Cabinet choices set the tone for next four years

VICTORIA - It's not easy picking a cabinet.
In the real world, if you need a grocery clerk, or political columnist, you put an ad in the paper and pick the applicant who will do the best job. It's still difficult, but at least you're fishing in a deep pool.
Gordon Campbell's choices are way more complex, and he doesn't get to advertise. If Campbell decides to stay with 27 ministers, he'll be offering cabinet posts to more than half of the 45 elected MLAs. And he'll know that a big chunk of the 18 people left out will be hurt, mad, and maybe vengeful.
The premier can't even pick the people he thinks will do the best job. The cabinet has to be balanced - by region, gender, first language, ideology.
That's not a bad thing. We want representative governments, and who knows if the premier is so great at guessing who will turn out to be an effective minister.
Still, the need for balance restricts Campbell. The last Liberal cabinet had nine women ministers, about one-third of the total. If Campbell wants to match it he will have to appoint nine of the 10 Liberal women elected, with limited attention to experience or potential.
The need for regional balance is just as restrictive. The Liberals' Kootenay caucus had four members, with two in cabinet. Only Bill Bennett survived the election, so he's guaranteed a cabinet spot - maybe as resorts' minister. (A good thing, especially because Bennett could be an aggressive defender of the interests of B.C.'s smaller communities.) Dennis MacKay  - a low-profile MLA - might slip into cabinet as a Liberal survivor in the northwest.
Campbell's challenge includes leap-frogging the star candidates - Wally Oppal, Carole Taylor - over other MLAs. Oppal is an odds-on choice for attorney general, a job which will make the small 'l' liberal Oppal an odd partner with top cop Rich Coleman. Taylor could end up in any one of several ministries.
Some ministers should stay put. Stan Hagen wants to stay in children and families, and the ministry needs both his experience and some stability. It makes sense to leave the very competent Colin Hansen in finance.
Things get trickier in health and education, and most prospective solutions reinforce the rising star of Tom Christensen, currently the education minister. Christensen could stay put, replace Shirley Bond in health or even become attorney general if Campbell chooses.
That still leaves many slots to fill. John van Dongen and Mike de Jong are both likely due for a change after four years in the same ministry. (Van Dongen has become a symbol of Liberal difficulties in managing the aquaculture file.) But replacements will be difficult to find, especially after the defeat of junior forest minister Roger Harris.
Graham Bruce's defeat leaves Campbell without a labour minister - and more significantly, without a House leader. Kamloops MLA Claude Richmond doesn't want to be Speaker any more. Both jobs are important in setting the tone for the new legislature - confrontational or co-operative - and protecting the Liberals' interests.
And there's always the chance that Campbell could opt for bolder change. A majority of British Columbians voted for parties that promised to bring back the environment ministry. Why not do what the people want, and name a senior minister to the post to establish more credibility on the environment front? Other ministries could be restructured, perhaps giving Barry Penner a role in energy policy.
Campbell will probably announce his cabinet around June 8. His choices will signal what kind of government British Columbians can expect for the next four years, and what the Liberals have learned from this election.
And Carole James will unveil her shadow cabinet a few days later, a signal of her direction. James says she has taken the NDP toward the centre; her appointments to key critic jobs will tell the tale.
The 2009 campaign starts in the next two weeks.
Footnote: Eight cabinet ministers went down to defeat, leaving Campbell lots of room for newcomers. But not enough, probably. It will sting to be part of the minority left out of cabinet. James  faces the same issues in deciding on the roles for Glen Clark uber-loyalist Harry Lali and others of the old guard.

