Citizens' Assembly offers a revolution in politics
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Forget the boring name. The Citizens' Assembly is the biggest thing that's going to happen to politics in your lifetime.
Anyone who thinks the system isn't working now- has a chance to radically change the way we elect politicians, the kind of opportunity most voters can only dream about.
The assembly will give average citizens a chance to come up with a better way of electing MLAs. It will bring together 159 people, more or less randomly selected. They will learn about proportional representation and other alternatives to the current system; hold public hearings; and then come up with a recommendation that will go to a binding referendum at the same time as the next election.
It's extraordinary. Governments don't give up this kind of power to ordinary citizens. It's almost never in their self-interest to tamper with the system that got them elected. (Full marks to Gordon Campbell, for fulfilling a promise that many politicians would bury.)
There isn't much argument that the system can be improved. We elect politicians under a winner-takes-all system, with one victor in each riding. Win enough seats and you form the government. The result is that most British Columbians end up feeling locked out of the political process.
Look at the last election. The Liberals captured 58 per cent of the popular vote. But under our system, they won 98 per cent of the seats. More than 20 per cent of voters supported the NDP, but the party only got two seats. And 12 per cent of voters voted Green and ended up with no representation.
The system leaves too many people convinced that their vote doesn't count. We also lose out on new ideas and the kind of debate that produces the best solutions.
There are alternatives, in use around the world. The assembly has to figure out which one will work best for B.C.
Solutions could be as simple as adding a proportional representation component to the current system. We could create 59 geographical ridings, for example, and add 30 MLAs who would be selected based on their party's share of the popular vote.
Based on the last election results, the Liberals would get 18 of those seats, the NDP eight and the Greens four.
That's hardly revolutionary. But it would create a much different legislature, and provide a voice for hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who now feel left out.
And that's just the starting point for change. Our current system encourages polarization. Voters don't select the candidate, or party, that they believe would best represent them in the legislature. They also have to assess the party's chances of success. Pragmatic voters who support the Greens or the Unity Party, but don't believe they can win a seat, have to abandon principle and settle for the party with a chance of winning that comes closest to their vision for the province.
There are hurdles ahead for the reform initiative. The assembly's recommendation has to be approved not only by 60 per cent of voters across the province, but by a majority of voters in 60 per cent of the ridings. And any change won't take effect until the election 2009.
Those are acceptable barriers. The referendum's requirements are high, but it will offer protection to rural voters who fear that changes could lead to their voices being drowned out by the huge population in the Lower Mainland. And the long delay before the system is changed provides comfort to Liberals who wonder how change will affect their current grip on the legislature.
The bottom line is that B.C. is starting an extraordinary process, one that could lead to a political system that is more energized and innovative.
Voters - and the people who have stayed home on election day - will know that their participation matters and will result in their voice being heard in the legislature.
Pay attention. This is a very great opportunity.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell, who had a bevy of Liberal MLAs join him for the announcement in the legislature, highlighted another aspect of the current system. The Liberal landslide was the first time since 1949 that a B.C. government had been elected with the support of more than half the voters.
willcocks@ultranet.ca



Rural education task force fails to meet real challenge
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I'd give the province's rural education task force a C grade, along with those kind of encouraging comments that teachers write on report cards.
There was nothing wrong with the work the task force did on the problems of rural schools.
But there's a crisis out there in education. Rural students aren't getting the same opportunity to learn, and that means they aren't getting the same opportunities in life. And the task force, despite some useful recommendations, hasn't come back with a report that acknowledges that crisis.
Education Minister Christy Clark set up the task force last year, a welcome acknowledgment of a long-standing problem.
And their report was useful enough. The government will put up $225,000 to allow three school districts to experiment with computer-based education, and up to $6 million to improve Internet access. It will set up a program to forgive student loans for teaching grads who agree to teach in a rural school for five years. It will look at letting villages or towns take on a bigger role in running schools. And the education ministry will start measuring how it's doing on closing the rural urban gap
There are a bunch of other recommendations, and Clark says she accepts them all.
But - and this is a very large but - many are mushy, full of phrases like "produce a planning document" and "encourage partnerships" and "facilitate the provision of increased educational opportunities."
In a past life I learned to be very skeptical if a manager came forward with plans that talked about intentions, not actions. It's nice to recommend that government "work with education partners to build a network of rural educators and leaders." But that doesn't commit anyone to any actual action, or results.
A useful recommendation would have included action - perhaps calling for a conference of ministry officials, teachers, rural administrators and parents within 90 days to launch this network.
There are recommendations that can be acted on quickly, like helping teachers adapt the existing curriculum to multi-grade classrooms and improving training opportunities for rural teachers.
But overall this is a very soft report, for a very hard problem, that moves us forward only a small distance.
Clark says parents can send children to rural schools with confidence.
But the reality is that children in those schools are learning less than their counterparts in city schools, as the task force reports. Their parents pay the same taxes; the children have the same potential, and the same needs.
And they aren't getting an equal education.
We're not taking about a small gap, or a little problem. Province-wide tests released last fall showed - again - that if you live in the urban south your children are far more likely to leave school with the basic literacy and numeracy skills needed to give them a good chance in life.
Take reading. In the seven highest ranked districts, more than 80 per cent of Grade 10 students are meeting provincial standards. Those districts were generally in Vancouver and Victoria.
But in the 10 lowest ranked districts, barely half the students are reading at an acceptable level. Those districts were in the north, the Interior and on Vancouver Island. (Results for math and writing showed the same dismal disparity.)
That's a crisis. It's cheating the kids, and cheating the province of its future.
B.C. doesn't have to invent solutions, or launch long planning process. Manitoba has been successful in closing the rural-urban gap. The government there pays for special training opportunities and extra classroom help.
Alberta set aside extra money for rural districts with that wanted to try projects aimed at improving students' success.
The task force report moves us forward. But not nearly far enough, or fast enough, given the seriousness of the problem.
Footnote: The report avoids the question of whether rural schools are under-funded. But Clark said she'll accept a recommendation that municipalities be allowed to come up with cash to keep schools open, as Wells did this year. A solution, perhaps. But also a two-tier approach to education, where some taxpayers have to pay extra - through property taxes - for services that the rest of us receive from the province.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Liberals face regional problems halfway to next campaign
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Two years from today, the campaign buses will be rolling, election signs will be popping up and the sound-bites will be flying.
And despite some big problems in the so-called Heartland, the Liberals have reached the halfway point in their first term with much of their support intact.
The Liberals are sitting at about 45 per cent in the polls, enough to give them a comfortable majority. That's an unusual achievement, given the province's history over the last two decades. By the same point in their terms Glen Clark, Mike Harcourt and Bill Vander Zalm were all in deep trouble, with support for their parties mired below 30 per cent.
It's not all good news for the Liberals. They're are still down sharply from the 58-per-cent support they won in the election. Crunch the numbers, and you find that some 400,000 people who voted for Liberal candidates no longer support the party.
And the overall level of support masks some big potential problems for Liberal candidates - like Dave Chutter - in up to 35 ridings outside the Lower Mainland.
Step outside Vancouver and its sprawl, and the Liberal lead vanishes. Recall campaigns may be failing, but that doesn't mean things are safe for the MLAs.
On Vancouver Island, the NDP and Liberals are in a dead heat. The New Democrats are at 32 per cent, the Liberals at 32 per cent and the Greens at 27 per cent.
In the Interior and North the Liberals have 37-per-cent support, the NDP has 34 per cent and Greens 19 per cent.
The reasons aren't complicated. Under the Liberals, communities like Lillooert have seen much of the pain of the New Era, and few gains. Offices have been closed, health care services reduced and schools closed. Promised economic opportunities have remained just that - promises.
That's one reason the Liberals have been making such a big deal about their much mocked "Heartland" strategy, aimed at helping the rest of the province.
The poll results should alarm the Liberals. The NDP still has plenty of persistent problems of its own. But it's already seen as an alternative across much of the province. If the party can begin to take support away from the Greens as the election approaches, the Liberals will lose a lot of seats.
(The NDP has hired Gerry Scott to as party secretary, the top paid job. He's an experienced fund-raiser and campaign manager, generally seen as a good organizer. And he's been working with the David Suzuki Foundation, so he has an in with Green supporters.)
The Liberals need to be able to show that their plans are working to help the whole provincial economy, not just the Lower Mainland.
That's likely to be a challenge. A new report from the Credit Union Central of B.C. lowers growth projections for B.C. for this year. Chief economist Helmut Pastrick - a member of Finance Minister Gary Collins' advisory panel - says growth will be only two per cent this year and three per cent next. And he predicts continued problems for smaller cities and rural communities. Even if forest exports increase, jobs in the sector could disappear as companies increase operating efficiency, he says.
The Liberals face some tough challenges. Some they can control. It's within the government's ability to find ways to reduce the growing economic gap between Vancouver and the rest of the province. It's possible to give MLAs more opportunities to speak up for their communities.
But others will are difficult to manage. If SARS hurts the already weak B.C. economy, the Liberals will face the challenge of explaining where the promised growth went. If the strong Green Party support shifts to the NDP - that's at least a possibility - then many more Liberal MLAs will face defeat.
The Liberals still face no serious threats on their path to forming the government after the election in May 2005. But unless they address some serious problems, an awful lot of MLAs won't be around for a second term.
