Pharmacare plan about who pays, not better health care

VICTORIA - It sometimes looks like Canadians' brains turn to mush when we start talking about health care.
Take the premiers' proposal that Ottawa create a national pharmacare program, taking over from the provinces. The premiers plucked the idea out of the air when they met to prepare for Paul Martin's televised health care summit next month. At this point, they don't know how it would work or what it would cost - estimates range from $7 billion to $12 billion.
A national plan actually makes good sense. It could help to ensure more efficient and effective drug purchasing and use. But that's not the premiers' focus. They looking at who pays, the provinces or the federal government.
And despite all the talk about sustainability, and controlling costs, and efficiency, that's mostly what we debate - who should pay.
Who cares? Pay taxes to Victoria for pharmacare, or pay taxes to Ottawa for pharmacare - that's hardly a critical health care reform question.
Even the debate about two-tier care or delisting services is about who pays. Allowing some people to pay extra for speedier or higher quality care doesn't reduce the amount we spend on health care by one cent. It just shuffles the cost around.
Right now, people pay taxes for the care we agree is needed. Under a two-tier system, taxes would be less and people would pay more out of their own pockets. Health care spending wouldn't change. (The U.S. has such a system, and health care costs actually consume a larger share of its GDP. If spending was at the same level in B.C., our health budget would be $2 billion higher.)
We're dancing around the problems, not dealing with them.
Take drug costs. They are one of the most rapidly increasing health care expenses. If we can find ways to control those costs - as B.C. has done with reference-based pricing, which ensures that the cheapest effective medication is used - then we'll have more to spend on other areas.
But we don't even really know if drug spending increases are a good or bad thing.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003; the national average was $505. That could mean that we're doing a good job of controlling costs, or our doctors are more careful with prescriptions or simply that we're healthier - all good things.
Or it could mean that we're failing to make effective use of prescription drugs, and as a result more people are requiring surgery. We just don't know.
A national pharmacare plan that focused on effectiveness, not who pays, could help answer those questions. It could ensure that new drugs were only approved when they offered wide, cost-effective benefits. It could bargain effectively with big drug companies. And it would prevent drug companies playing provinces off against one another, winning approval for a new drug in one place and then supporting patients in other provinces pushing for the same thing.
The good news is that we have time to do this right. There is no health care sustainability crisis.
Yes, costs are rising rapidly and that should be a concern.
But despite all the doom-and-gloom, an internal federal finance department review released this year projected that health care spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond. Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP - the critical measure - was the same in 2001 as it was in 1991. There is no crisis.
The premier's pharmacare proposal isn't going anywhere. Prime Minister Paul Martin doesn't want the expense or the responsibility. His new interest is wait times. But shorter waits mean more money, and neither Martin nor most of the premiers want to spend more.
Maybe, under the bright television lights, the First Ministers will give up on arguing about who pays, and start talking about how we can deliver health care more effectively.
Footnote: One challenging in controlling drug costs is saying no. Drug companies regularly offer much more expensive new drugs with relatively small improvements in benefits for most patients. Governments that decide that it's not worth paying for each new drug can face intense pressure from patients, pressure groups and the pharmaceutical industry.