Columbia Basin Trust stumbles show need for public alertness

VICTORIA - You should care about problems at the Columbia Basin Trust, both because it's your money and because they show the need for public scrutiny of economic development funds promised in the Liberal campaign.
The trust is beloved in the Kootenays, where it's seen as belated economic justice.
The 1961 Columbia Treaty with the U.S. saw B.C. agree to build dams on the river system to help the Americans produce more power downstream. B.C. got cash in the deal; communities in the way got flooded out.
People in the region kept demanding a share of the benefits, and in 1995 - after the treaty came up for renewal - the NDP government agreed. It set up the trust, which now manages more than $460 million in assets. Earnings flow to a range of community projects.
But all is not well, with the damning finance ministry review only the latest problem. Liberal MLA Barry Penner asked for the review, citing questions about the relationship between Ken Epp, the CEO of trust subsidiary Columbia Basin Trust Energy, and ZE PowerGroup Inc. of Vancouver.
Epp is a part-time CEO, who billed about $600,000 over a three-year period. Among his other consulting clients is ZE Power, which received about $2 million worth of contract work from CBTE during the same period.
The trust's directors, appointed by the province, are showing an alarming lack of concern and openness.
Visit the trust's web site and there's a release from chair Josh Smienk saying that he's "very pleased" that the finance ministry audit didn't find any "actual conflict of interest" on the part of Epp. The subsidiary met all applicable legal requirements, Smienk proclaims. That is true, and it's important.
But the trust's response is wildly unsatisfactory, considering what else the review found.
Epp was in "a perceived and potential conflict of interest," the ministry review reported. "We believe that Mr. Epp has not completely complied with CBTE's Conflict of Interest Guidelines and we also believe that these guidelines do not go far enough to avoid and manage the risk of conflict of interest," it said.
Minimum legal requirements were met, but not "the higher standards that are expected of a person serving the public to avoid and manage the risk of conflict of interest."
The review also called criticized spending practices, including spending money without any approved budget. "Controls were not in place to provide assurances of fairness and value for money for the contracts examined and it was difficult to determine whether these contracts were approved," the report found. "With CBTE's low staffing levels and the perceived conflict of interest of the CEO, it is difficult to effectively manage contracts."
It is not a report that should make board members - or the public - "very pleased."
These are only the latest problems for the trust. In March the board said it wasn't renewing the contract of trust CEO Don Johnston, with no explanation. Interviews for a replacement don't start until next month.
And last year the directors had to cancel a plan to sell the corporation's power-generation business to BC Hydro. The board approved a deal to sell its 50-per-cent interest in four power plants to BC Hydro for $260 million, planning to invest the money.
But the public, still edgy because the Liberals shifted power on the board from local representatives to provincial appointments, hated the idea, and the board retreated. (The plan probably made sense.)
The trust is politically sensitive, and none of the parties wanted it raised as a campaign issue. But expect it to get political attention once the legislature returns.
Meanwhile, the problems should inspire more alertness across the province.
The Liberals have already created the $85-million Northern Development Initiative. During the campaign they promised an extra $50 million for that fund, and $50-million economic development trusts for the southern Interior and and the Vancouver Island/Coast region.
All good ideas. But the trust issues highlight the need for public scrutiny.
Footnote: The new trusts - like the Northern Development Initiative - are likely to be governed by boards of regional and provincial politicians. The legislation setting them up will be in place this year, but if the NDI is an indication it will be well into 2006 before any money flows.