Footnote: Pastrick's new growth forecast - two per cent for this year - is bad news for Collins, who built his budget on a growth rate of 2.4 per cent. Slower growth means less revenue for government. The contingency allowance can handle the revenue shortfall, but the cushion is being nibbled away only weeks into the new fiscal year.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Hospital workers wisely trade wage cuts for jobs
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - What do you call a deal that commits hospital workers to opening up their contract and accepting longer hours, shorter vacations and pay cuts?
A success.
Union negotiators representing some 46,000 employees at B.C. hospitals have already accepted the deal, because it offers one large benefit. Some 15,000 layoffs could be avoided in return for the concessions.
Negotiators don't like the deal. But Hospital Employees' Union head Chris Allnutt says it's the best the unions could do while protecting the jobs of thousands of people.
The roots of the dispute are straightforward. The Liberals believe people who provide support services in the health care system - who prepare the food, or keep the hospitals clean, or work in the labs - are overpaid. And they set out to change that.
First the government passed legislation gutting the job protection provisions in the union contracts, making it possible to contract out all their work to private companies which would then hire new people to do the same work at lower wages.
And then they started the process. Already some 5,000 health care employees are set to be fired under privatization programs under way in the health regions.
The Liberals look sleazy on this one. The unions had asked Gordon Campbell before the election if he would rip up their contracts. No, he said in an interview published in the union newsletter. That would be wrong, and it's not something that he believed in. A government's word has to mean something.
And then Campbell turned around and broke his own word.
The unions felt betrayed and angry. And voters can reach their own conclusions about the significance of the gap between Campbell's words and his deeds.
But once the government tore up their contracts, the unions had few choices. They tried, unsuccessfully, to rally support against the privatization plans on the basis that health care would be jeopardized if services were contracted out to inexperienced companies with low-wage staff.
That didn't work.
That left the HEU with two options. Wait, as up to 20,000 jobs were lost, and see if the privatization process would go off the rails.
Or come to a deal that would protect jobs while providing the government with most of the savings it was seeking.
That's what has happened. Layoffs will be capped at the 5,000 already planned. The unions have agreed to extend their current contract by two years until 2006, and accepted sweeping concessions. Employees will give up 6.4 per cent in scheduled pay increases and take cuts of between 35 cents and $1 per hour, while increasing their work week by 1.5 hours and giving up five days of vacation. The government has will limit the layoffs, extend bumping rights and contribute $65 million to improve severance.
It's a painful deal, but it's a pragmatic one.
The reality is that the people who would have lost their jobs are not likely to find work that pays as well or offers comparable conditions. That's not just because jobs of any kind remain in short supply in much of B.C. The fact is that the contracts provided higher pay than the people could expect to earn using their skills in other workplaces, unionized or non-unionized. Protecting those jobs, even at lower wage levels, is important to those people.
For the government, the deal allows health authorities to avoid contracting out efforts that would be disruptive and risky. Health regions have enough to do managing cost pressures and frozen budgets without going through the hassle and risk of entrusting hospital cleaning or food preparation to the low bidder.
The deal still has to be approved by union members, who are divided. Some technical workers, who argue they are already underpaid, are particularly irked. But the people at risk are more motivated to approve the deal; it should pass.
Bargaining is about making the best of your situation, even if you don't like it. This agreement does that, for both sides.
Footnote: Why now, and not a year ago before the privatization push began disrupting the health care system and employees? Each side blames the other. But it remains striking that the Liberal government, unlike Ralph Klein, never proposed public sector wage cuts as a way of reducing government spending.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Beautiful building, and we bring it shame
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A local newspaper columnist suggested Press Gallery types could be considered embedded journalists, just like the TV reporters over there in Iraq.
Just like them, she implied, we lose perspective. We're too close to the politicians, too far from real life and too caught up in the often irrelevant small dramas in this fine old building.
She's probably right.
I watch Question Period every day, and half listen to what passes for debates in the house. I'm used to it, the bickering and pointless insults and steadfast refusal to provide serious answers to serious questions.
Barbara Macaulay brought her Grade 5 and 6 class to watch Question Period. They weren't used to the rudeness and stupidity. The kids were shocked by "ugly behaviour" and a "base tone of baiting and bully-like comments."
"The display of arrogance and infantile name-calling was a terrific non-example for my students," she wrote.
She's right. It happens day after day, and has for years. But that doesn't make it less appalling or destructive. The people in the legislature - smart, caring people - are acting wretchedly.
Not all debate is unworthy. There are some excellent members' statements, some rare useful question-and-answer exchanges.
But too often the debates are pointless posturing.
This isn't a slag against the Liberals. The NDP were equally unable to see the benefits of treating the legislature, and individual MLAs, with respect.
But the minimal opposition gave the Liberals a chance to try something new, to create the chance for real debate. And they've failed.
You could see how badly they failed earlier this month, when NDP leader Joy MacPhail skipped morning debate on the transportation budget after a late-night sitting.
Independent MLA Paul Nettleton took the chance to raise questions about BC Rail.
When he finished, a problem. No MacPhail, so no one to start asking questions. Liberal MLA Blair Suffredine tried to ask about the Francois Lake ferry privatization and other local transportation issues.
Sorry, said Transportation Minister Judith Reid, I'm ready to talk about BC Rail today, with the appropriate staff on hand. Call my office for a meeting.
So Barry Penner rose, to ask about upgrades to a dangerous stretch of Hwy 1 near Bridal Falls. Reid lay her head on her desk in mock dismay, and gave him the same non-response.
MLA Pat Bell rode to the rescue with some BC Rail questions, but admitted he was going back over old ground.
All in all, a lame display. Surely Reid could at least have tried to answer questions from MLAs concerned about her ministry's plans for their communities. And surely those answers would have been better provided publicly.
The Liberals have made big changes in one area, bumping up security. (Maybe that's why I feel more like an embedded journalist.) First it was a cardlock system for all the doors that used to be open to the public, with special ID cards for everyone who wanted to get into the building. Now it's a $200,000 project to put in electronic vehicle control gates and day-and-night surveillance cameras at the driveways.
Current world events helped prompt the new security, the government said.
Please. These old buildings aren't a terror target. In decades, protests have been almost uniformly peaceful, and when things went wrong they have been well-managed by security staff and police.
One security guard was injured in an anti-logging protest in the early '90s. Aside from that one regrettable incident he public has strolled in to meet with their representatives. It's our building, and we've been welcome.
We're going backwards. We don't need tighter security, or crews digging trenches for underground wiring for surveillance cameras.
Instead we need more respect.
These are lovely buildings you own down here. It lifts my heart to see them most days.
It's a shame that what goes on inside the chamber does so little credit to the surroundings.
Footnote: Solicitor General Rich Coleman showed how the legislature could work. Coleman raised the question of alcohol abuse and FAS in an answer to a reporter's question, and was roundly - and wrongly - criticized for a lack of racial sensitivity. But faced with demands for an apology, he offered a clear and unequivocal one.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Influence of big corporate donors cloud over politics
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Who are you going to believe, Gordon Campbell or your grandmother?
Campbell says it doesn't matter how dependent the Liberals are on donations from corporations, the government's decisions aren't affected.
But my grandmother was fond of proverbs, including the observation that 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.' And whatever Campbell says, most British Columbians believe that's true.
The latest political financial reports are out, showing the Liberals raked in about $4.3 million in donations last year. Most of the money came from corporations making donations over $250. When it came to financial support from individuals, the Liberals actually trailed the NDP.
No problem, says Campbell. The donations are fully disclosed, so everyone knows who has given and can decide for themselves if big givers are getting special treatment. And the Liberals make decisions based on what's best for the province, he says, not what's best for donors like Accenture, which gave $12,000 to the Liberals as it negotiated a contract to take over about one-third of BC Hydro's operations.
But it is a problem.
Campbell's claim that it makes no difference at all if a mining company like Teck Cominco gives more than $50,000 to the Liberal party flies in the face of most peoples' experience. Most of us listen to the people who write the cheques, the bosses or parents or bank managers. We still do what's right, but we aren't blissfully blind to their expectations, or the consequences of disappointing them. That's reality.
And most of us bring our experience to bear when we consider the Liberals' relationships with the corporations that provide more than 60 per cent of the money going to run the party and fight elections. According to a study done in 2000 almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
The perception - no matter what Campbell says about the reality - is that governments are beholden to corporate or big union interests. And that's damaging to our democracy.
It's a tough issue for the party in power. NDP leader Joy MacPhail now wants political finance reform, urging an end to donations by unions and companies and limits on the size of individual donations. But Campbell notes rightly that she had a decade in power, and never found the issue a priority. No government is keen to change the system, because the party in power has a big fund-raising advantage.
Campbell said changing the system would cost taxpayers money. Prime Minister Jean Chretien plans to end corporate and union donations, and replace the lost money with taxpayer subsidies to parties based on their share of the popular vote. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to fund parties any more than they already do, Campbell says.
But there are alternatives, starting with simply leaving parties to trim their spending to fit their reduced revenue.
Liberal party spending has jumped by almost 40 per cent in three years. The budget for paid staff has almost tripled. Is that kind of increase really necessary? A large paid party staff and big central office don't necessarily enhance public involvement in politics; in fact it could reduce the influence of traditional volunteers.
The public doesn't trust the current process. They believe that when a corporation takes shareholders' money and gives it to a governing party, or a union hands over members' dues. there is an expectation of benefit. And they believe that when an organization has given $200,000 to a party, he expects his phone calls will be returned just a little more quickly.