Economy needs lowest possible BC Ferries' fares

VICTORIA - What's the big deal about spending a bit more for ferries, anyway?
Quite a lot, actually. Just look at how past ferry rate increases have damaged the economies of the province, and Vancouver Island.
B.C. shipyards should have been giving a chance to bid on construction of three new ships for BC Ferries, a contract that could be worth $500 million. It's just wrong that a government-owned corporation barred the leading local shipyard from even submitting a bid.
But lots of critics have argued that it's worth paying more to buy locally, while remaining vague on where that extra money will come from.
It's not likely the government will write a cheque to cover the extra costs, which leaves ferry riders on the hook.
And that would be very bad news, for Vancouver Island, coastal communities and the province.
Ferry rates matter. BC Stats concluded earlier this year that three decades of big increases are costing Vancouver Island's tourism economy more than $25 million a year in hotel and room revenues alone. Figure on other spending, and you're looking at a $50-million annual loss to the economy because ferry fares went up faster than inflation.
And it's not just a regional issue. Because Vancouver Island is a destination for visitors from outside the province, it's likely that B.C. tourism as a whole has been hurt by the rising rates, the report found.
BC Stats established average fares from the Mainland to Vancouver Island over the last 30 years, factoring in traffic types and the impact of reservation fees. It found fares have steadily increased faster than inflation over the last three decades.
Since 1975 the Vancouver cost-of-living index has gone up by an average 4.5 per cent a year. Ferry rates have gone up by an average 6.5 per cent a year.
Back in 1975 a car and driver could get across to the Island for $5. If costs had matched inflation, then today's fare would be about $17. Instead the average fare for a car in 2003 was $30, a 77-per-cent real increase.
Still a bargain by world standards, some might say.
But that misses the point. The real cost of using the ferries has been steadily rising, and that has inevitable consequences.
For some people, mostly locals who have to use the ferries, rising costs are an irritant, but it doesn't alter their travel plans.
But the basic laws of economics hold that if the cost of a discretionary purchase - like a holiday - increases, then a certain number of people will cancel their plans.
And they have.
The number of passengers on BC Ferries went up 33 per cent from 1980 to 2003.
But B.C.'s population rose 55 per cent. The overall tourism industry exploded. BC Ferries hasn't kept up.
Back in 1989, Vancouver Island had a 20.2-per-cent share of room revenues in the province, a standard measure of tourism activity. But the Island has been steadily losing ground to the rest of B.C., and in 2003 its share had fallen to 18.4 per cent, according to BC Stats.
Sounds like a small drop. But it translates into $25 million in lost revenues, and a whack more in the money those people would have spent. (The study wasn't skewed by picking one rough year; the decline was steady through the period.)
"The trend in Vancouver Island’s share of room revenues has closely followed changes in ferry prices," BC Stats reported. "This suggests that BC Ferries has been, to a degree, pricing Vancouver Island out of the tourism market."
None of this justifies shutting local shipyards out of the building.
But it should be a caution for those who are willing to pay a premium for local ships - and want ferry users to foot the bill.
Higher prices for ferry travel do matter, and their effects reverberate through the economy.
Footnote: BC Ferries own studies confirm the report. In its prospectus filed as part of its borrowing plans the corporation said that for every 10 per cent fares went up on the main routes, about three per cent of travellers cancelled trips. The corporation's last annual report blamed large 1997 rate increases for falling passenger volumes.

Ellard case doesn't make show need for jury system change

VICTORIA - You'd have thought the halls of justice were crumbling around us by some of the reaction to the Kelly Ellard case.
There's been much debate about the jury system since Ellard's second trial for the murder of Reena Virk ended in a hung jury.
The jury system is fundamental to justice. You have the right to have your case decided not by a judge, appointed by the state, but by a randomly selected panel of your peers. All 12 members of the jury have to agree that the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt before you're found guilty.
We should treasure that right.
But the Ellard case sparked a lively, passionate and useful debate. Some people decided that the case showed the jury system doesn't work. A single juror was unconvinced by the Crown's case, and stuck to her position. The result was a hung jury, and the need for another trial.
The critics' arguments around the Ellard case are dubious. They weren't in the court and didn't hear evidence or arguments, but have apparently decided Ellard should have been found guilty, so the system is somehow broken.
But it could be argued that the jury system worked perfectly. The Crown made its case, but couldn't convince all the jurors of guilt. They reported that to the judge. That's what's supposed to happen.
But what if one juror is perversely, unreasonably blind to the facts, the critics say.
Fair argument. Attorney General Geoff Plant said it might be time to look at having smaller juries - perhaps eight people - to allow a greater chance of unanimity.
Or, he said, juries could make their decision on a majority vote, without requiring all to agree. Judges in England can accept a jury decision based on a 10 to two vote.
But the arguments for change are weak, in large part because it's not even clear if this happens often enough to be a concern. B.C. doesn't track hung juries, but the best estimate is that fewer than three per cent of criminal jury trials end up in am mistrial as a result of a deadlocked jury. That doesn't seem like a problem; just part of the checks and balances.
That's another objection to those changes, which Plant says the first ministers will discuss this fall. They are basically designed to make it easier for the Crown to convict people; perhaps it's as important to keep people safe from wrongful conviction. After all the Crown has the chance to try the case again is a jury is split, while a person wrongfully convicted is off to jail.
Plant also suggested simplifying the judge's instructions to juries, which have become increasingly long and complex. The judge's instructions in the Ellard case, delivered after a lengthy trial, ran to 165 pages, all read to the jurors before they started deliberating.
Supreme Court Justice John Bouck agrees. He wrote The Times Colonist in Victoria arguing for a system of simpler, shorter instructions. As appeal courts have overturned verdicts because juries were not properly instructed in the law, judges have been forced to add more and more detail. "Jurors become glassy eyed and unreceptive to the judge's strange legal words as they valiantly try to stay awake," he observes.
The instructions don't just add to jurors' confusion. They also are a fertile ground for appeals, by both Crown and defence. Verdicts are overturned and retrials ordered far more often because of problems with jury instructions than because of hung verdicts.
Bouck studied a useful U.S. alternative. Under the guidance of a high court, judges, lawyers, academics and public representatives agree on what juries need to be told about the law in different situations. The resulting instructions are short and clear, and can not be the basis of an appeal. Some method of simplifying instructions to juries seems a useful exercise.
But beyond that, it's hard to see any dramatic need for change.
Footnote: Plant took a lot of unfair criticism from people who said his comments on the jury system undermined Ellard's right to a fair trial next time around. Rubbish. He was asked about a policy issue and he responded. That's his job, and he did it. The last thing we need are more silent politicians.

