On October
31st Lindsay Kines of the Times Colonist exposed the Campbell
government for its neglect of programs to help sexually
abused children and for its disregard for the letter and
spirit of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. Kines demonstrated the kind of investigative
journalism that wins awards. He submitted a freedom of information
request for documents dealing with sexual abuse of children,
including a review of the Ministry of Children and Family
Development's Sexual Abuse Intervention Program (SAIP).
He received a heavily edited version of the SAIP review,
but he also obtained a leaked unedited copy. The difference
is shocking and has resulted in a complaint to the Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner on
how the review was edited. As his colleague, columnist Les
Leyne, wrote: "Amazing how little Wite-Out you need
to do a whitewash."
Kines
reported that the unedited review concluded that the "47
agencies and societies helping abused children felt neglected,
isolated and short-changed by government." The program's
budget, according to an earlier investigation by the Times
Colonist, "had been frozen at $3 million for 17 years."
Premier
Campbell was sworn into office on June 5, 2001; as of Halloween
2007, he has been in power for 2,309 days. The number of
days is relevant because Campbell started his run at government
with "90 days of action", and in that 2,309 days
he has had enough time for 26 such periods of action, long
enough to take responsibility for anything that's wrong
rather than blame the former government.
Naturally
the NDP raised Kines' revelations in question period. Children
and Family Development Minister Tom Christensen followed
in the footsteps of his Minister of State Linda Reid, who
recently made a fool of herself over her government's distribution
of child-car-seats through Liberal constituency offices.
In response to accusations of political interference in
freedom of information requests, Christensen said:
It is
an insult to the professional public servants who handle
freedom of information requests for Christensen to hide
behind them. It is well established that the politically
appointed public affairs bureau has sign-off authority on
information requests, particularly requests from journalists.
The Campbell government has frustrated professional public
servants who often have to tell those who have made requests
that "they are waiting sign-off". Is the Campbell
government so confident that those public servants are gagged
that it feels that it can use them as a shield?
On October
29th Christensen was also on the hot seat, this time answering
for a 20% increase in child abuse investigations open for
more than 90 days. He said that the Campbell government
is adding resources to deal with the problem, but the next
day the BC Association of Social Workers issued a news release
in which they said:
"The
continuing inability of the Ministry of Children and Family
Development to complete child protection investigations
within the standards it has set is the inevitable result
of a child welfare system that has been managed by a government
more concerned with meeting an arbitrary budget than with
meeting its child protection mandate. Despite the infusion
of additional funding, and the hiring of 200 additional
social workers since 2001 (which did not replace the numbers
that were lost at that time), the child welfare system continues
to be under-resourced."
Ted
Hughes made the same point when he investigated the Ministry.
Christensen may be hoping that a professional association
or union won't speak out on behalf of information officers
who are routinely frustrated by political interference,
frequently from the public affairs bureau. As Les Leyne
wrote: "The widespread suspicion that government message-massagers
can monkey around with information requests to their hearts'
content is now conclusively proven. Colleague Lindsay Kines
has caught them red-handed."