That's corrosive, another damaging blow to peoples' belief that there is a meaningful role for them in our political life.
Campbell can change that, simply by referring the whole issue to the assembly of ordinary citizens that will soon be asked to prepare a plan for electoral reform.
The alternative is growing, destructive cynicism.
Footnote: The political finance reports released by Elections BC revealed a weak Green Party. Despite their strong poll standing, the Greens only raised in $87,000 in donations last year, with an average of 10 donors in each riding. That's nowhere near enough to fund a serious campaign in 2005
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Greetings:
Two columns, on forest changes and B.C.'s position on the war.
Optional cut at bottom of each. Main column is about 650 words; footnotes take it to 710.
Remember, let me know if you think there are topics I should be covering, and don't hesitate to call if I can do anything for you down here. When the leg is sitting it's usually easy to grab cabinet ministers or MLAs. I'm at 250-727-8592.
Paul

Liberals' forest changes risky, but needed
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals hit a new high in political weirdness with their forest policy announcement, trying to keep the press conference location a secret and herding reporters on to a chartered bus for a magical mystery tour.
They eventually revealed the buses would be taking everyone out to Lester Pearson College, about 45 minutes from the legislature.
Why the awkward location? The college is pretty, said Forest Minister Mike de Jong, and has lots of trees.
But then our bus rolled on to the college grounds, past Green Party leader Adriane Carr and others kept at bay by government-hired security guards. The location seemed to have more to do with suppressing opposition than scenery.
The mysterious start was appropriate. Based on de Jong's answers at the press conference, the government is taking a leap into the unknown with its massive changes to the way forests are managed.
The changes makes sense. But they will also be painful, especially for Vancouver Island communities, and de Jong couldn't or wouldn't provide answers when asked about the government's best estimates for job losses, mill closures or lost government revenue. He couldn't even say how he knew that a $75-million fund to help workers and contractors hurt by the change would be enough.
Critics have jumped all over plans to end job protection clauses in forest tenure agreements with the big companies. (About three-quarters of B.C.'s forests have been awarded to companies on long-term contracts.) Companies used to be required to send harvested logs to local sawmills; now they will be able to send them anywhere. They used to have to cut a certain number of trees every year, even when markets were poor. Now they don't.
But painful as the adjustments may be, they are necessary. B.C. isn't a dominant lumber producer anymore. And to compete with suppliers around the world, companies need to be able to operate efficiently. Forcing them to send wood to an outmoded mill to protect jobs risks their future - and more jobs.
The other big change is a plan to claw back 20 per cent of the tenure held by big companies. Half the wood will go to First Nations and community forest and woodlot programs. (That's another welcome sign of the Liberals' keenness to get some resolution around land claim issues.)
The rest will be added to the pool of wood sold by auction, bringing the total to about 20 per cent initially. If First Nations, communities and companies decide to auction off some of their timber, that could eventually rise to 45 per cent.
The province will then use the prices paid at those auctions to set stumpage rates - the amount companies pay for timber cut on Crown land - across B.C. The end goal is a stumpage system based on the real value of timber, which would address American concerns in the softwood dispute and makes sense for B.C.
(Americans claim the current stumpage rates, set by government, are too low, creating a subsidy for Canadian companies.)
It's not likely de Jong's plan will satisfy the Americans. The government still plans to adjust stumpage to reflect companies' costs in building roads and replanting, and U.S. producers will find plenty to attack there. And the dispute really isn't about forest practices. American producers see the chance to benefit by making Canadian wood more expensive, and they'll keep pushing as long as they can.
There are other risks and problems ahead. The $200 million in compensation for companies may be inadequate. The auction system may be vulnerable to manipulation, given the few big companies involved. The timber available for auction may not reflect the real value of the tenures held by companies.
It is, at this point, a leap of faith.
But it's a leap in the right direction. The changes may be painful. But if the details are right they will create a brighter future for B.C.'s forest industry.
Footnote: The public is being ill-served by the Liberals timetable. Because they wanted to include some of the costs in this fiscal year, changes were rushed through the legislature in hours, leaving no time for real debate. They would have trashed the NDP - rightly - for such a move. It showed contempt for the public and MLAs.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


War rhetoric - from all sides - an embarrassment
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Politicians can do everyone a considerable service when they just say nothing.
Take Gordon Campbell. U.S. Ambassador Paul Celluci is slagging Canada over the war, and Ralph Klein and - bizarrely - the Vancouver Board of Trade are sniping at Ottawa and sending messages of support to George Bush. Federal MPs are cranking up the rhetoric on all sides.
And Campbell is staying prudently out of the fray.
That's appropriate and smart. British Columbians didn't elect the Liberals for their foreign policy platform. If citizens want to express an opinion on the war, they can demonstrate or write their MPs. They don't need a city council or provincial government or chamber of commerce to do it for them.
Campbell's entrance into the debate wouldn't make a whit of difference. The war would continue. The U.S. wouldn't think better of Canada.
It's time to tone things down, as Celluci apparently recognizes. He made headlines early last week by slagging Canada, warning that the U.S. government is "upset" that Canada hasn't backed the war and Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers have been abusive.
Celluci's argument had some weak points. He claimed the U.S. would always stand with Canada if it was threatened, and expects the same from us. But the U.S. isn't imminently threatened. And in two world wars it took the U.S. quite a long time to decide to stand with Canada.
But the reaction to his speech was over the top, on both sides. Some Liberal MPs talked about booting him out of the country; others warned of economic disaster once the U.S. quits trading with us.
How about simply saying to Celluci, 'sorry you feel that way,' while pointing out the role Canada has taken in reducing terror and instability in the world and the mutual benefits of our relationship?
It's also worth reminding Celluci that on matter as serious as war, it's not good enough to join in simply because a neighbouring country wants you to.
Canada needs the U.S. market. But the U.S. needs trade with Canada. We buy about $8,000 worth of goods per person from the U.S. each year. More than 35 states list Canada as their major trading partner. And without Canadian energy, Americans would be paying much more or sitting in the dark.
Abusive rhetoric can still be damaging. Ontario Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish called Americans "bastards" and said she hated them. That's rude and stupid at the best of times, and damaging when their soldiers are dying. If even a small percentage of Americans decide to boycott Canadian goods, or skip a holiday on Vancouver Island, it would hurt.
That doesn't mean we should rush to join the war, or stop expressing our views. It simply means that for people on all sides these discussions need to focus on principle.
People who believe the war was launched prematurely, without proper international sanction and before peaceful efforts had been exhausted, have every right to speak out. (I am among them.)
But it's time to tone the rhetoric down, and keep Canadian political infighting out of the equation.
Celluci was in B.C. at the end of last week and did his bit to tone things down. The U.S. understands many Canadians oppose the war, he told the Fort St. John Chamber of Commerce. "Our ties are too deep for anything to hurt this relationship," he added.
Canadians have no reason to remain silent on the war, or their frustration with Ottawa's wavering and wobbly position. And they don't have to pay any particular attention to U.S. lectures or dire warnings from commentators who apparently think it's worth sending young men and women off to war so U.S. tourists will keep coming to Canada.
But it wouldn't be a bad idea for more politicians - and others - to follow Campbell's lead.
A meaningful debate among Canadians is useful. Political squabbling isn't.
Footnote: Canada faces more economic risk from SARS than its position on the war. The fact is Americans pay almost no attention to Canada's position on anything. If hockey fans in Montreal hadn't booed their national anthem, they might not even know if we were in or out of the war. But Australia has already recommended against travel to Canada because of the SARS risk.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

A dangerous, needless war that should make us sick at heart
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - By the time you read this bombs may be falling on Iraq. They'll bring death, to Iraqis, to American soldiers, and to some of our hopes for a lawful world.
I'm not some tie-dyed Pollyanna. War is sometimes necessary; even pre-emptive use of force can be justified.
But before one country decides to attack another, while the world watches, some tests need to be met. International agreement on the need is a starting requirement.
And that should depend on a clear, imminent threat, either to the world or a country's own citizens.
That's not happening. There is no real international agreement. The United Nations has considered the justification, and for now found it wanting. Most countries in the world -- including Canada -- have rejected the case for an attack on Iraq. (The U.S. claims a 30-country "coalition of the willing," but its ranks are filled out with Eritrea, Colombia and other countries lending nothing more than their names to the effort.)
And there is no imminent danger. Saddam Hussein's regime may be nasty and dangerous, and it may have chemical weapons. But UN weapons inspectors say there is no immediate danger and ample time to allow more work on a solution that doesn't involve war.
Any decision on force also needs to consider the balanced between the benefits and the inevitable damage done.
U.S. President George Bush made much of the plight of the Iraqi people in his unofficial declaration of war, and their suffering under Saddam. It is a view supported by many Iraqis in Canada.
But what suffering will they face in the next days and weeks and months. U.S. forces plan a "shock and awe" attack to overwhelm the Iraqis. More than a thousand aircraft are expected to drop bombs on Iraq in an overwhelming show of force and destruction. The goal is to break the spirit of Iraqi troops and citizens, allowing a quick ground victory.
In the meantime, thousands will die. (The Iraqi death toll from the 1991 war was never conclusively established -- estimates range from a few hundred to 160,000, with the higher number including 32,000 children.)
The risk isn't just from the bombs and bullets and shells.
The world became more dangerous this week.
