of having received a request for ticket from the New Democrats or “any group associated with it.”
Mr. Hurl said, as a result of this incident, the aquarium external relations team will be conducting a review “to make sure our donation practices reflect our policy of remaining apolitical."
Elections British Columbia communications manager Wendy Stewart says the incident didn’t constitute a violation of the Election Act because the total price of the tickets was less than $250.
The Campbell administration's climate action secretariat has hired some extra help. New Direction Resource Management Ltd. president Bill Bourgeois has been awarded an untendered seven month contract to advise on forestry issues, as well as the "throne speech commitment to involve First Nations in economic opportunities provided by the transition to a low carbon economy." As a consultant, Dr. Bourgeois has been "a strategic advisor for coastal forest companies regarding the implementation of ecosystem-based management and industry-NGO-First Nations relationships."
Other clients have included government executives, the oil and gas commission, a mineral manufacturing company and a national forestry association "regarding a strategic approach to species at risk implementation and First Nations issues." This, according to a biography posted by Genome British Columbia.
His extensive background includes being the former project manager for the Coast Forest Conservation Intiative - "a collaborative effort of five British Columbia forest companies committed to new approaches to forest conservation and management in BC’s Central and North Coast."
As the environment and government affairs vice-president for Lignum Ltd., he received an award from the Association of BC Forest Professionals in 2005 for "being a leader and champion of sustainable forest management, for being an original thinker and not being afraid to advocate new ideas that run counter to traditional thinking, for promoting excellence and innovation within the forest industry, and for his practical ability to balance economics with ecological and social objectives." He was also a land use planning and research supervisor for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.
Dr. Bourgeois's contract with the secretariat will "not exceed a value of $100,000. The following is a complete copy of the notice of intent for that contract.
***
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONTRACT
Notice is hereby given by the Climate Action Secretariat of its intent to contract with Dr. Bill Bourgeois, President of New Direction Resource Management Ltd., based on his extensive senior leadership experience in the BC forest industry and recognized academic expertise and designation in the topic area, to advise on the strategic aspects of forest policy framework options for the Province of British Columbia (BC) including:
- Supporting the Working Roundtable on Forestry (Roundtable);
- Advising the Forest Sector Climate Action Steering Committee (Steering Committee) in the development of recommendations and integration with the Roundtable;
- Advising on the throne speech commitment to involve First Nations in economic opportunities provided by the transition to a low carbon economy;
- Assisting the Climate Action Secretariat and other provincial government agencies to evaluate and/or propose policy options;
- Advise on the implementation of recommended policies consistent with the
framework options above;
- Advise on opportunities for First Nations involvement in the forest sector related to climate action. Provide guidance for specific projects.
The contract will not exceed a value of $100,000 and is expected to cover a period of seven months, starting October 8, 2008.
The Ministry did not call for vendor proposals for the following reasons:
- The necessary knowledge, skills and experience possessed by Dr. Bourgeois, including:
* Established working relationships with and extensive knowledge of BC forest industry, BC First Nations, provincial and federal government agencies and research bodies.
* Skilled and experienced strategic planner, particularly in forestry and climate-related natural resource management.
* Government policy development experience in forestry and climate action.
* Fulsome understanding of forest tenure policy and land use planning history in BC.
Vendors wishing to object to this decision should call Gurmeet Sall on or before October 3, 2008, presenting specific reasons for their objection. If justified, a vendor's meeting, with Ministry representatives present to discuss the decision, will be called to receive vendor representations regarding this contract.
Vendor ability to offer products and services resulting in the same or better solutions at a lower cost in the same timeframe will be the key criterion with regard to the consideration of vendor objections.
Earlier, we reported the maximum payable salary gap between assistant deputy ministers and their immediate subordinates is now $84,684.26. That's $35,000 or 70.44 percent higher than it was before last month's compensation framework adjustments. So is Premier Gordon Campbell concerned about that gap? In an interview with Public Eye, Premier Campbell said, "the executive directors are covered by the contractual agreements that we've already got in place - which puts them about number three in Canada. Secondly, I think you've got to remember the executive directors and people that are covered by those contracts get an annual increase in their salaries. That's not something that happens with us, automatically, in the public sector leadership. Finally, it's important to say they will have a re-negotiated contract in 2010 as well."
Premier Campbell also responded to a question about how his administration would disclosure future salary increases to deputy ministers, who are now paid on average of $217,758 but could earn a maximum of $299,215: "The total compensation package is disclosed annually. And, obviously, one of the things we felt the range did was it provide us with the flexibility required to properly manage the system."
" think one of the initial reactions from people was that everyone in the public service would go immediately to the top of the range," he continued. "Eight-three percent of the federal compensation package puts us at about number three in Canada. And, I'm sure you'll remember, back in the 1990s Judy Corbin came and recommended we be about number three in Canada. Where we are now is between three and five. It's been consistent across our public sector. And we think that gives us the flexibility we need to not just keep the good people we have but send a message to the good people in the system that they have a future in British Columbia's public sector."
"But those issues are dealt with every year in public accounts. So people will be able to see what the full compensation package is for the public sector leadership in B.C."
The government has said deputy ministers will receive no further salary increases unless there is a shift in their role.
The provincial government has increased the salaries of its top bureaucrats by an average of 7.38 percent or $14,960 to $217,758. That announcement follows the Campbell administration's controversial decision to increase the maximum payable salary range for deputy and assistant deputy ministers by 34.93 and 21.88 percent respectively. The government has refused to release the names of which deputy ministers are getting raises because those selections were made on the basis of job performance. But, for her own part, Jessica MacDonald, the premier's deputy minister, "has opted not to accept any increase at this time...as a gesture to show that this was never about money." This, according to an information bulletin released by the government.