Non-confidence defeat should end the Ottawa sideshow

VICTORIA - The bizarre soap opera in Ottawa isn't just embarrassing, it's hurting Canadians.
The Liberal government survived a non-confidence motion Thursday by the narrowest margin in Canadian history. MPs were split evenly on whether the government should fall, and the deciding vote to keep it alive was cast by Speaker Peter Milliken, a Liberal MP.
The spectacle has been dismaying.
The Liberals, facing defeat, stalled desperately to avoid facing this test. They lined up NDP support by promising to add $4.6 billion in social spending and to cancel promised corporate tax cuts. This week they persuaded Belinda Stronach to abandon the Conservatives - and jilt lover Peter Mackay, the deputy Conservative leader - and take a senior cabinet post in the Liberal government.
If she hadn't jumped, British Columbians would be heading into another election campaign today.
Meanwhile, sick MPs - including Independent Chuck Cadman of Surrey, weak from cancer treatment - were dragging themselves into the House of Commons for the vote. (Cadman cast a critical vote to save the government. His constituents
don't want another election right now, he said.)
What's striking is the desperation on all sides. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has made bringing down the Liberals his over-riding priority, sacrificing any attempt at making Parliament work in the meantime.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has been busy buying the support of MPs, promising Stronach her cabinet post, the NDP billions of new spending and courting Independent MP David Kilgour with promises of increased aid for dying refugees in the Sudan. Think about that for a second. People are dying in a war zone, but Canada's help depends on how badly the governing party needs to stay in power.
And all this is playing out as the Gomery Inquiry hears evidence that taxpayers were routinely ripped off in the sponsorship scandal, and that some of the money ended up in the hands of Liberal operatives.
The last month has seen just about every desperate, discouraging political moves that you could imagine.
What Canadians haven't seen is a working Parliament, or one that is focused on their interests. The Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois have made toppling the government their over-arching goal; the Liberals have placed clinging to power
above all else. (Only the New Democrats have demonstrably worked towards practical goals, by shaking down Martin for more spending in the budget.)
Provinces have been lining up to extract promises of cash from an obliging Martin, who figures that opposition MPs from those regions will be reluctant to topple the government before the spending legislation has passed. B.C. will likely add its demands now that the election campaign is over.
It's a mess, and there are only two ways out.
Martin could give up, and call an election. Instead he wants to wait until Gomery reports - and the Liberals have a chance to improve their standing in the polls. As prime minister, if he can get the votes in Parliament, that's his right.
Or Harper could accept the verdict, give up on forcing a non-confidence motion until it would clearly be successful and get back to the normal work of the House.
The second option makes the most sense. The Martin government is wounded, and fragile, and clinging to power. But it has demonstrated the support of Parliament - thanks to some dubious dealing - so it can survive.
And at this point, forcing an election seems politically reckless. Canadians are angry and disillusioned, and any election would be wildly unpredictable. Harper is as likely to be punished as rewarded.
Martin has promised an election within 30 days of receiving the Gomery report. Unless new outrages emerge, or the situation in Parliament changes, Harper and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe should settle for that. It doesn't really matter who
is to blame. What Canadians are looking for now is an end to destructive squabbling.
It's time for Parliament to get back to work.
Footnote: The Stronach defection added the crowning touch to this soap opera. She apparently dumped the Conservative party and Mackay at the same time, sending him back to his family home for a few days to mend a broken heart. His
interviews from there were sad and touching, and added a weird twist to the whole affair.

