Resignation under cloud bad setback for Hogg's ministry
VICTORIA -- Another week, another special prosecutor and another set of big problems for the Liberal government and the ministry of children and families.
The latest special prosecutor is reviewing possible criminal charges against Doug Walls in connection with the bankruptcy of his family's Prince George car dealership.
What's that got to do with government?
Walls is an active Liberal. He was president of a Prince George riding association and was a likely candidate in the 2001 election, until the 1998 bankruptcy hurt his prospects. He's a relative of Premier Gordon Campbell -- their wives are cousins. And Walls has been working with the ministry of children and families, on contract and as the CEO of the interim authority that's taking over about 40 per cent of the ministry's services.
He resigned on the weekend, after news of the special prosecutor was released.
Being manager of a failed business shouldn't bar you from future employment, although this was a messy bankruptcy. The CIBC accuses managers at the Ford dealership of "kiting" cheques -- writing cheques on one empty bank account, depositing them and then writing more cheques based on the phony balances.
The bank, out more than $1 million, handed its information over to the RCMP, which investigated and recommended charges. The special prosecutor is deciding if there are grounds.
But given the potential concerns, why did Walls get the government job a year ago?
Sean Holman, editor of political newsletter Public Eye, broke the story and reported concerns about favouritism have been around for some time.
Holman also found Walls had received a string of untendered contracts from the ministry for $65,000 worth of consulting work before he was hired. Contracts over $25,000 are supposed to be awarded through a competition. But that didn't happen. Walls got a series of seven smaller contracts over six months, so no open competitions were held.
Mostly I feel sorry for Walls. For more than 20 years, since his own disabled daughter was born, he's been a tireless worker on behalf of disabled British Columbians. He's been the volunteer head of local and provincial organizations, including three years as head of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Handicapped in the '80s. He's served on the Prince George school board, and headed up its finance committee.
But common sense demands that under these unusual circumstances any contracts or jobs that went to Walls should have been clearly awarded based on merit, through an open competition.
Children and Families Minister Gordon Hogg had no answers about why this didn't happen. Hogg knew that the CIBC had made the fraud allegations six months before he appointed Walls to the critical job. He says he didn't investigate because Walls had an enthusiastic endorsement from Advanced Education Minister Shirley Bond, who had worked with him on the Prince George school board.
Hogg also knew about the untendered contracts. Members of the authority's transition board had complained to him about them. He said he asked his deputy minister about the contracts, and he said everything was OK.
Hogg's lack of vigilance has helped create a major problem.
The timing of Walls' departure is disastrous. The ministry hopes to hand community living services over to the new semi-independent authority June 1.
This is a huge change -- the services cost about $500 million a year, and are critically important to about 9,000 mentally handicapped people and their families.
But an independent review done for the ministry said the transition is behind schedule and the plan has major holes. Unless they're fixed by the end of this month, the review said, the launch date is too risky and should be scrapped.
Among the key tasks to be done by Jan. 31 was appointing a permanent board and CEO. Now, instead, the project has lost its key manager. It's a disaster, and one that could have been avoided.
Footnote: Appointment of a special prosecutor doesn't mean Walls has done anything wrong. Special prosecutors are appointed anytime it looks like government-employed Crown prosecutors could be asked to make a decision about a politically sensitive case. The move takes the pressure off them, and lets the public see that the decision on laying charges hasn't been politically influenced.


Disabled adults at risk in ill-planned ministry change
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberal government appears ready to take serious risks with services for thousands of mentally handicapped British Columbians.
The government wants to hand delivery of services for almost 10,000 people over to a new semi-independent authority, like the regional health authorities. There's wide support from people who believe the authority will be more flexible and responsive to the needs of the developmentally disabled. But with barely four months to go before the planned change, the ministry of children and families' plan still has huge holes, and the impact of budget cuts is unclear.
The risks in this major change are enormous. The ministry's community living programs serve more than 9,000 developmentally disabled children and adults, and make up 40 per cent of its $1.5-billion budget. Some of the people are institutionalized, and require intensive care; others are in supported living or day programs; in other cases, the ministry just provides a break for families that provide care.
And the risks are compounded by the fact that the government is trying to make the change without adequate preparation, and while it is looking to cut deeply into the ministry budget.
These aren't complaints from people opposed to the change, or the government's critics. The concerns were raised in a "transition readiness" review conducted for the government and posted on the ministry's web site, without notice, days before Christmas.
The review panel was recommended in an earlier consultant's report that found major problems with the ministry's restructuring efforts.
The panel came back with bad news, finding critical holes in the ministry's plans. The gaps are so serious that the panel said unless they're fixed by the end of this month, the June 1 transition date should be scrapped.
The panel found that there's still no agreement on who will be accountable for what services, or how services will be delivered under the new model.
As a result the panel is also concerned that there won't be enough money to provide services after more cuts required by the Liberals are made. That's logical - if the government doesn't know how services will be delivered, there is no way to know what they will cost. (Community living services cost about $655 million in the Liberals' first full year. The new authority will have about eight per cent less - some $52 million - to spend.)
The panel also warned that the failure to appoint a permanent board and hire a CEO and staff has created major problems. The review noted that the new board will want time to review the issues and decisions already made, and hiring a CEO will take until May. That will create "an ongoing lack of stability in the new organization," and the authority will move through the critical months ahead without a management team.
And on top of that, the agencies that deliver the services face their own uncertainties. The government wants to cut the money they get; they are in turn looking for concessions in contract talks with some unions representing about 15,000 employees. Talks are continuing, and the employers are taking a lockout vote.
Minister Gordon Hogg promises the change won't go ahead if there is any risk to health and safety.
But he won't accept the panel's recommendation that the transition be delayed if key decisions aren't made by Jan. 31. The review panel said, for example, that unless the permanent authority board is in place by Jan. 31 the change should automatically be delayed.
Hogg says he'll decide whether the change will push ahead even if the deadlines set by the panel are missed.
The ministry has been through a chaotic year. Budget plans have been proven unworkable. Change is far behind schedule. And now it looks as if the ministry is on the verge of pushing ahead with huge change without adequate planning or money.
Footnote: The problems have been made worse by the sudden resignation this week of Doug Walls, CEO of the interim authority. Walls quit because a special prosecutor is looking into the bankruptcy of his family's Prince George Ford dealership. His departure creates more problems for the implementation plan.


Kitimat takes on Alcan and the government
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time to start a pool on how many seats the battle between Kitimat and Alcan will cost the Liberals.
Kitimat has just gone to the BC Supreme Court to try and limit Alcan's sale of power. The town says the company was given the electricity from the Kemano power project more than 50 years ago to smelt aluminum, not to sell at a big profit. And the people of Kitimat are angry at the provincial government for not fighting to enforce the original deal that gave Alcan the public resource.
Kitimat has a good case, according to lawyers who have reviewed the file. Certainly anyone who reads the original 1949 agreements handing over the water rights to Alcan finds the government's intent clear. The power was to be used to make aluminum or for other industrial projects "in the vicinity of the works."
But since then things have changed.
In the '90s, the town says, Alcan was allowed to sell power "surplus to its needs." And when the California energy crisis hit in 2001, the company was selling power - very profitably - while running the smelter at 65-per-cent capacity.
Now neither the company nor the provincial government is prepared to acknowledge any limits on Alcan's right to sell power, or any requirement that it produce aluminum.
It's strange, this spat. Kitimat is a company town, and Alcan is the company. They've been united - mostly - for half a century, and the people of Kitimat and the company have done very well out of the relationship.
And the people taking on the provincial government aren't the usual critics. Kitimat's council and business community are pretty united on the issue. Long-time Mayor Richard Wozney, leading the legal challenge, was even a Liberal candidate in 1996.
The court challenge is a last resort. The town has been trying unsuccessfully to work with the company and the government almost since the election. Now it's asking the BC Supreme Court to review all the agreements with Alcan, and rule on whether the company is breaking them by selling power.
It's a daunting prospect - a small town taking on a massive global corporation and a government. But Wozney says it's a matter of life and death for Kitimat, where property values and population are plummeting, and two of five elementary schools have already closed. Alcan can produce power from the Kemano project for under under $5 a megawatt hour, and sell it for 10 times as much. Energy sales may make more business sense than expanding or maintaining aluminum production. (Alcan told the Liberals' energy task force that it hoped to reduce electricity use at the smelter, acquire other power sources and move into the electricity business.)
Alcan is just looking after its shareholders. And the company notes not one job has been lost due to power sales, and says it is honouring all agreements with the province.
But Kitimat has tough questions for the government about why it isn't enforcing the agreement, making sure that a public resource was being used for the good of British Columbia. When did that requirement change, the town has asked
The answers have been weak. Attorney General Geoff Plant says only that the government has reviewed all the agreements and actions between 1950 and the present and concluded Alcan is acting appropriately. But he won't say when or how the original agreement was changed. And he adds that that the government also fears repercussions from Alcan if it pushes the issue.
So with no satisfaction from government, Kitimat has turned to the courts.
Power issues are already a hot political topic in B.C., and rural B.C. has already stored up grievances against the government.
Now the Liberals are standing alongside a giant corporation in opposing a community that's fighting for public benefits from a public resource.
It's a bleak way for northern MLAs to begin the countdown to next year's election.
Footnote: Alcan and the government both suggest the community needs to work harder at diversifying its economy, as major industries like Alcan will inevitably reduce employment. But Kitimat, built as a company town, has few natural advantages in the fight to attract small business.