Salaries for assistant deputy ministers are also increasing an average of 20.97 percent or $27,317 to $157,608. The government isn't contemplating increasing the maximum salaries for executives below the assistant deputy level because their pay is already comparable to other provincial and federal governments - placing them between third and fifth nationally. Those executives earn a maximum of $110,315.74. That means the maximum salary gap between assistant deputy ministers and their immediate subordinates is now $84,684.26 - $35,000 or 70.44 percent higher than it was prior to last month's compensation framework adjustment.
Earlier, we reported the provincial government would be delivering a technical briefing concerning its controversial decision to increase the maximum payable salaries for deputy and assistant deputy ministers. That 90 minute briefing took place at 10:00. But there was concern from some members of the press gallery that the briefing was conducted on a not-for-attribute basis. In fact, reporters weren't even allowed to tape the meeting. And the government appears to also be limiting its exposure by offering reporters one-on-one interviews with Premier Gordon Campbell regarding the matter, rather than holding a press conference - which could result in more aggressive questions from the media.
The children and family development ministry refused Public Eye access to controversial correspondence between its top bureaucrat and the province's independent child protection watchdog. That correspondence - which included allegations the government left vulnerable children in homes it judged unsafe - was obtained via a separate request filed with the children and youth representative's office. The ministry denied Public Eye's earlier freedom of information request on the grounds the records were prepared for the representative - an independent officer of the legislature. Under section 3(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that means those records are exempt from disclosure.
But, following that rejection, we filed the same request with the representative's office. In response, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond acknowledged some of those records may be exempt. But "in consideration of the principles of transparency and public accountability that I regularly espouse in relation to the system of supports to vulnerable children and youth, I have decided to release them."
Ms. Turpel-Lafond added "when consulted in the past on quests made to other public bodies, II have taken the view that records originating within a ministry are not records of an independent Office of the Legislature, and therefore are not exempt from disclosure and I support their release."
In an earlier memo, children and family development deputy minister Lesley du Toit stated "transparency" would be of one of her ministry's guiding principles. The correspondence between du Toit and Turpel-Lafond also shows the deputy has had a conflicted relationship with the representative.
Tomorrow morning, on Public Eye Radio, Victoria federal New Democrat incumbent Denise Savoie talks about her bid to return to Ottawa. And our rabble-rousing panel - Don Anderson, Bob Russell, Alex Tsakumis and Allan Warnke - will debate the week that was in provincial and federal politics. You can listen to Public Eye Radio outside of Victoria by logging into CFAX 1070 between 8:30 and 10:00. If you have a question for one of our guests, you can email us or leave a comment below.
Last week, The Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer reported the provincial government is "individually reviewing each of the more than 100 deputy and assistant deputy ministers" to determine how much of a pay hike they'll receive. This, after the government made a controversial decision to increase their maximum payable salaries - by up to 21.88 percent for assistant deputies, 34.93 percent for deputies and 42.91 percent for the deputy to the premier. According to Mr. Palmer "the Liberals say the actual increases" for individual bureaucrats "will be nothing like the maximums," with the result "scheduled to be release this month." And our understanding is that announcement - which could be made early next week - may include a technical briefing for the media, followed by comments from a public official.
Look who's been appointed to the province's small business roundtable! Why it's none other than Retail Council of Canada British Columbia government relations and member services director Max Logan. The news release announcing that appointment refers to Mr. Logan as having "worked as a communications director in several government ministries." But our readers will better know him as Carole Taylor's senior aide when she was finance minister. In October 2007, the then minister said neither she nor her office would have any contact with Mr. Logan for one year. This, upon learning that he would be joining the council.
Provincial New Democrat leader Carole James says Children and Family Development Minister Tom Christensen has some "explaining" to. This, following an exclusive report by Public Eye that the province's independent children and youth watchdog concluded last year that the ministry's top bureaucrat had abandoned the Hughes Review recommendations. The recommendations were made by former conflict of interest commissioner Ted Hughes to improve the province's child protection system following the tragic death of toddler Sherry Charlie.
But, in a letter sent on July 19, 2007, children and youth representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond said her understanding was the ministry's top bureaucrat believed "many of the recommendations were not possible to achieve" because the Hughes Review was "informed by ideas which are entrenched in an old system."
Asked about the matter, Ms. James said, "What it points out to me is that the minister has some explaining to do. I remember the premier and the minister standing up in the legislature saying they were going to fully implement the Hughes Review recommendations."
"So if that's not occurring in the ministry," she continued. "It's the job of government and the minister to stand up and inform the public and explain that to the public. And I certainly haven't seen that."
"What's becoming more and more apparent is that it's typical of this government that they try and say everything is fine when it becomes a headline and a problem. But then they forget about it - they ignore it, they don't support it and they don't provide the necessary leadership to carry on."
In her response to Ms. Turpel-Lafond, children and family development deputy minister Lesley du Toit stated her plans to reform the ministry were, in fact, "strongly influenced" by the Hughes Review - although that report wouldn't be used as a "blueprint."
Last year, the province's child protection watchdog concluded the ministry of children and family development had abandoned the Hughes Review recommendations. This, according to correspondence exclusively obtained by Public Eye via a freedom of information request. The ministry's top bureaucrat disputed Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's conclusion. Although, Lesley du Toit conceded those recommendations weren't being used as "blueprint."
In April 2006, former conflict of interest commissioner Ted Hughes released 62 recommendations to improve the province's child protection system following the tragic death of toddler Sherry Charlie. The government committed to acting on those recommendations.
But, in a July 19, 2007 letter, Ms. Turpel-Lafond stated her understanding – following earlier meetings with Ms. du Toit – was that the deputy's plans to reform the ministry weren't "particularly informed or inspired by the Hughes Review but by a different set of transformative principles."
In fact, according to Ms. Turpel-Lafond, during a July 16, 2007 meeting between herself and Ms. du Toit, the deputy "clarified that many of the recommendations were not possible to achieve" because the Hughes Review was "informed by ideas which are entrenched in an old system."
