April 15, 2002

Gag Warning Accompanies Welfare Legislation

Two weeks of relative inactivity for the Campbell government came to an end Monday with the introduction of five new bills to the Legislature. At the same time, thanks to Opposition Leader Joy MacPhail, the public learned of an extraordinary government caucus meeting that was held on Sunday. The Sunday meeting briefed government MLAs on the health cuts that the public will painfully experience over the months ahead. The secret briefing co-opted the government MLAs so they now must take responsibility for the cuts they didn't fight.

Two of the bills introduced on April 15th dealt with changes to BC's welfare system. Those changes are so extreme that four hours before the legislation was introduced the Ministry of Human Resources took the unusual step of sending an email to all staff warning them about their duties as public employees. The heading for that email demonstrated surprising confusion over the concepts of political affiliation, which party a person supports, compared to political discussion, the expression of one's personal opinion on any matter.

The Ministry provided an incorrect address for the Standards of Conduct. It can be found at http://www.pserc.gov.bc.ca/policies/Directives/5-8/05-4soc.htm

Why would the Ministry attempt to intimidate its employees with an email distributed to thousands of workers just four hours before the introduction of major legislation? Is that consistent with comments made by the Premier with respect to whistle blowing and openness, or is it a sign about how knowledgeable workers within the Ministry of Human Resources will judge the new legislation? By attempting to intimidate its workforce with a blanket email before anything resembling improper activity has occurred, the Ministry has said more about its extreme agenda than any worker could possibly articulate.

---

April 2, 2002

Can Hogg Accept 20% Failure?

It is not good enough to accept a 20% failure rate while shifting responsibility for child welfare onto charities. Even if BC child welfare services are reorganized to a Children's Aid Society model, the provincial government must retain ultimately responsibility for child welfare, and it must produce performance measures to account for that responsibility.

In opposition the BC Liberals viciously attacked Ministers of Children and Family services so as to leave the impression that every disaster that struck a child was the direct fault of the government.

Gordon Campbell played as much a role in demanding the highest possible standards for children as did any of the critics in his caucus. On March 18, 1997, Campbell said that the legislature should authorize whatever amount it takes to "put children first."

On April 1, 2002, the Victoria Times Colonist attributed the following statement to Minister of Children and Family Development, Gordon Hogg: "Even with the best risk management tools an 80 per cent success rate is probably the most that can be achieved." Hogg's statement was in the context of an interview on the government's plan to go back to the kind of Children's Aid Society approach to child welfare that was used in BC prior to 1975.

Anyone following the BC legislature for the past ten years knows that if an NDP minister responsible for child welfare had said that 80% success is the best that can be achieved, the Campbell Liberals would have gone wild. What has changed?

In opposition Gordon Campbell was willing to sign a blank cheque to protect children, but under the Campbell government child protection is driven by achieving a budget target. The Minister is penalized if he goes over budget, but not if the death rate for children increases. The Ministry's service plan speaks of the primary responsibility of families and communities for supporting children. Government's role is reduced to supporting a community-based system when it can, and now we know that it is expected to fail 20% of the time.

Performance measures for high risk youth (found on page 10 of Hogg's service plan) simply say "maintain baseline". Imagine if the Campbell opposition had said the best they would try to do would be to maintain the standards achieved by the NDP. Former measures like reducing alcohol related deaths, reducing drug induced deaths and reducing the suicide rate are gone!

The goals set by Hogg's ministry (page 13 of the service plan) for child protection read like an accountant's balance sheet. Measure after measure indicates costs rather than outcomes for children. It is absolutely shocking to compare the performance measures found in Hogg's service plan with the measures developed by the former government. Former measures included healthy infant birth weights; infant, child and youth survival rates and the number of children-in care adopted.

It is no wonder that the Campbell government fired the Children's Advocate!

---

April 1, 2002

Cuts Hurt Children

April Fool's Day is no joke for thousands of BC children who live in poverty. April 1st is the date massive cutbacks in programs for people who depend on government support take effect.

Data from the Ministry of Human Resources website show that the income assistance caseload has been declining since BC Benefits was introduced in January 1996. Families with children who received income assistance steadily declined from almost 75,000 in January 1996 to under 43,768 in October 2001 (most recent published data). So why is the Campbell government now punishing these families?

Effective April 1, 2002, the income exemption that determines a parent's eligibility for a child care subsidy is $285 lower. "Parents earning above their exemption level may continue to receive a subsidy. However, the subsidy above the exemption level is now reduced by 60 cents on each dollar of additional net income."

Support payments to single parents with a child over 3 will go down by $51 per month. Try feeding yourself and a child while paying for transportation and a phone to look for a job on just $325.58 per month! Effective July 1 a further cut of over $50 will take effect in shelter allowances for families of 3 or more.

The difficulties faced by families in poverty are no doubt part of the reason that children in families receiving income assistance are more likely to be apprehended under child welfare legislation.

Effective April 1st, the Campbell government is eliminating the assistance for children placed in the home of a relative who is made guardian. In recent years between 4,000 and 4,500 children were placed in the homes of relatives. It is no coincidence that legislation introduced on March 28 to amend the Child, Family and Community Service Act allows government to apply to have a relative made the guardian of a child. Is that amendment a reasonable expansion of options so as to best look after the welfare of children? Alternatively, is that amendment a companion to the cuts in the Ministry of Human Resources so that government will not have to support 4,000 children in need of protection? Who will argue in court as the advocate for a child in need of protection? A representative of a government that is bent on reducing the number of children in care so as to cut budgets may be torn between professional responsibility and the dictates of that government.

The Campbell government's approach to children has to be judged by changes made throughout government. Whether it is a $6 minimum wage, less support for child care, less support for foster parents, less income assistance, higher class sizes or loss of dedicated special education funds, every policy initiative of the Campbell government indicates less for children.

A person earning $100,000 per year will receive over $200 per month ($2,400 per year) in tax cuts. During the election they said tax cuts would pay for themselves. Now we know that it will take cuts to at least four single parent families in need of assistance to pay for the tax benefits received by each of those six figure income earners. On their next flight to Hawaii a few moments might be spent wondering how much less fortunate children will be forced to pay for the trip funded by the cuts.