Auditor should answer real questions about BC Rail deal
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Judith Reid is right. The legislature raids don't mean the BC Rail sale should be stopped.
But taxpayers should still ask for an independent review by the province's auditor general.
Deal opponents got a boost when police raided the legislature offices of Reid's aide Bob Virk and Finance Minister Gary Collins' powerful assistant Dave Basi. Police also searched the office of Erik Bornman, a federal Liberal wheel and a lobbyist who worked for OmniTrax, one of the unsuccessful BC Rail bidders. Virk was heavily involved in the sale. Basi worked closely with Collins, who co-chaired the sale steering committee with Reid. Bornman's company lobbied both ministers.
That's all we know. And it's not enough to suggest wrongdoing, or any reason for delay.
But there are still questions about the deal, separate from the investigation. And given the likelihood of more asset sales, it makes sense to make sure this one was done right.
Premier Gordon Campbell points to a review of the sale by a U.S.-based consultant and says it provides all the answers. That review, by Charles River Associates, found the process was fair and the price paid for the railroad was toward the top of the range you would expect. It is, overall, a positive report.
But it also raised questions suggesting that the way the sale was handled could have been unfair and cost taxpayers' money.
And with all respect to the company, it was paid $300,000 for the review, and likely hopes for more work. Its expertise is unquestioned - the consultants have helped governments around the world auction off assets and establish markets. It's reputation is important. But it was still paid by the government.
The consultants' report raised several questions.
They found that the $750 million CN Rail paid for the company was at the top of the expected range - good news for taxpayers. But Charles River didn't do any in-depth review of the fairness of the $250 million CN Rail paid to acquire the past tax losses of CN. Taxpayers don't know if fair value was delivered.
The consultant also found significant leaks. One of the finalists leaked information in violation of confidentiality agreements.
Another public leak revealed BC Rail management's forecast of the effects of the sale on the company and communities. That politically embarrassing leak sparked a big internal review, complete with forensic auditors, to find the source.
And in a third leak, the consultant said, information was sent to someone who shouldn't have had it. The report is irritatingly unclear about details. It says only that the lawyers involved promised the documents were returned or shredded. But were they forgotten? Were they important? The consultant says no, but doesn't give enough facts to support the conclusion.
Finally, the consultant raises concerns about the basics of the deal. The Liberals said they would evaluate proposals based on price and a range of other factors, from economic development to job preservation to benefits for First Nations.
But the fairness review says it was really all about the money. CP Rail and Omnitrax - unsuccessful bidders - complained that they couldn't get a handle on what the government really wanted. They put more emphasis on the entire package. After the decision, they realized the auction really focused on price. If they had better information, they might have offered more money.
These are all real concerns. And to make sure the mistakes aren't repeated - and to determine if taxpayers got a fair price for the tax losses - the auditor general should be provided with the funding needed to review the deal.
That's a problem. The government has foolishly chopped the auditor general's funding, despite warnings that critical reviews would be sacrificed. (The Alberta auditor receives almost twice as much money.)
Restore the funding. Support the review. We need the information.
Footnote: It was Gordon Campbell's birthday this week. Here's his horoscope. "Stop trying to be perfect and start being yourself. That, in a nutshell is the message of the stars on your birthday, and if you heed it the next year could be one of the best of your life. Once you stop comparing yourself to others you will find the happiness you seek."

Liberals vulnerable for chopping crime-fighting
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - NDP leader Carole James has picked a political winner in challenging the Liberals on organized crime.
James launched her attack on the weekend, calling on Premier Gordon Campbell to spend more on crime-fighting and demanding a public inquiry into our enforcement efforts. The move was opportunistic, reminding the public of the current mysterious scandal swirling around the federal and provincial Liberals.
But it's also a good issue for the NDP. The gap between the Liberals' get-tough rhetoric and their actions is wide, and criminals are getting a break from Liberal budget cuts.
The NDP can't be accused of fear-mongering. Solicitor General Rich Coleman has warned repeatedly of the growing threat from organized crime. And after the raids on the legislature offices of top Liberal aides and senior federal Liberals, the RCMP warned that orgainzed crime's tentacles were reaching into every corner of the province.
James pointed out that the gobenrment's tough talk hasn't been backed up with action. Specificially, she called on the Liberals to lift a three-year funding freeze imposed on the Organized Crime Agency. The agency is the main police weapon against gangs and organized crime.
But its budget has been frozen by the Liberals since the election. The agency warned in its last annual report that the freeze has left it unable to do its job.
The Liberals have also failed to deliver - so far - on an election promise to give municipalities 75 per cent of the revenue from traffic fines. That would be a $50-million boost for their policing efforts. (Premier Gordon Campbell said the Liberals only promised the change during their first term, and they will deliver before the 2005 election.)
James also called on the government to abandon plans to cut the solicitor general's budget, which is slated for a 19-per-cent reduction in next month's budget . That includes $20 million from the budget for public safety.
It's a good issue for the NDP.
The Liberals have said crime - particularly organized crime - is a serious problem. They've called on Ottawa to come up with more money and tougher laws. So it's hard for them to come up with a logical defence of why they are cutting or freezing budgets for the people who are on the front line. Even those who don't agree that more enforcement is the best solution have to wonder about the Liberals' lack of consistency.
James also called for a public inquiry into organized crime, by someone like Justice Wally Oppal. She thinks we could examine our current efforts, look at what people are doing in other places and come up with a new plan in time for the 2005 budget.
There is a need for some sort of review of our response to organized crime, but it needs to be broader and more informal than a public inquiry, and move us way beyond the usual responses.
Take drugs. The marijuana trade is considered a key driver of the current crime world. Our solution tends to be more police, more raids and a wish for tougher sentences.
But a study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year suggests we waste most of the $465 million we spend on drug enforcement in Canada. Big arrests or seizures make headlines. But they change nothing for the producers or consumers. Back in 2000 police claimed a major victory in the war on heroin when Vancouver police seized 99 kilograms of heroin and Toronto police grabbed another 57 kilos. Some six million doses snatched from the supply chain.
And nothing happened on the street. The supply stayed the same. Heroin prices actually fell slightly. Users didn't cut back. Crime didn't go down. Attacking the supply - as the U.S. has shown - isn't the answer.
It's past time for a major rethink.
But meanwhile, James has shown a deft touch with a damaging issue for the Liberals.
Footnote: The problem for the Liberals - again - is that their tax cuts and balanced budget deadline have left them unable to respond. There is no room to come up with significant money for policing or victim support or the Organized Crime Agency, without offsetting cuts in other areas of the government already facing their own belt-tightening woes.


Nice tan, but few answers from the premier
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell landed after his flight from Maui, traded his travel jeans for a dark suit, crisp white shirt and bright tie, and headed to his Victoria office to face reporters.
It didn't go well.
Not that anything terrible came out about the police raids on the legislature.
But crowded in with about 30 reporters and cameramen, I was left mostly puzzled by what the premier did or didn't know and why he chose to act as he did.
You couldn't expect him to be entirely forthcoming. As he pointed out, the worst thing that could happen would be a careless comment by a politician that somehow wrecked a 20-month police investigation.
But his answers on some critical questions were confusing, and close to contradictory.
Reporters were interested in the different treatment for two ministerial aides whose legislature offices were searched by police. Dave Basi, a key aide to Finance Minister Gary Collins, was fired within hours of the raids. Bob Virk, aide to Transportation Minister Judith Reid, is suspended with pay. The decision was made by Martyn Brown, the premier's top advisor, and approved by Campbell from Hawaii as police carried boxes from the legislature.
Campbell said Basi's job was more sensitive. That's true. Basi took a major role in scheduling legislation, working with other cabinet ministers, MLAs and the opposition. He was a much bigger player in the government than Virk.
So why not move him, or suspend him with pay like Virk until the facts are in?
"In view of the information we have, we acted appropriately," Campbell said repeatedly.
What information? No answer from the premier.
Not that he had to answer. He could have said he wasn't prepared to reveal what he knew that the public didn't.
Except that he had taken pains to plead ignorance through much of the press conference. "I don't think I know more than anybody else does," he said. "I can't tell you what's involved in the search warrants."
And that would mean Basi was fired because his office was searched, before he had actually been found to have done anything at all wrong.
It looks odd. (And, as one reporter noted, it suggests a double standard. The premier faced criminal charges this time last year, but rightly rejected calls for his resignation. But now he whacks an aide for no reason beyond a search of his office.)
It also looked odd that Campbell said he hasn't tried to get any answers to the obvious questions about this case, or asked for a review. Again, no one wants the politicians asking questions that could compromise the case, or be seen as interference.
But there's nothing wrong with asking Education Minister Christy Clark what documents police sought when they visited the home office of her husband, a key federal Liberal organizer. (Campbell doesn't have to share the information with the public.)
Campbell also said he know nothing more about the search warrants than the public. But while the information supporting the warrants is still sealed, the warrants - with information on the specific documents or objects they cover and the alleged offences involved - had to be shown to government officials before police entered the building. Campbell has every right to ask what the documents said.
Campbell said he also didn't know Basi and Virk were active in federal Liberal politics. The only party political appointees are supposed to work for is the BC Liberals, Campbell said, and he's made that clear to them all.
But their activities on behalf of Paul Martin were no secret.
The press conference was likely an indication of how difficult this is all going to be for the Liberals. The information is sketchy; the process extremely slow; and the cloud over the government will cast a shadow for the next year.
Not a great way to start this long election campaign.
Footnote: If the premier wants to make a good start at clearing the air, he could restore the budget cuts to the office of the province's auditor general. That would allow, among other projects, an independent review of the BC Rail deal. And that, under the current circumstances, would be money well-spent.

