He’s back.

Seems phone calls to ministers of the Crown weren’t the only way Mr. Turner threw his weight around the BC Liberal government as he lobbied for his company’s Casino project.

Turner also wrote emails, lots and lots of emails to Vic Poleschuk, the Chief Executive Officer of the BC Lottery Corporation.  And now Tuner is fighting tooth and nail to keep you from seeing them.

Just over a year ago, journalist Sean Holman filed an FOI request for correspondence between BCLC and T. Richard Turner, a director of Paragon Gaming.  BCLC identified forty-seven pages of emails between Turner and the Lottery Corp’s CEO Vic Poleschuk.

The emails were written between 2005 and 2007.  Turner resigned from the Board of BCLC in December 2005 and shortly after acquired an interest in Paragon’s BC operation.   Poleschuk was fired in June 2007.  Sometime after 2007 Paragon began planning the relocation of the Edgewater Casino to BC Place and BCLC was required to approve such a move.

According to the Office of the Information Commissioner the emails “are communications to and from its CEO, under his corporate signature block on the BCLC email system, and [concern] subjects relating to gaming in general, the operations of BCLC and his role in BCLC.”

Releasing the email chain was controversial from the start.  BCLC initially denied access to all but one page of the emails, but reconsidered in the middle of an inquiry by Jay Fedorak of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Following BCLC’s agreement to release most of the emails, Turner requested a review arguing economic harm and privacy rights.

According to the Adjudicator Turner claimed “disclosure would expose him to harm… including serious mental distress, anguish and harassment.”  As evidence Turner cited “the recent high sensitivity given to issues of conflict of interest and this could lead him to experience ‘unfair harassment from politicians and the media.’  He says it is likely that his actions would be characterized unfairly.”

Translation:  There’s a lot of stuff in these emails that would make me look bad.

The Adjudicator didn’t buy the argument, noting “There is always the risk that disclosure of any information under FIPPA would be open to misinterpretation, but this, in itself, is not a justification under FIPPA for withholding the information.”

Fedorak ordered BCLC to release most of the material, excluding some personal information, citing the importance of accountability and transparence in this case:  “”the communications involve a former official of a regulatory body who subsequently joined a private sector company that is subject to oversight by that regulatory body.  I think that these facts argue in favour of disclosure…”

That should have been the end of it.  Instead Turner appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia to stop release.

He really doesn’t want you to see these records.  Which raises a lot of questions – maybe more than the releasing the records would:

• Was Turner paving the way for the BC Place move?  Discussions with the city started very soon after these emails end.  And those discussions led the Sullivan administration to rezone the BC place lands for a “major casino.”
• Was he talking general business about his Casino interests, getting the kind of inside information others have no access to?
• Shouldn’t he have been registered with the Lobbyist Registry?
• Should the Chair of ICBC be getting business advice from the CEO of BCLC?

Turner called up the Minister responsible for Pavco to chat up his company’s interests.  He arranged meetings with Pavco to assist negotiations.  And now we find out he spent two years chatting up the CEO of the Lottery Corporation, which oversaw Paragon’s actions in BC.

All under the table, without registering as a lobbyist while the Provincial Government came up with the plan to relocate his casino, doubled in size, on the BC Place lands.

This smells.

A version of this story appears on the Vancouver Observer

MSP premiums up, Fees up, Small business taxes up, Hydro Rates up, Gas tax up.  Health care, eduction, post sec, law and order all down.

It’s the “Families last” budget.

Kevin Falcon, BC  Finance Minister

Falcon admits it.  Party trumps province.  Who cares what people need?  This budget is about what the BC Liberal party needs.

Peterson will join John Cummins’ Conservatives as Deputy Chair of the party’s Finance Committee.  Translation: Peterson will be making the corporate rounds raising money for BC’s new flavour on the right.

Peterson ran for the BC Liberal nomination in Fairview in 2009 and has been active in Vancouver Civic Politics in the past several years.  Early in 2011 Peterson was touted as a potential saviour for the NPA but declined to run for Mayor on their ticket.