Powerful countries have always been prepared to intervene in the affairs of other nations to protect their interests. But American leaders have always acknowledged, officially, the importance of the rule of international law. (Excuses for intervention were sometimes contrived, or action was taken surreptitiously. But even that indicates that U.S. politicians believed the American people would not have accepted illegal intervention.)
Now the last superpower, seen by many countries as the most likely enforcer of the rule of law, has opted instead for force.
With that one unnecessary move, Bush has squandered a great deal.
Other countries that decide a neighbour poses a potential threat and decide to cobble together some allies and launch an attack can now point to the U.S. precedent. Countries such as North Korea can justify their arms buildup by pointing to the threat of U.S. attack. And the UN's already relevance has been further damaged.
Bush has also wasted a wonderful opportunity. After Sept. 11, the U.S. had both sympathy and broad international support for a campaign against terror. U.S. efforts to push for war have shattered that unity, and introduced new and dangerous instability.
The war on Iraq has taken
And he has taken a world community united against terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks -- and deeply sympathetic to the U.S. position -- and created lasting divisions. It was a rare opportunity for leadership, and it has been wasted.
I remember when children went to sleep at night wondering if nuclear war would come in the night. It seemed a lasting achievement to have ended those nightmares.
Now we've moved toward a new kind of nightmare, carelessly, prematurely and dangerously.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Time to end perception big money calls political shots
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's been some silly claims- from all sides - about the Liberals' policy making 10-per-cent of ministers' salaries payable only if they meet their budget targets.
Bad, say opponents. Ministers will take decisions that hurt the province, just to get the cash.
Good, says Finance Minister Gary Collins. Ministers are much more focused on spending because of the incentive.
Largely irrelevant, I say, and an insult to cabinet members to claim the policy is anything more than a symbolic gesture.
We're taking about 10 per cent of the $39,000 MLAs get for being in cabinet. That's $3,900, or something like $2,200 after taxes. And the notion that ministers would abandon the public interest for $2,200 is foolish, just as it's foolish to say they would be spendthrifts if not for the small threat to their own income.
But the Liberals' emphasis on the motivating power of money does add urgency to another issue - the reform of political funding practices.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien has unveiled his plan for reform, which is fundamentally flawed. But at least he's acknowledged the problem and the need to reduce the influence of corporate and union donations. Chretien's plan would end the fund-raising free-for-all that's now allowed for federal nominations, leadership races and political slush funds.
Unions and corporations would be barred from giving money to parties - although they will be able to give up to a $1,000 to a candidate - and individual donations will be limited to $10,000.
All good moves. But instead of choosing to force all parties to spend less, the Chretien plan replaces almost all the lost donation revenue with direct transfers from taxpayers. Parties would get $1.50 per vote garnered in the previous election. That would mean the Liberals would get $7.9 million a year from taxpayers, Alliance $4.9 million, Conservatives $2.4 million, Bloc Quebecoise $2.1 million and the NDP $1.6-million. Taxpayers would also double the amount they contributed to parties' election campaigns, covering half the cost.
What the federal plan fails to consider is whether politics should be a big money business, what ever the source of the bundles of cash. Why not a system that encouraged parties to cut back on spending, building their success on ideas and volunteers instead of ad campaigns, paid organizers and political careerists?
Premier Gordon Campbell, like NDP premiers before him, says the current system works pretty well. That's a normal response from the party in power, which has a huge fund-raising advantage. But if the federal rules had been in place, Sustainable Resources Minister Stan Hagen could have taken over the fisheries file without questions being raised about campaign donations he received from aquaculture companies.
Certainly Canadians disagree with the premier. A study done in 2000 found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government." (Heritage Minister Sheila Copps recently confirmed that influence, blaming the influence of big donors for the Liberals' hesitation on the Kyoto Accord.)
That's not surprising. When a corporation donates a huge amount to a party, or a union loans a dozen paid staffers for a campaign, the perception of expected reward is unavoidable.
It's tough for any governing party to implement these kind of reforms; Chretien faced tough opposition within the Liberals even for his changes. This kind of change needs to come from the people.
Campbell has the tool he needs to deal with the issue. Sometime in the coming weeks he will announce plans for a citizen's assembly to look at electoral reform, an extremely worthwhile venture. The same kind of assembly of ordinary British Columbians could prepare a new model for political party funding.
The status quo, as Campbell likes to say, is not sustainable. When 90 per cent of the public think that money, not the common good, drives the political system then change is overdue.
Footnote: There's been some criticism that the Liberals are paying bonuses even though some ministries are over budget, arguing that the over-runs are because of extraordinary circumstances. It's not unreasonable, but if they want the bonus plan to be seen as effective they need to introduce clear criteria and independent review of special payments.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Still providing the footnote at the bottom for people with a little extra room.
Cheers
Paul



Liberals' tax beaks working mainly for the rich
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals have proved their critics right. Their tax policies have worked a lot better for the rich than they have for most people in the province.
Finance Minister Gary Collins disagreed when that proposition was put to him in the budget lock-up. But the numbers tell the story.
The Liberals pitched their 25-per-cent income tax cut - delivered on their first day in office - as a benefit to all taxpayers. That was true, although the benefit was a lot greater for people being paid lots of money. A single person with a $125,000 income got a $4,260 tax cut; a person being paid $40,000 got a $670 break.
Nothing particularly wrong with that. A progressive tax system means the more you earn the more you pay. When it comes for a reduction, the same principle works in reverse.
But since then the Liberals have introduced a string of new taxes, fees and increases, which have hit all taxpayers with the same weight.
Medical Service Premiums jumped 50 per cent, taking $219 a year from both taxpayers' pockets. The new gas tax will take another $120. Driver's licence renewal, $7. A week in a provincial campground and a few walks in a popular park another $46. Education property tax increase, maybe $20. Sales tax increases vary because rich people spend more, so figure $40 more for the middle-income earner and $85 for the $125,000 man.
It's not an exhaustive list, and doesn't include costs imposed because of cuts to medical insurance coverage and other fees.
But add it up, and you find out that $450 of the middle-income earners' tax cut has been clawed back. His net benefit is now $220, about $4 a week.
For the $125,000 man the new taxes and charges will cost $500, leaving him with $3,760 in tax savings.
What's it mean? Actual tax cut for the middle-income earner, about eight per cent. For the big earner, 22 per cent.
And do the same math, and you'll find that for anyone earning less than $35,000, the tax cut benefits have been wiped out and they're paying more now than they did when the Liberals took power.
That wasn't what the Liberals promised. In the election campaign they never talked about a big tax break for the rich, or an immediate across-the-board 25-per-cent tax cut. The only commitment was that within four years people in the bottom two tax brackets would benefit from the lowest tax rates in Canada.
They do. But they've also seen much of that clawed back. The Liberals cut personal income taxes by $1.5 billion and business taxes by about $700 million. Since then, they've taken back about $1 billion in new taxes and fees, with more to come.
And in the process, they've cut services and shifted the cost of government off the income tax system - which is progressive - and on to fees and flat taxes. The cost of government has been shifted from the highest-earning British Columbians to the middle-income groups.
The odd thing is that economists can make a good argument that the only cuts the Liberals should have made were reductions for high-income earners and businesses. If the goal is to encourage investment and business group, the tax system has to be competitive for the people who are most mobile, and the most important to attract.
Someone who is earning $40,000 a year isn't going to decide to move to Alberta for the tax benefits; someone being paid $200,000 - or looking to recruit people to run a business - may consider the tax system in deciding where to live or invest.
UBC economist Jon Kesselman notes Saskatchewan, faced with the same issues, only cut top tax rates, telling the public that was the best way to ensure a competitive business environment while protecting services.
It's an approach that looks fairer - and more open - than B.C.'s vanishing tax breaks for low and middle-income earners.
Footnote: Are the tax cuts paying for themselves? Income tax produced $6 billion for government services before the cuts. This year they will be about $4.2 billion. At the curent rate it will be 2008 before they have recovered. Not necessarily bad; but not what the Liberals promised.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Tina Thorpe's pain is raw and visible. So is her determination.
Ms. Thorpe is working to ensure that street racers face punishment that reflects the seriousness of the crime.
She's angry at the conditional sentences imposed on two men found guilty of criminal negligence causing her mother's death. She wants the law changed so conditional sentences are no longer an option in such cases.
For all her courage, I don't hold out much hope that she'll succeed.
The plea for guidelines to ensure conditional sentences aren't used in cases of violent crimes isn't new. Provincial governments, including B.C., other provinces, opposition parties and the victims have all lobbied the federal government for change.
But Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon and his predecessors have brushed off those concerns.
Perhaps Tina Thorpe can have more success here in B.C.
Conditional sentences make excellent sense as an alternative to prison. People usually come out of jail more damaged and dangerous, or at best about the same. (About one in three of the people locked up in a provincial jail re-offend within two years.) Pragmatically, the only ones who should be in jail are people who are dangerous, or people whose actions are so bad that we want to demonstrate our outrage.
Not only does jail not work in preventing future crimes, it's expensive. It costs about $55,000 a year to keep someone in provincial jail in B.C.
Conditional sentences are an alternative.The offenders' freedoms are limited. Society gets some measure of protection and imposes a sanction that should - theoretically - deter both the offender and the others. And we save a lot of money.
They are still supposed to be punitive, viewed legally as the equivalent of a jail term, simply served in another setting. Offenders may be allowed to leave their home to work, or attend school, but the rest of the time they are supposed to be serving something much like a jail term, albeit a comfortable one.