"I take from this that the Hughes Review recommendations are something which should be left behind in light of transformation," continued Ms. Turpel-Lafond in her letter to Ms. du Toit. But, despite that change, the representative noted there had been no "public indication" the Hughes Review recommendations had been "set aside in part or in whole."
Responding to the representative's observations, Ms. du Toit stated her plan was "strongly influenced" by the Hughes Review. But she acknowledged the review won't "be used as a blueprint for transformation."
The reason: according to Ms. du Toit, "Hughes himself makes the point that his report is not a blueprint." Instead, "the principles and process we are using have arisen out of the various reviews (of which Hughes is one) and the multiple consultation" the ministry has had with stakeholders – including service providers and First Nations leaders.
Four months later, the representative released a scathing report that found "too little evidence" within the ministry of children and family development "of a coordinated effort to implement numerous Hughes recommendations where its leadership has been required." Indeed, according to that report, the ministry had achieved no or limited progress on 22 out of the 43 recommendations directly related to children and family development.
The Campbell administration has since released a ministry action plan that states the Hughes Review "continues to inform MCFD's planning." In an April 14, 2008 letter to the representative, Ms. du Toit states "The Premier's Office has played a strong role in assisting in the finalization" of the plan.
The province's top children and family development bureaucrat appears to have had a conflicted relationship with British Columbia's independent child protection watchdog. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is the children and youth representative - a post that was created in 2006 to safeguard the child protection system following the tragic death of toddler Sherry Charlie. Lesley du Toit is the deputy minister of the ministry of children and family development - which was criticized by Ms. Turpel-Lafond in November 2007 for being slow to enact reforms. Evidence of the conflict emerges from correspondence exclusively obtained by Public Eye via a freedom of information request. Among the examples:
* In an email sent on October 31, 2007, the deputy informed the representative of her need to "clarify some boundary/role issues." Writing at 6:54 in the evening, Ms. du Toit stated, "I respect and understand your role" and "I would like that respect afforded me."
"I run the ministry and my leadership team run their particular pieces. The role of the RCY (representative for children and youth) is please not (sic) in anyway to impose on these roles." Among her concerns: uninvited staff from the representative's office attempting to attend meetings held by the ministry on "our ongoing and day to day work" - something Ms. du Toit deemed inappropriate.
In response, Ms. Turpel-Lafond stated she wasn't "certain of the circumstances" the deputy was referring to. But, she said, "It would not be my intention to participate in any of your internal meetings except when invited and for the purposes of information sharing."
* On March 26, 2008, Ms. du Toit informed Ms. Turpel-Lafond she has "made every attempt to address" Ms. Turpel-Lafond's "perception" that her ministry was "demonstrating poor cooperation with your office."
But she was troubled the representative's office "did not need or wish" to see materials the ministry had pulled together documenting its progress in meeting the Hughes Review's recommendations. And "after a number of attempts" to provide that information to Ms. Turpel-Lafond's office, the deputy stated her chief operating officer Mark Sieben "walked to your office to hand deliver the binder."
Ms. du Toit also stated she and the representative had "agreed" to hold a regular joint forum. And she appeared concerned about the cancellation of their second such meeting.
But, in her response, Ms. Turpel-Lafond wrote she could "make no sense" of the deputy's concerns, which came "somewhat out of left field for me as no one from the Ministry has attempted to pass me materials and been met with a refusal."
Ms. Turpel-Lafond then stated, "I appreciate you were not pleased" with the representative's November 2007 report criticizing the ministry's progress in meeting the Hughes Review's recommendations. But "it would appear that not having met or discussed this further may have caused you to reach conclusions about information sharing which are erroneous."
Indeed, Ms. Turpel-Lafond expressed concern she and Ms. du Toit hadn't met to discuss the ministry's progress. Nor had she heard anything about the deputy's plans to transform the ministry, despite a commitment to keep the representative "abreast" of those plans.
* On June 29, 2007, Ms. du Toit notified Ms. Turpel-Lafond she had a "serious" concern with wallet-size information cards telling vulnerable children how to contact the representative's office. Those cards encourage children to phone the representative if they "feel someone is hurting you."
But, according to the deputy, the wording is "ambiguous," "extremely difficult for a child to understand," and assumes "wrongdoing on the part of the ministry." She also requested "assurance" that calls would be handled by professionals skilled in responding to a abused children. And Ms. du Toit was concerned that, when a child phones into the representative's office after hours, the voicemail refers them to the ministry's helpline.
The reason: those lines could be "too busy" or "not available" because "as your staff would be aware, after-hours services are not available in all parts of the province and are not available 24 hours a day, seven days a week."
But, in her response, the representative noted the government's recently released BC Handbook for Action on Child Abuse and Neglect and the ministry's Website both "indicate the line is staffed at all times. If the situation is otherwise, may I respectfully suggest that it is your duty to inform the public that the materials provided by the Ministry may not be accurate."
The representative also told Ms. du Toit, "the wording on these cards is by no means to assume wrongdoing" on the part of the ministry. Instead, the cards were written to "engage" children in "language they could grasp" rather then offering a "bureaucratic statement of respective authorities."
* On June 29, 2007, the deputy asked Ms. Turpel-Lafond to "refrain from the practice employed by media of disclosing as much person information as possible without technically infringing privacy requirements." At issue: a statement, released by the representative on June 5, that used the first name of a Snuneymuxw First Nation child who suffered brain damage while in foster care.
According to Ms. du Toit, "We believe a higher standard is owed. If there is a need to reference some portion of a name, often an initial is used instead of a name."
But, in her response, the representative stated, the band released the name of the child - Baby Cody. And, because that identification had already taken place, Ms. Turpel-Lafond wrote, "Our concern was not to create confusion through the use of initials."