As well, Peterson is highly connected to the BC wing of the Federal Conservative Party.  Take that, Sara MacIntyre.

Seriously, Peterson’s defection is a real blow to the BC Christy Party and signals the struggle taking shape within BC’s Federal Tories regarding the BC Liberal government.

Do we dump Christy Clark, the apparent loser of the next election and Federal Liberal anyway and work to build the BC Conservatives into the “next time” party?  Or do we unite behind the fool in the West Office to try and prevent even a single term NDP government?  That’s what’s going down with BC’s Harperite insiders.

Peterson’s made his decision. And it’s a powerful one.  An up and coming mover and shaker who puts on the Burgundy Club show once a month for other right of centre movers and shakers, Peterson has the connections to move some serious money Cummins’ way, reducing the BC Liberal pool at the same time.

The poll, released Friday night by CTV news, shows the HST continues to be mighty unpopular.  And the government’s strategy hasn’t done a thing to change that.

According to Reid, 66% of British Columbians are dissatisfied with the government’s plan to remove the HST by April 1, 2013 – almost 20 months after British Columbians voted to get rid of it.

That’s still a pretty high number.  It doesn’t appear there’s been much diminishment in the anger around the HST a year after Clark took office.

But the stat I found most interesting is the percent of British Columbians who are satisfied with the government’s plan.  27% are just fine with what the government is doing on the HST.

That’s awfully close to the percentage of British Columbians who’ve said they would vote for the BC Liberals in the latest opinion polls from Forum, Reid and Ipsos.  That tells me two related things:  Clark’s taken ownership of the hated tax and the BC Liberals haven’t escaped the electoral damage Campbell’s resignation was supposed to have avoided.

Last week we saw a flurry of speculation about what Clark might do next to resurrect her doomed party.  From a battle over Site C to a fight with teachers commentators were scraping the bottom of the barrel for a way to shift the current trajectory.

And Clark herself signalled a new start by re-stocking her office with another high profile Harper Conservative activist.

But I’d question all those moves in light of the failure of Clark to distinguish herself from Campbell on the one issue that appears to underlie voters’ desire to be rid of her government and maybe even, party.

Opposition Leader Adrian Dix led off question period Wednesday with a question about a stay of charges issued by Judge Daniel Steinberg in the case of a man accused of using the internet to try and lure children for sexual purposes.  To be clear, a stay of charges in a kiddie porn trial – so family friendly.

Steinberg dismissed the case due to a 27 month delay in bringing the man to trial, saying “there is only one word to describe the current state of the Provincial Court of British Columbia’s ability to handle its caseload: abysmal.”

How did the Premier respond?  With a straight out lie is how.

“But here’s the thing,” Clark began, channeling Snooki of Jersey Shore fame.  “We are putting more money in at the same time that crime is dropping, the number of cases going to court is dropping and the length of cases is actually staying the same.  It just doesn’t add up.  We are adding more money to the system…

No here’s the real thing, Premier.  There is not “more money.”  There is less money.  As the following chart shows, the Attorney General’s operating budget has been cut by almost 20% in the last four years.

AG budget estimates (in 000s)

2008/09                    2009/10                    2010/11                    2011/12

545,454                       465,198                      468,487                   443,204

Source: BC Government Ministry Service Plans

The big cut came after Gordon Campbell’s lyin’ 2009 election budget (I can drop my g’s as well as our Premier).  The HST wasn’t the only surprise in the post election budgets.

And the biggest hit was taken by – you guessed it – court services, down $42 million or just about 30%, with the big cut in that post 2009 election budget.

Every other key justice line item – the judiciary, prosecution services, was either cut or flat lined over that period.  And of course with inflation flat lining means a cut in real dollars.

To recap lie number one:  There isn’t more money as the Premier claims.  There’s less money… way, way less money and the cuts were concentrated in our court system.

On to lie number two:  ”There are fewer cases” says the Premier.  Except that’s not what the Attorney General’s ministry states in its service plans.

Here’s how the Attorney General’s ministry put it in their 2010/11 plan: “The volume of small claims cases in Provincial Court has increased by 13.7 per cent over the last five years to over 19,000 new cases opened in 2010/11.”