And that's where Ms. Thorpe might successfully focus her campaign on the province.
A string of studies and reports, not just in B.C., have found supervision of conditional sentences is weak to non-existent. Most offenders are on the honour system, with little or no monitoring to ensure they aren't ignoring the terms of their sentence.
Two years ago Victoria provincial court Judge Robert Higinbotham sent government a message about his concerns about the lack of supervision.
`The supervision that now takes place under conditional sentences is minimal at best and perhaps nonexistent,'' he said, opting to jail an offender instead of a conditional sentence.
The number of conditional sentences has been rising steadily since they were introduced by Ottawa in 1996. The number of provincial probation officers available to supervise them has not kept pace. When Judge Higinbotham expressed his concern, about 1,600 people were on conditional sentences in B.C. That's climbed by 20 per cent since then, with no increase in staffing.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman acknowledges the problem, and says the province needs to do better. Electronic monitoring is one solution, but B.C. use the devices unless the court makes the order. Only about 100 offenders are under that kind of supervision.
But the budget still shows that the ministry plans to cut the number of supervision workers and increase the number of offenders each one supervises by 10 per cent.
Other provinces have faced the same issues. Quebec studied its problems in 2001 and introduced a protocol that requires at least five telephone checks on offenders each week and at least one or two home visits each month, made randomly at any time of the day or night. And it supported the program by hiring more than 100 additional probation officers.
Conditional sentences make sense.
But an Alberta court of appeal panel that reviewed their use expressed the same concern that British Columbians should have about the province's current commitment to adequate supervision.
"Virtually all the conditional sentences which we have so far seen do little to restrict the convicted person's freedom and leisure," the panel wrote.
"Properly used and carefully crafted, a conditional sentence will serve its intended purpose. Improperly used or skimpily drafted, it will undermine respect for the law."
willcocks@ultranet.ca

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There is quite a lot of bunk being talked about recall, starting with the claim that campaigns to oust Liberal MLAs are some sort of an abuse of the legislation.
Says who, exactly?
More than 80 per cent of voters in a 1991 referendum backed recall. The questions was simple: "Should voters be given the right, by legislation, to vote between elections for the removal of their member of the Legislative Assembly?"
It doesn't say that right should be limited, with recall only allowed if an MLA knocks over a convenience store or gets caught drunk driving. If people had thought those kind of limitations were important, they could have voted against the recall proposal. They didn't. Voters thought that they should have the right to oust their MLA if they were disatisfied with his job performance.
Gordon Campbell used to think so too. Back in 1998, when the B.C. Civil Liberties Association challenged the recall legislation, Mr. Campbell was scornful. Recall is about accountability, he said then, for promises and performance.
And who better to decide if an elected representative is doing her job than the voters?
But the recall forces are just trying to refight the last election, complain some Liberals.
They have short memories. Within months of losing the 1996 election, Mr. Campbell was urging recall campaigns against NDP MLAs. Voters should recall MLAs immediately, he said, because they were breaking campaign promises and had misled voters about the province's finances before the election.
In fact Mr. Campbell has consistently argued that it should be easier to recall MLAs and promised again in the last campaign to ease the rules. When the current law was proclaimed in 1996 Mr. Campbell dismissed it as a sham.``Any MLA that has ever been in this House could survive this particular process,'' he said. The recall requirement - signatures from 40 per cent of the people eligible to vote in the last election - was "virtually unattainable," he argued. (Which should make the premier wonder why Liberal MLAs are now so nervous.)
Liberals concerned about recall being misused under some imaginary set of rules should also see Deregulation Minister Kevin Falcon for some background. Before he received Mr. Campbell's backing support as a candidate, Mr. Falcon helped run Total Recall, a campaign aimed at recalling enough NDP MLAs to bring down the last government.``This is a referendum against the government," he said then. "Desperate times call for desperate measures." Falcon's plan called for campaigners to argue that even if voters had nothing against their MLA's performance, they should help oust him to help defeat the government.
Recall campaigns can be messy, costly and sometimes mean-spirited. (Like many other elements of our political system.)
But 80 per cent of British Columbians said voters should have the right to recall their MLAs between elections. They didn't say that only politicians should be able to decide when recall campaigns are justified, and it's now insulting to hear suggestions voters are unable to decide for themselves when it is appropriate to recall an MLA.
The claim by some Liberals that the NDP is using recall to refight the election isn't supported by evidence or common sense. Recall campaigns are costly and consume volunteers' time and energy, and the NDP can't afford the financial or human cost. (Especially when the result might be a byelection that would see a demoralizing defeat for the party. That's certainly what would have happened in Val Roddick's riding.)
The practical arguments against recall aren't any more compelling. Verifying the signatures can be costly, but so are elections. And the risk of wasted time can be reduced if proponents are reminded of the penalties for collecting signatures from ineligible voters.
Voters wanted recall, and they supported a system that leaves the decision on when it is justified - when an MLA is breaking a promise, or not performing - up to their collective judgment.
As Mr. Campbell observed in 1998, it's not that strange a concept. "There are very few jobs where you do not have the right to fire someone who is not doing their job," he said then. And surely the voters are the best ones to decide when that's justified.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

By Paul Willcocksxxx
VICTORIA - Jean Chretien's political financing reforms has major flaws, but it at least recognizes a problem that B.C. should also be taking seriously.xxx
Mr. Chretien's reforms miss the point. They attempt to reduce the influence of corporate and union donations in politics, when what really needs to be reduced is the influence of money, period.xxx
And his effort ignores the obvious: any plan drafted by a government in power will be tainted with the perception of self-interest. xxx
The people need to deal with this problem, not the party in power. And he if Mr. Chretien needed a model, he could have looked to the province's planned citizens' assembly on electoral reform.xxx
There's much to applaud in the federal proposal, especially provisions that would end the secretive fund-raising free-for-all that's now allowed for nominations, leadership races and political slush funds. Spending would now be subject to limits, and donors would have to be disclosed.xxx
Unions and corporations will be barred from giving money to parties - although they will be able to give up to a $1,000 to a candidate - and individual donations will be limited to $10,000.xxx
Most Canadians would welcome an end to corporate and union donations. A study done in 2000 found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government." Heritiage Minister Sheila Copps recently confirmed the reality behind the suspicion, blaming the influence of big donors for the Liberals' hesitation on the Kyoto Accord.xxx
Anyway, suspicion is logical . Corporate directors have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of shareholders. So if a company chose to donate $250,000 to the federal Liberals, through a web of subsidiairies, there would have to be some expected benefit. xxx
Corporations could argue that they have a legitimate interest in government policy, and chose to contribute to the Liberals to prevent an NDP victory. But the Liberals had the last election won. The company didn't need to spend a cent to ensure that result.
Which leaves the average citizen to wonder if the corporation had to be hoping for some future benefits from a greatful government. xxx
Mr. Chretien's plan makes a reasonable stab at reducing the influence of corporations and unions.xxx
But then he misses the next step. Instead of chosing to force all parties to spend less, the Chretien plan turns around and replaces almost all the lost donation revenue with direct transfers from taxpayers. Parties would get $1.50 per vote garnered in the previous election. That would mean the Liberals would get $7.9 million a year from taxpayers, Alliance $4.9 million, Conservatives $2.4 million, Bloc Quebecoise $2.1 million and the NDP $1.6-million. Taxpayers would also double the amount they contributed to parties' election campaigns, covering half the cost.xxx
The reforms fail to question the underlying assumption that politics should be a big money business. Mr. Chretien missed the chance to consider whether the public would be better served by a political system that wasn't fuelled by money, that encouraged the participation of ordinary Canadians instead of scores of paid staffers and dealt more with ideas and less with the obsessions of political careerists.xxx
Premier Gordon Campbell says he's not interested in looking at political financing reform. The system works pretty well, he says. That's a normal response from the party in power, which has a huge fund-raising advantage, able to hold high-priced lunches with cabinet ministers or seek momney from companies - or unions - interested in being in the government's good books. But if the federal rules had been in place, Sustainable Resources Minister Stan Hagen could have taken over the fisheries file without questions being raised about campaign donations he received from aquaculture companies. xxx
But Mr. Campbell already has the tool he needs to deal with the issue. The assembly of ordinary citizens being asked to prepare a plan for electoral reform, based on Gordon Gibson's report, will be at work this year. The same assembly could tackle the issue of money in politics.xxx
When 90 per cent of the public think that money, not the common good, drives the political system, it's time for action that goes much farther than Mr. Chretien's plan.xxx
willcocks@ultranet.caxxx

Liberals heading for education disaster
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals are blowing the education file, politically and practically.
All across the province, from Prince George to Kamloops to Terrace to the Lower Mainland, school districts are chopping millions from their budgets - on top of the millions they cut last year. Schools will be closing, classes will be getting larger, programs will be cut and costs will be shifted on to parents, whether they can afford them or not.
That's not what the Liberals promised. The New Era campaign pledged that the Liberals would maintain education funding and increase it as a stronger economy boosted government revenues. It said nothing about tax cuts that would knock $2 billion off government revenue.
It's a big political mistake to make voters feel like saps for believing you. (Just ask the NDP.)
And it's a big mistake to pick a fight with parents, who tend to care strongly about their children's future, know how to organize and vote.
But this isn't just a political issue.
No matter how they may dance around the reality, the Liberals are putting educational quality in B.C. at risk. And by doing that, they are threatening the province's future economic progress.
