PROVINCE'S FINE PRINT CUTS DRUG COURT'S PROPOSED FUNDING BY $500,000

To have seen the looks of relief over such a relative pittance of
cash -- if anything, it makes the case of the vanishing $500,000 even
more pitiful.

There was the drug court judge, grinning at the news, while the
court's handful of staff shared handshakes and hugs.

A quartet of former addicts were all smiles after learning the
program that saved them from jail would continue, helping others
escape the cycle of addiction and crime.

The province's promise, as made by Calgary MLA Jonathan Denis at the
court's anniversary luncheon late last month, was for $800,000 in
drug-court funding.

Not quite a million dollars, it was more than enough money to keep
the court open for at least three years.

The court might even expand, said Judge Jim Ogle, after hearing the news.

No more begging, borrowing and scraping the barrel -- the cash
surprise turned the court's two-year anniversary lunch into a real
celebration, the $800,000 reported by every news outlet in Calgary.

But where the province giveth, the province taketh away.

As it turns out, the $800,000 promised by Denis was really $300,000,
inflated to include "in-kind" services like the judge's salary,
courtroom costs and so on. Whether soap for the public washrooms was
on the bill, isn't clear.

Every other in-kind item was certainly crammed in, to the tune of
half-a-million now-you-see-it, now-you-don't dollars.

"It is a combination of grants and in-kind contributions -- including
usage of staff, the facility, equipment, that kind of stuff,"
explained Alberta Justice spokesman Jay O'Neill.

The original announcement, made on behalf of Justice Minister Alison
Redford, certainly didn't sound like it came with an asterisk
attached, when it was rolled out in front of television cameras.

If anyone explained the $800,000 was really $300,000, no one heard.

The press was fooled, and so were the folks running the drug court --
they shared the same figure at a meeting with city council a few days
later, before discovering the real number was $300,000. Oops.

Still, the province says there was no attempt to deceive the drug court.

"I think what happened, they heard the number and it kind of jumped
out, and they didn't take into account the other support they were
getting," said O'Neill.

Of course, no one bothered to explain the fine print until weeks later.

Sorry guys -- that $800,000 cheque you're expecting? You might want
to change that eight to a three.

"It was good to see money was given, but it's disappointing the
amount isn't exactly what we heard," said Rob Laird, of the Calgary
Dream Centre, one of the key figures in establishing the drug court
two years ago.

Like others connected to the court, Laird takes a diplomatic, stoic stance.

Off record, the real emotion shows: "A half-million dollars is one
hell of a fudge," says another upset source, also connected to the court.

That a lousy $500,000 could mean so much to the people running the
drug treatment court speaks to the meagre budget of the piecemeal
project, designed to keep non-violent addicts out of jail.

For $250,000 a year, Calgary taxpayers have funded the recovery of 11
criminal addicts so far, with a 100% success rate -- no needles, no
pipes, and nothing stolen or robbed.

Calgarians, unlike the citizens of Edmonton, Regina, Ottawa, Toronto
and Vancouver, have paid for their own drug court, going without
federal or provincial cash.

Edmonton, as part of the official drug-court circuit, gets nearly
$600,000 in federal funding, matched by the province, in kind.

When Calgary was denied an official drug court, our city council,
spearheaded by Ald. Druh Farrell, opted to pay for its own program.

It was hoped two years of success would be enough to convince the
provincial and federal governments that Calgary's court is worth funding.

While the feds aren't expected to review that funding until next
year, the province's $800,000 looked like an unexpected answer to
Calgary's prayers.

Not that the remaining $300,000 won't be appreciated.

It's a drop in the bucket, but when the bucket is empty, no one can
afford to complain.