Criminal cases are also growing, according to the ministry:  “the total number of Provincial and Supreme Criminal Court cases (including adult, youth and traffic) coming into the system has risen by 7 per cent over the last five years.”

In addition criminal cases are getting more complex and time consuming: “Criminal trials have also steadily become more expensive, lengthy and complicated.” Much of that is related to complex corporate cases and new forms of evidence like DNA.

Taken together its taking longer for criminal, civil and family cases to get to trial.  Wait times have seen enormous increases:  “The median age of a small claims case at its first substantive appearance has increased by 35 per cent from 150 days in 2008/09 to 203 days in 2010/11. The median age of a small claims case at trial stage has also grown to 400 days from 320 in 2008/09.”

So, 20 per cent less money for the courts system overall and between 13 and 7 per cent more cases, depending on the area of law.  On top of that those cases are longer and more complex.  You do the math, because the Premier hasn’t.

What has this government done about it?  They’ve reduced the targets in their service plan to reflect the cuts.

In 2009 Attorney General Wally Oppal set a target to reduce the median time to trial for civil small claims in Provincial Court to 281 days by 2011/12.  In 2010 the new AG Mike de Jong raised that target to 318 days.

Here’s what de Jong was really telling the public.  Because of our cuts we can’t meet our targets for court services.  So we are going to lower our targets instead of restoring the cuts.

Similar Orwellian adjustments were made for small claims settlement conference targets and family law cases.

The bottom line is forget all Christy Clark’s obfuscating bafflegab. BC’s justice system is performing exactly as the BC Liberals expected after the cuts.

It’s performing worse than before the cuts.

So when the government benches placidly thump their desks after the Premier stands to in question period to speak to kiddie porn cases thrown out of court know this – the sound the trained seals are making isn’t for the Premier.

The noise helps to cover up the lies the Premier is telling about her government’s record and BC’s failing justice system.

A version of this story appears on the Vancouver Observer

It started with shifting the throne speech from the leg to the Bill Good show.  Moved immediately to the Ombudsman’s devastating report on seniors care in the province, which was followed by Dix creaming Clark on BC’s failing justice system…

…a failure that resulted in the stay of proceedings in the trial of a man alleged to have used the internet to try and lure children for sex.  So family friendly!

Following all of that was a bookend to the Ombudsman’s report.  Auditor General John Doyle reported on the almost complete failure of the BC Liberal’s forestry - strategy is clearly too strong a word – thingy.

BC’s forest’s are dying and all the government is doing is chopping them down and shipping the trees to China.  Adequate reforestation?  No can do.

And tonight we learn that Clark’s fired her press secretary.  The traditional fate of the messenger.

But there’s still one day to go in the week in which Clark kicked off her new, new plan.

The Vancouver Sun will be covering the Premier’s week with an extended, five day feature on “Ten new ways Christy can save her ass.”  Look for it in the Style section and add your ideas to the list because Fazhil is running out of answers.

Update!

Just when you think things can’t get better for BC families, BC Liberal mismanagement has forced the BC Utilities Commission to almost double BC Hydro’s rate increase.

According to the Commissioner, the BC Liberals have stashed Hydro expenditures in deferral accounts in order to show a profit at the Crown, which then flows to the government’s operating budget.

But BC Hydro’s not paying down those accounts.  So the Commissioner upped the rates for them – 7%.  That’s on top of last year’s increase.

The Clark government message box has now been reduced to hand gestures.  When faced with this kind of news, the government just throws up its hands.  See Rich Coleman for today’s example.

Aren’t we lucky to have the BC Liberals mismanaging our affairs.  Can’t have the NDP screwing up this family friendly Nirvana.

A year ago Eldon Mooney choked to death in his care home. The government was forced to apologize for lying about the circumstances of his death

 “C. James:  I want to ask a question about acute care beds, as I’ve been asking for the last three questions. Why did the government cut one in five acute care beds in this province after they were elected in 2001? The second part of my question is: what rationale was there for cutting one in five acute care beds?