Tackling health care wrong way round, again

VICTORIA - The premiers' proposal for a national, federally funded pharmacare plan highlights what's wrong with the way we approach health care.
There's a certain tactical cleverness to the idea, hatched -- apparently with little preparation -- at meetings last week.
The premiers were trying to figure out how to approach next month's televised health care summit with Prime Minister Paul Martin, who had already struck his own pose with an empty campaign promise to cut waiting lists.
The premiers needed a response.
Fundamentally, they want more money from Ottawa. But that demand is wearing thin, not least because the public recognizes that provincial and federal governments tap the same pool of taxpayers.
So the premiers came up with a twist. The federal government should create a national pharmacare program, they decided, and come up with the required $7 billion to $12 billion. (The range indicates just how well this has been thought through.) And, of course, the premiers still want Ottawa to come up with $5 billion a year in extra health transfer payments.
Don't expect any fast action.
The provinces can't even say what sort of plan they want Ottawa to provide. Provincial pharmacare plans now vary widely. P.E.I. covers 30 per cent of total prescription drug costs, with the rest paid by private insurers or individuals; Manitoba's plan covers 53 per cent of all prescription drug costs. Working out a coherent, nationally acceptable model would be a huge task.
The federal government has no interest in taking on all responsibility for the fastest-growing component of health care costs.
And the public recognizes that this proposal does nothing to address the real issues The premiers' rhetoric is about rising costs, greater effectiveness and sustainability. But their pharmacare plan doesn't tackle those tough issues. It simply takes the status quo and shuffles the financial arrangements around.
A real national pharmacare strategy would be useful.
Prescription drugs are taking an increasing share of health care spending, with little evidence on whether the money buys useful results.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003, about $145 less than the national average, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. But there's little evidence as to why we spend less, or whether it's a good thing.
Perhaps reference-based pricing is keeping costs down; perhaps we're simply healthier; or perhaps we're under-prescribing and as a result more people are inding up in hospital. We don't know.
A national strategy, based on the best information available, could improve the assessment and approval process for new drugs and provide better ways of managing costs (including more effective bargaining with the drug companies.) When that is done -- the important work -- the question of who pays can be resolved.
It's difficult work. Deciding not to pay for the latest, more costly drug variations brings pressure from patients who believe they can improve their lives, and drug companies that believe they can improve their bottom lines. But it's the only way to real reform.
So far, once you get past the rhetoric, the talk is all about who pays. Even the advocates of two-tier care acknowledge it doesn't reduce costs or increase effectiveness. The health care expense is the same; the difference is whether we pay collectively or allow people to pay individually for speedier care.
We're not in any sort of health care sustainability crisis. Cost increases are worrying, but Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP was unchanged between 1991 and 2001. A federal finance department review released this year projected that even without changes health spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond.
That means we have time to make the difficult decisions about the kind of health care system we want and are prepared to pay for.
Instead, our politicians are still bogged down on debates about whether the taxes we pay to Ottawa or the taxes we pay to Victoria should be allocated to health care costs.
And that's a debate that has very little to do with better patient care.
- From the Vancouver Sun

Mad cow aid went to fatten packers' profits

VICTORIA - We're quick to demand government action - and cash - when things go wrong.
But a $400-million program to help ranchers cope with the mad cow crisis actually delivered half the money as windfall profits to giant meatpackers, a reminder of how easily things can go wrong when politicians start handing out cash.
And we didn't even get any cheap beef out of the deal.
Alberta Auditor General Fred Dunn examined the federal-provincial plan cobbled together when the discovery of a single BSE-stricken cow led the U.S. to slam its border shut.
The plan worked, he found. Ranchers were cushioned from the worst of the short-term impact.
But because the Canada-Alberta BSE Recovery Program was poorly thought out, it also encouraged ranchers to dump a lot of cattle on to the market quickly. Prices fell as a result, but the ranchers were protected by taxpayers. No big windfall for the farmers; they just avoided disaster.
But the meatpackers, what a deal for them.
As cattle owners, they claimed about $45 million in direct assistance as part of the aid program.
And they scored much more because of the poorly planned aid scheme.
The plan only paid ranchers when they sent their cattle to slaughter.
Ranchers knew there was a limited pool of money available, and could check online to see how much was left in the pot. So they rushed to dump their cattle while there was still aid money. A four-legged stampede to market meant prices plummeted.
Good news for the three giant meatpackers that dominate the market in Alberta. They picked up cattle dirt cheap, kept on selling beef at normal prices and tripled the amount of profit they made on each cow - thanks to your tax dollars. Before BSE hit in May 2003, the packers were making $46 a head. That more than tripled to $176 a head in the six months after the subsidies were put in place, according to the auditor general.
But lousy news for taxpayers, and consumers. It's one thing to be asked to hand money over to cattle producers hit by an extraordinary event. It's quite another to find out that taxpayers are subsidizing corporations' huge profits.
There's several lessons here.
The most obvious is that governments should work harder at getting aid programs right, despite the pressure to act quickly. In this case, the program could have been need-based, eliminating the direct subsidy to the packing companies. It could have provided support for ranchers who chose to wait the crisis out, instead of forcing them all to dump cattle. It could have encouraged an orderly stock reduction. All would have protected taxpayers' dollars.
It's important to get these things right. This $400-million program was only one of several mad cow assistance programs worth a total of $2.5 billion. At the same time governments are being asked for cash to help poultry producers hit by avian flu fallout, fire victims and a host of others. The cost is enormous, and the public needs to be able to count on well-designed programs that achieve a legitimate public policy goal.
This affair should also be a wake-up call for those who have a blind faith in the power of the market to make things right.
In a functioning free market, consumers would at least have got cheaper steaks out of the deal. Faced with the chance to buy cows at low cost, the classic economic theory goes, meatpackers would compete for a larger share of the market by lowering prices.
But that didn't happen. It's too expensive to get into the business for a short time. The market is generally the most efficient way to manage supply, demand and price issues. But not always.
There's a place for government aid. But Alberta's auditor general has shown that attempts to spend our way out of a crisis can go badly wrong.
Footnote: The companies - Lakeside Packers, Cargill and XL Foods - had initially denied the windfall profits. They were also reliuctant to provide information on their operations to a House of Commons committee looking at the aid program. Dunn found the companies had made $117 million in profits in the year before the BSE crisis, and $197 million in just six months after it hit.

Taser danger demands immediate review

VICTORIA - I wrote about Tasers with some enthusiasm back in 1998, when Victoria's police force became the first in Canada to give the high-tech weapons a try.
It seemed like a great breakthrough, a weapon that shoots darts that zap dangerous suspects with electricity, making them easier to subdue. The trial seemed to be a success, and then attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh approved the Taser for use across the province.
There's still a lot to recommend the gun.
But after four Taser-linked deaths in the last 12 months in the province, it's time for an independent review of the technology, and the way it's being used.
The deaths - in Prince George, Burnaby and Vancouver - don't appear to be aberrations. Another 45 people have died in the U.S. in the last three years after being zapped with the newer, more powerful Taser models.
That wasn't supposed to be the deal. When the high-tech weapons were introduced here, the manufacturer, Taser International, claimed they were completely safe. The company continues to make the same claim.
People may die after being zapped by a Taser, but that doesn't mean it killed them, the company argues, pointing to the hundreds of police officers who have gone through the experience themselves.
But in at least three deaths, medical examiners have disagreed. A report by the British government in 2002 found the Tasers could not be classified as safe, although British police forces have begun testing the weapons. And a recent New York Times article said reporters could find no independent studies confirming the safety of the devices.
The company argues that the death rate for people shot with a Taser is no higher than the overall death rate for people taken into custody. People aren't killed by the Taser; they're killed by a high heart rate.
But 90 per cent of the people shot with a Taser are going to have a heart rate that has already gone through the roof. They are on drugs, or mentally ill, agitated, angry or frightened. They're involved in a dangerous confrontation with police, teetering on the edge of violence or suicide.
Four deaths in barely 12 months should be enough to trigger a review of the safety of Tasers, and the way they are being used in the province.
Just because they are dangerous doesn't mean they should be banned. The risk may be balanced by the number of lives that saved by giving police a useful tool.
Officers must make split-second decisions about how to respond to a dangerous person. They have to decide whether to try and restrain him physically, or at the other end of the spectrum whether to shoot him dead. Tasers have specific advantages in those situations - they can be fired from eight metres away, incapacitate most victims instantly and usually don't kill.
Other responses - like pepper spray - must be used at close range, and because they rely on pain can be shaken off by some people. And they are useless against an armed suspect whose goal is to have the police shoot him.
But B.C.'s entire approach to Taser use has been based on the idea that there is no risk from the devices. It hs been sold to police and public as a device that immobilizes without causing injury or death.
Those claims have shaped the way the devices are used, with critics arguing Tasers are being used too frequently and in cases where other methods of restraint would have been as effective and safer.
If there is a risk of death - and the evidence appears clear that there is - then our approach must change, and the rules governing use must become much more stringent.
It's time for a thorough independent review of the risks of Tasers, and the way they are being used in the province.
Footnote: Some of these questions could have been answered by an inquest into Clay Willey's death after he was shot with a Taser in Prince George more than a year ago. But the inquest won't be held until October. That kind of delay is inexcusable when answers are badly needed.

Liberals running risk with ICBC overhaul

VICTORIA - Look for ICBC to be the next Crown corporation to get a makeover by the Liberal government, a risky move in the last months before an election.
The Liberals want to loosen ICBC's grip and let private insurance companies grab a bigger share of the business. Their campaign platform included a pledge to introduce "greater competition in auto insurance, to create increased choice and reduce motor vehicle premiums."
That hasn't happened.
Part of the problem was timing. As the Liberals took over, private car insurance rates were soaring across Canada and becoming a major political problem for provincial governments. But in B.C., rates were stable and the system was working.
The privatization push also ran into a problem in ICBC's new CEO, picked by the Liberals to run the company like a business. Nick Geer left his job as a vice-president in Jimmy Pattison's empire to run ICBC. And after taking a look at the company, he decided the current level of competition - which is tiny - served ICBC and its customers well.
Geer won the battles for a time, despite government grumbling. But earlier this summer he was pushed out with a $450,000 severance package. ICBC board member Ted Smith, a former broadcast industry executive, blamed the government. "In all my years in business, I have never seen a more stupid move in any company or corporation, public or private," he told the Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer.
Geer's likely successor is Paul Taylor, who has been helping the Liberals cut costs since he was brought in right after the election. Taylor helped spearhead the Klein government's cost-cutting moves, and has done the same thing for the Liberals as finance deputy minister. His government role has just been cut back, clearing the way for the leap to ICBC, where he'll push the Liberal plan to shrink the corporation's role.
It's an initiative that should have Liberal MLAs cringing. The Campbell government has stumbled into a string of problems with its plans for Crown corporations, with the current BC Ferries' furore only the latest. Taking a fling at remaking another one, so close to the election, seems highly risky.
Especially when it's a Crown corporation that touches the pocketbook of almost every family in the province.
The idea of competition is appealing, because without it consumers will never know if they're paying too much for their car insurance. The basic principle, that competing companies will produce innovation and benefits for consumer, makes good sense.
Right now there is no real competition in car insurance in B.C. ICBC has a monopoly on basic insurance - the coverage you must have to cover the cost of dealing with injuries resulting from a car crash. That's about 60 per cent of the entire insurance market.
Optional insurance - the coverage to pay for repairs, for example - is theoretically open to competition. But ICBC's grip on the basic coverage means most people take the path of least resistance and buy their optional coverage from the Crown corporation as well. The result is that private companies have about 15 per cent of the optional coverage, a percentage that hasn't really changed under the Liberals.
Crunch the numbers, and you find ICBC has close to 95 per cent of the total vehicle insurance market. That's not meaningful competition.
But ideology aside, the government has been unable to justify selling off ICBC or ending its monopoly on basic insurance. (Asked what effect that would have, Geer said "You would find chaos in the marketplace, you would probably see the bankruptcy of ICBC.")
The Crown corporation has cut costs, raised rates by about 13 per cent over three years and reduced the level of coverage, and generally seems to remain well-viewed by British Columbians.
It hardly seems like the kind of thing that an unpopular government would want to mess with in the run-up to next May's election.
Footnote: Taylor's likely appointment sends a signal that the Liberals think the toughest part of the cost-cutting program are behind them. It also could mean a big raise: Taylor is paid $200,000; Geer was getting $262,000 to run ICBC, with hefty bonus potential.

Time to abandon failed marijuana strategy

VICTORIA - B.C.'s approach to marijuana makes about as much sense as America's great Prohibition experiment in the '20s.
In both cases, the governments took aim at substances which are widely accepted. And in both cases, they decided that the way to achieve the goal was to wipe out the supply.
It's a doomed approach, as Prohibition established. The only big winners are serious criminals.
StatsCan has just released a new survey on drug use, which found that 16 per cent of British Columbians 15 and over had used marijuana in 2002. That's about 525,000 people, not nearly as many who knocked back a few beer on a Friday night but still an awful lot of people to portray as criminals.
Among younger British Columbians marijuana use is even more prevalent. Across Canada, more than one-third of people from 15 and 24 has used marijuana in the last 12 months. The data suggests the percentage is about 45 per cent in B.C.
You can't arrest half-a-million people.
So Solicitor General Rich Coleman is advocating more enforcement, and tougher penalties, for the people who supply marijuana. He said the StatsCan results showed the need for the courts to get tough with people who run grow ops.
It's a doomed approach, like Prohibition.
Economic laws are just as powerful as the ones passed by politicians. When enough Americans wanted a drink after work, suppliers - from Al Capone to neighborhood bootleggers - emerged to meet the demand. When millions of Canadians have decided they want to smoke pot from time to time, then suppliers will emerge. That's the way markets work.
When demand is huge, attacking the supply side won't work. Too many people want to buy and the rewards are too great. And the public is not going to accept harsher and harsher penalties for people growing marijuana that one in six of them consume.
B.C. has tried. Despite the relaxed reputation, police lay a lot of charges. The StatsCan study found the rate of pot use in B.C. was about 25 per cent higher than the national average, the rate at which charges were laid was 75 per cent higher.
It hasn't worked. prompting calls for tougher penalties.
But look south of the border, where the war on drugs has been fought by locking up people.
Fewer than one in five people convicted in B.C. for running a grow op do jail time. In Washington State, almost half those convicted get a jail term of five years or more, Coleman says.
But the only result has been crowded jails. Marijuana is still readily available, and widely used. And despite concern about imports from Canada, most U.S. marijuana is grown domestically.
The B.C. government's stated concern is organized crime, and it's logical that any illegal activity with big cash profits is going to attract serious criminals.
But the current strategy isn't working. It's not reducing use, or the role of organized gangs.
That doesn't mean government has to give up. But it needs a new approach.
One obvious answer is to shift resources from indiscriminately busting grow ops to focusing specifically on organized crime. The Organized Crime Agency of BC - now rolled into the RCMP - complained that a budget freeze left it unable to do its job. That hardly fights with a commitment to tackling the problem.
Another is an education campaign on all drugs, from alcohol to heroin, aimed at young users. Many aren't going to stop using, but with good information they can make much more sensible choices.
And another is to simply be more creative. If the aim is to rob organized crime of marijuana profits, then an easy answer is to turn a blind eye to people growing a dozen plants. Supply increases, prices fall and there's no role for the gangs. (An obvious, more complicated solution would be to legalize marijuana, placing it under government regulation.)
The choices are complicated. But one thing is clear - what we're doing now isn't working.
Footnote: The government also needs to be on the alert for unintended consequences. The Organized Crime Agency noted last year that efforts against grow ops had driven gangs into the production of crystal meth, a drug taking a terrible toll on young British Columbians.

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