Conservative conduct $ bond

SPARE THE ROD, SPOIL THE CHILD
Feb 15 / Vancouver 24hours News

The federal Conservatives are using sticks rather than carrots to make sure would-be election candidates are on their best behaviour. According to the party's nomination rules and procedures - which were distributed to riding associations this past June - candidates must make out a $1,000 cheque payable to the Conservative Fund of Canada to "serve as a Good Conduct Bond." Those who follow those principally technical rules and procedures will get their cheque back. But it's tough luck for those who don't. And the news is even worse for candidates who win less than 10 per cent of the vote at a nomination meeting. They have to relinquish their $1,000 "Non-Frivolous Bond." Ouch!

NDP's balancing act comes before a win?
SEAN HOLMAN Feb 15 / Vancouver 24hours News

HALF AND HALF

During the federal Liberal leadership race, Stephane Dion promised one-third of the party's candidates in the next election would be women. But that's nothing compared to a series of affirmative action proposals being advanced for discussion by the provincial New Democrat's nomination review committee. According to a report, obtained exclusively by 24 hours' Public Eye, "lack of representation of women, Aboriginal people, youth, people with disabilities, visible minorities, and (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) individuals" is one of the principle issues confronting the party's candidate recruitment process.

So the committee is suggesting setting "targets for the next provincial election of 50 per cent women candidates and 65 per cent affirmative action candidates (the latter including women)." And, in order to meet that target, it's proposed that the party's provincial executive should be empowered to "appoint candidates in selected constituencies or designate specific constituencies for affirmative candidates."

Strangely, though, the report seems to pay little attention to how the New Democrats can recruit more winnable candidates. But, then again, winning isn't everything!

BURN NO BRIDGES

It's no secret the union movement thinks the Campbell administration's public-private partnerships are a bad deal for the province. For example, in November, British Columbia Federation of Labour conventioneers said those projects are "shrouded in secrecy and face gross delays, loss of service and public scrutiny, as well as huge cost overruns." This is according to a news release from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. But it seems at least one union pension plan thinks investing in such partnerships is a good deal for its members.

Speaking at an invite-only forum attended by around 80 international bankers and developers this past June, Finance Minister Carole Taylor noted B.C.'s public-private partnerships are attracting new financiers from around the world - including the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. It seems the pension plan, which governed by the Ontario government and the teachers' union in that province, is lending money for the William R. Bennett Bridge Project. That's right, the five-lane, Kelowna traffic congestion reliever that's named after "B.C.'s most famous free enterprise premier. Fancy that!

BETTER AND CHEAPER?

A provincial government-commissioned review suggests Community Living British Columbia might not save money when it starts closing group homes. This past September, the authority launched a six-month project to give developmentally disabled individuals living in those homes the option of moving into "person-centred and cost-effective" dwellings. And, as part of that process, some group homes could be closed - with the financial savings being tracked by the authority's quality service branch.

But a literature and initial program review, conducted by the University of British Columbia, notes a 1998 comparison between supported living and traditional residential services in Oregon found there was "no statistically significant difference in public support costs between supported living services and group home services." Although a 2000 study in Australia showed "per consumer staff support hours and annual [non-capital] costs on accommodation support services were far greater for group home residents than for semi- independent settings."

In an e-mail, community living communications director Sally Greenwood wrote the authority wasn't worried about that conflicting evidence. According to her, "the primary objective of the [residential options project] is to enhance quality of life for people with developmental disabilities" - not achieve cost-savings.

For his part, the review's principal investigator - UBC associate social work professor Tim Stainton - acknowledged existing academic literature doesn't give a definitive answer as to whether group homes are more costly than other residential options.

But, he added, "If you look at B.C.'s own figures, it's pretty clear that family care model homes and independent living homes do tend to cost less than group homes. Again, you can't be universal. But, I think, for B.C.'s own figures that would be borne out. Although, at the end of the day, I'm more interested in quality outcomes."

SPARE THE ROD, SPOIL THE CHILD

The federal Conservatives are using sticks rather than carrots to make sure would-be election candidates are on their best behaviour. According to the party's nomination rules and procedures - which were distributed to riding associations this past June - candidates must make out a $1,000 cheque payable to the Conservative Fund of Canada to "serve as a Good Conduct Bond." Those who follow those principally technical rules and procedures will get their cheque back. But it's tough luck for those who don't. And the news is even worse for candidates who win less than 10 per cent of the vote at a nomination meeting. They have to relinquish their $1,000 "Non-Frivolous Bond." Ouch!