There's nothing wrong with closing schools. Declining enrolments make that a certainty. There's nothing wrong with larger class sizes, for the right students in the right subjects. And there's certainly nothing wrong with looking for ways to deliver better education for less money.
But what's happening in B.C. right now isn't about better education. The government didn't start by deciding how much money is required to provide the education that children need to have a chance in the world.
It started with an arbitrary spending freeze.
The NDP hadn't been crazy spendthrifts in education. The budget increased around 2.5 per cent in each of the last few years, enough to cover wage increases and other costs.
But the Liberals' three-year freeze changed the game, especially because they decided to give teachers a 2.5-per-cent a year raise without giving the school districts any money to cover the costs last year or this year.
School districts scraped by last year, closing more than 40 schools and making the least painful cuts - even going to a four-day week in one case.
But after more than $100 million in cuts last year to cover wage increases, MSP increases and other cost pressures, they face the same thing again this year - and again next year. The cuts are drawing blood.
And none of the changes are being made in the interests of children. They are being made to meet the arbitrary spending freeze and pay for the tax cuts.
Maybe parents are just another special interest group to the government, but they're a large one already being heard by Liberal MLAs.
The finance committee seeking comments on this year's budget - 10 Liberals and one New Democrat - came back convinced the cuts were too deep.
Premier Gordon Campbell has tried to downplay their report, saying it reflected what MLAs heard, not their views.
But he's mistaken. Here's a comment from the committee's report. "We think the shortage of funds is reaching a critical stage for rural schools and schools-based programs in urban areas." That's the Liberal MLAs' analysis, not a replay of public comments.
The Liberals should have learned from Ontario. A government review last fall found the education spending freeze there was a mistake. School boards have had to cut services to students each year and educational quality has fallen. The government has vowed to increase funding.
A good public school system gives kids a chance. Home may not be so great, maybe they never got taken to the library, but in school children should have the chance to achieve.
And it gives the province a chance, providing the people who can make their way in a world where knowledge and the ability to learn are increasingly valuable resources.
The Liberals aren't delivering for kids, or the province.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Plant betrayed public, judge and Roddick in smoking judge case
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If I was Val Roddick or one of the other MLAs facing credible recall campaigns, I'd be steamed at Geoff Plant and some of his cabinet colleagues.
It's tough defending school closures, or threats to health care services, but at least those are part of the Liberal plan. Taking the heat for them is part of the job. Roddick was even surviving a recall effort focused on those issues. The campaign had stalled halfway to its goal and was running out of time.
But then the recall troops got a late boost.
Premier Gordon Campbell weaved drunkenly down the highway in Maui.
The government revealed that it was prepared to reserve parts of the commercial fishery for First Nations as part of treaty settlements. That's reasonable, especially because the province and Ottawa had already made the commitment at the table. But for the voters who thought the treaty referendum actually meant something, it looked like betrayal.
And then came the news about the $19,000 smoking room built for Justice Mary Southin.
Those three factors gave new life to the recall campaign, says Roddick. Volunteers were energized and angry voters rushed to sign the recall petition. Roddick is now waiting to find out whether she'll become the first Canadian politician to be fired by voters between elections.
There's not much more to say about the premier's drunk driving. As for the aboriginal fishery decision, it's defensible.
But Roddick should be asking what the heck is going on with Plant and the smoking judge.
When the news broke about two weeks ago Plant offered a simple defence. The 71-year-old judge either wanted to keep smoking or retire, he said, and it would cost much more to pay her pension than to improve ventilation in her office.
(Plant also said judicial independence was involved and warned the province could be dragged into costly legal battles if it had to argue that WCB rules applied to judges. But no one except Plant had talked about a legal battle; Southin said she would retire if she couldn't smoke.)
He stuck to those explanations while an angry public wondered about the government's priorities and double standards.
But surprising news leaked out this week. It turns out that the judge had offered to share the cost back in December. Plant's deputy wrote her a cheerful note saying taxpayers would be "pleased" to provide the $19,000 ventilation system.
Except they weren't.
Plant learned that the judge had offered to pay on Jan. 17, the day the story hit the headlines. But for two weeks it was his secret. Only when public anger kept mounting did he reveal the offer, and say he was accepting it. Southin will now pay $12,000.
All the while Roddick dangled, and the judge took unjustified abuse.
Why didn't Plant tell the public about the offer?
No reporters asked specifically if Southin had offered to pay, he said. And it wasn't his job to provide information to the public voluntarily.
It's a strange position for an open government, that there's no duty to provide important information to the public about a major controversy unless a specific question is asked.
Consider the context. Public money, public interest, the fate of a colleague - Roddick - and the reputation of the justice system, all on the line. And no disclosure.
If I were an MLA facing a recall, I'd be wondering why Plant left me hanging when all he had to do was say 'I just learned the judge offered to pay, and we're accepting the offer.' (And I'd feel mighty betrayed if Plant had kept the caucus in the dark along with all the other British Columbians.)
It's going to be a tough slog for the MLAs facing recall efforts. They don't need people within their own government making it even tougher.
And the public doesn't need politicians who aren't prepared to tell them the whole story.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

The Liberals' no-good, very bad day
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - That was one rotten day for the Liberals.
It was bad enough that the people trying to oust Val Roddick showed up with enough signatures to clear the first hurdle in the recall process.
But then reporters were called down to Agriculture Minister John van Dongen's office, where, grim-faced, he said he was resigning as a cabinet minister because the RCMP are investigating him.
It's too soon to drag out the "government in disarray" headlines. But this is starting to look familiar, not just from the bad old days in provincial politics but also from personal experience in organizations that have lost their way.
One day, you're the new guys, showing up each day looking for ways to push toward your goals. And then suddenly, you realize you're walking into work wondering what new things are going to go wrong in the next 10 hours.
In three weeks, the Liberals have faced a string of disasters that have left them tarnished and reeling, starting with Premier Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving arrest.
It's impossible to assess the long-term impact of van Dongen's troubles.
He's an unlikely candidate for the first cabinet resignation, widely regarded as a decent, ethical man. It's hard to imagine him jaywalking, let alone committing a more serious offence.
And no one is talking about the investigation.
Attorney General Geoff Plant says he learned of the issue some time ago -- he won't say how -- and sent the information to police and ministry officials.
Police told him about two weeks ago that van Dongen was a target. Plant was allowed to tell the premier, but not van Dongen, until the weekend.
But the short-term impact is obvious. The premier commits a criminal offence; a minister is under investigation; the public is alarmed.
It's easier to assess the impact of the Roddick recall effort, and it's bad news for the Liberals.
Roddick may not be recalled. Proponents need almost 12,000 valid signatures - that is signatures from people who were on the voters' list in Delta South at the time of the 2001 election. They have more than 13,000 signatures, but some may be duplicates, or signatures from people who weren't on the old voters' list.
But the damage is done. The recall forces got a huge number of signatures, in one of the safest Liberal seats in the province. (Even when the NDP was at rock bottom, recall proponents couldn't unseat any MLAs.)
Organizers had the threat to the community's hospital as a major issue, but lots of communities face similar threats.
And then there's the way they made it over the top. The campaign was barely halfway to its goal, and stalling, with two weeks to go.
Then Campbell's mug shots hit the news, and the recall campaign took off.
It's a bad sign when the premier starts dragging down his MLAs. And it's an even worse sign when an MLA starts publicly acknowledging that the premier is a problem, as Roddick did this week.
The premier's arrest gave a boost to the recall campaign, she said, along with the decision to build a $19,000 smoking room for a judge and include commercial fishing rights in treaties with First Nations.
It's noteworthy that the premier was part of the problem; it's equally noteworthy that Roddick went public with the observation.
The counting will be done in about three weeks; if the organizers have enough signatures, then a byelection will be called in 90 days.
Odds are a Liberal candidate, probably Roddick, would win.
But meanwhile, across the province -- from Nelson to Nanaimo -- other groups are looking at recall with new enthusiasm.
And other MLAs are looking at Roddick's predicament, and the premier's role, and considering what lessons they should draw from her unpleasant ordeal.
At least some of them are likely deciding that it's time for a little more independence from the premier and the party line.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Working forest shouldn't produce big cheers or fears
By Paul Willcocks
VANCOUVER - It's hard to get all worked up about the Liberals' working forest plans.
Sustainable Resource Minister Stan Hagen has floated a fairly vague discussion paper, and is seeking comments by March. He wants about half the province designated a working forest by the end of the year.
Industry likes the idea, in a quiet sort of way; environmental groups hate it, in a much noisier way.
Me, I left a briefing in Hagen's office slightly puzzled and convinced there's less here than meets the eye.
The working forest won't add one hectare to the land that's available for logging in B.C. All the land to be designated working forest is available for logging today. All the parks and protected areas remain the same. It won't change the environmental requirements imposed on logging companies. It won't make logging more affordable. There's not going to a stampede to start logging in new areas.
So what's the point?
Hagen talked a lot about certainty, the need to let companies know what the rules are when they start planning to cut trees on Crown land, and to give them the assurance that those rules won't be changed arbitrarily or based on public or political pressure.
He promised that it would be no more difficult to create parks or protected areas than it has been. A clearer process would just be in place.
Things got confusing when he denied that the plan would create any new "impediments" to establishing new parks or protected areas.