Liberals decide two-tier health care OK after all
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' bizarre flip-flop on private health care raises some serious doubts about the soundness of their plans.
Health Minister Colin Hansen took criticism from his own backbenchers for his bill upholding the Canada Health Act. But it's important for the law to be enforced, he said, pledging to end two-tier care which allows families with money to get treatment, while those without wait.
The bill was drafted by ministry staff, made it onto the legislative agenda, was debated, passed and given Royal Assent by Lieutenant Governor Iona Campagnolo.
Doctors were angry when the legislation was introduced. They even talked about a "medical Gestapo" being created by the Liberals. Hansen maintained repeatedly that this law would not affect any doctor or clinic operating legally under the Canada Health Act. The act says access to medically necessary care shouldn't depend on ability to pay. That's all B.C. was ensuring, he said.
But then the legislative session ended before Christmas, and everything changed.
Premier Gordon Campbell said the government will likely never put the law into effect. Less than three weeks earlier, this had been vital legislation, needed to preserve equal access to health care. Now it was dumped.
It takes money to prepare and pass a bill. Why did the Liberals spend your money if they didn't really want the law?
This particular act also worsened already rocky relations with the province's doctors. And it resulted in hundreds of scheduled procedures in private clinics being cancelled, during the brief period when clinics thought they might have to follow the Canada Health Act.
There's been no real explanation. Some Liberals are claiming the bill was only passed because Ottawa threatened to withhold transfer payments unless B.C. moved against two-tier health care. Maybe Paul Martin won't be so tough, says Campbell.
But that's not really an explanation. Martin's leadership win wasn't a shock. (And in any case, he rejects Campbell's claim. "We are never going to two-tier health care," he says.)
What did happen?
Maybe the government wrote and passed a law that it didn't understand.
Maybe it didn't realize just how far two-tier medicine had spread in B.C., and wasn't ready to cope with the problems caused when people were no longer able to avoid waiting lists.
Or maybe, under pressure both from those people and the clinics, the Liberals are abandoning their commitment to equal access to health care.
The Canada Health Act is simple. Provinces must have health care systems that incorporate four principles" - public administration, access to needed medical care in a reasonably timely way, fair payment to doctors and equal access for all Canadians.
We've made it law that a family's chance for needed medical care shouldn't depend on how much money they have.
The kind of two-tier care that Campbell now supports violates that principle. If you have money, you can get quick care. If you don't, you suffer, both physically and economically. Last month, the Liberals thought that was wrong. This month, they don't.
We all make mistakes. But this odd exercise came as the BC Supreme Court found the Liberals broke the law by trying unilaterally cutting payments for medically necessary lab tests.
It all suggests a certain panic and lack of long-term thinking. That's now what's needed.
The health care system is not in any short-term 'sustainability' crisis. Real per capita health spending has risen an average four per cent per year in B.C. since 1990, substantial but not a crisis. We spend about the same as the Canadian average. And across Canada health care spending this year will be 10 per cent of GDP, virtually unchanged from a decade ago.
Few would dispute the need for reform. But we have the time to do it right. Passing laws, and then abandoning them days later, suggests that's not happening.
Footnote: Quick - what's NDP leader Carole James' position on health care? Her ability to answer that question will do much to determine the NDP's fate in next year's election. Health care will go badly for the Liberals this year. But James still has to show that the NDP can do better before voters have any reason to leave the Liberals.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Political games, power and money a dangerous mix
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Five years ago Erik Bornman was playing at politics, the prime minister in the model Parliament held at the B.C. legislature during Christmas week.
Now he's a big wheel in the federal Liberal party's B.C. wing, safely snuggled in the Martin camp. He's worked in Ottawa as a political aide, and has a day job as a lobbyist in Vancouver.
Bornman is also among those whose offices were searched as part of the criminal investigation that's touched both the federal Liberal party and the provincial legislature.
Just because police search your office or home doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. Bill Cunningham, federal Liberal party president in B.C., said he's disturbed by speculation that the party is somehow involved.
The speculation isn't surprising. It is troubling.
There's little surprise partly because the links with the federal Liberals are so strong. Police searched the offices of Dave Basi, a top aide to Finance Minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who does a similar job for Transportation Minister Judith Reid. Both men are also key federal Liberal organizers.
Bornman was Martin's chief B.C. organizer and is on the party's national executive. Police also asked for documents from Mark Marissen, another Martin organizer and head of the federal Liberal election campaign. (And the husband of Education Minister Christy Clark.) And they searched the home of Bruce Clark, the education minister's brother and a big Martin fundraiser.
Besides being federal Liberal workers and Martin supporters, they've got a lot in common. They're all youngish men who started off in politics as student Liberals; most have never really done anything else.
I admit to a prejudice against young Liberals. (Not as sharp a prejudice as an editor I worked with, who claimed their motto should be "No shirt too young to stuff.") At 17 or 18, I expect people to be passionate about changing the world, not career politics. I always fear young Liberals are people with a bit too much of an eye on the main chance.
But I worry much more about the way the destructive ethos of student politics - it is, ultimately, just a game - is being carried over into the real world. The federal Liberals in particular have turned politics into a big-money, high-stakes slugout, with the spoils - jobs and power - going to those who are the most clever and ruthless at twisting the democratic process.
So riding associations anticipating a normal candidate selection meeting suddenly find themselves facing 600 instant Liberals, all backing the same candidate, all signed up by the same aggressive young men. Someone like Herb Dhaliwal gets too outspoken and a team of Martin operatives swoop down and take control of his riding association.
All clever. All legal. All damaging.
The people who thrive in such a world are the clever, ruthless and power-seeking.
The federal Liberals didn't invent such practices. But they used to be kind of shameful. Now, they're seen as tactical triumphs, with stories of outrageous behaviour taking on the quality of folklore.
The trend has been accelerated by the vast amounts of money now swirling around politics, which have allowed more people to make backroom politics a career. They choose a party and a patron early on, then move through a succession of government, party and lobbying jobs.
Paul Martin had a paid staff of more than 40 for his leadership campaign. He raised $12 million, primarily from big business and the wealthy — about $11 million more than he needed. His fund-raising total for an effectively uncontested leadership campaign was greater than the party's fund-raising for its 2001 national election campaign.
That kind of money changes politics, and not for the better. And given the public's willingness to suspect something is rotten before any real facts about the current investigation are available, there's a lesson emerging from this for the Liberals and every other political party.
Footnote: The provincial Liberals misjudged the reaction to the raids, with Campbell, Collins and Reid all trying to stay on holidays out of the country as the searches made national headlines. Collins eventually changed his mind and came back. Campbell's absence, in the face of a major crisis in public confidence, was a mistake.

The Liberals are heading into a nasty year
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The bad news is that it was a pretty crummy year for the Liberal government.
And the worse news is that next year looks even tougher.
You can chalk up some successes. Premier Gordon Campbell survived the drunk driving conviction. Vancouver got the Olympics, a huge win for the government. There was some job growth in the Lower Mainland. The oil and gas industry did well. And there was more progress on relations with First Nations, through treaty talks and interim economic agreements.
After that, the good news gets skinny. Things didn't get worse in health or education, which is something.
But an awful lot did go wrong.
Campbell is less popular than ever. The Liberals are still doing well in the polls by B.C. standards, but have lost a lot of support.
The BC Rail sale could have been considered a triumph, if it wasn't so badly tainted by the broken campaign promise, and the premier's almost delusional denials.
The attempt to privatize the Coquihalla bought the Liberals a lot of grief, for no benefit. The botched liquor store privatization made them look both incompetent and untrustworthy, especially to people who invested big in private liquor stores on the strength of the the government's now broken promises.
And then there's economic development. This was supposed to be the year of forestry, but you sure can't see any results on the ground. The 20-per-cent tenure takeback, central to market-based stumpage, is stalled. The softwood dispute is unsettled, and the proposed deal includes quota provisions Forest Minister Mike de Jong said would never be accepted by B.C.
And despite all the talk about the Heartland, it's tough to see much activity beyond the oil and gas boom in the Northeast.
And on top of all that, there's the ugly sight of police raiding the offices of top staffers for ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid.
But tough as it's been, next year looks much worse for the Liberals.
The economy should be better. Most forecasts have it growing by about three per cent, but good enough to jump B.C. up to the middle of the pack among provinces. The Liberals will bring in a balanced budget. And the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform is the best thing ever to happen to government in North America.
But the headaches for the Liberals are going to be enormous. And they are going to come in the final 12 months before the next election.
The biggest will be in health care. The regional health authorities still have major changes - unpopular changes - to make to meet the Liberals' spending limits. Meanwhile, doctors and the government are heading towards a war as the fee agreement with the BC Medical Association expires. Doctors want more money while the government says the wage freeze applies to them. The result will be more disruptions in the health care system. And no matter what the positions are, the public always ultimately sides with the doctors. (Nurses will also be in a similar position.)
The teachers' contract will also be up, and the government is going to try and have it rolled over for another year to allow for reform of the bargaining system. Teachers don't want that; again expect more conflict.
Then there's the new mandatory time limit on welfare, which will see thousands of people lose benefits, and the continued confusion in the ministry of children and families, where a restructuring is more than a year behind schedule and budget cuts are being pushed through despite significant risks to kids.
And on top of all that, there are the big spending cuts. Spending has actually risen by $870 million so far under the Liberals. But the balanced budget due in February will include $900 million in cuts. Three ministries must cut more than 20 per cent of their budget; another five must cut more than 10 per cent. It's going to hurt.
It's a tough way to start a prolonged election campaign.
Footnote: The unknown quantity is new NDP leader Carole James. If she champions issues of high public concern - health care, education, jobs and community stability - and demonstrates competence, she'll begin to appear as an alternative for some voters. If she is seen as defender of big public sector unions, or anti-economic growth - she's already burned bridges in some coastal communities by opposing offshore oil exploration and aquaculture - Campbell will look more attractive.

Ho, ho, ho. . .