* On July 4, 2007, Ms. Turpel-Lafond informed Ms. du Toit her staff had received calls from the ministry of children and family development's communications director about the case of Baby Cody. And, according to the representative, the director "requested I make a press statement that MCFD has been doing a ‘good job' with planning for the child." But the representative didn't take that advice, because she felt such a statement wouldn't be "appropriate" for an independent officer.
* Ms. Turpel-Lafond was appointed representative in November 2006. But, eight months later, the representative informed Ms. du Toit "no concrete action has been taken to date to explain the role of the independent office" in the ministry of children and family development's public materials on abuse and neglect. This, despite the fact "the door to better collaboration has been open to address this."
* Ms. Turpel-Lafond has repeatedly asked the ministry of children and family development for information about its plans to establish aboriginal authorities. But the ministry has been slow in responding to those requests.
Writing to the deputy minister on November 7, 2007, the representative states, "I have been seeking information for several months on this topic and have yet to be briefed in detail or receive any material other than broad public statements and agreements."
And, when she informally asked aboriginal regional services assistant deputy minister Deb Foxcroft for information about those plans, Ms. du Toit informed the representative her request was "inappropriate."
A briefing eventually took place in December 2007. But, on June 16, 2008. Ms. Turpel-Lafond filed an extensive request seeking materials for a report she is considering on "Aboriginal planning and service delivery." And, in that email, she "apologized for the breadth but the information requested has been overdue for some time."
The Campbell administration left vulnerable children in homes it judged unsafe, according to British Columbia's independent child protection watchdog. Public Eye exclusively learned about the controversy in records obtained via a freedom of information request. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond says she's launched an unprecedented audit that will investigative this and related matters. But the ministry of children and family development says it's already responding to the children and youth representative's concerns.
At issue: the government's child in home of a relative program, which will service an estimated 4,767 kids in 2008. Under that program - which was transferred from the ministry of housing and social development to the ministry of children and family development last month - parents who can't care for their children can place them in the home of a relative. And that relative will receive financial aid from the government if there's "no evidence of a level of risk to the child."
But Ms. Turpel-Lafond advised the government on July 10, 2008 she's identified "serious child and youth safety concerns" related to the screening process introduced on December 1, 2007 to assess that risk level.
In a three-page letter sent to Lesley du Toit and Cairine MacDonald - the top bureaucrats at the ministry of children and family development and the ministry of housing and social development - Ms. Turpel-Lafond cited four cases where homes have been denied assistance because there was evidence of risk. But the government hadn't taken action to remove the children from those homes.
Among the cases:
* A grandmother was denied assistance because her son - who was "found to have physically abused" the child and had a history of "sexually interfering with another child" - lived in the same home. The grandmother's spouse had also been arrested for drunk driving while a child was in his car. But a social worker found those risks had been "mitigated" and that funding could be "supported." Ms. Turpel-Lafond states "it is not clear what the outcome of this application is" or whether the risk the child "has been addressed." The representative also notes the grandmother was "apparently in receipt of CIHR assistance" for another grandchild "who is also in the home."
* A grandmother was denied assistance because she lived in the same building as the child's stepfather - "who is being investigated for sexually abusing the child." Ms. Turpel-Lafond states the ministry of children and family development's local office "attempted to have that decision overturned, but was not successful in doing so." Since then "some efforts" have been made to support the grandmother. But "it does not appear that the issue of risk to the child is being addressed."
* A grandmother - who had an extensive criminal history - was denied assistance. Her son, who lived in the same home, also had a record. And the home had been the site of a number of violent crimes - including a domestic assault case where an "unregistered and unsecured shotgun was apparently seized from the child's bedroom." Turpel-Lafond states the child's social worker unsuccessfully appeal the denial." And, at "last report," the child remains in the home - despite the risk being "extreme."
* An aunt was denied assistance because her spouse had "several past charges for assault, including sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14, and he had been convicted of sexually molesting his daughter." The aunt had also been contacted by the government "with respect to instances of physical abuse." But the child "apparently remains in this home." And it doesn't appear she's being assisted by the ministry of children and family development. Nor does it appear the risks posed to her are being addressed.
As a result, Ms. Turpel-Lafond stressed the need for government to develop a policy that "addresses the risk faced by children left in homes that have been judged unsafe for them." And it is "difficult to understand" why social workers attempted to "over-ride the results of a process intended to reduce risks to vulnerable children."
The government's three-paragraph response to the representative came six days later. The letter stated "a review and evaluation of our experience to date" with the child in home of a relative program is "planned for the end of August."
The government also promised the four cases Ms. Turpel-Lafond identified "will appropriately be reviewed and considered under the Child Family and Community Service Act and the results of those assessments and investigations will be shared with you."
But Ms. Turpel-Lafond told Public Eye she didn't have "adequate resolution" when asked about the present status of those cases.
The representative also said she hasn't heard anything further from the ministry regarding her concerns about children who have been left in unsafe homes.
But the representative says she has written to regional child welfare directors expressing her concern about funding being given to such homes.
"The social worker on the line was saying, ‘Okay, we know there's a failed criminal record check. But we're satisfied it's safe. So let's place a child there under CIHR. So a criminal record check doesn't lead to an ineligibility. It's overridden and the child is placed."
Asked for comment about the representative's concerns, children and family development communications director Kelly Gleeson said in a written statement the four cases referenced by Turpel-Lafond have been investigated. And "in all of these cases the children or youth involved have been found to be safe."
Mr. Gleeson also stressed, "If over the course of the screening processes the ministry becomes aware of any protection concerns related to a family, the ministry will assess those child protection concerns, where necessary conduct an investigation and provide supports as necessary."
Mr. Gleeson added the ministry's review of those processes will be "conducted this fall" and examine "how staff have responded and the extent to which the screening checks have identified child welfare concerns in the homes of relatives applying for CIHR funding."
This isn't the first time concerns have been raised about the child in home of a relative program.