But wait a minute. That is, after all, part of the legislation's point from the industry's perspective. They feel that parks have been created without enough thought, and especially without enough consideration to lost economic value. They wanted an assurance that wouldn't happen. Logically, the working forest legislation will have to create new impediments, even if they take the form of mandatory assessments of the potential lost jobs and revenue.
And that seems reasonable enough.
There's room for concern, especially because the plan is so vague.
Hagen promised that other uses of the land - mining, or recreation - would continue to be considered in making plans for the working forest, although forestry demands would be given considerable priority.
But the discussion paper suggests the government might designate some areas for forestry only, ending recreational access or possible other industrial uses.
And while Hagen said it would be no more difficult to create parks, he also allowed that any timber lost to a park in the future might have to be made up from an existing park - a pretty serious barrier to protecting new areas of special interest. (Although with 12 per cent of the province protected, the Liberals will not be in a big rush to create new parks. Just look at the lack of action on their pledge to preserve Burns Bog in the Lower Mainland.)
It may be when details of the legislation are revealed things will look different. But right now, there's not much to fear - or to hope for - from the legislation.
The small step towards certainty is useful. But the reality is that as long as treaty talks with First Nations haven't resolved land ownership issues - or at least set out some long-term plans for shared management - then companies won't have the certainty they need in much of the province.
Forests Minister Mike de Jong also still has to reveal how he plans to claw back enough timber from existing tenures to create a market-based stumpage system, and what sort of tenure reform he plans.
And again, until he does the industry can't plan for the future.
The picture may change as the details come into focus. But so far, the working forest plan looks like a reasonable, modest gesture toward providing a little more certainty for the industry.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Time to start worrying about Olympic cost risks
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time to start getting nervous about what the Olympics could cost us.
Not panicky. The Bid Committee and the province get pretty good marks for the planning so far.
But nervous, because without a great deal of debate provincial taxpayers have now been committed to spend $1.3 billion on the Games.
And the province's auditor general says the Games' financial plan relies on extremely tight management and good luck. And a business plan based on good luck and fond hopes can be deadly.
In case you haven't been paying attention, here's the basics. The IOC will award the 2010 Games in July, choosing between Vancouver, Salzburg and Pyeongchang, South Korea.
If they come here, we're on the hook for the costs. The Games committee figures it can build the venues for about $620 million. Running the actual events - staff, computers, security and all - will be $1.5 billion. Improving the Sea to Sky Highway and a contingency fund add another $817 million.
So all in, the Games will cost $2.9 billion. (That doesn't include the convention centre expansion, or a transit line to the airport.)
You don't have to pay all that. The Games will get money from ticket sales, sponsorships and TV rights. They hope for $1.3 billion. Ottawa is in for $330 million.
But that still leaves $1.3 billion to come from you and me. And we've accepted all the risk if costs go up - as they usually do - or revenues go down
No need to panic. Auditor General Wayne Strelioff examined the bid, and concluded the committee and the province have put together a reasonable plan.
But not reasonable enough. The auditor general spotted some ski hill-size holes in the plans.
The committee hopes to raise $454 million through sponsorships - nine times as much as the Calgary committee attracted in '88, less than half what the Salt Lake committee lined up. Strelioff concludes that reaching the goal will require "favourable circumstances and effective marketing." Any plan that requires favourable circumstances to work is alarming. Life is short of favourable circumstances, especially when you're counting on them. (The committee's plan even includes $28 million in revenue that's to come from some source they haven't even figured out yet.)
The auditor general is also worried that costs have been under-estimated, and that the contingency budget - money set aside to cover problems - is too small. He notes that in most Games, costs skid upward, often for good reasons.
Auditors and accountants are skittish souls, given to picking at details and worrying. That's one of the things that makes them so useful when the rest of us get swept up in the excitement of our next great idea.
Is it going to be worth it? The mid-range forecast is that our $1.3 billion will produce about $376 million in provincial and municipal taxes, over six years. It will create an average 11,000 jobs a year, a significant employment boost.
But only if the province works to get the full benefit of the Games, notes Strelioff. He quotes one of the consultants who did the economic impact studies. "These benefits will not materialize automatically," they said. "They must be earned by a focused, adequately funded and skillfully executed marketing program."
And that could be a problem. It's unclear where the money will come from, especially because the province plans to take about $90 million in hotel room taxes now earmarked for tourism marketing and use the money to help pay for the convention centre.
The stakes are high, and the decision on whether Vancouver gets the Games only six months away. And the auditor general has pointed out some early warnings that taxpayers could be at risk.
It's time we all started paying more attention to the risks, and benefits, of this bid.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Campbell must change course to stay as premier
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - That Sunday afternoon press conference likely marked the beginning of the end for Gordon Campbell.
Campbell faced reporters to talk about his drunk driving arrest. He was obviously sad and shaken. He said he was quitting drinking, even though he didn't think he had a problem. He talked sincerely about the pain he had caused his family. And he referred to his father's suicide, victim of depression and an alcohol addiction. That history, he said, makes his actions in Maui disturbing and frightening.
Three martinis, wine, a dinner that lasted from 5:30 until 1 a.m. And then swerving, speeding, roadside sobriety tests, mug shots and a premier falling asleep in a cell. It is sad.
Self-righteous I am not. Could have been me in those mug shots - though not in years. Could have been many of you, I would say. That doesn't make it right, but it should temper the rush to judgment.
But then it started to go wrong for the premier. In little ways, like the admission that he hadn't told anyone in B.C. - not family, not political associates - what had happened. They learned from the media.
Like his inability to say what he had blown on the breathalyzer, although Maui police say he would have been told, could have seen the readout and could have phoned and asked at any time. Campbell should want to know the reading; British Columbians do.
Asked if he had committed a crime, Campbell bobbed and weaved like a politician, when British Columbians were hoping to see a human. A terrible mistake, was the most he would concede.
Asked if he had tarnished the office of the premier, he wouldn't answer, saying only he had tarnished himself. Asked if he would have allowed a cabinet minister convicted of drunk driving to stay in his portfolio, he again refused to answer.
If you're asking people to forgive you, to give you another chance, you need to start by levelling with them and show that you understand what you have done wrong.
And Campbell, despite his obvious sincerity and sadness, did not meet that test.
Campbell has a remote chance of rebuilding trust. The first polls taken after the drunk driving arrest show British Columbians are evenly split on whether he should resign.
What can Campbell do?
He needs to start by learning from this experience, and not just in the 14-hour alcohol counselling workshop that's part of his sentence.
I was amazed by how little sympathy there was for Campbell. He's seen as a man who has little sympathy for others - especially others who don't share his values and views. And he's seen as man quick to judge others and find them wanting, and to demand that they take responsibility for their actions.
And now people are ready to judge in return.
Campbell should take this opportunity to refocus his government. The Liberals have created two imperatives to drive their agenda - tax cuts, and the legislated requirement for a balanced budget by 2004/5, barely two years from today. People hurt along the way are incidental casualties.
The plan relies, fundamentally, on trust in Campbell and his promise that significant sacrifices now will bring future benefits.
And Campbell now should recognize that he has forfeited that trust.
That means he could and should push the balanced budget deadline back two years, a delay the province can afford. He should promise more consultation and fewer hasty cuts. He should pledge to recognize that people make mistakes, and need understanding and support.
He should show he has learned from this experience.
It still might not be enough. Drunk driving has scarred many British Columbians. They've been told - by their governments - that it is a serious crime.
And in coming weeks they will decide if a man who has committed a serious crime can serve credibly as their premier.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca



Canada marches sheeplike towards war
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It was heart-breaking to watch Defence Minister John McCallum down in Washington last week.
Canada had a rare chance to play a small role in heading off a reckless war on Iraq. But no. Bleating softly, Canada wandered sheep-like down the path chosen by the Americans, drifting off to war.
And at the same time, the Liberals once again insulted Canadians.
The Liberals' position on the coming war has been murky and constantly changing. But they had apparently been against unilateral action against Iraq, while willing to support any military attack backed by the UN Security Council.
Until last Thursday, when McCallum emerged from a meeting with U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield and rewrote the policy. Canada will certainly participate in an attack if the UN approves, he said. And we may well join in even if the UN doesn't believe an attack is necessary.
It's a huge change. And it's certainly one that the Canadian people should have heard before McCallum offered the encouraging word to a hawkish U.S. administration.
The timing of Canada's newfound enthusiasm for war was bizarre. On the same day UN weapons inspectors leader Hans Blix told the Security Council the teams had found no evidence of weapons of mass inspection. There are many questions to be answered, he said, but after two months of inspections "we haven't found any smoking guns."
That doesn't mean the inspectors won't find evidence. But so far, they haven't.
And British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the strongest supporter of U.S. action, started downplaying the risk of war, under pressure from within his cabinet. Britain has been the Americans only strong supporter in the rush to war.
McCallum's conversion to the cause also came on the same day North Korea said it was ripping up a treaty on nuclear non-proliferation and pushing ahead with its own nuclear bomb. Neither North Korea nor Iraq should have the bomb; but a nuclear North Korea is probably a scarier prospect.
So at a time when the justification for an attack on Iraq, the support and the urgency were all being reduced, Canada suddenly became more hawkish.
It seems such a stupid move for a country interested in genuine influence, the kind that can earns respect and makes the world a safer place.
The Americans will welcome Canadian support as a small political victory. If the UN Security Council is unconvinced that there is evidence justifying an attack on Iraq, the U.S. may chose to ignore the finding and attack anyway.