Next steps for STV, Greens and a look at the rural-urban divide

VICTORIA - Random notes from the confused day after the election.
First, there's a big political opportunity waiting for the party that acknowledges the public will and backs a switch to the single transferable vote system.
A majority of voters in 77 of the 79 ridings said 'yes' to STV, far beyond the required 60 per cent of ridings. Overall, 57 per cent of voters backed the change, just short of the 60-per-cent support threshold set by the government.
The threshold is not unreasonable.
But the referendum result is a clear indication of the public's desire to move to the new system, and the collective belief that it would deliver better, more democratic governments.
And it represents much more popular support than any political party has been able to win in B.C. for decades.
Both the NDP and the Liberals might like to ignore the referendum. Neither is keen on a change which reduces the power of parties and increases the chance that more independents and small party candidates would be elected.
But it would be wrong for them to ignore the will of the people, and foolish to ignore a great political opportunity to back something that has been proven popular with a majority of voters.
The leaders may recognize that. Gordon Campbell said STV isn't dead. "I think we should bring that to the legislature, to all members of the legislature and review where we may go from there, because there is clearly some hunger to see an improvement," he said. Carole James said she voted against STV, but backs an alternate form of proportional representation.
Campbell is on the right track. A caller to radio talk show suggested a simple, clean solution - bring the issue to the legislature, and allow a true free vote by MLAs. If they chose to represent their constituents, than 77 of them will vote yes, reflecting the referendum results. If they choose not to follow the wishes of the people who elected them, they can explain why.
Second, it is time for the Green Party to take a look at its future. Adriane Carr ran a focused, effective campaign in her riding, did well in both debates and got wide media coverage. But she still came third, with 26 per cent of the vote. (Victoria Green Ariel Lade offered himself up as a paper candidate in Peace River South halfway through the campaign, and never set foot in the riding. He got 9.4 per cent of the vote there.)
More significantly, despite four years in which to build, the Greens' share of the popular vote fell from 12 per cent to nine per cent. (Meaning they might be left out of the next leaders TV debate, as 10-per-cent support was one of the thresholds to be met.)
That still represents a lot of voters. But the Greens are mired on the fringe, farther from electing an MLA than they were four years ago. They need to make changes.
And finally, it's worth noting that the political divide between the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province is there, but less gaping than some had feared. The Liberals were strong in Vancouver and its affiliated sprawl, taking 27 seats to the NDP's 16. But they also prevailed in the rest of the province, 19 to 17.
It's a balanced outcome, one that means voters in every region can take concerns to MLAs from both sides of the house. If a government MLA is slow to act, there is an opposition representative available.
The Liberals' weaker showing in the region will likely mean new cabinet ministers. Bill Bennett, the only Liberal survivor in the Kootenays, will likely get a post. One of the MLAs from the Cariboo and the Bulkley Valley will likely replace the defeated Roger Harris as a regional cabinet representative.
Footnote: It's clear that Green voters could have delivered victory to the NDP or Liberals in 10 close races if they had changed their votes. But it's not at all clear which of the other two parties those voters might have moved to if they had opted to vote strategically. Green voters increasingly come from both sides of the political spectrum.

Campbell bruised, public well-served by election

VICTORIA - Heave a sigh of relief. You have an opposition.
Left or right or in-between, you're better served by a legislature that includes an effective opposition, with representatives from all regions.
And that's what voters delivered. Recounts in a half-dozen close races could change the outcome, but right now it looks like the Liberals won a strong majority, with about 46 seats of the 79 seats.
But they will face about 33 opposition MLAs, not just two, with an adequately funded research and support staff. It will make the legislature a very different place.
And a more difficult one for Gordon Campbell, who has had no experience in facing an opposition across the chamber's red carpet. The election campaign - when the premier chose only to meet Liberal supporters, in closed settings - reinforced the public impression that Campbell is not much interested in people with different views.
That's only one of several headaches Campbell faces.
For starters, he has to put together a new cabinet, never an easy task. There's room for new faces, since eight cabinet ministers went down to defeat. (An alarming development for the Liberals, with Graham Bruce and Roger Harris both serious losses.) But some of the best jobs are likely already committed to new stars like Wally Oppal and Carole Taylor. Some will have to be allocated based on the need for regional representation (good news for Bill Bennett, the only Liberal from the southeast). And some of the people left out of the new cabinet will be unhappy.
Campbell may face much bigger problems, depending on how Liberals assess his performance in this campaign. In some ways you can't fault the outcome. The Liberals have a comfortable majority, and Campbell is the first B.C. premier re-elected in more than two decades.
But Campbell's campaign was criticized for its slow pace and defensive approach. He was generally seen as losing the televised leaders' debate, although he did better in the radio encounter. And despite some major advantages - a strong economy, popular budget, and the machinery of government - the Liberals lost some 30 seats, the NDP surged to within a few points of its record high popular support of 46 per cent and the Liberal lead shrunk during the four-week campaign.
All of that - combined with memories of Campbell's losing 1996 campaign - will raise questions about whether he should lead the party into what could be a much closer election in 2009. Once those questions have been raised, potential leadership candidates begin thinking about their prospects and plans, a problem for any party.
Campbell has to show that he can learn from the election, moderate his approach and govern in a way that acknowledges fewer than half of the voters backed the party.
Carole James comes out of the campaign having gained important ground. She proved an effective campaigner, and convinced voters that the party has moved to the middle. Not all New Democrats think that's a good idea, but James' performance has given her greater ability to shut down internal attacks.
James - like Campbell - also saw some of key candidates elected. For the NDP, it was Gregor Robertson, Corky Evans, Rob Fleming and Nicholas Simons.
The big winners are the voters, who gain a legislature with a real opposition.
Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan made a valiant effort, despite being hampered by the Liberal refusal to recognize the existence of an official Opposition. But for the last four years we haven't really had an opposition.
That's especially true in terms of regional issues. Liberal MLAs didn't vigorously raise concerns from their community, so they just never made it on to the agenda. (Surrey Memorial Hospital has been under pressure for at least five years. Until Jagrup Brar was elected, the issue was not a political priority. His efforts helped get him re-elected, along with three other New Democrats in Surrey ridings.)
The public has been well-served by this election.
Footnote: STV will get a separate column, but it appears the referendum has created a problem for Campbell. Ninety- per cent of ridings voted for change, but the provincial total vote will fall just short of the 60-per-cent support required. It leaves the government open to criticism whichever course of action it chooses.