In May 2008, the Times Colonist's Lindsay Kines reported on the case of a four-year old aboriginal girl who had been beaten by her grandmother, who was receiving funding from the program.
The grandmother, who "drank too much, suffered from panic attacks and worked the night shift" received three years probation after pleading guilty to assault causing bodily harm.
Then, in April, Ms. Turpel-Lafond issued a report stating there was an "inadequate assessment of the relative's ability to care" for the four-year old, "incomplete child protection investigations" and "no reassessment of risk completed while the family was receiving ongoing protective services."
The representative says her office is now undertaking an audit of the child in the home of a relative program - the first she's launched since taking office. That audit has been under design since June. The following is a complete of Ms. Turpel-Lafond's aforementioned correspondence, as well as Mr. Gleeson's response.
***
July 10, 2008
Lesley dui Toit
Deputy Minister
Ministry of Children and Family Development
4th Floor, 765 Broughton Street
Victoria BC V8W 1E2
Cairine MacDonald
Deputy Minister
Ministry of Housing and Social Development
7th Floor, 614 Humboldt Street
Victoria BC V8W 1A4
Dear Ms. Du Toit and Ms. MacDonald:
I am writing to advise you that serious child and youth safety concerns are emerging from the implementation of new policies and practices initiated on December 1, 2007 with respect to the Children in the Home of a Relative (CIHR) program.
Today, reports of concerns for the safety of four children, pursuant to Section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, have been made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development by staff in my office,
These are instances in which applications for CIHR assistance have not been approved because the homes have been judged to present risk to the children, the children have remained in the homes, and it does not appear that the issues of risk, although known, are being addressed. A general description of each of these situations follows.
* A (s. 22) child's grandmother applied for CIHR assistance. She is apparently in receipt of CIHR assistance for a (s. 22) grandson who is also in the home. The review process turned up information that the grandmother's spouse had recently been arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), and that the (s. 22) child was in the car at the time. There was also a history of previous convictions for DUI.
* The applicant's (s. 22) son, also living in the home, was found to have physically abused the (s. 22) and to have a history of sexually interfering with another child. The application was denied. Subsequently, a social worker recorded satisfaction that the risk had been mitigated, and that the CIHR arrangement could be supported. It is not clear what the outcome of this application is. It is also not clear that the risk to the (s. 22) or the (s. 22) child has been addressed, or if the children are safe.
* A (s. 22) girl's grandmother applied for CIHR assistance. The review process resulted in a conclusion that the home was not an appropriate place for the child. It appears that the local MCFD office attempted to have that decision overturned, but was not successful in doing so. Although the grandmother was not approved for assistance, it appears that the child remains in her home, in the same building as her mother and step-father, who is being investigated for sexually abusing the child. Although it appears that some efforts are being made to find day care and perhaps some community services to support the grandmother, it does not appear that the issue of risk to the child is being addressed.
• A (s. 22) girl's aunt applied for CIHR assistance. The screening process resulted in a decision to deny assistance because the home failed to meet screening requirements. The aunt's spouse, living in the home, had several past charges for assault, including sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14, and he had been convicted of sexually molesting his daughter. There had also been prior contact with the applicant with respect to instances of physical abuse. The (s. 22) apparently remains in this home, and it does not appear that she is being assisted by MCFD or that the above risks are being addressed.
These circumstances are of great concern. Although the importance of a screening process is highlighted, a more comprehensive policy approach that addresses the risk faced by children left in homes that have been judged unsafe for them. In other words, we have examples here that illustrate that turning down a funding application does not have the effect that is intended by a rigorous screening process. It is also difficult to understand why workers in three of these cases appear to be trying to over-ride the results of a process intended to reduce risks to vulnerable children.
To better understand the issues and their implications for this group of vulnerable children, I will be undertaking a review of CIHR applications from December 1, 2007. I am particularly interested in assessing the implications of the CORNET and MCFD involvement checks on numbers of accepted cases, the services provided and by whom, and the safety and placement of children and youth. A case audit will be an integral component of this review. My staff will be following up to initiate this project.
I will be asking my office to arrange a meeting among us in early September so that we can discuss strategies to address these concerns. This will also provide an opportunity to continue discussion on establishing a process for reporting on critical injuries and deaths of children involved with the CIHR program.
In the meantime, I would appreciate receiving any comments you may have on the issues outlined above.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond
Representative for Children and Youth
pc: Honourable Tom Christensen, Minister of Children and Family Development
Honourable Rich Coleman, Minister of Housing and Social Development
***
July 16, 2008
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond
Representative for Children and Youth
Fourth Floor, 1019 Wharf St
Victoria, BC V8W 9J1
Dear Ms. Turpel-Lafond:
We are writing to acknowledge receipt of your July 10, 2008 letter pertaining to the Child in Home of Relative program (CIHR) and the screening function for applicants for CIHR which was implemented in December, 2007.
Over 600 screening assessments have occurred since the practice was initially implemented. A review and evaluation of our experience to date is planned for the end of August. The 4 cases you have identified will appropriately be reviewed and considered under the Child Family and Community Service Act and the results of those assessments and investigations will be shared with you pursuant to section 16(3).
MCFD and MHSD have continued to meet and discuss our common business pertaining to CIHR and these discussions have lead to decisions relating to how best to facilitate overall program responsibility. We look forward to discussing these decisions with your office Thursday, July 17. Should you wish to meet again in September in order to discuss interests of your office in addition to the review and evaluation already planned by MCFD and MHSD, we would be pleased to accommodate your request for a future meeting.
Sincerely,
Mark Sieben
MCFD - Chief Operating Officer
Andrew Wharton
MHSD - Assistant Deputy Minister
pc: Honourable Tom Christensen, Minister of Children and Family Development
Honourable Rich Coleman, Minister of Housing and Social Development
Lesley du Toit, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Children and Families Development
Cairine MacDonald, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Housing & Social Development
***
On July 10th, when the Ministry was advised of concerns related to four specific placements under the Child in the Home of a Relative Program, the Ministry responded and advised that the four cases would be appropriately reviewed.
All four files have been assessed, an investigation has been conducted into each -- and in all of these cases the children or youth involved have been found to be safe.
Anytime the ministry receives a report that a child may be in need of protection, the ministry responds, whether the child is living with his or her parents or an extended family member.
When any placement decision is being contemplated, social workers need to examine a number of factors to determine the best interest for a child, such as attachment and continuity with family and extended family, Aboriginal identity, a child’s wishes, and support of school and community.
The CIHR Program will only be administered in cases where a relative or family member chooses to take on the responsibility for caring for a child or youth in their home program. As an example, if a parent has decided that their child should stay with a brother, sister or grandparent, this program provides some financial assistance.
The ministry established a criminal record screening process and a ministry records screening process –- effective, December 2007 -- to identify any ministry involvement involving caregivers that may be of concern. If over the course of the screening processes the ministry becomes aware of any protection concerns related to a family, the ministry will assess those child protection concerns, where necessary conduct an investigation and provide supports as necessary.
More than six hundred screening assessments have occurred since a screening process for new CIHR applicants was implemented.
Work associated with a review and evaluation of the screening process began in August and will be conducted this fall. The review will examine new applicants for the time period between December 2007 and June 2008 and provide information related to barriers and challenges that have emerged, how staff have responded and the extent to which the screening checks have identified child welfare concerns in the homes of relatives applying for CIHR funding.
Last month, while speaking at the opening of provincial Liberal Juan de Fuca candidate Jody Twa's campaign office, Premier Gordon Campbell told supporters the New Democrats "represent a party that's voted against every single one of the 103 tax cuts" the Campbell administration has introduced since 2001. And, at the Leader's Open Golf Tournament on Friday, Premier Campbell rolled out the same numbers while addressing attendees. So perhaps this will become a major part of the Liberal's message box during the lead-up to the next election - pushing back against carbon tax critics on the right and reminding his base that the New Democrats aren't tax-cutters?
Last Thursday, Rick de Jong officially announced he would be running against Quails Gate Okanagan Valley Winery owner Ben Stewart for the provincial Liberal nomination in Westside-Kelowna. Mr. de Jong is arguably best known as the brother of the Campbell administration's house leader and aboriginal relations and reconciliation minister. So some might find his campaign slogan - "The face of real change" - passingly odd, given his relationship to Mike and the fact he wants to be a candidate for British Columbia's governing party.
In July, we reported Western Pro Show Rentals - which organized the provincial Liberal leader's tour during the 2001 and 2005 election campaigns - had been directly awarded the $90,000 contract to provide audio visual services for the premier's fourth annual innovation and excellence awards. And, according to a document posted last Tuesday on BC Bid, "sound and technical support" for the fifth annual regional and provincial ceremonies will also be "provided by ProShow." Fancy that! Pro Show was directly awarded its earlier contract because "a competitive process would interfere with the ministry's ability to maintain security or order or to protect human, animal or plant life or health."
Last week, incumbent Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca federal Liberal candidate Keith Martin accused his competitors of "misleading people" by suggesting this would be his last election. This, despite telling the National Post's Julie Smyth in May that, "Unless the system changes, unless it becomes more efficient and productive, if it continues in this death spiral, this will be my last election." So yesterday, on Public Eye Radio, we asked Mr. Martin to explain his earlier statement to Ms. Jiles. The response: "I was being provocative. I was being provocative, basically, to get this issue to the forefront by making such a statement, by challenging the status quo - because it was a provocative statement. And if I did not make that provocative statement, this issue would have never come to the forefront and (wouldn't) have been able to put these articles forward."
"Unfortunately, in our system, as you know - Al Gore had a pithy little one liner - 'If it bleeds it leads, if it stinks it sinks.'" So 99 percent of the stuff I put forward never gets to the public. And I believe these are really important issues. So we have to find new ways to move things forward. So while I have 20 times the number of things published or national hits or a wide-variety of issues then any other member of parliament who is not a cabinet minister and pushing ideas, we've got to be innovative. And I need a hook to get you guys engaged. And that was a hook to be able to get the idea forward. And it was successful in getting the idea forward in front of the public so that they're aware of what's going on and some of the solutions I believe can be used to modernize our parliament, to reform our parliament and to be able to enable parliament to be able to serve the public."
But, given the unlikelyhood of those solutions being introduced, does that mean this will be your last election? ""No, I hope I have the honour of serving my constituents in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca again as a member of parliament. No, I have no intention of going anywhere at all unless the people decide otherwise. I'm keen on fighting for the issues on healthcare, on jobs, on the economy and a lot of the local issues we have on transportation. And we've got a lot of exciting projects we're implementing for kids and Canadian Forces families and others. So, unless the people turf me out, I have no plans on moving anywhere at all."
So did you mispeak in your interview with Ms. Smyth? "I was putting forward a sentiment that was utilitized, quite frankly, to draw attention to a much larger problem. And it really spoke to the moment in time where I was quite angry about the system and quite frustrated about the system. Because I speak to my constituents back home. You see the issues that they have to deal with. And you see the inaction in parliament. And it just makes me angry to my core...I didn't word that well. In some ways, I worded it well because I was able to say something that enabled the issue to come forward."
Tomorrow morning, on Public Eye Radio, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca federal Liberal incumbent Keith Martin tells us why he should be-relected. And our rabble-rousing panel - Don Anderson, Bob Russell, Alex Tsakumis and Allan Warnke - will debate the week that was in provincial and federal politics. You can listen to Public Eye Radio outside of Victoria by logging into CFAX 1070 between 8:30 and 10:00. If you have a question for one of our guests, you can email us or leave a comment below.