Thanks, and a wish that will change your lives
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time to thank you all, and offer you my one special wish, a way to change your life in less than a minute.
I sent some 36,000 words your way last year. If you stuck with me through all of them, it's as if we sat down and had a three-hour chat,
Thanks for that. Not just because if you didn't read, I wouldn't be able to do the column, and my children would be selling pencils on the street. (Though I invite you to keep that in mind anytime you consider skipping the column.)
I really wanted to thank you for letting me have this conversation with you.
Sure the work itself is fun and interesting much of the time, and there's no heavy lifting. And it's a living.
But that's not why I like to do this. The joy in this job isn't in cataloging what's gone wrong this week. It's in believing that people, given the facts and a chance to look at an issue, will generally do the right thing, and in being part of that process.
And I get to talk with you - or rant at you, sometimes - about things I think are important, or things you've told me you think are important. I get to try and provide some facts, and offer an opinion about what we should be doing to make things better.
That's why I write most often about things that have gone wrong, and am more often critical than kind. It's nice - and even useful - to take 30 seconds to think about something that's worked. But it's much more important to look at the things that aren't working, and figure out how to fix them.
I don't expect readers to end up agreeing with me. (Though of course, I always hope for that.) I've got information, and ideas to offer. But the ideas may be wrong. I'm just hoping that together we'll agree some issues are important, and worth our serious attention. (The most dangerous people in the world tend to be those who believe that their ideas and beliefs are certainly right.)
Which leads to my wish for you this year.
I'd like you to make one New Year's resolution. This year, pay attention.
Not to me, but to everything in your life.
It's racing by. That child who wants you to read a story today, she'll be gone before you know it. And you can't know where. Maybe she'll be your best friend, maybe she'll have developed a nasty crystal meth addiction. Maybe she'll be happy. Maybe she'll be dead. It's unknowable.
The only thing you do know is that you have a chance to pay attention now. To notice what her eyes are telling you, just before you turn off the lights. It's not just children - friends, strangers, lovers, the way the sun looks over the rooftops tomorrow morning. Just pay attention. You'll change their lives. You'll change the way you see the world.
it sounds kind of new age, self-absorbed even. but it's not. The first step to a better world is paying attention to the one we've got.
Go back to the reason why I like this work. It's important to me because everything I've seen of people indicates that collectively we want to do the right thing. We don't want people around us to be unhappy, denied dignity and opportunity.
If we noticed their suffering - if we paid attention - we wouldn't stand for it. We wouldn't let the government slash spending on children and families if we paid attention to the scared girl in foster care who is losing some of the meager support she had. We are not that kind of people.
So that's my wish. Pay attention. The beauty and power will amaze you.
Footnote: And further, to all the politicians I have written about this year, and will next, thanks. No matter how painfully critical columns may be, I recognize that you all have given up a lot for the simple chance to make your communities a better place for people to live. Actions can be criticized; not your motives.


Back-to-work deals bad deal for B.C. economy
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's nothing to celebrate in the government's role in ending the BC Ferries strike or the walkout by some 10,000 coastal IWA members.
That's not to say the government was wrong. It faced a wretched situation, and given the economic importance of both operations a prolonged shutdown would have been disastrous.
But government intervention can't get at the root causes of a dispute, and often can't produce anything but the shakiest and shortest of peace.
First the ferries.
The ferry workers' union scored a huge win with their illegal, irresponsible strike. Instead of having to labour on under essential service legislation and negotiate a deal with BC Ferries, they can now wait for an arbitration award from Vince Ready. It won't be all they hoped for, but it will be much better than any deal they could have reached at the bargaining table. And the government promised not to seek any damages for their illegal actions.
The ferry workers' union learned - again - that ignoring the law and the contract they signed worked. For more than 30 years governments have taught the union that illegal strikes get results, and bring no consequences.
The blame doesn't all rest with the union.
The illegal strike was sparked by a dispute over which unionized workers would staff the ships. Since cafeterias were closed, the company didn't want to schedule people paid a premium for that work. The union disagreed. And the ships stayed tied up.
My reading of the Labour Relations Board's essential services ruling indicates the company' was right. But BC Ferries could have avoided the showdown, allowed the ships to sail with the higher-priced crew and headed to the LRB for a remedy.
Instead the service was shut down, things got ugly and Labour Minister Graham Bruce imposed an 80-day cooling off period - which the union defied until it won arbitration.
The company is seeking major clawbacks, especially in terms of contracting out language which would leave no ferries job safe. The stage was set for those demands by the Liberals' changes to BC Ferries. The company faces the possible loss of its $70-million annual subsidy in four years and will be forced to show lenders it can repay some $2 billion needed for new ships over the next 15 years. BC Ferries made about $25 million last year; it needs much bigger profits to deal with those changes.)
The IWA strike is a similar disaster. Again, the union blundered with an illegal walkout, breaking their own agreement. The company responded by imposing a new contract. And the stage was set for a hopelessly long strike.
IWA president Dave Haggard agreed to a government back-to-work order, standing alongside Premier Gordon Campbell and the companies' spokesman.
In this case, the union has lost. The deal calls for an arbitrated deal if mediation doesn't work. And it says that the agreement must consider the economic well-being of the coastal industry.
That almost guarantees major contract rollbacks.
Meanwhile, on the ground, IWA members are attacking their leadership and each other, in some cases physically.
The disintegration of the IWA as a functional union is a problem that goes beyond this dispute. It's distant from its members and unable to come up with workable solutions to the real problems faced by the forest industry.
And instead of addressing those issues, the IWA is selling out workers in the health care sector to keep its numbers up. The private health care companies taking over contracted-out support services are signing sweetheart deals with the IWA before they hire a single worker, in order to avoid HEU certification. Employees have to sign an IWA membership before they are hired. They get no say on who represents them, or the terms of their contract.
B.C. has a reputation for a lousy labour climate. The last week has done more damage.
Footnote: Much second-guessing about whether Bruce imposed the ferry cooling-off period too quickly. Probably. But based on the situation at the time, and the blockades by ferry travellers, it was not an unreasonable call. It's harder to justify abandoning any penalties for the illegal actions.

Ferry chaos far from over
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The ferry workers behaved like thugs, management substituted bravado for brains and this government - and its predecessors - set the stage for the whole mess.
And the damage done goes far beyond the current disruption.
You can’t entirely blame the ferry workers’ union for ignoring both the law and the contract they signed. It’s learned behaviour. For more than 30 years governments have taught the union that illegal strikes get results, and bring no consequences.
And that’s the lesson again. The union has won, gaining binding arbitration and a promise that the company won’t seek any damages after this strike.
Governments occasionally talked tough over the years. But their actions showed the union that law-breaking is an effective, risk-free tactic. When workers staged an illegal wildcat strike in 1997, the government promised to go after damages. Instead, the union and the corporation each ended up chipping in $30,000 for grievance resolution training, and the government forgot about the loss to taxpayers and ferry users.
So it’s hardly a shock that the union is prepared to break its contract and the law. The tactic has worked, and been accepted by government. (And the current government has given up some moral authority by breaking contracts it doesn’t like.)
Ferries management shouold have known the risk, and avoided blundering into this dispute.
The system was shut down Monday over a relatively small issue. Restaurants and gift shops were not going to be operating, so management wanted to schedule lower-paid deckhands instead of workers getting a premium for doing those jobs. They would still be fully trained union members, and my reading of the Labour Relations Board essential services order indicates management was within its rights.
But the union didn’t like it. The upside of essential services designation, from a union perspective, is that service can be disrupted without too much harm to members, who largely stay on the job. So the union refused to work.
The company’s anger at that is understandable. The union doesn’t own the ships, or decide who will staff them. But the smart move would have been to let the ships sail and head to the LRB for a remedy. The focus should be on protecting the business and reaching a settlement, not on symbolic victories and defeats. (Based on my direct experience in one strike, one lockout and too many difficult negotiations, that focus is hard to maintain.)
Instead, the service was shut down and Labour Minister Graham Bruce imposed the back-to-work order and cooling off period. The decision looks hasty today, but given the escalating stupidity at ferry terminals on Tuesday, it’s hard to fault Mr. Bruce.
The problem is far from resolved. The union’s track record suggests that it won’t hesitate to strike illegally if it doesn’t like arbitrator Vince Ready’s recommendations.
And the company still faces major financial pressures as a result of the Liberals’ move to create a semi-independent ferry authority.
Leaving aside one-time charges, the ferry corporation made about $24 million last year. But it faces immediate financial problems. The government has only guaranteed the $74-million subsidy from gas taxes for five years. And the ferry company has to borrow some $2 billion over the next 15 years, without government guarantees. Lenders will want to see a realistic projection of profits that allow the loans to be repaid.
Looking ahead five years, the company faces a potential operating loss of more than $100 million. Revenue gains, from both rate increases and more business, may help.
But the company will have to cut costs. And since wages, at $250 million, make up more than half the operating expenses, that’s where the savings will have to come. The current truce is merely a respite from the problems ahead.
It’s been a grim week, and not just for travellers and ferry-dependent businesses.
B.C.’s reputation for destructive labour relations has hurt the economy for years. This strike reinforces that reputation, at a very bad time.

Liberal MLAs shun chance to do their jobs better
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Why in the world would MLAs not want an extra tool for making sure government is working?
Liberal backbenchers on the finance committee sure didn't seem interested, as they sniped at efforts by the province's auditor general to give them just that.
Auditor General Wayne Strelioff was before the committee to answer questions about his budget request for the coming year. The auditor is an independent officer of the legislature - he works for MLAs, not the premier. They get to decide his budget.
Strelioff made his case, based on a report he'd given to the Speaker a couple of days earlier.
That was apparently a mistake. MLA Lorne Mayencourt was horrified, but not at the report's revelation that budget cuts had forced cancellation of a review of public-private partnership plans. No he was fuming because - the outrage - the report had gone to the legislature before it had been presented to the committee.
The auditor general is the truth-teller in government. Ministers want to look smart. Bureaucrats want to defend their performance. The opposition wants to make the government look bad.
But the auditor general looks at the numbers, and the facts, and lays out what he finds.
That's sometimes not in the government's interest. But it is in the public's interest.
It's not just checking the government's financial statements, although that's important. The auditor general has tackled issues like forest fire protection, issuing warnings - largely ignored - about big holes in the province's planning. He's examined the way government consulting contracts were awarded under the NDP, and found major irregularities. A recent report identified major problem with a program that pays $300 million a year to doctors. (Problems made worse because of arbitrary staff cuts by the Liberals.)
The auditor general is your friend.
And if the system was working, he would be the MLAs' friend too. Backbenchers are protective of their party. But they should also be protecting the people who voted for them.
Strelioff was explaining why his budget should be increased by $1 million, instead of being cut for the second straight year. "Now is the time for a stronger — not a weaker — independent public scrutiny of the performance of government," he said.
His arguments were sound. The government is doing a massive restructuring during a tough economic time. It's important that MLAs get information on whether it's working. It's moving to more performance-based management, which needs MLAs need to know whether the targets are really measurable, and being achieved. And any organization needs an independent watchdog to make sure things are being done right.
Last year's budget cut meant the auditor's office had to abandon a number of planned projects, including a review of the approach to public-private partnerships, an examination of how the government manages major environmental issues and education effectiveness. They all sound valuable.
It's not cheap. The auditor will get about $7.9 million in funding this year, and take in another $2 million for auditing fees. But that is about half the budget of the auditor general in much smaller Alberta.
Strelioff proposed a $500,000 increase operating funds, and another $500,000 allocated as a contingency fund in case MLAs on legislative committees wanted him to look at something. They have that power. If they chose to use it, the money would be there, pre-approved. If they didn't, it wouldn't get spent.
I'd like that. I was on the education committee, and wanted independent, fact-based information how the four-day week was working for students, I'd like the idea of the budget being there. If I ws on the public accounts committee, and wanted an independent look at the soundness of an Olympic megaproject, I'd like to know the money was there.
But these Liberal MLAs thought that was a terrible idea. The expense would show up in the budget, wouldn't it, worried MLA Brian Kerr.
It was a curious sight to see, our MLAs choosing to turn their backs on an opportunity to make government more effective.
Footnote: I could be wrong, of course. Read the transcript yourself at www.legis.gov.bc.ca/cmt/37thparl/session-4/fgs/hansard/n31204a.htm. At the meeting: Brenda Locke, Kerr, Patty Sahota, Jeff Bray, Ida Chong, Arnie Hamilton, Mike Hunter, Wendy McMahon, Dave Hayer, Mayencourt.

Canada the loser in softwood deal
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Canada is getting clobbered in the proposed softwood lumber deal.
After 18 months of fighting, thousands of lost jobs and almost $2 billion in penalties, the Americans are getting want they wanted.
And B.C.'s forest industry is being clamped in a straitjacket.
Sometimes a bad deal is all you can get, but there are some big concerns in this case. Ottawa has been indifferent to the dispute. Jean Chretien famously claimed B.C. wasn't even being hurt, and wondered what all the fuss was about.
And B.C.'s efforts have been contradictory and confused.
B.C. is on the verge of accepting exactly the kind of deal that Forest Minister Mike de Jong said was unacceptable only months ago. "I'm not interested in any kind of a deal that would allocate to individual companies a fixed quota," he said back in May.
But that's what we're getting.
Then proposed settlement, still being debated, would cap Canadian duty-free exports at 31.5 per cent of the U.S. market. That's about 10 per cent less than Canadian producers have been shipping to the U.S.
Any shipments above that level and Canadian companies would have to pay $200 per thousand board feet. That's such a punitive duty that exports are effectively capped.
That's obviously bad news for Canada. B.C.'s largest export industry has lost the chance to compete freely in its most important market.
But wait. It gets worse.
Companies can't just magically keep shipments under the ceiling. The federal government is going to have to judge the size of the market, and then allocate export quotas to provinces and companies. Success won't be determined by efficiency, or ability to meet customers' needs. It will depend on who gets quota from government.
It looks now like some B.C. companies will be winners. Ottawa's current proposal is to base the quotas on each company's share of shipments since April 1, 2001.
That's great news for some of the big Interior forest companies, like Canfor and Slocan. They ramped up production during the dispute, hoping to push their costs down. Exports from large Interior companies jumped almost 20 per cent during that period, at the expense mainly of the industry in Quebec.
Under the proposed deal, those companies would grab a big chunk of quota. Good news for them, and the communities in which they operate.
But Coastal companies, which have reduced production, will get much lower quotas. And once the quota is in place, they'll be locked out of the U.S. market again.
The deal would also hammer B.C.'s remanufacturing industry, the people who make doors and windows and value-added products. They've been hurt badly by the duties and been forced to slash production. Their temporary problems will be made permanent, bad news for the province's hope of generating more jobs per tree.
The agreement would have a faint hope clause. If Canadian provinces show they've moved to market-based stumpage, through some sort of auction system, the quota could be raised.
But only a sap would believe that's going to happen. U.S. producers have shown that they'll fight any increase in exports from Canada, and they will have no trouble in raising a wall of objections to any Canadian proposal.
And Canada and B.C., by talking tough and then caving, have made a fundamental mistake. U.S. producers have just been taught that our bluffs can be called. They will have no reason to take Canada seriously in other trade disputes.
There's no clear solution. Fighting on through legal challenges could take several costly years. And clearly, an end to the dispute has value.
But this agreement violates all the principles B.C. took into these negotiations. The government owes us a clear explanation of why this deal makes sense. And they owe aid to the companies and communities that will be the losers.
Footnote: Despite the misgivings, an end to the dispute on these terms would still be positive for the province, according to first comments from ecnomists. And share values of Interior companies rose after the announcement, and indication that binvestors think their profits will rise.


Health ad campaign a waste of your money
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Gordon Campbell used to hate those taxpayer-funded government flyers and TV commercials telling people what a great job the NDP was doing.
"Disgusting," he said. "How many people were left on waiting lists so that we could have more NDP propaganda?"
And when the NDP was slow to say what one particularly objectionable pre-election ad campaign cost, Campbell was outraged. "The taxpayers who are funding this latest exercise in NDP election propaganda deserve to know the full cost, in terms of preparation, production and distribution,'' said the then-opposition leader.
How time flies, and promises along with them.
This month every household in the province got an eight-page flyer outlining what a great job the Liberals are doing on health care, and the next wave of TV ads started. The flyer's key information is that health care costs a lot, the Liberals have increased spending, B.C. compares well with other provinces, wages are a big cost in health care and that, by the way, did we mention that we're doing a great job.
There's nothing in it than anyone reading newspapers or keeping half-an-eye on the government's press releases and speeches wouldn't have known. There's no new ideas on staying healthy, except about 50 words on the flu and a brief bit about the BC NurseLine, a useful service. (Call 1-866-215-4700 for help with medical questions. If everyone could safely avoid one doctor visit, we'd save $250 million.)
Most of the information the flyer does provide would be considered appropriate propaganda from a political party. It's fine to point out that the number of surgeries and other procedures done increased 4.6 per cent in the last fiscal year. But a government bent on communicating real information would also note that waiting lists increased by 20 per cent, and offered some explanation and solutions. Likewise, it's fine for a political party to boast of lowering PharmaCare costs for 280,000; a government should acknowledge that they also raised costs for 400,000 other people and cut the Pharmacare budget.
It is, in short, taxpayer funded political advertising, exactly like the NDP efforts the Liberals used to find so appalling.
But the Liberals have gone the NDP one better. They're keeping the cost of the individual ad campaigns secret - even though it's your money. I'd figure around $250,000 for this one. That's on top of more than $600,000 for last year's TV ad campaign on health, $900,000 to sell the Pharmacare cuts, $500,000 for a self-congratulatory education ad campaign - and of course, the campaign to try and persuade people in the Interior that the Coquihalla privatization plan was a good idea.
Health Minister Colin Hansen defends the ad spending. People all over the province want more information, he says. Groups like Hospital Employees' Union are spreading misinformation. And anyway, the money comes from the $20-million ad budget under the premier's office, not the health ministry. (That $20 million is about one-fifth less than the NDP spent.)
But there's lots of ways to provide more facts and combat misinformation without spending taxpayers' money. And the HEU - while it did advertise heavily earlier - can't compete with the access a government has to the public. MLAs' columns, speeches, press releases, TV appearances, the Internet. All there, and all free.
The argument that the money doesn't matter because it comes from the premier's office is patently silly. If some $2 million hadn't been spent selling health policy since the election, it could have been spent immediately on reducing waiting lists.
Campbell had it right before.
It's a blatant abuse of taxpayers to finance party propaganda with their money. And it's a dumb waste of the money. People form their views of the health care system from the information they gather, and more critically from their own experiences. And on that basis, most believe that things have got worse, not better, under the Liberals.
And self-serving ad campaigns aren't going to change their minds.
Footnote: Who speaks for health care consumers? Doctors have the BCMA, employees have the HEU and other unions (at least for now), the government has its PR arm. Patients don't have any collective voice; it's past time for a BC Association of Health Care Consumers.

Liberals head for extra-billing fight with doctors

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Who would have thought the Liberals would be the ones to battle doctors over extra-billing and private health care?
The New Democrats pretended nothing was going on as doctors and clinics found more and more ways to charge patients directly. Jumping the waiting list, at a price, is routine for many procedures, from surgery to diagnostic tests, and the violations of the Canada Health Act are blatant.
But the Liberals seem to have put principle ahead of both pragmatism and politics, introducing a bill that will end much of the direct-billing that has fueled the growth of private clinics.
In the process they have opened another front in what will be a bitter war with doctors over the next six months.
The Liberals are due to pass the Medicare Protection Amendment Act in the next few days. Health Minister Colin Hansen introduced the bill modestly, promising only "greater clarity to both patients and private clinic operators about billing practices for medically necessary health care services."
In fact the bill outlaws most direct billing for medically necessary procedures. It specifically bans the most common abuse, in which patients get around the ban on direct billing by having a friend pay. And it sets up tough enforcement powers and maximum penalties of $20,000 per violation.
Mr. Hansen's position is that if clinics are operating in accord with the Canada Health Act, they shouldn't have a problem.
But they aren't, as the doctors' immediate reaction confirmed. The BC Medical Association called the act "Draconian," warning it was "basically setting up a medicare Gestapo.'' And doctors complained bitterly that they hadn't been consulted.
It's tough to say how many thousands of procedures would be banned under the new act. But Dr. Brian Day, medical director of the private Cambie Surgery Centre, predicted some of the province's 50 private clinics would have to close. They would just lose too much business.
Not all direct billing violates the Canada Health Act. If a procedure isn't medically necessary - if you're just curious and want a CAT scan, or opt for a facelift - you can pay. And the federal government has legalized queue-jumping by organizations like the WCB, which are allowed to pay for fats private treatment for clients. (The Liberals used to think that was unfair, but have changed their minds since the election.)
But doctors and clinics the act to have a big impact, and everyone will feel the shock wave.
Waiting lists will grow. Leaving aside the question of fairness, every operation done in a private clinic means one less name on the waiting lists for hospital treatment.
And despite Mr. Hansen's denial, the crackdown will cause big problems in already troubled negotiations with doctors. Doctors already complain that inadequate funding has forced hospitals to close operating rooms, meaning they can't work or get paid. Private facilities - and direct billing - allow them to perform more operations and add to their incomes.
Proposing to take that opportunity away - while at the same time refusing any increase in doctors' fees under the Medical Services Plan - will lead to a major confrontation as negotiations head towards an April deadline.
Mr. Hansen says B.C. is under pressure from Ottawa, which complains the province isn't enforcing the Canada Health Act. (B.C. was docked $5,000 in federal health transfer payments this year over two direct billing cases in 1999.) The Ontario government introduced similar legislation this week.
And he may have decided that it's worth a showdown with doctors to clear away a number of issues. This week the auditor general reported major problems with the $300-million alternate payments program to doctors, which is an alternative to fee-for-service. Planning is inadequate, spending is crisis-driven and results are unmeasured, said the report, done at the health ministry's request. But any changes risk another battle with doctors.
Mr. Hansen is doing the right thing. But his timing, and tactics, are ensuring a very tough New Year for B.C.'s health care system.

CN the big winner in BC Rail deal

VICTORIA - First, count the BC Rail sale as a broken promise, and one that's being handled with a notable lack of honesty.
CN Rail is buying the railway -- a 90-year deal counts as a sale. And public ownership of the rails and land under them doesn't change that reality. The Liberals promised not to sell or privatize the Crown corporation. They broke their word.
That out of the way, is it a good deal?
It is for CN Rail, for certain. CN is paying $1 billion. But $250 million of that is buying BC Rail's past losses; CN hopes to reduce its own taxes by at least that much. If Revenue Canada turns down the plan, then the government has to give the money back.
That leaves $750 million for a debt-free railway and all its equipment and buildings, valued at more than $250 million. CN will put some extra cash in for new cars to serve the forest industry and improved container service. It will make some quick cash by selling some locomotives and 1,300 of BC Rail's existing cars.
But work with the $750 million as the investment.
The takeover will add something like $100 million a year to CN's profits. CN Rail expects to improve on that, in part by eliminating one-third of the remaining jobs and increasing the business.
So conservatively, figure that CN spent $750 million and can expects to earn about $130 million a year. That's a 17-per-cent return on the company's investment, a great deal even given the risk of buying a business that is largely dependent on volatile resource industries.
Why did they get such a good deal? Under the conditions the Liberals set for the sale, CN was the only potential buyer. If the government wanted to sell -- and they made it desperately clear that they did -- then CN was in a position to drive a very hard bargain.
The competitive bidding process was merely an exercise. The railway is integrated with CN's existing lines; CN has the infrastructure in the West that allows it cut the most jobs; CN has the chance to take control of the market and make the most money out of running BC Rail. It was always going to be able to pay the highest price.
That wouldn't have been true if the government had decided to consider a range of factors in deciding on a successful buyer, like job protection or guarantees against line closures.
But those weren't a significant part of the decision. CN gains the right to run the railway as it sees fit, abandoning lines or starting new services or selling equipment. (Line closures are barred for five years.)
And on a straight cash basis, CN was always going to be able to pay the highest price. (That may explain CP Rail's complaints that the process was unfair.)
Partly, the price just reflects market forces.
But the government weakened its bargaining position dramatically by making it clear from the outset that BC Rail was going to be sold. From the time the Liberals said they were not prepared to allow BC Rail any capital to finance improvements -- even if the corporation could make the payments out of its profits -- the sale was certain.
And knowing the government was desperate to sell quickly, CN was in a very strong position to cut a good deal.
The benefits for northern communities -- some $156 million -- will be welcome and useful. There's a significant economic development fund, and spending on the Port of Prince Rupert and a Prince George airport expansion.
But northerners will rightly wonder why they had to wait for the sale of BC Rail to see this spending.
If investing in Prince Rupert's port makes sense, it should not require the sale of a Crown corporation before the money is available.
The bottom line? A broken promise, for sure.
And a deal that achieves the Liberals' goal of getting taxpayers out of the railway business.
Footnote: The NDP was denied their usual chance to examine the deal in Question Period hours after the premier's glitzy announcement. Speaker Claude Richmond, apparently miffed at heckling from Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan, refused to recognize MacPhail and instead allowed a string of softball questions from Liberal backbenchers.


James should hit the road to rebuild NDP
VICTORIA - New NDP leader Carole James is a mighty popular woman around the Capital Region. Even after a dozen difficult years on the school board, through cuts and labour disputes, she emerged with what looks like a huge pool of goodwill.
Not a bad start for a new leader. Earned respect is a valuable currency.
Overall, James looks like a sensible choice for the party. She falls -- apparently -- into the middle of the NDP policy spectrum. Ex-MLA Leonard Krog was seen as more loyal to the party's traditional positions (too hard, in the language of Goldilocks); newcomer Nils Jensen as more eager to move the party to the middle (too soft); and James fell somewhere in between.
One of the big questions is just what that means. The James' campaign was long on good intentions and short on specifics. She's opposed to offshore oil development, a position that will cost the NDP votes in many coastal communities, but play well in Vancouver. She apparently believes in the need to balance budgets, while having a strong economy and healthy communities.
But it's all rather sketchy. I've yet to hear of a candidate from any party opposed to healthy communities.
The mushiness clearly wasn't a bad strategy for the leadership campaign, and will likely play well in the election campaign now barely a year away. No matter what the NDP says, they will be running in 2005 for the chance to form a larger opposition. That means voters will accept some policy vagueness.
But they will be looking for competence, credibility and the ability to reflect their interests and concerns. James' challenge is to demonstrate, in short order, that under her leadership the party can live up to those expectations.
She already has one big advantage.
She's not personally lugging the tawdry baggage of the last NDP government. The Liberals' favorite comeback to any attack on their record has been a ritualistic reference to the fast ferries.
It's a rebuke that has long grown tired; it will seem even more stale directed at James.
But the Liberals keep using the line because it still resonates.
As the polls show, it takes more than a couple of years for people to forget the bungling of a government as inept as the former NDP administration.
That's the challenge for James.
She has to explain how the NDP is now different than it was through the late-90s. How has the party's structure been changed? How has it become more broadly based, and less a party with a bias towards representing the interests of public sector unions? (James had strong support from both CUPE and the BC Government Employees' Union; the party's newly elected president is from the BCGEU.)
She has to explain how her policies differ from the past NDP regime.
And she has to show that she can bring competence and effectiveness to government.
James can do that more readily without a seat.
While the house is sitting, Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan can continue to question the government, with James just hitting the big issues.
That gives her the chance to travel the province and make the case for the party. (And it also avoids a highly public baptism by fire in the legislature.)
It also gives James a chance to start recruiting credible candidates, which may be the most important task in the time before the election. Even people who don't trust the NDP may be prepared to send the party's candidate to Victoria -- if they know and respect the local nominee.
That doesn't mean James will get a free policy ride, especially if the Liberals succeed in their attempts to pin her down. But it does mean voters will accept vagueness on specific issues, if they are satisfied that, overall, the party recognizes their concerns.
Footnote: James starts with a couple of other advantages. She's lived and worked mainly in Victoria, but has spent the last two years in Prince George. She's well positioned to tackle the Liberals' on their failure to make significant improvements for people living outside Victoria and Vancouver. She has inside knowledge of the children and families ministry, one of the Liberals' most mismanaged files.

Why you should care about the NDP leadership vote
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, it's time to start paying a little attention to the NDP leadership race.
The battered party picks a new leader Sunday morning, after a contest that hasn't exactly dominated media headlines.
That's not a bad thing. After all, the last NDP leadership race earned headlines mainly for controversy over mass sign-ups of new members and allegations of dubious practices. (Who can forget Moe Sihota's claim that he had boxes of signed membership forms in his basement, but hadn't decided whether he'd actually send them to the party?)
But it's worth tuning in now, in part because the convention should be entertaining - at least there's a real race - and in part because the NDP may be sick now, but it will likely be a political force again.
The generally acknowledged front-runner is Carole James, who has the support of Jenny Kwan, Svend Robinson and the province's biggest public sector unions. She live in Prince George now, where she has been working with a First Nation. But she did live in Victoria, worked for the government and was the long-time chair of the Victoria school board and the BC School Trustees Association. James came within a few dozen votes of winning a Victoria seat in the 2001 election.
She's got a good reputation down here, and has built a broad base of support. Her campaign has been a bit mushy, long on generalities and weak on specifics. But broadly, she's a centrist candidate in the NDP world.
Chasing her is Leonard Krog, a one-term MLA from Nanaimo who was part of the Harcourt government. Krog's a lawyer, and he's won backing from a number of party leading lights, including a former premier Dave Barrett, and ex-ministers Dale Lovick, Tim Stevenson and John Cashore.
Krog has pitched his skills and experience, and green credentials. Like James, he's towards the centre of the field in terms of traditional NDP values, although most observers would likely position him slightly farther left. (What does that mean? He's more likely to defend past NDP policies, and more likely to slide fiscal restraint backwards as a factor in decisions.)
Figure that those two will emerge as the first ballot leaders.
But close behind should be the most intriguing candidate, party newcomer Nils Jensen.
Jensen faced an uphill run. He joined the party days before entering the race, although he can note that as a Crown prosecutor he needed to keep his distance from politics. But he donated money to Liberal Sheila Orr's campaign, a move that raised NDP eyebrows.
Jensen has run the strongest, most interesting campaign. He has positioned himself as the candidate to help the NDP start fresh by moving towards the centre and building a coalition of those dissatisfied with the Liberals. (When candidates were asked about free university tuition at a leadership forum, only Jensen said that it was a bad idea because the province can't afford it.)
He's lined up some impressive support, with Corky Evans agreeing to head up a panel on resource communities and former premier Dan Miller backing his bid.
And Jensen, as the chair of Greater Victoria's water district board, has been irritatingly green, a move that should allow many environmentalists to return to the NDP.
There's three other candidates, including former MLA Steve Orcherton who is the staunchest defender of the party's old path. But their significance likely rests more on where their support will go on the second ballot.
The race is too close to call. And whoever wins faces the prospect of at least five years in opposition.
But the NDP has managed to find several candidates who could move the party on the road back to credibility with voters.
The fastest progress - and maybe the riskiest, given the number of unknowns - would likely be under Jensen.
Footnote: One striking element of the race is the lack of candidates from the Interior and North, where at the NDP currently has the strongest support. Krog's from Nanaimo; James has been in Prince George for more than a year. But the candidates really represent urban B.C. Jensen's link with Evans is a useful one for developing rural support.


Don't blame trustees for school fund shortage
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - School trustees should be mighty steamed at Education Minister Christy Clark.
Clark has just made the baffling claim that the reason parents aren't happier with their school system is that - wait for it - that school trustees have been socking money away in the bank, instead of spending it on kids.
Now even without looking at the facts, that seems a little odd. It's hard to see why all across the province, people ran for trustee - a job that pays poorly, takes a huge amount of time and involves a great deal of pressure - for the purpose of hoarding cash.
Look at the facts, and you see Clark's claim is empty.
The criticism comes because audits show the school districts finished up last year with a surplus of $145 million last year. Too much, Clark says. The districts are hoarding money instead of spending it on children.
"We allocated an extra $92 million in the last two years to school districts and still parents are telling me they don't see that in improved services in classrooms," she says. "Now we know why. There's $145 million that's been socked away."
She should know better.
First, more than one-third of the surplus was created because the education ministry came up with a last-minute $50 million for school districts weeks before the fiscal year ended. That was welcome. But it would be irresponsible - and ineffective - for school districts to rush out and spend the money before the year-end. In fact, they generally set aside the money to reduce the cuts needed this year.
That leaves about $95 million. Not small change, but only a little over two per cent of district spending. Districts are supposed to be balancing their budgets; that seems pretty close.
But in fact, trustees say, almost all the money was actually committed at year-end. I live in Saanich, where Clark's tally would claim the school district had a $2.9 million surplus at year-end, money that should have been spent.
But about $1.2 million was money allocated too late in the year to be spent effectively. Another $1.2 million had been saved by schools, through cost-cutting measures, and set aside for needed equipment like photocopiers or shop tools. Still more money had been reserved for purchases that had already been made, even though the invoice haven't been received.
It all sounds sensible. And the money has hardly vanished. In fact it's already been spent on education.
So why are parents complaining to the minister?
The best guess is because the Liberals have decided to squeeze education funding. The announcements make much of funding increases for schools. But the extra money the government has found is barely one per cent a year. The education ministry budget was $4.8 billion in the Liberals' first year in office. It's $4.8 billion today.
That isn't enough money to keep on providing the same services. (Remember, the province gave teachers a 7.5-per-cent pay increase, but only provided the money to cover one-third of it.)
So trustees did what they could to reduce costs, and some of those changes hurt the quality of education. Districts did not move to a four-day school week so children would learn better; they did it because they couldn't afford to offer a five-day program.
The government has decided that education costs have been increasing too quickly, B.C. is bucking a trend. Ontario's former Conservative government reviewed its three-year education funding freeze before the recent election, and found that it was a damaging mistake.
And Alberta's Ralph Klein has promised to act on a government report that called for an immediate $137-million funding increase to reduce class sizes, and a $500-million annual spending increase over the next five years.
The government would do better to defend its decisions, instead of trying to dump the blame off on school trustees.
Footnote: More headaches ahead. The teachers' contract expires next June. They want a raise; the government has rejected any public sector pay increases. And a just released report recommends a total overhaul of the hopeless bargaining process. The government is going to want to put talks off until after the new process is in place - and the next election.

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Christy Clark either lacks financial skills, or has chosen to pick a pointless fight with school trustees.
The education minister criticized school boards because financial statements show they finished last year with a collective $145-million surplus.
Parents aren't happier with the school system, she concludes, because school trustees are hoarding money instead of spending it on children. "We allocated an extra $92 million in the last two years to school districts and still parents are telling me they don't see that in improved services in classrooms," Ms. Clark says. "Now we know why. There's $145 million that's been socked away."
I hope she's not serious. Even a cursory look at the facts shows the claim makes little sense.
More than one-third of the surplus is Ms. Clark's doing. With only weeks left in the last fiscal year the province came up with an unexpected extra $50 million for schools. That's great, but to criticize school districts because they didn't rush out to blow the money is ridiculous.
That leaves less than $100 million as the year-end surplus, barely two per cent of spending and hardly a fat cushion for districts trying to avoid deficits.
Ms. Clark should also know that almost all the supposedly surplus money was already committed at year-end. My local school district had, by Ms. Clark's reckoning, a wasteful $2.9-million surplus.
But about $1.2 million was money received too late to be spent effectively within the fiscal year. Another $1.2 million had been saved by schools, through cost-cutting measures, and set aside for needed equipment. Other money has been reserved for purchases that had already been made, even though the invoice haven't been received.
Other school districts have similar logical, prudent explanations.
So how to explain Ms. Clark's puzzlement about why additions to school funding haven't produced any greater parent satisfaction?
The answer is simple. The increases - barely one per cent a year - aren't enough to cover increasing costs, and don't allow districts to maintain existing services to students. The education ministry budget was $4.8 billion in the Liberals' first year in office. It's $4.8 billion today.
In that time teachers' wages - under a government-imposed contract - were raised 7.5 per cent. The government only funded one-third of the increase. Other costs have also outstripped funding increases. So trustees have had to cut programs, close schools and shift to four-day school weeks.
Cost increases - not for new services, but to maintain the existing ones - were greater than the districts' revenue. They made spending cuts. And that's why Ms. Clark is hearing concern from parents.
It's hard to see why Ms. Clark would start this public spat. Trustees, for the most part, have grumbled about inadequate funding, but then tried their best to make them work.
And while effective spending is still seen as important, the political tide appears to be turning toward more funding for schools.
Ontario's former Conservative government reviewed its three-year education funding freeze before the recent election, and found that it resulted in school boards cutting services to students each year. The government pledged to restore the needed money - about $600 million a year - but voters still turfed them out.
In Alberta, Ralph Klein has promised to act on a report from a government commission that called for an immediate $137-million funding increase to hire more teachers, and a $500-million annual spending increase over the next five years (The proposed Alberta standards would call for much smaller classes than in B.C.)
Even in B.C., a legislative committee dominated by Liberal MLAs sounded a warning as this year's budget was being prepared. "The shortage of funds is reaching a critical stage for rural schools and schools-based programs in urban areas," said their report on budget priorities.
If parents are complaining to the minister, she should listen.
And she should acknowledge that it's the government's funding decisions, not some year-end

Step 1: MLAs stand up to enviros. . .
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Some people are getting excited because Liberal MLAs have been pushing back a bit at protesters by standing up for salmon farming and logging.
Bill Belsey and Rod Visser got the ball rolling, showing up last week at an anti-fish farm protest at a Safeway in a posh Victoria riding. The Forest Action Network wanted the store to quit selling farmed salmon.
Belsey, from Prince Rupert, and Visser, from north Vancouver Island, made their way past the protesters, bought some farmed salmon and came out to defend the industry.
Next Chilliwack MLA Barry Penner showed up at a press conference where the Forest Action Network, the David Suzuki Foundation and three other groups announced they were urging Chinese buyers to boycott B.C. lumber. The groups took a half-page ad in The China Daily and sent emails to 8,000 lumber buyers in China. They say too much clear-cutting continues, old growth is being logged and habitat threatened.
Liar, said Penner, taking the most offence at a claim that logging threatened spotted owls in Penner's own riding.
There's nothing wrong with the MLAs speaking up for their constituents, politely and reasonably. It's ironic, maybe, that Penner showed up uninvited at the environmentalists' announcement. The Liberals keep security tight for their own events to prevent such a happening.
But speaking for their constituents - especially when their jobs are at stake - is part of what effective politicians do.
And unfair campaigns - like the effort to get China to boycott B.C. wood - do cost people jobs.
The boycott call came as Premier Gordon Campbell was in China trying to convince people that wood-frame housing makes sense, and that B.C. is the best supplier.
China's not a big market for B.C. It's the world's second largest wood importer, but uses little of the kinds of lumber we produce. But that's expected to change, and New Zealand and other exporting countries are competing with B.C. to get into the Chinese market.
There's lots of room for debate on B.C. forest practices, and it's legitimate for groups on either side to pressure government.
But their tactics need to show balance and judgment. And nothing in today's B.C. logging practices justifies sacrificing workers, families and communities to an environmental pressure campaign. A boycott call, when resource communities are already struggling, should be a desperate last measure. Instead it looks like a cheap and callous publicity stunt.
Likewise, there is room for debate on salmon farming. The industry has behaved irresponsibly, and government oversight - under the NDP and the Liberals - has been weak.
But the best science indicates that, properly managed and regulated, the industry can produce food safely and efficiently. It provides jobs where there are few other options. Pushing Safeway to stop selling farmed fish puts those jobs at risk; it's not surprising that Belsey and Visser would push back.
Is it part of a co-ordinated strategy? Probably, since MLAs don't do much without checking with their masters. It would be helpful for the Liberals to have MLAs seen publicly as defenders of their constituencies.
But only moderately helpful.
Many people are looking for signs that their MLAs are defenders of their communities within government, and they aren't seeing that. The MLAs, in fairness, often argue that they are raising the issues, behind closed doors.
But what communities see are health care cuts, and more closed stores on main street. They see the Coquihalla slated for sale, or the loss of hundreds of jobs due to the sale of BC Rail.
And while they don't expect MLAs to attack the government, they do expect their concerns to be raised. A Liberal MLA may not be free to oppose the idea of selling BC Rail, but he can argue publicly that the proceeds should all go into an economic development fund for the province's Northwest and Interior.
Here's hoping the trend to outspoken MLAs grows.
Footnote: Rural MLAs should be cheered by a new hire in the premier's office. A new deputy minister - at somewere between $130,000 and $200,000 - has been hired to try and get land use issues resolved more quickly. Jessica McDonald has been working as a consultant for five years in the same area. Her hiring responds to the continued complaints about stalled land use decisions.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Why a higher liquor tax makes sense, and other notes

VICTORIA -- Capital punishment, or random notes from the front:

It's tough to get too enthusiastic about Green leader Adriane Carr's pitch for a junk food tax. (Though it did get her some needed news coverage.) It's too complicated and a hassle for stores, even if it is right to make people pay for their sins.
But B.C. school trustees' call for a tax on alcohol to pay for support services needed by students with fetal alcohol syndrome makes good sense.
We already accept taxes on alcohol. And B.C. could be the first province to do a true needs-based fetal alcohol strategy, helping those already affected and making prevention an obsession. Say the whole deal would cost $50 million a year. A $20 bottle of gin would cost 50 cents more.
The benefits would be huge. Kids with fetal alcohol damage lead immensely difficult lives, often veering from disaster to disaster. Helping them, or making sure that no more children are born damaged, will save lives and save millions.
It's a stunningly simple, painless way to deal with a major social and criminal problem, and save thousands of people from suffering.


The legislature works. Prince George-Omineca Independent MLA Paul Nettleton asked about the recent U.S. ruling that B.C. Hydro's trading arm had done nothing wrong during the California energy crisis. What did the ruling mean, and was there still money owed that California didn't want to pay?
And Energy Minister Richard Neufeld answered, clearly and without spin. Yes, it was a big victory for Hydro. Yes, some $282 million is still owed and in dispute. It was the kind of response you'd give if someone asked you a question.
And for that, Neufeld deserves our collective thanks for showing how the legislature could actually function. (I know, you're wondering why a straight answer qualifies as a great moment. Tune in to Question Period at 2:15 each afternoon and see.)

Things went less well for another minister a few days later. NDP leader Joy MacPhail asked Transport Minister Judith Reid why the government wants to sell B.C. Rail when it's profitable. The good times won't last, Reid said. Forest companies have just been rushing wood out because of the softwood dispute.
"That is creating an unusual situation in the marketplace that is leading to increased traffic on B.C. Rail," she said. "That is not sustainable." It was an easy set-up for MacPhail, who leapt on the prediction of even worse times ahead for the forest industry.

Premier Gordon Campbell is taking a calculated risk in the B.C. Ferries contract talks. Campbell stepped in to say he might not accept an LRB ruling on essential ferry services during a strike. Campbell was sending a message to ferry workers -- be careful about striking, because I can legislate you back anytime, and I'm ready to do it.
The immediate risk is that anytime the premier starts talking about ferry strikes, businesses in ferry-dependent communities suffer. Rumours of a strike are enough to persuade people that a weekend on Saltspring might be risky.
The premier's comments also acknowledge reality. Despite all the effort put into spinning off B.C. Ferries as an independent authority, the public will hold the government accountable when things go wrong.

The crime issue is turning out to be a rough one for the Liberals. The NDP has been pressing the government on when it will keep a campaign promise to transfer 75 per cent of traffic fine revenue to municipalities for increased policing. The Liberals say - rightly - that they only promised to provide the revenue sometime in their first four-year term, and they will. But it's tough to talk about the need to get tough on crime now while putting off a pledge to give communities money they need for policing.

And, finally, the premier's attendance record for Question Periods this session. To date, the legislature has sat for 16 days. Campbell has made it to five, thanks to a busy schedule of trade missions. For more than a century premiers have made it a point to be around while the legislature is sitting - it's only 71 days this year - to lead the government and answer questions from MLAs and people like me. Times have changed.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Liberals take on princely powers to push development
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' latest economic development bill looks remarkably like something Glen Clark might have written.
It's called the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. But it could as easily be called the 'Making the Premier King Act.'
The idea is that it's too hard to get approvals to build things or open mines in B.C., despite the Liberals' pledge to get rid of regulations and make government work better. Approvals take too long, municipalities ask too many questions and things don't get done quickly enough to keep the developers happy.
And the Liberal solution is to give cabinet - which means the premier - the power to designate any project as "significant." Once that's done, cabinet can rewrite the rules, or eliminate them, and make sure the project gets approved in short order. The people behind the project only have to persuade the cabinet that it's a good thing, and with a wave of the pen almost all obstacles can be made to disappear.
It will be convenient. Anyone who has tried to add on to a house or build a new deck would recognize the benefits of being able to skip all those building inspections and plan approvals.
And it's a useful part of the sales pitch for the premier when he courts new industries. What about regulations and approvals, the proponents can ask? No problem, says the premier. We'll designate this a significant project, and the only approvals you need are from me.
If you were a developer, you would love it. And if you were premier, you would really love it. You could get a lot done, quickly, if you didn't have to worry about public consultations or municipal bylaws or planning and zoning restrictions. Attractive idea, public benefit, pressing need - clear the track.
But taxpayers shouldn't be quite so welcoming. This is the kind of approach, after all, that brought us the fast ferries. It could be that we need a stringent approval process most when cabinet or a premier has fallen in love with a project.
Here's how it would work in real life. You would convince a cabinet minister or the premier that the your plan for a new racetrack would be great for the province, And you would warn that it has to be built quickly, or the project couldn't go ahead.
Once the cabinet designates the racetrack a significant project - and their power to pick a public or private partnership is unlimited under the proposed act - things start happening.
If you've got a problem with approvals or zoning, or neighbours are demanding to be consulted, or municipalities are worried about traffic congestion when 200,000 spectators head to the race, you can go to the premier or a cabinet minister. He can order a facilitator to try and resolve the problem. And if that doesn't work, cabinet can just give you a green light to go ahead without the required approvals, on the terms he choses.
There are few limits. The laws says cabinet can't ignore or over-ride provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission Act or the Environmental Assessment Act. But every other act, or any municipal provisions, can be ignored to get a project built more quickly.
Some municipalities are onside, keen to see development come more quickly. And the province does need the jobs.
But taxpayers should be worried. The temptation to take shortcuts - for Olympic projects, the hugely expensive RAV line, new public-private partnerships, a power plant, mine or resort - will be huge. And decision-making will move from the public arena to behind the tightly closed doors of cabinet and the premier's officer.
It's the kind of extraordinary power that should include safeguards and protection for the public interest, or be restricted to clearly defined project types.
But that's not what the bill does. Instead, it confers near absolute power on cabinet.
And that, no matter how good the intentions, should be worrying.
Footnote: The bill is a confirmation of just how much trouble the Liberals have had delivering a streamlined, clear approval process. After more than two years, Industry and developers are still complaining of regulatory overlap and unreasonable delays. Municipalities, and front-line provincial staff, come in for much of the criticism.



Tough talk on youth crime mostly - and wisely - empty
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's much less than meets the eye to the Liberals' youth crime bill.
That doesn't mean the new law isn't useful. While politicians love bold initiatives - because we do - small, smart changes often make more sense.
The spin - dutifully reported - was that the new law would see more youths go to jail for doing bad things like trespassing on school grounds to recruit gang members or coerce kids into the sex trade.
The maximum penalty for those offences has been a fine or probation. Now the courts will be able to jail offenders for 30 days.
The government's news release, Solicitor General Rich Coleman and even Premier Gordon Campbell talked about getting tough with young offenders. Earnest reporters trotted off to make sure there would be enough jail space.
But the reality is that almost nothing has changed. Only a few more kids will likely go to jail - which is a good thing.
There's nothing wrong with the changes. They send a signal that certain offences are viewed seriously. There's a remote chance that they'll make some kids think twice, although that's not likely. The average 15-year-old offender is not great at considering consequences. If he was, he wouldn't be doing dangerous things.
And the changes give principals another weapon. If a problem youth won't stay away from the school - whether he's trespassing to get in a fight, sell drugs or just hang out - then school act charges could, in an extraordinary case, result in a few days in custody.
But it's going to be a mighty rare occurrence. All across B.C. only 51 trespassing charges were laid last year under the school act. (There are more than 1,800 schools.)
A few more charges may be laid. And a few youths may spend a couple of days in jail, when they're a real nuisance around a school and police can't figure out a way to make more serious charges stick. But charges will be scarce, and probation the norm.
That's good. Some youths need to be locked up because they're a danger to others. Some kids benefit from a few days in custody so people have a chance to try and help them.
But mostly kids who are locked up learn to be better criminals. That's why the number of youth in custody has fallen by 40 per cent in the last three years.
So if the bill's measures really represent only an almost insignificant, though useful change, why all the tough talk from the Liberals?
They've decided it's a good idea to be seen as tough on crime. That's why Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who does a good tough bit, did the talking about what was really Attorney General Geoff Plant's bill. That's why the news release talked about tougher penalties for kids who trespass on school property for gang activities or sexual exploitation, when really the penalties apply to all school trespass. Usually, it's drug dealing or picking fights that results in charges, not pimping.
It's a risky tactic. Practically, the public loses if our approach to crime is simplistic. It will take much more than tougher penalties to make communities safer. Most criminals don't think about the penalties first.
And politically, the Liberals are on thin ice. People are already worried about the effects of the government's policies on crime rates. And next year Coleman's ministry plans to cut $19 million - about eight per cent - from spending on policing and community safety. Probation officers will have larger caseloads, and supervision of people on house arrest will continue to be lax.
It was a good bill. The changes, although small, are useful.
But the Liberal spin was worrying. We don't need slogans about crime - from either the 'lock-em-up camp' or the 'it's-all-someone-else's-problem camp.'
It's going to take smart, complex - and in the short-term costly - programs to deal with our crime problem.
Footnote: The media - that's me - needs to take a look at our work on this one. Our crime reporting is consistently misleading, giving an overblown sense of the risk. Look around at your family; in B.C., they are 10 times more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed in some crime.