Hon. G. Campbell: To deal specifically with the issue of acute care beds, we do recognize there have been some acute care beds that have been closed in this government’s term.”                                                 Hansard, May 16, 2006

The Christy Clark not Gordon Campbell BC Liberal Party is pretending the scandal that is seniors care in BC is a new issue they’ve just stumbled on.  And they’re pretending they are going to act.

It’s not and they’re not.

This scandal – and it is a scandal – was caused by eleven years of BC Liberal cuts and inaction.  And the studies and minor actions the Clark Liberals have promised in response to the Ombudsman’s devastating report are little more than window dressing designed for damage control.

Don’t be fooled.  The Clark government response is a communications strategy, not a plan to fix the enormous problems in seniors care.

And it’s come too late.  This is not a new issue that just popped up this week.  The Opposition has raised the issue time and time again since the Campbell government – with Christy Clark as Deputy Premier – started cutting seniors’ services in 2001.

The Nanaimo Daily News nails it, laying the problem right at the feet of the Clark Liberals:

“As the Campbell regime cut costs without regard to cost efficiencies, home-care services were slashed, drug costs increased, subsidies ended or reduced and the most vulnerable seniors on social assistance saw their monthly incomes cut back. The results were predictable and quickly came to pass: Hospital emergency rooms became clogged with seniors needing long-term care taking up acute care beds. That, in turn, placed new and costly problems on our health-care infrastructure.

The private care home system has seen a host of problems as the extensive use of Bill 29, allowing care-home owners to terminate union staff and contract out their jobs, has led to instability both for staff and seniors.”

In the Spring of 2007 Adrian Dix, then NDP critic for Health, developed a private member’s bill, introduced to the Legislature by the Leader of the Opposition to address some of these issues and monitor care for seniors’.  The government dismissed it and the media didn’t cover it.*

The same goes for the Opposition’s bill to establish a senior’s advocate.  Dismissed and left on the order paper to die.

As Director of Policy for the Opposition caucus, I remember Dix’s anger at a government that let seniors in care go without baths so private care owners could make higher profits.  “Not even one bath a week,” he said.  “It’s wrong.”  Dix gets to the point when he’s angry.  This made him angry.

Nothing’s changed.  The Ombudsman’s report documents the same abuses that the Opposition raised in the Legislature in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The fundamental problem is that the Clark government, like the Campbell government, is more committed to profit-making in the care home sector than it is to the seniors who live in those homes.  The Globe and Mail summed it up in 2009:

A study of B.C. nursing homes published two years ago in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that staff levels were higher in not-for-profit facilities and concluded that “public money used to provide care to frail elderly people purchases significantly fewer direct-care and support staff hours per resident day” in for-profit nursing homes.

Another B.C. study, published last year, discovered that not-for-profit nursing homes run by hospitals, local health authorities or in chains reported lower rates of acute-care hospital admissions for problems like bed sores and dehydration generally considered to reflect poorer quality of care than for-profit or smaller, stand-alone, not-for-profit homes.

Too often BC’s press gallery treats this issue as the typical tit-for-tat play of Question Period.  Gallery dean Vaughn Palmer led the way this morning:

“the two sides were into well-rehearsed routine. Opposition reminds government of failings in the past decade. Government recalls those of the decade before. NDP says Liberals have had plenty of time to fix things. Libs challenge New Democrats to say what they’d do better and how they’d pay for it”.

Maybe I’m too close to it – having used homecare in the last six months.  But don’t seniors at the end of their lives deserve better than this kind of same old/same old dismissiveness?  Don’t they deserve a government and observers who are willing to look past the game of politics and focus on real fixes that deal with the problems seniors and their families face when what they need most is decent care?

On that basis the Clark Liberals have failed.

***

Yesterday I promised a post on something different.  I over-promised as a minor surgery took up most of my day.  Sedation will do that to you.  But soon come.

* When writing this yesterday I incorrectly identified the content of one of the three opposition bills on seniors issues introduced in the 2007 Legislative session.  The changes now reflect the opposition’s bill.