Earlier, we reported the provincial government had promised to allocate $500,000 to the yes and no sides during British Columbia's upcoming referendum on electoral reform. But the lead organization on the yes side has reaffirmed its earlier recommendation that "it is crucial to have a single funded advocacy group on each." And, in a letter to the ministry of attorney general, Fair Vote BC president Bruce Hallsor says that's an opinion shared by his "counterparts on the anti-STV side" - in particular Bill Tieleman and David Schreck." And the group continue to oppose restrictions on how that money - and any donations the yes and no sides receive - can be spent. A similar letter was sent by the yes and no sides to the ministry last month.The following is a complete copy of the latest missive.
10 September 2008
Strategic Planning and Legislation Office
Ministry of Attorney General
PO Box 9283 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9J7
Dear Sirs:
Re: Consultation on Regulating Funding for Electoral Reform referendum Proponents and Opponents
I am writing on behalf of Fair Voting British Columbia, the leading group advocating for the adoption of proportional representation in BC. Fair Voting BC has been a registered public advocacy group since 1997, and in the decade since then has led the way in promoting the adoption of proportional representation at the provincial and municipal levels, with a special focus on STV. We now represent a broad coalition of individuals who have led the fight for the adoption of STV in British Columbia.
Our position is that the $500,000 being allocated to support a Yes campaign should not be subdivided. We feel that this would lead to duplication of effort, loss of cohesion and mixed messaging, and in short would dilute the effectiveness of the pro-STV message.
In 2005, although groups tried to establish themselves as the leading voices for Yes and No respectively, the media did not recognize any group or individual as having a legitimate leadership role. Media coverage of the referendum was thus very different from media coverage of the parallel election, in which the party leaders were clear spokespeople for their parties. We believe that it is essential that the government recognize, through its funding formula, one clear leadership group on each side which can become a focus for media coverage.
Ever since the second referendum was announced by the Premier in 2005, we have been actively preparing to fight a strong, cohesive advocacy campaign, working on the assumption that we would be the principal group doing so. We believe that there is no other group fighting for STV in BC which can seriously rival our claim to be broad based, have reach across the province, and to have the support of the Citizens’ Assembly Alumni Association as the main vehicle for the next referendum campaign.
We don't believe that we deserve to have the public funding because we believe that we are special, self-appointed individuals who are somehow particularly deserving of public support, but rather because we have made a concerted effort to reach out and include all the individuals and groups who have been serious advocates for BC-STV in the past.
Any pro-reformer who is not part of our group is standing apart from us only because they do not wish to participate in the development of a coherent group message based on the public interest. And this is precisely why it would be damaging and dangerous to give public money to any such freelance individuals.
In 2005, there were two organized groups, and a number of prominent individuals, who separately campaigned for a Yes vote. The groups were called The Yes Campaign, and the Citizens' Assembly Alumni Organization.
Some of the more active individual campaigners were Troy Lanigan of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation and former Social Credit MLA Nick Loenen. All of these groups and individuals are now folded into Fair Voting BC.
While some other group of individuals might yet emerge and make a claim to be preparing a separate pro-STV campaign, such a group could not possibly approach our track record on the issue.
We have been working to promote STV since 1997, and holding regular monthly meetings specific to the referendum campaign since it was announced in 2005. We have a well-developed committee structure, have a website, and are preparing campaign materials. No other group is doing anything of the kind. We argue that the sudden emergence of another group this late in the proceedings would lead one to suspect that they formed more in response to the availability of public money than because of a clear commitment to public education and advocacy. We would see this as a major concern.
Having said this, we don't wish to close the door completely to other groups, if the right sort of group were to emerge. At this stage, it would be difficult to see what such a group would be, or why they simply would not join with us in making a united effort.
But it is not beyond imagination that there might be a group with serious intent, and with some solid reason for maintaining a separate identity. One example might be a group comprised of former members of the Citizens' Assembly. Such a group could certainly advance a claim for funding if the province did not accept our position that there should only be one group receiving funding on each side.
Another example might be a group comprised of current or former MLAs who wished to make public their support for STV. We would not object to a group of that nature being funded -- indeed, it would be our hope that any worthy group of this kind would join with us in making a joint submission as to how our two groups would share the funds.
We particularly wish to caution you against granting any money whatsoever to groups which propose to conduct regional, rather than province-wide, campaigns. It is very easy to imagine a group approaching you with a message like this: "We are the pro-STV campaign in three Kootenay-area ridings. We believe that $250,000 should be distributed to regional groups such as ours; since we represent about three percent of the province, you should give us $7500." In other words they would be claiming their fair share of a provincial amount, the amount they would receive were you indeed going to fund similar groups which blanketed the province.
In the absence of such similar groups elsewhere, we think it would be an enormous mistake to fund groups in some regions only. Effectively this would mean that some areas of the province would have a better funded and more vigorous public debate than others. On the contrary, we intend to use our funding to campaign throughout the province as a whole -- exactly as we did in 2005, when our members made dozens of visits to smaller regional centres throughout BC.
We therefore recommend to you as follows:
1. Provice all the funding on the pro-STV side to us as a single united entity. In the event that you have other applicants whom you deem worthy, encourage them to join in with us rather than receiving separate funding.
2. Alternatively, should you decide to consider funding more than one group, establish clear criteria in advance for what a group should do to prove themselves worthy of funding. These criteria should include, at a minimum: a proven track record of support for BC-STV, a proven ability to develop and disseminate effective messaging which explains the issue to the voters, and the intent and ability to mount a province-wide campaign.
We have discussed this matter with some of our counterparts on the anti-STV side, in particular with Bill Tieleman and David Schreck.
They share our belief that it is crucial to have a single funded advocacy group on each side.
Moreover, we are also agreed on the following points:
(1) We both believe that while the province may restrict how the funds are spent, they should not restrict recipients from raising money separately for other purposes, such as polling, travel expenses, paying salaries, or any other purpose. It is obvious that $500,000 is not adequate for conducting a province-wide campaign. It represents less than 20 cents per eligible voter, not even enough to reach each voter once by bulk mail.