But President George Bush has made much of the need for a joint international effort. Only Britain has been an enthusiastic supporter so far. The Bush administration can now add Canada's name to the list of countries prepared to attack without a UN mandate.
McCallum could have withheld that support. That would have encouraged the U.S. to justify any attack in front of the UN. And it would have been a step towards ensuring that all other options had been exhausted before the killing started.
Canada shouldn't poke sharp sticks at the Americans. They buy our goods and support our tourism industry. And despite irritants like the softwood lumber dispute, Americans and Canadians have a great deal in common.
But neither should Canada be a lapdog.
Canadians don't want a war with Iraq, according to all the polls. They have seen no evidence that a war is needed, whether to protect Iraqis or head off an attack on some other country.
There may come a time when war is needed, when some clear threat emerges.
But that time isn't now. McCallum - Canada - had a choice between choosing a course that would allow Canada to make a small gesture toward preserving peace, or a path that would make war more likely.
He took the wrong one.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Coleman off base with "war on marijuana"
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Defence Minister John McCallum gives up drinking after Air Canada staff decide he's too drunk to board a flight.
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein cuts down after a nasty scene at a homeless shelter, where he argues abusively with residents, throws a handful of bills on the floor and stomps off.
And Ontario Premier Ernie Eves promises to crack down on MLAs drinking on the job after an evening sitting degenerates into vicious, drunken abuse. Drinking on the job has been a constant problem over at least two decades, he admits.
And we're worried about marijuana?
Solicitor General Rich Coleman has weighed in with his views on decriminalizing marijuana, a step backed by federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon.
A huge mistake, Mr. Coleman says. "I want us to go out and fight the war on drugs because it's hurting our kids, it's hurting our communities and it's time we stood up to it," he said. "We need to come to grips with the fact that this is a serious problem in our country, that we have to get tougher with regard to the penalties."
It's the kind of position that shreds a politician's credibility. First, it's impossible to make a credible claim that marijuana use should be treated as a high priority public menace. Alcohol was directly blamed for about 300 deaths in B.C. last year; hard drugs - and prescription drugs - were blamed for about the same number. For marijuana, pretty much none. Our courts are crowded with people who stole or hurt someone or acted stupidly while they were drunk.
That's not to say pot is harmless. The last thing an unmotivated 15-year-old needs is a drug that will make him more likely to sit around instead of going to class. The healthiest people likely don't use any intoxicants - but most of us do.
But ask any police officer or social worker what causes more problems, alcohol or marijuana, and you'll see the plausibility of the "marijuana menace" claim vanish. (A new RAND study also debunks the idea of marijuana as a gateway drug.)
Coleman did focus on the involvement of organized crime in grow ops, a legitimate concern. Big grow ops mean big, illegal money, and that will attract a range of bad guys. (Although an RCMP study of 12,000 grow op reports in B.C. revealed guns were found at six per cent. About 24 per cent of homes in the province have firearms; police are far more likely to encounter a gun in the average domestic call.)
Increased police pressure hasn't worked. B.C.'s Organized Crime Agency reported that police action on grow-ops was forcing organized crime to switch to methamphetamine labs. That hardly seems like progress.
Instead of a "get tough" stance, government should be tackling the crime problem effectively. Perhaps eliminating the risk of prosecution for people interested in growing a few plants would do the most to make life harder for gangs.
The saddest thing about Coleman's comments is that they undermine the basic foundation for an effective drug strategy.
People need credible information that will let them assess and avoid the risks of all drugs, from cognac to cocaine. Paint a false picture of the risks of marijuana, and you will no longer be believed when you deliver a vital warning about the effects of heroin. That's especially true for young people, lost in their own invulnerability and quick to dismiss any warnings.
They have been to parties with drinkers, and parties with people who have smoked pot. They know where the greatest stupidity and violence are found.
We don't need to wage war on marijuana; we need to get smart on drugs.
Education to avoid damaging addiction. Support for people who want to quit. Harm reduction for people who can't or won't quit.
Solutions that work, not words.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

A plea for the New Year - pay attention
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I figure that I've directed some 70,000 words your way this year, spent more than 100 working days figuring out what I need to tell you.
It's a considerable privilege, and a good job, and I thank you all for reading.
Today I want more. Call it a proposal for a New Year's resolution.
Resolve, swear, that today, and every day this year, you will pay attention.
Not just when it's important, when your partner is angry, or the boss is warning you, or things have spun out of control..
But now, right now. Who is in the room, or the house, with you? Pay attention - what are they thinking? Are they worried, sad, delighted? What's the one thing you could say or do that would bring them peace or joy? What's the one thing you could say or do that would bring you peace or joy?
Pay attention, to your lover or friend or child's eyes when they speak to you, or don't speak to you. Pay attention to the way your eyes look in the mirror. What do those eyes say? Are they happy, or sad, or lost?
Pay attention to the way your child leans into you, when you read a story that will stop much too soon. Pay attention to the way you parents look, when they wonder how your story will end, and realize that they will never know.
Pay attention to the small yellow light from a candle warming your living room and the cold, bright light from a handful of stars in the night sky. Pay attention to what you have, and what you long for. Pay attention to the sound of rain on the roof, to the wind in the trees, to the music your daughter plays behind the closed door to her room.
Pay attention.
This isn't just about you, and the people around you. It's about the world.
My job is inherently interesting. I get to talk to a wide variety of people, and read everything from government reports to company financial statements and write about what they mean to you.
But it only makes sense, it only serves any real purpose, because I start with a fundamental belief in the common sense and decency of people. All those 70,000 words are based on the idea that people want a better community and a better world, and that given enough information they will figure out what needs to be done to make that happen, and act.
And if we do want a better world the first huge step is to pay attention to the one we live in now.
After all, if we were paying attention to the people addicted to cocaine or heroin in our community, would we really be content to watch them die in alleys, or see their lives waste away each day? Would we still allow nervous politicians to deny them a place to inject drugs safely? Anyone who thinks about it for a moment knows it's not in their interest or ours to have addicts injecting drugs in alleys or parking lots. But we're just not paying attention.
If we were paying attention, would we condemn thousands of children to a terrible start in life, simply because they are born to parents without the ability to provide a home that can give hope? Or would we find a way to ensure that every little child entered kindergarten well-fed and with an equal chance to make her way in this world?
So today, and the next day and the day after that, open your eyes.
Making this world better is within our individual grasps. We are fundamentally decent. When we finally see the problems of those around us, we will act.
This year, simply pay attention.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Balanced budget target looking dangerous
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time to get nervous about just how the Liberals are going to balance the budget by 2004/5.
They've still got a shot. But the latest economic news isn't encouraging, and the latest financial update from the government featured more bad news than good.
You may have missed that report, delivered by Finance Minister Gary Collins on the same day the Romanow report was released. That ensured the Liberals' quarterly financial report would be bumped off the front pages.
When the last quarterly report was released Collins was forecasting that the government would take in $220 million more revenue than it had budgeted, a gain that would reduce the deficit this year and make the job of getting to a balanced budget in two years easier.
Now he expects to fall short of budget by about $100 million, a $320-million swing. Tax revenue will be more than $600 million below the Liberals' expectations. (It will also, thanks to the tax cuts, be $2.4 billion less than when the Liberals took office.)
The news gets worse. The tax revenue problem reflects a $300-million shortfall last year, which meant this year's base was set too high.
And that means the Liberals already face a similar $300-million gap in their plan for next year, as government staff work towards a budget day that's less than two months away.
What's saved the government, strangely enough, is our status as a have-not province. Collins now expects B.C. to get $770 million from Ottawa in equalization payments, because our economic performance has been weak. The money wasn't included in the budget, so it's offsetting the unexpected tax shortfall.
The problem for future years is that the equalization payments aren't guaranteed just because isn't doing well. The complex formula weighs the relative economic performance of provinces, and divides the available money among the losers. If other provinces hit a slump, B.C. could lose its share even if the economy here hasn't improved much.
The Liberal budget predicted a record $4.4-billion deficit this year. Even with the bumps they'll beat that handily, thanks in part to a $750-million contingency allowance Collins included in this year's budget. But the deficit will still be over $3 billion.
And the time left to make that go away is very short.
The Liberals will introduce their next budget in February. and one year later, they have to come up with a balanced budget.
Their current plan calls for government revenues to jump 5.6 per cent next year and five per cent the year after.
Maybe. But the finance minister's economic forecast panel reported last week, and predicted general economic growth next year - including inflation - of only 4.6 per cent.
Sometimes the revenue problems can be offset by spending cuts. If your hours get cut at work, you find a way to reduce your grocery spending.
But that's not really an option for the Liberals. All the complaints about spending cuts you're hearing come in a year in which the government has actually increased spending slightly. The real cuts come in the next two years, when the Liberals are looking to chop $1.2 billion.
The Liberals really need some economic good news. Each one-per-cent increase in GDP, the measure of economic activity, brings in about $250 million to government. When the economy is growing, more people are working and investing and buying things, and the province takes in more taxes and fees and royalties.
And while the gap is closing, the government's own advisors are predicting growth will lag the Canadian average for next year and 2004.
It all leaves the government in a spot. The revenue targets are no longer conservative or comfortable; any cushion is gone. And the spending cuts ahead are already fierce.
Unless the economy surprise with its performance, the Liberals will face some very hard decisions if they keep to their promise to introduce a balanced budget 14 months from now.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca