Scary crime stats and the war on drugs

VICTORIA - We treat each batch of crime statistics like some campfire ghost story, eagerly looking for new reasons to be frightened by a dangerous world.
So when Statistics Canada reported a jump in property crime in B.C. this week it was big news and a hot discussion topic. The main theme was that our corner of the world is becoming less safe, and the most commonly offered solution was more police and longer sentences.
Except that the scary story was just about as made-up as those campfire tales about one-handed killers and midnight callers.
Violent crime in B.C. dropped again this year, as it has for at least the past seven years. The rate of violent crime - and your chances of becoming a victim - has fallen by 15 per cent since 1996. You're safer, not at greater risk.
Property crime did jump by almost six per cent last year. That's worrying. But it's no cause for panic, any more than the six-per-cent drop in 2000 was a cause for wild celebration. There are just too many variables for single-year statistics to have much meaning. (For example, Vancouver police started letting people report crimes over the Internet last year, a positive change that likely increased the number of reported offences.)
And again the long-term trend is positive. The property crime rate has fallen by about 10 per cent since 1996. Some of that improvement is likely because people no longer report minor offences, but the numbers show that things are not all that bad.
There's nothing wrong with ghost stories. Perhaps worrying about imaginary dangers offers us a distraction from the more complex, real ones out there.
But they're a dangerous basis for public policy, as revealed by our costly, failed efforts to deal with marijuana use.
Statistics Canada's latest survey on drug use found that 16 per cent of British Columbians 15 and over had used marijuana in 2002 - about 525,000 people. Across Canada, more than one-third of people from 15 to 24 has used marijuana in the last year. The likely rises to about 45 per cent in B.C., based on StatCan's numbers.
It's impractical for any government to think that it can enforce laws that make criminals of so many citizens.
The B.C. government disagrees and opposes the federal Liberals' move to decriminalize pot possession. Grow ops, trafficking and smuggling are enriching organized crime, it argues, and wants tougher penalties.
Facts about the extent of the problem are scarce. There's lots of talk about the need for tougher drug enforcement to stop a flood of B.C. marijuana into the U.S. But a recent RCMP report noted U.S. Customs seized 27 times more marijuana along the Mexican border than they did on the Canadian side, an indication that B.C.'s export role may be overblown.
And while there's also lots of talk about violence, an RCMP study of 12,000 B.C. grow -op reports revealed guns were found at six per cent; overall about 24 per cent of homes in the province have firearms.
An illegal, profitable activity is certain to attract some serious criminals.
But attempts to solve a drug problem by attacking sources of supply have consistently failed. America's Prohibition experiment in the '20s showed that if enough people want a drink, or any other product,, suppliers will meet the demand.
Tougher laws won't change that reality. The U.S. has also tried extreme penalties in drug cases. But the RCMP report noted that most American marijuana is still grown domestically and it's widely available. (In any case, jailing people for years for providing a product used by half-a-million British Columbians would bring justice into disrepute.)
There's no simple solution. But if the objective is to deal with organized crime, then perhaps resources should be shifted from dealing with the thousands of small grow ops to focused enforcement. Or perhaps cultivation of a few plants should be legalized, a change which would take the profits - and the gangs - out of the business.
There's nothing wrong with a good ghost story. But our sense of safety, and our response to crime, they're better based on fact.
- From the Vancouver Sun

Notes: new subsidy for New Skeena; doctors' peace; and battling the U.S.

VICTORIA - Random notes on more taxpayers' money for the old Skeena Cellulose, a successful deal with the doctors and the risks of an environmental battle with the U.S..

Taxpayers - both local and provincial - appear to be on the hook for some $20 million in subsidies for the latest effort to revive New Skeena, the reincarnation of Skeena Cellulose.
The Liberals lasted the NDP's bailout of Skeena, which wound up costing taxpayers more than $400 million. And they've promised to end business subsidies.
But while the the details are still to come, cabinet has quietly changed the rules so northwest towns can write off taxes owed them by Skeena. The Terrace Standard reports that the towns are ready to write off more than half the $30 million they're owed in unpaid property taxes, with Prince Rupert taking the biggest hit. The province is also prepared to write off $5 million in school property taxes, the Standard reports.
Thats sounds remarkably like a subsidy. But New Skeena hasn't operated since the Liberals pulled the plug on the old company in 2001, and sold it for $8 million. It now apparently stands a good chance of negotiating a $70-million investment by The Woodbridge Company, the holding company for billionaire Ken Thomson and his family. That's about half the capital needed to restart the business.
But paying the back taxes would have gobbled up much of the investment, and Woodbridge apparently wanted a break. And now it will get it.
The move will play well in the region.
But it's tough to square with the Liberals' promise of no more business subsidies. Skeena gets a a tax break, while other forest companies - some in tough shape - have to make good on their debts.
Next date to watch is Aug. 9, when New Skeena, currently under bankruptcy protection, is back in court.

Good news for the government, and the public, in the new deal with the province's doctors. Doctors and government bashed each other when talks began last year, but this week Health Minister Colin Hansen and BCMA head Jack Burak announced a three-year deal. Doctors get no overall increase in the first two years, but about $100 million within the annual budget - about four per cent - will be moved around to meet their needs and improve care. About $60 million of the money comes from reduced payments for lab services; the other $40 million will come from unused money apparently sloshing around in the health care system.
Doctors also win binding arbitration in year three, although Hansen was quick to note that the government reserves the right to reject the deal, making it at best semi-binding.
The government made much of the fact that doctors accepted the no-wage-increase policy, like others in the public sector.
But the real win was in getting any kind of deal without a bitter dispute. Doctors, health authorities and the province are going to have to work together to make the health care system work better, and this is a good step.

Who would have thought that the toughest opposition to coalbed methane development in B.C. would come from across the U.S. border?
The province is auctioning off some leases in the Kootenays for development of coalbed methane reserves, but it's facing a fierce fight from Montana politicians and environmentalists, including the state's governor and powerful Senator Max Baucus, a frequent foe of Canada.
The reserves are near the border and an U.S. national park, and the Americans say B.C. hasn't done enough planning and investigation of environmental risks. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld says B.C. has a strong regulatory system and detailed studies aren't needed until the companies are ready to start work.
The issue of coalbed methane rates a separate column.
But the government, which is counting heavily on coalbed methane development across B.C., should be very alarmed at the U.S. opposition and the likely support it will garner in some corners of the province.

Footnote: Government can't stop fires. It can reduce the economic fallout. For the second year, tourism businesses are reporting cancelled trips by people from Europe and the U.S., who are convinced the province is on fire. An emergency fund of $2 million would be enough to counter the misinformation with some targeted messages aimed a our best markets.

B.C. shipyards deserve chance to compete for ferry contracts

VICTORIA - BC Ferries should buy new ships where ever they can get the best deal.
But it's irresponsible to bar B.C. shipyards from even trying to win construction contracts for new ferries that could be worth $500 million - 25 per cent of BC Ferries' capital budget for the next decade.
I'm not one of those who would argue that it's worth paying more to build the ships in B.C.
But this decision, in the words of Liberal MLA Dan Jarvis, looks "blatantly stupid."
BC Ferries needs two or three new mid-size ships, and hopes to award the contracts this fall.
But the government-owned business has already decided B.C. shipbuilders won't be allowed to bid. BC Ferries looked at the province's shipyards, and decided they were so hopelessly out of the picture that they couldn't even make the three-firm shortlist.
The work and the jobs will go to a European company, and B.C. shipbuilders won't even get a chance to try and win the contract.
Why? The answers from BC Ferries and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon have been unconvincing. BC Ferries says they looked at the infrastructure available to B.C. shipbuilders - the cranes and the drydocks - and decided they just weren't adequate. Falcon says building the ferries here would cost $60 million more.
But how does Falcon know, if B.C. companies aren't allowed to bid? How does BC Ferries know the companies don't have an innovative solution, or whether they are prepared to invest?
I'm not saying that B.C. shipbuilders should get preferential treatment, or that BC Ferries should pay more to have the ships built here.
That would mean someone would be subsidizing the shipyards and their employees.
The money has to come from somewhere. If it's from taxpayers, a single mother in Nelson would have to pay more to subsidize a big U.S.-owned corporation.
If it's through fare increases, then every ferry trip would cost more than it needed to, and that also has economic implications - for tourism, for businesses dependent on the ferries and for individuals.
B.C. shipyards shouldn't be guaranteed the work. They should have to win it, in a fair an open competition.
But they deserve a chance to compete
It's hard to BC Ferries management and the Liberals are thinking. There's no obvious risk to allowing B.C. companies to bid. BC Ferries says these will be fixed price contracts, so if there are cost over-runs the shipbuilder will take the hit. And all the bids will be assessed to make sure the companies can deliver. Giving B.C. shipbuilders a fair chance would cost nothing.
Unless BC Ferries needs to discredit the capacity of the B.C. and Canadian industry in order to win a tax break. Canada imposes a 25-per-cent duty on ships built outside the country, because so many foreign governments subsidize their shipbuilders. BC Ferries plans to apply for an exemption, arguing that no Canadian shipyard could build the ships. (Federal Liberal MP Keith Martin says BC Ferries is wrong and opposes the exemption.)
The plan to slam the door on the B.C. industry before the competition even begins has come in for a quick attack from Jarvis, whose North Vancouver riding includes shipyards.
Building the ships overseas - Finland and Germany are the likely choices - would be "blatantly stupid," he says. B.C. companies have built the much bigger Spirit class ships an all the rest of the ferry fleet, he notes. "We're losing too many jobs everywhere and we certainly don't need to have it when I know we've got a pretty healthy shipbuilding industry."
There's an odd political irony here. The Liberals have constantly used the fast ferry disaster - rightly - as a symbol of NDP mismanagement. Now they've created their own political mess over ferry construction.
B.C. shipyards aren't entitled to handouts.
But they surely deserve a chance to compete.
Footnote: So much for the Liberals' hope that shifting BC Ferries from a Crown corporation to a semi-independent authority would protect the government from these kind of controversies. Government owns BC Ferries; taxpayers' subsidize it; and it's critical to the economy. This isn't just another decision by a private company.

Resource towns fight back against arriviste rock stars

VICTORIA - When Randy Bachman and Neil Young are rocking in Duncan this fall, raising money for the next round in a fight against a nearby pulp mill, Leanne Brunt is going to be there too.
But not inside the theatre, clutching one of the hot $200 tickets.
Ms. Brunt and friends will be handing out pamphlets outside the theatre, and holding their own small-scale festival - "a celebration of resource communities and the people who live in them."
The duelling concerts - one with rock stars, the other with a picnic and some kids' games - mark the start of a new B.C.battle, one that goes far beyond the fight over emissions from Norske Canada's Crofton pulp mill.
Mr. Bachman lives in a $3-million enviro-friendly house on Saltspring Island. He and a clutch of like-minded Islanders joined forces in the Crofton Airshed Citizens' Group. They want an independent study of the emissions from the mill, which is about five kilometres across the water from Saltspring.
Ms. Brunt lives in a considerably more modest house in Campbell River. Like many of the people who work at the mill, she suspects the real goal of Mr. Bachman's group is to shut the mill down.
It's exactly the the kind of conflict that led her and others on the North Island to strt a movement called First Dollar. People in B.C.'s resource communities have been ignored and pushed around for too long, they say, by politicians, urbanites, and people like Mr. Bachman.
It's a divide you can see across the province. But the two worlds collide with the loudest crash in places where moneyed newcomers set down alongside resource communities.
In Pemberton, the current dispute is about logging in the "viewshed." In the Kootenays, it's about gas drilling. And on Saltspring and in the Cowichan Valley, it's about the pulp mill, which has been an economic mainstay for 47 years. Norkse employs about 1,000 people in the area, at above-average wages.
The relationship between mill and community has often been uneasy, especially as the community gentrified. But the current batlle was sparked by a company proposal to start using chipped-up railway ties, coal and shredded tires as fuel to supplement wood chips in the mill's boilers.
There's room for debate on the effects of using that kind of fuel, and a need for independent scientific review.
But many of the people who count on the mill for a living are convinced the critic's larger goal is to shut the mill down. If that's so, no amount of improvements will satisfy opponents.
The clean-air group denies such accusations. But then came the leak of an e-mail from Mr. Bachman to the provincial environment ministry. “We will not rest until the Crofton mill is shut down permanently,” he thundered in the January e-mail.
Mr. Bachman's publicist has since told reporters he has changed his mind, and no longer wants the mill closed.
Ms. Brunt doesn't have a publicist - not many single moms working in aquaculture do. She says all across B.C. people are moving to resource communities and then deciding they don't like the industries that have kept the towns alive. Couple that with government neglect and it's costing communites good jobs. "I have a 22-year-old son, and when he graduated a lot of his peers just left B.C.," she says.
First Dollar is only a few months old, but it's already found supporters across the province, including mayors and MLAs. Te goal is to promote resource industries, challenge opponents and counter boycott campaigns - generally, to push back.
B.C. has had its share of battles pitting environmentalists against companies (and sometimes unions). They have reshaped politics, helping the Green Party grow.
But this is a different kind of division, with its own impact on provincial politics. Both groups are significant. Both will be looking for a party that best reflects their ideals. Neither has an obvious political home.
Mr. Bachman and Ms. Brunt are in the frontlines of a battle that's likely to shake up B.C. politics every bit as much as the enviro campaigns of the '90s.
- From the Vancouver Sun

Watchdog sounds children and families warnings

VICTORIA - It's a remarkable disgrace, the way the children and families ministry has been mismanaged.
The people the ministry serves rely on us. Some 9,000 children are in our care. We - not the government, but you and I - said OK, we'll take care of you. Your parents can't, so we'll get you through the perils of childhood and launch you into the world.
It's not just those kids. The ministry helps families in trouble, mentally disabled adults. Their counting on us. Not because they want to, but because they need us.
I'm not keen on this. I've got my family, my work, my worries. But they're counting on us, these children and families. And we're not such jerks that we can tell some four-year-old, lugging her plastic bag of possessions to a new foster home, that she should just shape up and make her own way. We're not ready to say 'Sorry, little one, need to trim the budget a bit, better in the long run. Try and cry quietly while you go off to sleep in a strange bed.'
I have children. I know how hard it is for them to make their way into this life even with lots of advantages - enough money, good schools and parents who, in their fumbling way, are trying hard to do the right thing. That means I know how much harder, and sadder, it must be to make your own way without those things.
I'm not always a great parent, but I've tried. Governments haven't tried with these kids.
This isn't about the bad Campbell Liberals. The NDP turned indifference and incompetence into an art when it came to the ministry of children and families.
But the Liberals promised better. More money for the ministry, more commitment, stability, competence. And they have betrayed that promise, and those children and families.
Instead of providing more money, they tried to impose a ridiculous 23-per-cent budget cut. When that blew apart, they settled for a 12-per-cent cut. Instead of more stability they opted for a bungled restructuring effort.
There was lots of talk, about moving to new regional authorities, supporting families and giving communities control. There was a great deal of volunteer work done by people across the province to help prepare for the transition, which makes sense.
But there wasn't competent management. The first regional authorities were supposed to be operating now. Instead they've been pushed off to 2006 or 2007. Community planning committees for the five non-aboriginal authorities have been shut down; aboriginal committees have had their budgets cut.
Child and Youth officer Jane Morley has just looked at the ministry's efforts in her first real annual report. The title - Stay the Course - and the tone are upbeat.
But the warnings are stark.
Many people no longer believe the changes are even going to happen, and feel betrayed. "The trust and engagement of those who have put energy into the transformation cannot be turned on and off like a tap," she reported.
Many on the front-lines believe the government plans are really about cutting costs, not providing better care. "My team and I have heard from many service providers as well as service users and their advocates that budget cuts have reduced communities’ capacity to provide needed services," she found. "Many believe that talk of shared responsibility with communities is code for downloading government financial responsibility."
Unless "real authority and resources continue to be devolved to the regions and through them to communities" the whole process may fail, she warns.
We had a right to expect better. The Liberals called for more money for the ministry when they were in opposition. Their election platform promised an end to constant bureaucratic restructuring.
Instead, they ignored warnings and launched a reckless, mismanaged plan to cuts spending while totally restructuring the ministry.
And children and families across the province have paid the price.
Footnote: From the report: "Sufficient resources are a prerequisite for an effective service delivery system. Yet there is never enough money to fund health, education and welfare needs . . . . In this competition, the voices of children and youth are not loud; they need champions to ensure that they are not forgotten when scarce resources are allocated."

Martin's new cabinet good news for B.C.

VICTORIA - Expect a few quiet cheers from the BC Liberals at the news that Victoria MP David Anderson has been dropped from the new federal cabinet.
Followed quickly by groans as they contemplate the prospect of dealing with new federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, their former NDP adversary who once said Gordon Campbell wouldn't know the truth if it hit him the face.
All in all, the new cabinet looks like a gain for B.C.
The huge - perhaps even bloated - cabinet includes five ministers from B.C., the largest number in history. Dosanjh is joined by David Emerson as industry minister and Stephen Owen as minister for western economic development and sport. Raymond Chan gets multiculturalism and Jack Austin gets a seat at the table as the government leader in the Senate.
The numbers are intended to send a signal that B.C. matters. But the test will be what the clutch of ministers are actually able to do for the province on critical issues like the softwood lumber dispute.
Anderson's demotion will please the provincial Liberals on a couple of counts. As environment minister he had been a resolute foe of any plan to allow drilling for offshore oil and gas. Not until all the questions have been answered, he said, but always in a context that made it clear that what he really meant was never.
And during the election campaign he took a number of shots at the Campbell Liberals, blaming their unpopular policies for dragging down the federal party. There was at least some truth to the charges, but it hardly won Anderson points with the Campbell crew.
But Ujjal Dosanjh's emergence as health minister creates at least a couple of problems for the BC Liberals. Harsh words have been spoken in the past, and there's some illwill to be overcome.
And the Liberals will be twitchy about whether Dosanjh's new role will help Carole James in her efforts to paint the NDP as the voice of moderation, a party with more in common with federal Liberal voters than the Campbell government.
That shouldn't be a huge concern for the BC Liberals. The NDP had lots of nasty things to say about Dosanjh's jump to the federal Liberals, and there's illwill to be dealt with there as well.
Practically, Dosanjh should be the kind of health minister B.C. wants as the provinces head into negotiations with Ottawa on a new funding deal. He used to call on the federal government to increase funding; now he has at least a small chance to make that happen. (Small chance because the major health policy changes will be driven by the prime minister's office, not the health ministry.)
The most interesting addition is Emerson, a former top bureaucrat in Bill Bennett's Socred government and most recently head of Canfor. Industry is a big ministry - some 6,000 employees and a $1.4-billion budget - and includes responsibilities for tourism promotion and economic development.
Emerson is also the senior political minister for B.C., supported by Austin, a role that gives him the opportunity to emerge as a major voice for the province. (Though that was also the hope for Owen when he was elected in 2000. It didn't happen.)
It's an interesting time for the province.
Martin has promised to tackle B.C.'s sense of alienation. And with a minority government and facing a likely election within the next 18 months, he's got good political reasons for trying to convince British Columbians to back his party. (The Liberals and NDP were virtually tied for second place in the province in the election last month.)
That should provide opportunities for Gordon Campbell to lobby for increased federal aid, in terms of both money and policy change.
Count up all the pluses and minuses, and this looks like a cabinet with the potential to offer B.C. a stronger voice in Ottawa.
Footnote: Owen does have an opportunity to help B.C. as minister for western economic diversification, now removed from industry and made a stand alone minister. Owen is also responsible for the 2010 Olympics; he and Campbell can talk about the opportunities when they're both at the Athens Games next month.

Bar on family care shows an uncaring government

VICTORIA - Remember the Baulnes, the Kelowna family whose lives ended in despair after the government refused to provide money to help cope with their disabled son?
Because your government doesn't.
Maurice and Belva Baulne and their son Reece sat together in their little RV more than 2 1/2 years ago, while a hose running from the exhaust pipe filled the space with carbon monoxide. They were desperate - exhausted, running out of money and hurt. After 34 years of caring for Reece, who suffered from a terrible form of epilepsy and severe emotional problems, Maurice and Belva were sinking. They believed that Reece's emotional problems meant that handing him to strangers would destroy him. They knew they couldn't go on.
They needed help, and had tried to get $500 a month from the government. But while it was prepared to pay $60,000 a year to place Reece in an institution, government policy banned any payment to family caregivers.
After the deaths, then children and families minister Gordon Hogg promised change. "If any good can come out of these deaths, it's an understanding of the need for more flexibility," he said.
Empty words. Just ask Cheryl Hutchinson.
She's 34, a university graduate and composer. She also suffers from cerebral palsy, and requires 24-hour care to provide all her physical needs. The government will provide $6,000 a month so she can hire support workers.
But not the care worker she wants to hire, the one who has been looking after her since she was 13 - her father Phillip. The same policy that shattered the Baulnes remains in place. The B.C. government, almost alone among provinces, bars family members from providing paid care.
Cheryl and a few others have been fighting the rule for more than six years. And finally, after long delays, a BC Human Rights Tribunal has just ruled that the ban is illegal. It discriminates against Cheryl because she's severely disabled and against her father by barring him from work.
But it was a momentary victory. The government says it will appeal the ruling.
Cheryl's father, a single parent who is now 71, quit his job when she was 13 to provide care and give her the best chance at a full, independent life. They often lived on the edge of poverty. When there was no money for a wheelchair, he carried her to the school bus each day. He bathes her, rises in the night to roll her over in bed, helps her to the bathroom.
She's tried paid caregivers, but they've quit, or made her feel unsafe. (Imagine depending on a succession of strangers for almost all your physical needs.)
The government told the human rights tribunal it wants to make families to recognize their legal and moral obligation to provide care. It seems to me that Hutchinson has showed he understands that obligation better than most of us.
And the government says opening the door a crack could see more and more families seeking funding, causing costs to rise.
But it provided no convincing evidence. The government still decides when care is needed. Other provinces have successfully developed policies allowing paid family care.
And remember, the issue isn't whether Cheryl needs care. The government has agreed to provide $6,000 a month. Just not to her father.
Attorney General Geoff Plant says the government has to appeal the ruling, because it raises important issues.
But there need not have been a ruling. Instead of fighting families, the government could have developed a policy that allowed exceptions to the ban on family care based on clear criteria. (This isn't a Liberal issue; the NDP government was just as unyielding.)
The government's treatment of Cheryl Hutchinson and others caught in the same cruel trap shows little attention was really paid to the desperation of the Baulnes, giving up on the world in their lonely RV.
Footnote: The government's claimed commitment to providing support to help people remain in their homes is being undercut on another front. Parents have made convincing complaints that they are forced to put their severely disabled children in foster care because they can't get adequate government help to care for them at home.

Government cruelly fighting against families of disabled

VICTORIA - It should make you ashamed to see how your government is treating Cheryl Hutchinson.
Ms. Hutchinson is 34, a bright, accomplished university graduate and a talented composer
She also suffers from cerebral palsy, and is dependent on 24-hour care for all her physical needs, from going to the bathroom to getting dressed. The government recognizes the need, and says she's eligible for $6,000 a month so she can hire support workers.
But not the support worker she wants, the one who quit his job when she was 13 to provide full-time care for her, who carried her to the school bus when there was no money for a wheelchair, fed her, bathed her, the one who loves her.
Because he's her father.
The B.C. government - almost alone among provinces - has decided that people eligible for assistance can hire anyone they choose to provide care. Except a family member.
Ms. Hutchinson, along with a handful of others, has been fighting the ban. And this week she won. A BC Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the policy was discriminatory and unjustified, punishing her because of her severe disability and her father by barring him from work simply because he's a family member.
It should be a time to celebrate, after a seven-year struggle to get government to do the right thing. But no - the government plans to appeal the ruling.
Why won't the government let family members provide paid care? It's all about families, the government argued before the tribunal, and encouraging them to recognize their legal and moral obligation to provide care.
And it's all about money, as well. More and more family members might want to be paid, the government argued, and who knows where it would end.
It's a bit much to imagine Phillip Hutchinson being lectured about family.
He's cared for Cheryl as a single parent for two decades, given up his job and lived on the edge of poverty. He's given her the chance to go to high school and university and experience life. As her physical health has failed he's got up every few hours in the night to turn Cheryl over in bed, bathed her and done everything to help her lead a safe, full life. I'd say he knows about family.
The government also argued allowing family members to be paid could somehow turn into a major expense, without offering any convincing evidence.
Remember, the government is prepared to pay a stranger to provide care. Just not a family member.
There are no floodgates to open here. About 500 people, virtually all severely disabled, receive funding for individualized care under the current program. Allowing a handful of them to chose to hire family members doesn't increase the cost.
And as the tribunal noted, the government can set its own guidelines for when paid family care is allowed. Seven other provinces do that; in Alberta, with a similar program only four out of 8,500 clients have paid family care. B.C. finds it impossible to develop any policy but an absolute ban.
Ms. Hutchinson has tried paid caregivers. One made her feel unsafe, pushing her wheelchair into traffic against the lights. Another refused a request for juice because she didn't want to have to lift her on to the toilet later. Others quit, or found the work too hard.
Imagine for one moment being dependent on a succession of strangers for everything from getting dressed to bathing, solely because of a government policy. The Hutchinsons can't; for the last several years they have sent the money back to the ministry and Mr. Hutchinson, now 71, has provided the care.
Attorney General Geoff Plant says the tribunal decision must be appealed because it has far-reaching implications.
But there would have been no decision if governments - this includes the NDP government - had simply developed a fair policy that respected individual choice and peoples' right to dignity.
They haven't. And people like Cheryl Hutchinson are suffering because of their failure.
- From the Vancouver Sun

CRTC closure of radio station a threat to freedom

VICTORIA - On the surface, the CRTC's decision to shut down a Quebec City radio station because its announcers were offensive jerks just looks nuts.
Look a little deeper, and it still looks nuts.
The CRTC, the federal regulator that decides who gets television and radio licences and on what terms, cancelled the licence of CHOI-FM, the top-rated radio station in Quebec's capital. Without a licence, the station is dead. The people who work there are on the street. Listeners lose a choice in the market.
And freedom of speech takes a big hit from government.
CHOI got in trouble because two announcers on its morning show kept saying offensive things, even after they had warnings from the CRTC.
The show sounds stupid, crude and offensive. The announcers regularly picked on a local TV weather announcer, mocking her appearance and her intelligence and describing here as "a cat in heat."
Commenting on a news story about abuse of a psychiatric patient, the morning man asked "Why don't they just pull the plug on him? He doesn't deserve to live."
And when a Quebec university boasted of its success in attracting foreign students, the morning man ranted that for African students, "the ones who are sent abroad to study are the sons of people who are disgusting. . . the sons of plunderers, cannibals who control certain Third World countries and can afford to send their children to Quebec to go to school."
Pretty appalling stuff, in the worst traditions of mindless shock radio and television.
But no reason for a government agency to decide to shut the station down for being offensive.
We've got laws to prevent people from promoting hatred. If the announcers broke those laws, charge them and let the courts sort it out.
And we've got legal recourse for people whose reputations are damaged by false statements. People who were defamed by the radio hosts should be encouraged to file lawsuits to shut them up and get damages.
But the station isn't losing its licence for breaking any laws. It's being shut down because a government body - after getting about one complaint a month - has decided it's offensive, a dangerously subjective criteria.
I fined the ultraviolent, sexist world of televised wrestling profoundly offensive. I'm appalled by the gross stupidity and cruelty paraded on television by Jerry Springer and the like. Other people may have their own lost of objectionable shows or publications.
But freedom of speech is more important than the personal prejudices of an individual, or a government agency. And protecting it requires a willingness to stand up for the rights of people even when you disagree completely with what they are saying. (The free speech rights of people who are in the mainstream are never challenged; it's the people on the edges who end up needing protection.)
That doesn't mean Canadians are powerless. If a radio station is offensive, they can change the dial. If it is deeply offensive, then they can launch a boycott of advertisers who keep the show on the air. If someone wants to have the station playing in an office, they can insist it be turned off.
But it's dangerous and wrong for the government to decide what kind of speech is allowed.
There's no absolute right to free speech. We accept the need for some essential legal limitations, cautiously imposed by legislators. Shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre and you'll be charged with mischief and liable for the damage that results. Incite hatred and you risk criminal charges. Tell damaging lies and you could face a lawsuit.
But it a huge leap from those necessary constraints to shutting down a radio station, or silencing individuals, not because they've broken any laws but because someone powerful just doesn't like what they are saying.
Footnote: Among those criticizing the decision is Conservative leader Stephen Harper, obviously no fan of this kind of radio. But Harper has argued for Canadians' right to freedom of expression on a range of issues. He's demonstrating that you can't simply support free speech when it suits you.

MLAs are in it to serve, not for the money

VICTORIA - The Liberals deserve a little grief for the quiet way they let cabinet ministers up their expense claims.
And some MLAs' claims could stand a closer look.
But fundamentally it's wrong to get outraged over the expenses MLAs and ministers claim for time spent in Victoria on public business.
Sure, I'm critical of lots of the things MLAs say and do.
But I'm amazed and a little angered when I hear people complaining about politicians getting rich at the public's expense, or running for office for the big bucks.
You can criticize MLAs for lots of things. But if you complain about them being in it for the money, you're just wrong. (And maybe revealing something about yourself.)
The changes to the capital allowance - the $150 a day, tax free, that MLAs can claim for every day they spend working in Victoria - are a legitimate story.
MLAs used to be able to claim the money when the legislature was sitting, which is now about four months a year.
But the Liberals changed that, letting cabinet ministers claim for days when the legislature wasn't sitting, as long as they were in Victoria on ministry business.
The Liberals deserve some criticism for the way the changes was done. They made a big deal about taking a five-per-cent cut in their base pay - though not in the extra pay for ministers and the premier - while keeping quiet on the extra money for ministers.
And voters in some ridings will also likely want to know why their MLAs' claims are much greater than the norm. Dave Hayer, Tony Bhullar and Paul Nettleton all topped $20,000 in capital allowance claims last year. The average for MLAs was under $14,000.
But on balance it's tough to get all worked up about the expenses.
MLAs make about $70,000. That's good money, sure. But it's not enough to cover the cost of your real home and four months in Victoria.
And it's also not enough to make it worth trying to get elected for the money.
Remember, there's no job security.There's no pension. You'll spend months away from your family, heading home on weekends to catch up with what you have missed. (Yes, lots of British Columbians work on the road and have the same issues. That doesn't make them less real.) And you'll be putting your career on hold, always a risky business.
Some MLAs are probably earning more than they would in the job market.
But most are making a sacrifice, giving up money, privacy and freedom to be an MLA. They could be making as much - or a lot more - doing their normal work back home. But they want to make a difference.
Cabinet ministers make about $108,000, junior ministers about $94,000, Premier Gordon Campbell about $114,000. Again, those are good incomes.
But these are also - mostly - big jobs. What's it worth to be the minister of children and families and go to bed every night wondering if you're doing the right thing for the thousands of childre in the government's care? What should we pay the health minister, in charge of an $11-billion operation? (Colin Hansen's pay is barely half the salary of the health deputy minister.)
Too much, too little, the debate is legitimate.
But what's not legitimate is the myth that politicians are greedy, or getting rich at our expense.
It's just not worth going into this kind of life for the money. The sacrifices - in your work, your family life and every other area - are just too great.
Mostly, people seek to become MLAs - of any party - because they think they can play a role in making their communities a better place to live.
It doesn't always work out that way, and they aren't always effective.
But it's about service, not money, and they deserve credit for trying.
Footnote: The strains are greatest on MLAs from outside the Lower Mainland and most of Vancouver Island. They not only face horrendous travel complications, but give up much more in terms of their privacy. An urban MLA can get lost in Vancouver; if you represent Fort Nelson, eveyone knows who you are and has an opinion to share.

Liberals in dire straits outside Lower Mainland

VICTORIA - The Heartland, Region 250, the rest of B.C. - whatever you want to call it, the people there have little use for the Liberal government.
Two polls released last week painted a worrying overall picture for the Liberals, and a positively grim one outside the Lower Mainland.
Ipsos-Reid found the Liberals and NDP virtually tied provincially. The Mustel Group found the NDP had the support of 45 per cent of decided voters; the Liberals only 33 per cent.
But both agreed that outside the Lower Mainland the numbers were much worse for the Liberals. If this lasts, some 30 MLAs risk losing their seats next May.
Ipsos-Reid found the Liberals had the support of 43 per cent of voters in the Lower Mainland, 10 points ahead of the NDP.
But in the rest of the province the New Democrats had the support of 46 per cent of voters, with the Liberals at 28 per cent. More than half the people who supported the Liberals in 2001 have now rejected the party.
A closer look at the polls reveal even deeper problems for the Liberals.
Ipsos-Reid asked people if they thought things in B.C. had grown worse, or better, since the Liberals were elected.
Overall, 42 per cent of people surveyed thought things had grown worse; only 30 per cent though the province had improved under the Liberals.
Outside the Lower Mainland, the negative opinion was much stronger. The people who thought the province had gone downhill since the election outnumber the positives by two-to-one.
Maybe, an optimistic Liberal might say, they're acknowledging the effects of factors like the softwood lumber dispute, but still think the government is doing a good job.
Except the poll also asked people what they thought of Gordon Campbell's performance as premier. Across the entire province, about 60 per cent of people disapproved of Campbell's performance as premier. Outside the Lower Mainland, it was 70 per cent.
And 52 per cent of the public in the regions strongly disapproved of Campbell's performance. Glen Clark's strongly disapprove judgment was 57 per cent as his government collapsed in scandal and incompetence.
We would be badly served by a weather-vane government, chasing popularity through a series of policies based on the latest poll.
But we're also not well-served by a government that feels no need to respond effectively when voters across much of the province are sending a clear message. When 70 per cent of voters think you're doing a bad job as premier and half your supporters have walked away, perhaps they have a point worth considering.
It's hard to see much acknowledgment of that from the Liberals. They brushed off these polls, as they have the others.
That's bad news for a lot of Liberal MLAs.
It's also bad news for the province. If the trend continues, then one clear possibility after the next election is a Liberal government based largely on seats in the Lower Mainland, with a handful of MLAs from the rest of B.C. The rest of the province will have the same sense of political disenfranchisement that many British Columbians felt after the last federal election.
The Liberals believe that disenchanted voters will return to the fold once they start considering the possibility of an NDP government. And they hope an improving economy will also win support.
There's no doubt Carole James will come under much closer scrutiny in the coming months, and will face some tough policy questions.
But it's less clear that the improving economy will make much difference. The situation is already better in many parts of the province, but the Liberals' standing has not improved.
And health, not the economy, was the dominant issue in the Mustel poll. And that's not a Liberal strength.
Politicians like to dismiss polls.
But when the message is this clear, that's will only make things worse. It is saying to those people that their opinion has no value.
Footnote: The emergence of health care as the major issue for British Columbians is bad news for the government. British Columbians are less satisfied with their health services than other Canadians already, and the health authorities are facing another tough year. The five regional health authorities got their budgets from the province last week, with an average 1.6-per-cent funding increase. (Interior Health ot a 1.3-per-cent increase.)

Polls show fractured B.C., Liberal health care problems

VICTORIA - The Liberals should be spooked by dueling poll results that revealed a destructive urban-regional split and some major political problems.
Ipsos-Reid and the Mustel Group came up with some varying results in the polls released this week. But both found a continuing slide in Liberal support outside the Lower Mainland. Some 30 Liberal MLAs from the rest of B.C. could be at risk, an obvious concern for the party.
But it's also a concern for the province. Last month's federal election left many British Columbians glumly convinced that they're doomed to be perpetual political outsiders. The poll results point toward a potential election result that would create a similar sense of alienation for British Columbians outside Vancouver and its sprawl.
Ipsos Reid found the Liberals had the support of 43 per cent of decided voters in the Lower Mainland, with the NDP at 33 per cent. In the rest of the province, the New Democrats were at 46 per cent, comfortably ahead of the Liberals' 28 per cent. (Mustel identifies a similar regional divide.)
But the seats are in the Lower Mainland, and the poll suggests the possibility of an urban-dominated Liberal government, with a scattering of representatives from the rest of B.C.
That result would just add to the sense of alienation and abandonment already felt by many in resource communities. Ipsos-Reid asked people if they believed the province has improved, or grown worse under the Liberals. Lower Mainland residents were evenly divided. In the rest of the province almost half the population thought things had got worse since the election; only 24 per cent saw improvement.
The Liberals are counting on an improving economy to lift its standing in the polls over the next 10 months. (And on voters growing increasingly wary as they consider the prospect of the NDP actually forming a government.)
But the economy has been strengthening for some time. And neither poll showed any improvement in the Liberals' standing, with Ipsos-Reid reporting the Liberal support unchanged at 37 per cent and Mustel a seven-point drop to 33 per cent.
Voters are even recognizing the strengthening economy. A June Ipsos-Reid poll found 58 per cent of British Columbians believed the economy was in good shape, the highest rate recorded in seven years.
But it's not the critical factor when it comes to assessing politicians' performance. This week's poll found that across the province 42 per cent of British Columbians think the province is in worse shape now than when the Liberals took over; only 30 per cent think things have improved.
Liberals who think an improving economy will solve their problems are running a big risk.
So if it's not the economy, what are people worried about?
More bad news for the Liberals. The Mustel Group tracks the public's view of the most important issue facing British Columbians. Before the 2001 election, health care, government and the economy were all given equal weight by respondents.
But the Mustel poll this week found health care is the overwhelmingly dominant issue. And with Prime Minister Paul Martin saying health care is his new priority, and the premiers pushing for more money, more and more attention paid to the health care system and its current weaknesses in the months ahead.
It's not a good issue for the Liberals. StatsCan surveyed Canadians in 2003 on their satisfaction with the health care services they had received in the last 12 months. British Columbians were the least satisfied in Canada. While satisfaction had risen in most provinces since 2001, it was down sharply in B.C.
Patients aren't likely to see any quick improvement to make them change their minds. The five regional health authorities got their budgets from the province this week, with an average 1.6-per-cent funding increase. (Fraser Health, with the fastest growing population, received a 3.3-per-cent boost). Even with improved spending effectiveness health authorities will struggle to deal with the demands of a growing, aging population.
It will be a challenging year for them - and for the Liberals.
- From the Vancouver Sun

Ombudsman, gay porn legal battle both deserve our money

VICTORIA - It would have been a heck of a federal election campaign issue, I bet.
How would the parties react to news that tax dollars are being spent to help a Vancouver gay and lesbian book store wage a legal battle to bring banned gay porn into Canada?
We can only imagine the response.
But I do know that I'd only vote for a candidate who supported the court decision.
There's a power imbalance in our society. People with resources can exercise their rights much more effectively than those who are less well-off. It costs money to go to court, or to challenge a municipal government decision. Rights are limited by your ability to pay the cost of defending them.
Theat's the reality the BC Supreme Court recognized, and attempted to address, when it ruled that taxpayers should pay Little Sisters Book Emporium's legal costs in its latest censorship battle with Canada Customs. The federal agency has seized and banned two "Meatman" comic books and two books on male bondage. The store wants to challenge the seizure in court, its only avenue of appeal.
But Little Sisters has no money for a 12-week trial. And until now, that would have ended the issue.
No more, and that's a good thing. Last year the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a B.C. ruling that found governments should pay the legal bills for four Interior native bands battling over forest rights. The issues were of public importance, the court ruled, and the bands couldn't afford the legal costs. Justice would only be served if their costs were paid by government.
Little Sisters' lawyer Joe Arvay argued that the same principle should apply in the store's case. The issue - Canada Custom's book banning practices - affects the freedoms of all Canadians. Important questions about arbitrary censorship have been raised. And the store has no money.
And Justice Elizabeth Bennett agreed, noting Canada Customs has barred some 65,000 books, movies and other articles in the last five years. The government should pay for the store's legal costs, she ruled, within strict limits.
Rights don't really exist if there is no practical way to enforce them. The right to appeal a decision to court means nothing if it is only available for those with $150,000 to spend. In many - even most - public interest cases, one side has a huge financial advantage and a strong economic incentive to fight the case; the other has little money and no prospects of a windfall from a legal victory.
The court decision simply levels the playing field in cases of broad public interest. It should be applauded.
Which leads, sadly, to the cuts to the cuts to B.C.'s Office of the Ombudsman, which are a step backward in the same way the court decision is a step forward.
The Ombudsman's office is another attempt to level the playing field in the pursuit of justice, generally on an individual scale. Not everyone has the skills or the resources to tackle government when they believe they are wronged. Certainly few have the ability to fight a particularly intractable or unreasonable institution.
The Ombudsman is their advocate. But the Liberals have cut the Ombudsman's budget by 35 per cent and the number of investigators has been cut in half. Cases involving municipal governments and professional associations had made up about 10 per cent of the complaints handled by the Ombudsman. Those people will no longer be helped, according to the Ombudsman's latest annual report. People challenging decisions or actions by schools or health authorities will now likely face long waits.
It seems a backward step. Some people can take on City Hall or a hospital alone - or with their lawyer - and resolve issues.
But others need help tin the interests of justice.
And as the Little Sister ruling suggests, providing that help is a reasonable role for the state.
Footnote: The Ombudsman's report includes examples of cases tackled during the year, from helping an elderly woman get needed home care to ensuring that an adopted child from outside the province was immediately eligible for MSP benefits to helping a small bsuiness cut through red tape. It's a useful role.

Caged boys case highlight family justice issues

VICTORIA - The facts are clear enough - if you slap someone around, you'll be in less trouble in court if you hit someone in your family.
A new report looked at how courts in four provinces - not including B.C. - dealt with crimes of violence. The review included comparing the treatment of people guilty of crimes against family members with other offenders.
And on the whole it found the courts were much more lenient when the violence was within the family.
Only 28 per cent of people convicted of a violent sexual assault against a spouse went to jail; the number rose to 36 per cent if the attack was outside the family.
Only 15 per cent of family members convicted of physically abusing children go to jail, compared with the 23 per cent of strangers who commit the same offence.
Across the board you're about 50 per cent more likely to go to jail if you behave violently to an acquaintance or stranger than if you attack a family member.
It's alarming, especially coming in the same week as a court decision that shocked Canadians.
An Ontario couple who had caged their two children for much of the time over a 13-year period pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and failure to provide the necessities of life. The boys had been adopted by their aunt and her husband. Their life was a nightmare of physical and psychological abuse starting when the youngest was two and lasting until they were in their late teens.
The abuse was "near torture" over 13 years, Judge Donald Halikowski found. The boys were beaten, threatened and locked in crib-size pens. They were denied water, becoming so thirsty they drank their own urine.
Yet the parents received nine-month jail sentences.
The judge found the boys were difficult, the parents felt bad now and they had “good intentions underscoring their punishments.” Thus the light sentence.
Expect an appeal. Paul Jenkinson of the BC Association of Social Workers spoke for many critics. "This sentence provides no general deterrence to parents who choose to abuse and humiliate their children and provides no hope for abused children seeking justice.”
One case could be an aberration. But the study, by the Centre for Justice Statistics, looked at 47,000 cases. And it found the courts consistently treat offenders who abuse someone in their family more lightly.
It's a finding that is even more critical because in Canada violent crimes are largely done by the people who are supposed to love us. Of the 47,000 violent offenses studied, 35 per cent involved an assault on a spouse. Another eight per cent involved assaults by family members on each other, or children. And 32 per cent involved friends or acquaintances.
That suggests a couple of things.
First, that the family is not the safe place that we all like to think. And second, that the courts' approach of lighter sentences might not reflect the importance of deterring such a major crime problem.
I'm slow to second guess or criticize the courts. My direct experience - as a reporter, not a defendant or crime victim - has been that within the limits set by resources and laws the courts function surprisingly well.
And it's not hard to understand the desire of a judge to find a way to keep a family on the edge of disaster together, and the reasons for imposinge probation, not a jail term.
But the Ontario case, and the study, suggest that their approach to family crime doesn't reflect how widespread, or serious, the problem is.
There's no quick fix, and instant solutions like new law with mandatory sentences would do far more harm than good.
But the study provides important information for the courts to consider in sentencing. And it's a reminder to us all that the family is a dangerous place for far too many people.
Footnote: We warn our children about dangerous strangers. But of the 47,000 violent offences reviewed, 43 per cent involved an attack on a family member; 32 per cent violence against a friend or acquaintance. In 92 per cent of the spousal violence cases men were the offenders; men were also responsible for 84 per cent of the assaults against children and youths.

CN the winner in BC Rail deal

VICTORIA - More questions about the BC Rail deal, as new information emerges just as the federal Competition Bureau approves the sale.
The government has always acknowledged that it might have to give back about $255 million of the $1-billion purchase price to CN Rail. Now it has revealed that the potential refunds come to $629 million, while adding confidently that it doesn't expect to have to hand any money back.
CN isn't just paying isn't for the railway. The company is also buying past tax losses, which it hopes to use to reduce its own tax bill.
But Revenue Canada gets the last word on whether thats legit. So CN negotiated a provision that will force the province to refund the money if the taxman says no.
That's all the government ever mentioned in terms of strings attached to the deal, until now.
But the just released final report on last year's finances bumped that potential refund on tax issues up to $367 million (plus interest). And the documents disclosed for the first time that CN negotiated clauses that could see the province return another $262 million.
That's $629 million in indemnities, as the accountants call them, that could be knocked off the $1-billion sale price.
Routine, the government says, and that's broadly true. Most major transactions provide for adjustments, or dispute resolution. CN may decide that some of the rail cars included in the sale are junk, for example, and want some money back. The government's willingness to offer refund protection may reflect its confidence that the assets being sold are as described.
But CN certainly negotiated well. Any buyer emerging from a deal with more than 60 per cent of its payment subject to refund has done a great job.
And the government has - again - cast a cloud over the deal by keeping the numbers from the public until now.
The newly revealed $262-million indemnity shouldn't be a huge worry. It's almost certain that CN will attempt to negotiate some sort of refund, but it's is hard to see what real surprises could lurk within the sales agreement.
But the jump in the potential refund over tax issues, from $255 million to $367 million, is important.
That means that CN is getting the business and all its assets for $633 million, not the $750 million the government claimed.
And that makes it look a very good deal for CN. BC Rail made a $66-million profit last year and is being sold without any debt. CN can make a 10-per-cent return on its investment without batting an eye. Once it begins cutting staff - about 400 jobs are expected to go - and working to increase traffic, the return soars.
This has been a bungled sale by the Liberals.
First, Gordon Campbell promised not to sell BC Rail. His claim that because the tracks and the ground under them weren't part of the deal the promise hasn't been broken is ludicrous. CN owns the business and the equipment. It's sold. Read the financial press, which talks only of the "deal to buy BC Rail."
Then the government's unnecessary attempt to impose secrecy have meant details of the deal have trickled out, each more damaging because of the way they emerged.
The odd thing is that the sale - though maybe not the price - is entirely defensible.
There arlots of good reasons government shouldn't be in the railway business.
And CN appears to have a genuine enthusiasm for the new business opportunities. CEO Hunter Harrison wasn't just being polite when he talked about the potential of rail service from B.C.'s northwest to Chicago. China's economy is growing rapidly; shipping to Prince Rupert saves a day; and CN believes that creates a great opportunity.
The details of the deal are supposed to be released once the papers are signed later this month. The questions are going to be around for a lot longer.
Footnote: One advantage of selling BC Rail is removing temptation from governments. Trasportation Minister Kevin Falcon makes much of BC Rail's past losses; but they were overwhelmingly produced by Socred governments that considered the railway an economic development tool.

Liberals get to the 'exciting part' - spending

VICTORIA - So it's on to the "exciting part," says Finance Minister Gary Collins, when the government can stop talking about cuts and start talking about spending.
Mr. Collins unveiled this week the financial report on the past fiscal year, and along with it offered a preview of the Liberals' election platform.
The tough part is over, they will say. The budget is balanced. Now, how shall we spend the surpluses?
Not a bad campaign theme. The current plan calls for a $275-million surplus in next February's budget.
But the cautious Mr. Collins has beat his targets by an average of $800 million a year so far, and the economy is strengthening. The pre-election budget can likely handle $500 million in new spending without putting the surplus at any risk.
But the campaign strategy's success depends on several factors.
One is how voters decide to judge the past three years.
The overhaul of government finances is significant. If government revenues had kept up with inflation over the past three years, they would be about $25.4 billion. Instead -- thanks to Liberal government tax cuts and changes in the economy -- they're about $2 billion lower.
Income tax revenues are down 23 per cent from a status quo projection, corporate tax revenues 30 per cent -- about $1.8 billion in total. MSP and sales tax revenues are higher by about $600 million, but that still leaves considerably more money in taxpayers' pockets.
The campaign debate will focus on what role the tax cuts played in the improved economy, and who benefitted.
The Liberals won't be helped by the budget revelation that the total provincial tax bite is increasing this year for low and middle-income earners, while high-income earners -- a single person earning $80,000, a family with an income of $90,000 -- will pay less.
But their arguments that the tax changes worked will get a boost from an improving economy and increasing business and consumer confidence over the next 10 months.
Voters' judgments on the spending changes are tougher to assess. Spending under the Liberals has risen about 12 per cent over their first three years, outpacing inflation.
Even removing one-time factors, like pension adjustments and last year's natural disasters, the increase is about 10.5 per cent.
Much of the increase has been in health spending, up 19 per cent. Remove that from the equation, and overall spending is up only about five per cent over three years, and down in many areas.
Welfare has taken the biggest hit, a 26-per-cent reduction, with labour and environment ministries also taking significant cuts.
How will voters react to the four-year freeze on funding to universities and colleges, which has forced large tuition increases and limited access?
Will they care that the attorney-general's ministry has cut spending by 14 per cent, largely by closing courthouses and spending what critics say is too little money for treaty negotiations?
One major potential problem for the Liberals is that the cuts are still under way. About a dozen ministries are cutting spending this year.
If the results are visible, and important to enough people, that will undermine the message of new opportunity.
Still, it's a compelling campaign theme that the Liberals will roll out in September when pre-budget consultations start around the province.
For three years, those consultations have always been governed by one hard rule -- no recommendations that involved increased spending.
Now, as Mr. Collins has made clear, it's time to dream big dreams. (Still the cautious finance minister, however, he quickly amended that to "or medium dreams.")
The Liberals plan to talk -- belatedly -- about the reasons for going through the past three years of record deficits and spending restraint.
"Now is the point where we get to dream as a province," Mr. Collins said, musing about more money for K-to-12 education, or early childhood development.
All in all, that's not a bad starting point for an election campaign.
- From the Vancouver Sun

Liberals' election campaign plan based on more spending

VICTORIA - Gary Collins gave a good sneak preview of the Liberals' campaign strategy when he unveiled the latest look at the province's finances.
No more talk about balanced budgets, and not much talk about tax cuts. That's yesterday's news.
"We get to stop talking about balancing the budget," Collins said. The deficit for last year was $1.3 billion, better than the Liberals had expected, and their plan to balance the budget this year is on track.
"Now is the exciting part," Collins said. "Now is the point where we get to dream as a province." The next step after balanced budgets is surpluses, and that means there is money to spend.
The campaign will start in earnest in September, with a new focus on ways of spending money. (I know, September may seem early to start the campaign for a May election. But fixed election dates - a good idea - do allow all the parties to map out a much longer campaign strategy.)
The kick-off will be the formal pre-budget consultation. Each year a legislative committee tours the province to collect ideas on what should be in the budget. But since the election, ideas or suggestions that involved spending money were off limits.
Not this time. Collins said the committee will be able to gather ideas on projects or initiatives that involve more spending. It's even time to dust off rejected proposals from the last three years and put them on the table. "All of those things now, you can look at them fresh," he said.
It's an important shift. The Liberals have done a poor job of communicating any sort of vision to support their spending cuts. That's left the appearance that their actions are ideological, and that the measures are being taken without concern for the average citizen. Their challenge is to convince people that the sacrifices made sense, and had a purpose beyond decreasing the tax hit on the affluent.
They've left it late. The New Democrats have pulled ahead in the polls, Gordon Campbell's personal approval rating is running around 30 per cent and their government has a reputation for a lack of interest in the peoples' lives at best, and meanness at worst. Those perceptions are difficult to change.
But not impossible, and the Liberals do have considerable good news to deliver.
The economy - even in regions that have been struggling - is showing signs of broad improvement.
The budget calls for a small $100-million surplus this year. But the Liberals are conservative budgeters - they've beat their targets by an average $800 million a year. That means there will be money for some positive announcements this fall.
And there will be a much bigger pot of money to work with in the pre-election budget coming next February, especially if the federal Liberals come up with health care cash. Collins is already talking about more money for schools and early childhood education.
There are other choices for the surplus. The government could use the money to reduce debt, and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation is already lobbying for more tax cuts instead of more spending.
But the obvious choice is spending increases. B.C.'s taxes, says Collins, are competitive and the debt burden has always been manageable. (And tax cuts are of little political advantage; followers of the taxpayers' federation are going to vote Liberal with or without cuts. The challenge is to win over people considering voting NDP.)
Collins also waxed enthusiastic about the Green Party's performance in the federal election. "I think they're here to stay, and I think they're going to grow," he said.
He hopes so, anyway. A stronger Green Party is great news for the BC Liberals, who stand to benefit if anti-government votes are split between the Greens and NDP.
The summer should be a quiet time. But the Liberal campaign strategy is in place, and ready to go starting in September.
Footnote: What's the NDP to do? The most important challenge is for Carole James to convince voters that the New Democrats can do a better job of managing the surplus than the Liberals, and won't plunge the province back into deficits or blow the money on bad ideas and big raises for public sector unions.

B.C. fares badly in the federal election

VICTORIA -That was a discouraging election.
We didn't matter here in B.C. - again.
We established that Canada effectively has a one-party system.
And while minority governments have their advantages, it's hard to see that this one will benefit B.C., or tackle any hard issues.
It's more disappointing because it looked like we would count this time. That maybe a handful of voters out here could determine Canada's future.
But then before the first results were in from B.C., the Liberals had won their minority government.
It's not just petty regional pride at stake. Parties in power pay the most attention to the regions that will have the greatest impact on their chances of re-election. B.C.'s lack of importance has been demonstrated once again.
A bigger issue, not least for Conservative leader Stephen Harper, is that the election raised real doubts about the fundamental basis for his party.
I crunched the numbers after the 2000 election. Even if the Conservative and Alliance votes had been pooled in every riding, the Liberals still would have won a comfortable majority.
The lesson seemed pretty clear. It's not enough to unite the right. You've also got to attract support from the middle.
And if there was ever at time for that to happen, surely this was it. The polls showed voters were appalled at the sponsorship scandals and Liberal infighting. But instead of increasing its share of the popular vote, the new Conservative party went backwards, perhaps most dramatically in B.C. where the combined Alliance-Conservative vote in B.C. fell from 57 per cent to 36 per cent.
Which raises some very basic questions about why the Conservatives exist, and how they need to change if they wish to be anything more than a perpetual opposition.
There's nothing inherently wrong with minority governments.
But this particular government could be a problem for B.C. A Liberal-NDP minority is the worst outcome for the BC Liberals. (Between David Anderson and Jack Layton the moratorium on offshore oil and gas development is now more firmly in place than Layton's hair.)
It's not just the likely policy swing to the left as a result of the federal coalition. The federal New Democrats - including a much bigger B.C. contingent - know that British Columbians will be voting next May. They are not going to be enthusiastic supporters of any federal measures that make Gordon Campbell's government look good.
And given the federal Liberals' likely focus on Ontario, B.C. issues like softwood lumber will have a hard time grabbing much attention from Ottawa. (How many times did you hear the issue raised during the campaign?)
It's not all gloomy. Minority governments do have to pay attention to voters. The party in power usually has some control over when the next vote comes. But they also know that at any time the opposition parties could force an election. They have to be ready. And on some issues - like urban infrastruture - a minority government could have benefits for B.C.
But the downside of the uncertainty is that we are launched intio a perpetual election campaign. Martin will likely want to wait until the sponsorship scandal has faded before the next election. But we could be heading to the polls next spring - when we also have a provincial election.
Overall, the federal results are likely alarming for the BC Liberals. The federal New Democrats took their share of the B.C. vote from 11 per cent to 27 per cent in this election, largely at the expense of the Conservatives. They emerged as a significant home for protest votes, a role Reform and Alliance had taken over through the '90s. It's an ominous development for the Campbell Liberals, who attacked Layton and his party during the campaign with no apparent impact.
The people have spoken. I just wish we had mattered a little more.
Footnote: A big win for the Green Party. New election finance rules replace big donations with public funding based on th number of votes each party gets. The Greens are in line for more than $1 million a year, a huge amount for the cash-strapped party. Expect a lot of it to be spent in B.C. - a benefit for the provincial Greens and a headache for the NDP.

Why it's good that you're backing fight against gay porn ban

VICTORIA - You're going to be picking up the legal costs for a Vancouver book store's fight to bring banned gay porn into Canada.
And, on balance, you should be pleased.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled this week that taxpayers should pay Little Sisters Book Emporium's legal costs for the latest round in its battle with Canada Customs. The store wants to challenge the seizure of two "Meatman" comic books and two books on male bondage by Canada Customs.
But the trial would take 12 weeks, and the store has no money. In the past that would have been the end of the matter. The book ban would stand, untested.
But the rules changed last year, That's when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ground-breaking B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that government should pick up the legal bills for four Interior native bands battling over forest issues.
The Supreme Court - in an six-three decision - said the First Nations couldn't afford the hugely expensive litigation; they had a reasonable chance of success; and the title rights' issue was of broad importance. Justice demanded that they have their day - or months - in court, and that couldn't happen without public funding.
It was a huge leap beyond any previous ruling on costs, opening the door for other similar funding bids.
And Joe Arvay, acting for Little Sisters, was the first to seize the opportunity.
Little Sisters has no money to pay for the long trial, he said. And the case raises broad issues of public importance that should be heard, Arvay added. Canada Customs' power to ban books has significant implications for Canadians' basic rights to information. When the state has the power to decide what citizens can and can't read, there has to be a right to external review to ensure decisions aren't arbitrary, unreasonable or unlawful.
The only recourse isa court challenge to the government's decision. And without funding, that right is an illusion.
Justice Elizabeth Bennett agreed. "There is a strong public interest at stake, and that is ensuring that government does not interfere with the rights of citizens." (Canada Customs have barred some 65,000 books and other items over the past five years.)
It's a decision that should be applauded.
The courts have always offered a way of addressing issues of public interest, with that role increasing since the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But common law practise on costs hasn't reflected either the increasing importance of these cases or the rising costs of pursuing them.
University of Victoria law professor Chris Toleffson is co-author of a paper on the issue to be published in the Canadian Bar Review. He notes that the nature of public interest cases means that one side often has limited resources and no prospect of any material benefit even if they do win. And they face a huge risk if they lose, and are ordered to pay costs.
The result is that unless some provisions around costs are made by the courts, then cases involving the public interest - but not financial self-interest - will not be heard. The courts will be for those who can afford them.
Critics shouldn't fear a flood of cases. The test for public funding is still tough. Mrs. Justice Bennett said advance costs should only be awarded in "rare and exceptional circumstances."
And she said she wasn't providing a blank cheque, ordering another hearing on the level of costs. (Although they will likely be more than $150,000.)
There are still concerns. It's always risky when neither side in a legal dispute is spending their own money. And it's fair to worry about the constant trend to longer, more costly court cases - why, for example, a 12-week trial is necessary in this case.
But those concerns aside, this ruling is a step forward.
It's recognizes that the courts have an important role in protecting our rights. And it acknowledges that access to justice - especially on issues of broad public importance - shouldn't be reserved for governments and others with big bank accounts.
- From the Vancouver Sun

Luna campaign a weird waste of money

VICTORIA - I'm getting increasingly peeved at the way the federal government is churning through money on the great Luna relocation project.
Basically, I don't buy any of it. I don't buy that Luna is such a serious threat. I don't buy that there's a way to assess the chances of successfully hooking him up with his pod again. And I don't buy the idea that it it makes sense to spend more than $500,000 on moving one whale.
Luna is an Orca that left its pod and has spent the last three years hanging around Gold River. Note that fact - three years.
Sure, he's been a nuisance to boaters from time to time. Luna is social, and when an 1,800-kg whale decides to nuzzle up to your boat, things can get a little complicated. And the federal department of fisheries and oceans says he's surfaced near landing float planes.
So everybody needs to be careful; there's a whale in the water.
But that's hardly a justification to spend a whack of money on a plan to catch the whale, put him on a truck and drive 300 kilometres down Vancouver Island, put him in another pen for a week and then hopes he reunites with his pod. (And if i doesn't, and becomes a nuisance down here, he'll be caught again and sold to an aquarium.)
For the amount being spent on this exercise, the government could hire a full-time minder for the next decade to keep Luna out of harm's way.
Heck, if I was the town of Gold River I'd be contributing to any plan to keep Luna around. The town is in a beautiful setting, and still struggling to cope with the closure of the Bowater mill that provided most of its jobs. A well-regulated whale-watching business could fuel tourism and help keep Luna out of harm's way.
Instead of an opportunity, the whole exercise is turning into a big PR mess.
People around the world have seen First Nations paddlers leading Luna away from the government officials who want to capture him. He's swimming along side them in the shots, as they scratch his back with their paddles. It's like a Beautiful BC commercial and Free Willie rolled into one, with the DFO stepping into the role of the bad guys.
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation want Luna - or Tsuxiit as they call him - to stick around. Chief Mike Maquinna says his people believe Luna carries the spirit of his father, who died around the same time Luna showed up. Maquinna said his father made a deathbed wish for his spirit to inhabit a killer whale.
I don't question others' beliefs. My seriously ill greatgrandmother died happily after a dream in which she met Jesus and was told everything would be fine.
Anyway the whole effort is starting to look ridiculous. The plan to move Luna is plowing through some $500,000 in donations, and being funded heavily by the DFO on top of that. The amount you're paying is mounting every day.
All that to move a whale that's swimming around, as whales were meant to do.
Doesn't this strike you as patently crazy? It would be a huge feat to raise this amount of money to change the lives of 500 little kids in B.C., giving a bunch of preschoolers a fair chance to make their way in this world. But for a whale, it's a piece of cake.
Maybe, at base, that's the question here. Can one whale be worth this much? Are people really convinced that Luna - likable as he seems - is worth more than scared and lonely kids? (Sorry, you do have to choose. People aren't willing - or perhaps able - to give enough to meet all the needs.)
I'm thinking not. So if Luna is really a genuine threat, then sell it off, or drive it away.
If it's not, leave the creature alone.
Footnote: An interesting bit of irony. The Mowachaht/Muchalaht, championing Luna, are also part of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council that is seeking the right to hunt grey whales in its treaty talks. It's not an unreasonable position - there are lots of the whales these days. But it won't play all that well.

Seven steps to deciding who to vote for

VICTORIA -It's been a grim election campaign.
The issues have been small, and negative. No party has come close to offering an inspiring vision for Canada, or raising a defining issue that it is prepared to stake its future on.
But the parties are different. You should vote. So here's seven things to consider if you're having trouble deciding how to vote on Monday.
First, forget most of the issues the parties raise in an attempt to make the other guy look bad. Paul Martin is not any softer on child porn than Stephen Harper, despite the stupid press releases from the Conservative party. Harper is not going to take away women's right to abortion. These are bogus issues.
Second, take a hard look at the details of the Conservative platform, particularly the assumption that taxes can be cut while health and military spending are increased, without any reductions in other areas. Most economists are dubious. Many British Columbians recall that the provincial Liberals made similar claims, and a majority of them are dissatisfied with the results. Conservatives say they won't have to cut other programs, just keep the rate of spending increases down. It's a claim that demands a very hard look. (That's especially true because of the vagueness of the Conservative platform.)
Third, take a similar look at Martin's plans. How credible can it be that a leader who chopped health care spending has now suddenly discovered that wait lists are the most important issue facing Canadians? How can a leader who promises to restore democracy blow off Liberal party members in key ridings and appoint his own candidates? And why isn't Martin running on the record of his government - isn't that what we expect from competent political parties seeking re-election?
Fourth, consider your local candidates. An effective MP handling constituent's concerns and working for them in Ottawa is valuable no matter what the party. If you have a candidate you like and respect, then why not pick the person, not the party?
Fifth, get specific. It's a brute to try and sort through the parties' positions on every issue. So pick one that matters to you, and check it out. Base your vote on their ability to reflect your priorities in that critical area. (Party web sites are useful, as are media sites that include overviews of the major issues.)
Sixth, get strategic. Voters have different options in different ridings. In Kelowna the Conservatives are going to win; if you're not in their camp, you can vote for any other party safely. But in Victoria, for example, Liberal David Anderson faces a tighter race according to most observers. Given the closeness of this race nationally, that means that a single Victoria voter could decide the future of Canada. Conservative or Liberal? Minority or majority? It could all be decided by one voter who stays home on Monday, too busy or bored to vote. You can assess the likely outcome in your riding - check out www.electionprediction.org and www.bcelection.ca for insight - and make your vote count.
Seventh, recognize that your vote means money for a party for the next several years. Corporate and union donations have been banned; instead parties that meet a minimum threshold will get $1.75 per vote per year. (Reasonable concept, but too costly - $1 per vote would have been reasonable.) Even if the outcome in your riding is not in doubt, your vote matters. The Green Party, for example, raised about $140,000 in 2002. If they can hold their current level of support, they will get about $1.4 million a year. That's a lot of organizing money.
You should vote. It's a cliche, but people did die - and are dying today - over the right. Practically, our collective decisions are better than choices made by just a few of us.
And surely, following the seven-step program, you can find a reason to head out to vote on Monday.
Footnote: B.C. - and your vote - matter this time. Nationally, the Liberals and Conservatives are each on the brink of forming a minority government. The Election Prediction Project reports that with days left 16 B.C. ridings ae too close to call. The rest of Canada could be watching B.C. to see who will govern

Harper win means tougher times for BC treaty talks

VICTORIA - A perfect storm is about to slam into First Nations treaty talks.
Things were already getting bumpier in B.C. Add a Conservative election win and the dramatic treaty policy changes likely to follow, and the skies grow decidedly darker. Successful talks look less likely, and the chance of blockades and lawsuits increases.
The prospect of a Conservative government has cranked up fears. The party doesn't mention B.C. treaties in its platform, but expect at least tougher negotiating line.
Or perhaps much more. Tony Penikett is a former Yukon premier, and a senior fellow on First Nations treaty issues at Simon Fraser University. "If there's a Harper government after June 28, that may effectively end treaty negotiations in B.C.," he says.
Mr. Penikett points to the influence of Tom Flanagan, probably Conservative leader Stephen Harper's closest policy advisor. Mr. Flanagan, an academic, is national campaign manager and certain of a senior role in a Harper government.
Mr. Flanagan has strong views on the treaty process and relations with Canada's aboriginal communities. (Mr. Flanagan rejects the First Nations term, arguing Canada's native groups don't qualify as nations.)
Back in 2001 Mr. Flanagan attacked the basic principles of treaty making in B.C. It's impractical to settle treaties by providing land, he said, because the land is already being used by others.
And he said Ottawa should give the treaty process another three years, and then hand the issue to a federal commission to resolve. Parliament - and the B.C. legislature - would approve the settlements, title would be extinguished and everything would be resolved.
It's an appealing but unworkable solution. The legal issue of title is not so easily swept away. And damaging First Nations' protests and pressure campaigns would be inevitable.
Mr. Flanagan has also argued that collective ownership of land by First Nations should be replaced by private ownership to encourage economic growth. Again, it's an interesting idea. But it is considered poisonous by First Nations, who see shared ownership as fundamental to their identity as a people. Give that up, they believe, and it is the end of their culture. (Mr. Flanagan argues for assimilation.)
Conservatives' aboriginal affairs critic John Duncan says he leads the policy development. But the Vancouver Island MP is vague about the party's plans for treaty talks, promising "productive" changes. But Mr. Duncan was a leading critic of the Nisga'a Treaty, objecting to the amount of land and money provided and the self-government provisions. Future agreements should "compensate aboriginals for what the courts recognize as their modest aboriginal entitlement," he says.
Policy debates are fine.
But this is a dangerous time for the Ottawa to lurch in a whole new treaty making direction.
After two years of apparent progress, relations between First Nations and the provincial government are souring. First Nations have found common cause in the Title and Rights Alliance, which is borrowing the proven tactics of the environmental campaigners.
The alliance is already out warning institutional investors about the risks of operating in B.C. until land claims are resolved.Its first "information blockades" on roads and highways will go up as early as the end of this month.
Tthe First Nations' Summit has just voted to support the alliance. And Dave Porter of the Kaska Dene has just been elected to its leadership group. Mr. Porter was a deputy premier in the Yukon NDP government, an aboriginal affairs assistant deputy minister under the B.C. New Democrats and the province's first oil and gas commissioner. He will be a formidable foe, or friend, for government.
All this comes as the BC Treaty Commission operates without a chief commissioner. Miles Richardson resigned to run as a Liberal candidate in Skeena-Bulkely Valley. First Nations and federal and provincial government have to agree on a candidate. It's unlikely the job will be filled before the fall, leaving a critical vacancy, at a difficult time.
B.C. needs treaties. But the process - already shaky - is facing a flood of changes and challenges that will make progress much tougher.
- From the Vancouver Sun

New Democrat on FN Summit; a mine plan dies; and lessons from polls

VICTORIA - Random notes: A long-time New Democrat and former deputy premier takes a leading First Nations' role, a mining company stock skids after a B.C. government decision and a RAV poll highlights a big Liberal problem.

The newest leader of the First Nations Summit is coming into the job with a lot of political and bureaucratic experience - mostly on the opposite side from the BC Liberals.
Dave Porter is one of two new people elected to the summit's leadership, joining Chief Ed John.
Porter is chief treaty negotiator for the Kaska Dene Council, in the province's far northwest.
But he's also a former deputy premier and cabinet minister in the Yukon NDP government of the late '80s, and was an assistant deputy minister for aboriginal affairs under the B.C. New Democrats. Porter was also tapped by then energy minister Dan Miller to become the province's first oil and gas commissioner when the NDP wanted to make it easier for energy companies to do business in the province.
Porter's arrival comes at an interesting time. After what looked like a significant improvement in relations over the last two years, things have gone wrong. A new group, the Title and Rights Alliance, has created unusual unity among First Nations and promises to adopt more effective pressure tactics.
And the Treaty Commission, which manages the process, has pledged to become more aggressive in publicly pressuring any parties - First Nations or federal or provincial governments - that are blocking progress.
What's it mean? Porter knows the government and bureaucracy, and that could help get agreements - or it could make him a more effective opponent. (The federal government has bailed from the treaty table with the Kaska Dene, saying legal disputes have to be resolved before talks can resume.)

Things were looking up for Cline Mining Corp. The company, listed on the TSE Venture Exchange, had seen its lightly traded stock climb from 15 cents to 50 cents in April, before settling into the 40-cent range. The price was rising on plans for an open pit mine near Fernie, which the company said would produce $5 billion worth of coal during its lifetime and 1.500 jobs.
That changed May 28, when Energy Minister Richard Neufeld killed the project, citing environmental concerns and a desire to avoid conflict with U.S. opponents.
Within a few days the stock had lost half its value, and the company canceled plans to raise another $300,000 to work on planning for the mine.
The move surprised most people in the area, including mine opponents who were getting ready for a big fight.
But the odds were heavily stacked against it. Liberal MLA Bill Bennett said he had taken local opposition to Neufeld and Premier Gordon Campbell. And the anti-mine lobby across the border in Montana was organized and efficient. They had already persuaded Secretary of State Colin Powell to write Ottawa with concerns, and scored wide publicity, including a sympathetic New York Times story. (The mine would have been near Montana's Glacier National Park.)
Cline is considering its next move. But the enviros have already launched theirs, arguing that the same principles mean that plans for coal bed methane development in the south Kootenays should also be shelved.

If you want to understand the problem facing the Campbell Liberals, take a look at a poll commissioned by business types to show support for Vancouver's RAV line.
The poll found 69 per cent of those surveyed supported the line, with 46 per cent strongly supporting it.
But when the pollster asked about the Liberal offer to take on all the risk of cost over-runs - and come up with $170 million for another line - support fell. Only 65 per cent of supported going ahead with the line, and only 39 per cent offered strong support.
It's a better deal for Lower Mainland residents, but the association with the provincial government was apparently enough to drive support away.

Footnote: More poll news. StatsCan reported this week B.C. residents have the lowest satisfaction with health care services among the provinces. The province is also one of only three where satisfaction has fallen over the last three years (along with Newfoundland and P.E.I.).

Harper has a good TV night, Martin falls short

VICTORIA - Stephen Harper should sleep more soundly after the big debate.
And for Paul Martin, more restless nights.
The whole winner-loser commentary on debates is a bit of a mug's game.
But if you look at what the leaders needed to achieve in this week's TV debate, Harper had the best showing. (Except perhaps for Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, but he's irrelevant in an English-language debate.)
Martin, who needed to rescue a faltering campaign, couldn't shake off the big liabilities he's dragging along behind him.
Debates are mainly chance to take a quick measure of the person, and to contrast the media image with a somewhat twisted form of reality. (The leaders are wearing make-up, and have spent hours rehearsing. Bright lights are shining in their eyes and they're talking to a camera lens. It's not a normal setting.)
That makes it an advantage to enter the debate as the underdog. The lower the initial expectations, the easier it is to surprise people with your insight or warmth.
Stephen Harper is still an unknown quantity for many Canadians. All he really needed to do was show up, avoid big mistakes and reassure people that he isn't a maniac anxious to arm Canadians, gut the health care system and make heterosexual marriage a legal obligation.
Harper succeeded, especially with the people who matter. By now each party has a firm base, people who won't be swayed by the debate. The leaders' target audience is the 30 per cent of voters who are uncommitted or wavering.
Harper didn't seem crazy. (It is a great advantage to start a debate knowing that you win if you don't seem nuts.) He didn't hide from his views, and acknowledged Canada's diversity. He didn't shout. He didn't seem the obvious bogeyman the Liberals had claimed in their attack ads. Mission accomplished.
Martin had a much bigger challenge, and he couldn't meet it. The sponsorship scandal was like a yoke on his rounded shoulders. His commitment to health care waiting list reduction was mocked, as the other leaders pointed out that inadequate federal funding under the Liberals had helped create those waiting lists.
Martin had the huge task of convincing voters that he would be a strong and decisive prime minister, delivering a clear - and different - type of government. But ultimately he appeared to offer more of the same, and that is not what many voters want.
Jack Layton had a tough job as well. He tried to convince people that the Conservatives would be very bad for Canada, while dissuading them from the obvious conclusion that they should thus vote Liberal to block Harper. That would have required a huge leap in the perceived credibility of the NDP. It didn't happen.
What now?
The Conservatives just have to keep doing what they they are doing, targeting their efforts more and more specifically to close ridings.
The Liberals need to rethink a campaign gone wrong.
The attacks on Harper as a social conservative have not worked, and the debate should confirm that they won't. He's to the right of many Canadians, to use that somewhat arbitrary characterization. But he's no more extreme than lots of the people most voters know and work with.
Harper looked weakest on fiscal policy - what governments take in and how they spend it.
The Conservative plan calls for tax cuts and more money for the military and health care. Harper says he won't cut spending in other areas, just slow the growth.
But Martin argued that the plans will leave a $50-billion shortfall over the next five years, and the Conservatives will be forced to make significant cuts. It's a good issue for the Liberals to push in the coming days. And it will find the most receptive audience in critical B.C. and Ontario ridings, where provincial government tax cuts have raised awareness of the risks.
But for now, Harper has become the favorite.
Footnote: Not much for B.C. in the debate. A passing reference to the softwood lumber dispute, but nothing on treaties, or First Nations generally, or energy policy. Not even a token reference to the broader issue of Western alienation, which Martin had said was a major concern before the campaign began.