Political parties raise and spend far more than this in order to communicate with the voters. Similarly, the pro-STV campaign and the anti-STV campaign will each need to raise additional money in order to campaign effectively.
In the interest of public debate, they should be encouraged to do so, not have their hands tied behind their backs.
(2) We both believe that recipients should be entitled to pay for the administrative expense of administering the funds out of the funds, including paying the official agent.
(3) We both believe that recognised proponents and opponents should have access to the voters list, with the same rights and restrictions as political parties have. LIke most of our other recommendations, this will be easier to arrange and to monitor if the number of proponent and opponent groups is limited to one of each.
We strongly urge the government to begin thinking in terms of creating a clear public debate by recognizing a single group on each side. This is an important public issue, and we know from experience, both in British Columbia and in other provinces, that it quickly becomes confused if the media begin to pick and choose from a multiplicity of voices on each side.
This debate is important. It would be tragic indeed if we emerged from this process on May 13th with no clear outcome and nobody able to agree on who had voted for what, or on the significance of the result. There is still time to ensure that this does not happen.
If you have further questions for us, please contact the writer directly.
Yours truly
FAIRVOTING BC
Per:
Bruce Hallsor
President
Yesterday, we noted the provincial Liberals would be holding their biennial convention on Halloween weekend - a troublesome date for parents with grade schoolers. But this isn't the first time the party has appeared tone deaf in its scheduling of events. Because this year, the Prince George Premier's Dinner took place on February 14 - Valentine's Day. Fancy that!
On Tuesday, we exclusively told you the British Columbia New Democrat provincial executive had designated 15 constituencies as affirmative action ridings. At the time, party president Jeff Fox acknowledged some constituency associations had expressed concern about that designation. But he said, "I think we're in pretty good shape on the issue" adding that all of those association "are moving forward." So it comes as a surprise to see The Daily News's Cam Fortems paraphrase Kamloops-South Thompson riding president Michael Fane as saying "talks are ongoing with party headquarters and nothing is settled." Indeed, Mr. Fane doesn't seem to much of a fan of the affirmative action initiative, stating "To be perfectly frank, I think the system requires we have the best candidate, without regard to anything. The system works best when everyone who wants to play, gets to play."
As part of the provincial Liberal's Halloween biennial convention, the party will be hosting a Friday night "Ghosts and Goblins Halloween Gala Dinner" attended by "the Premier and MLAs." Of course, it goes without saying such a dinner - if Gordon Campbell and his caucus come in costume - is fraught with peril. After all, can you imagine how delighted the New Democrats would be if the premier was photographed wearing, for example, a vampire costume? We can. And that should be a scary thought for those staffing the West Annex.
The provincial Liberals could soon be making some grade schoolers very unhappy. Their upcoming biennial convention has been scheduled to take place on October 30 to November 1 at The Fairmont Chateau Whistler - Halloween weekend. And we're already hearing grumbling from those who would rather stay at home with their trick-or-treating children then attend at political function. Asked about the matter, party communications director Chad Peterson explained, "Our constitution states we have to hold our convention sometime between the second week of October and the second week of November every second calendar year. So we're bound by the factor. But, on top of that too, we didn't want to hold it too late into November - with the municipal elections coming up - because some of our supporters may be volunteer there or running. Who knows? So, for us, it was a matter of trying to find the most appropriate weekend possible out of the options that were available. So this was the best weekend that was available for us. And, with the advent of the current federal election that's underway, it's probably a good thing that we didn't hold it earlier."
Earlier, we exclusively told you the British Columbia New Democrat provincial executive had designated 15 constituencies as affirmative action ridings. In some cases, those ridings volunteered for that designation. But, in at least one case, it was only by a narrow margin. On July 21, the Vancouver-West End constituency association executive voted to run a member of an under-represented group as their candidate in the next election. But that resolution passed by one vote.
On Tuesday, Renaissance Power Corp. made headlines when The Vancouver Sun's Scott Simpson reported on Anmore's efforts to generate clean electricity for their village by harnessing hydro, solar and wind energy. That project - which is being managed by Renaissance - is the result of "partnership involving all three levels of government." So it seems appropriate to mention that the company - like other independent power producers such as Plutonic Power Corp. Inc. and NaiKun Wind Development Inc. - has. Harper administration appointee and federal Conservative campaign worker Steve Simpson is Renaissance's government and community relations vice-president. And former provincial attorney general Geoff Plant chairs the company's board of directors. Fancy that!
Since the eighties, it has become reasonably common in Canada to see political party election wipe-outs. Federally we saw the Liberals reduced to 40 seats in 1984 and the Progressive Conservatives to two n 1993. In British Columbia we saw the same thing happen to the Socreds in 1991 and the New Democrats in 2001. And there is an increasingly likely scenario in the present federal election where the Grits could be reduced to a rump.
In the first week of the election we have seen a large set of polling data coming out, including one released on September 7 by The Strategic Counsel Inc. surveying 45 battleground ridings. The data coming out of that poll paints a horrific picture for the Liberals "with the Tories in first place in the key swing constituencies."
And, to make matters worse, party leader Stephane Dion is clearly unpopular with Canadians. According to a poll released by EKOS Research Inc. on the same day, just 46 percent of Liberal supporters thought Mr. Dion would make the best prime minister, with 14 percent choosing New Democrat leader Jack Layton instead.
Moreover, the Grits' campaign performance has been less polished then in years past. And the press has taken notice, writing the beginnings of a storyline that will could conclude with the Liberals campaign in crisis. If this happens, then a Grit wipe-out is almost guaranteed.
But we're not there yet. There are various ways to estimate the number of seats a party will win. When extrapolating the current poll results, I use a methodology that w