Campaign showed it's time for political spending controls

VICTORIA - You'll probably know the results of the election by the time you read this column.
But deadlines being what they are, I'm writing it just before heading off to vote at the local school.
Which makes it a good time to look at some of the bigger issues raised by this campaign that demand attention before the next election, including the increasing influence of big money, and the role of groups like the BC Teachers' Federation.
The mini-scandal over Liberal fund-raising practices only lasted a week. The party admitted wrongly taking money from charities and municipalities, and refunded the cash. Some defenders noted that all parties in power raise money in similar ways, including selling access to the leader, or cabinet ministers.
But that shouldn't be the end of the matter. The fact is the practice is wrong, and damaging to democracy. The underlying message of many party fund-raising efforts is that participants pay money - to go to a dinner, or a private reception, or a golf tournament - for a chance to get access to cabinet ministers and government officials.
Even if they just write a cheque, it is reasonable to believe that donors expect recognition. (Union donors, corporate donors, big individual donors - this isn't a left-right issue.)
Politicians deny that someone who donates $200,000 to a party, or $10,000 to a local campaign, is treated any differently than any other citizen.
But most people, possessed of common sense and life experience, don't believe it. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune, my grandmother always said.
So people think a big donor might get a phone call to government returned a little more quickly. Almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government," according to a 2000 survey. Some of the B.C. towns that paid to attend Liberal fundraisers said they wrote the cheques becuase it bought them a chance to lobby for local projects. Their assumption was that if you didn't pay the party, you didn't have as good a chance of getting even worthwhile plans approved.
It's the kind of fundamental problem that undermines democracy, convincing people that governments serve their financial supporters - union or corporate - ahead of the public.
The problem is easy to fix. Quebec, Manitoba and the federal government have all banned donations from unions, corporations and other organizations, and limited the size of individual donations.
The parties would likely have to get some sort of public subsidy to replace some of the lost revenue. But changing the system also would give us a chance to reduce the role of money in politics overall.
Spending on this campaign, when all the bills are in, will probably top $20 million. That's too much. Big money drives out volunteers, and replaces them with paid professionals, reducing community involvement. Ad budgets and campaign war rooms become more important than ideas or issues. And candidates and parties without a rich donor base are shut out.
At the same time, we should be taking another look at the role of outside interest groups - like the BC Teachers' Federation, or the BC Business Council - in election campaigns.
The groups now have to register, and report their spending. (Efforts to set spending limits have been successfully challenged on freedom of speech grounds.)
It may be that the problem will sort itself out. The BCTF's aggressive, and inept, role in this campaign has probably hurt the NDP more than it has helped the party, and there's little evidence that the outside interventions have helped either of the main parties significantly.
But it's still time to look at whether the increasing involvement of third party lobby groups is distorting the process, and more importantly to tackle the wide perception that big money matters more than the public will in our political system.
Footnote: Any action will likely take public pressure. The NDP and Greens have both called for a ban on corporate and union donations, but the Liberals support the current system. Change is unlikely over the next four years unless the public - perhaps given a little push by the Gomery Inquiry - demands action.

Teachers union gives Campbell his best campaign shots

VICTORIA - Gordon Campbell should send some sort of gift over to the BC Teachers' Federation.
The teachers' union has handed Campbell two of his most effective campaign moments. In the radio debate, he picked on three-term BCTF president David Chudnovsky, now running for the NDP. Do voters really want to see Chudnovsky at the cabinet table, deciding on the next teachers' contract, Campbell asked?
And then - five days before the vote - the BCTF makes the news, talking about a meeting two days after the election, when they will discuss a strike vote.
Campbell was all over it. "It's a duplicitous plan meant to engineer a school strike only weeks before provincial exams, that would would throw our school system into chaos," he said. Inaccurate and hysterical, but still politically effective.
The whole issue is fake. No government - left, right or in between - would allow schools to be closed by a strike for more than 10 days. Parents go crazy, because their children aren't learning and there is no one to take care of them (not necessarily in that order). Employers complain about the economic disruption.
But even if all governments end labour disputes that close schools. the Liberal and NDP responses to the issue still help define them.
The Liberals have made education an essential service. Teachers can strike, but the Labour Relations Board will decide what level of service must be provided, and how many people have to show up at work.
It's not really a protection against disruption. The labour board may rule that the essential elements of education can be provided in three hours a day. Two school districts have moved to four-day school weeks to save money since the last election, so the employer can't argue that a full school week is needed.
Carole James claims she would allow teachers the right to strike, but everyone assumes that she's not serious. An NDP government isn't going to look the other way if schools across the province are closed for months.
The real problem is that the current approach means there is never enough pressure on the parties to encourage bargaining. If the NDP is in power, the teachers' union figures it will do well when a strike is ended with an imposed contract, or backroom deal. If the Liberals are in power, the employer waits out the strike, counting on a good break from the government. It's a consistent incentive for one side to reject compromise.
Neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats have offered a sensible solution. The Liberals have a useful report from Don Wright that proposes replacing the phony right to strike with mediation, followed by final offer selection. (Both sides submit their best offer, an independent arbitrator picks one in its entirety, and that's the new deal. Major league baseball uses it to resolve salary disputes.)
But the Liberals haven't taken a position on the recommendations, which were released in December. And James hasn't offered any solution for resolving disputes.
They both get low grades.
But the teachers' union managers, they get an 'F.' The BCTF wants the Liberals defeated, and teachers have a right to be angry with the government. They negotiated contracts in good faith, and signed agreements with the province. And the Liberals decided government is above the law, and the contracts can be ignored.
Yet the teachers' union - through ineptitude, apparently - provided Campbell and the Liberals with a last-minute boost, in a close race.
It's a toss-up between the parties on the real education issues. The Liberals have not provided enough money to maintain the same level of educational quality that students had four years ago. That's a major failing.
The NDP would provide more money. But it would let teachers bargain issues like class size and staffing requirements, which should be decided based as matters of educational effectiveness, not labour relations.
Those are the issues that we should be debating.
Footnote: The significance of the BCTF meeting was exaggerated; unions routinely consider their next steps in negotiations. But that doesn't let the union off the hook. The teachers' federation has chosen to enter the political fray. That means competence is required, and wounding your allies is a sign of ineptitude .

Why you should yes for STV on Tuesday

VICTORIA - Elections are precious opportunities, despite all the flaws in our political process.
You get to help choose the party with the best policies, or leader, or the local candidate who will work most effectively for your community'.
This election is even more precious. You have a rare - maybe once in a lifetime - chance to improve our system by voting for a new, and better, way of electing MLAs and governments. If enough of us say yes to the single-transferable-vote system, it will be used for the 2009 election, bringing more representative, diverse legislatures and more responsive MLAs.
Under the new system there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on population. The total number of MLAs would be unchanged.
On election day you would no longer mark an 'X' beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference.
When the votes are counted, the election results reflect the overall rankings. (Opponents make much of the complexity of counting the ballots. The method is admirably explained at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. But really all you need to know is that it has been used in countries like Australia for a century, and works.)
Today, most B.C. voters face one decision - do they want the Liberals, or the NDP, to form the next government. That drives their vote, and the local candidate is largely irrelevant. People who run as independents, or for an alternative party, have little chance. Nomination contests for the two main parties - often undemocratic and flawed - matter more than the election.
But under STV, voters have options, because they are helping elect more than one MLA. In a five-member riding, a Liberal supporter might rank three of the party's candidates as the 1, 2 and 3 choices. But if he admired an individual from another party, or felt its voice should be heard, that person might become his fourth choice. There is a chance for independent candidates, or ones who champion important local issues.
The result will be a more diverse, representative legislature, with fewer wasted or reluctant votes for the less offensive party.
That's not the only benefit.
It's significant that voters under the system voters would rank candidates from within the same party. That means a party label isn't enough. Liberal candidates, NDP candidates, they will all be competing with each other for your support. Their re-election won't depend on keeping the party happy, but on representing the community effectively. Candidates who put the party interests ahead of the interests of the people they represent will be punished by voters.
Overall, the system is expected to weaken political parties - a good thing, since they have gained too much power at the expense of individual MLAs or MPs.
Some critics suggest that voters should reject STV in the hope of some future opportunity for better change. But governments almost never allow for this kind of citizen-directed change (full credit to Gordon Campbell). There's no reason to think this chance will come again.
Which means the choice on election day is between staying with the current system, or moving to STV and STV.
It's hard to imagine anyone defending the current system, which has produced confrontation, polarization, cynicism and plummeting voter turnouts.
And bizarre results. In the last election almost 200,000 people voted Green. They have had no voice in the legislature. Some 345,000 people voted New Democrat - one in five voters - and they were represented by two MLAs, two per cent of the seats. In 1996, the Liberals received six per cent more votes than the NDP, but six fewer seats. The New Democrats governed for five years without a real mandate from the public.
No country in the world moving to democracy would chose a system that produced those kinds of results.
The STV system may isn't perfect. But it's far better than what we have.
Footnote: Campbell deserves credit for establishing the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, but he has treated their work shabbily by failing to provide enough money for effective campaigns for and against the change. It's an important decision, and people should have had easier access to information.

Radio debate shows fierce final week ahead

VICTORIA - Too bad for the Liberals that the radio debate Gordon Campbell, fear tactics and all, didn't show up for last week's televised debate.
Campbell, Carole James and Adriane Carr held forth for 90 minutes - minus news and weather updates and commercials - on CKNW Monday, with most of the time spent answering planted call-in questions from supporters. (Vancouver Sun columnist Sean Holman, always tuned in, said he recognized a caller who asked James about giving teachers the right to strike as an aide to Liberal Shirley Bond, now working on her Prince George campaign.)
Campbell did well, although it was mostly a negative pitch, raising fears about the possibility of an NDP victory rather than enthusiasm for another four years under the Liberals.
That's tricky ground. Attack politics can be deceptive, destructive and ugly .
But Campbell's radio performance generally stayed on the right side of the line. It is fair to note that the NDP's slate of 79 candidates includes 16 people who served as MLAs or cabinet ministers in previous, discredited NDP governments. It's fair to note that 25 are union officers, or are otherwise active in the labour movement. It's fair to observe that Adrian Dix, Glen Clark's closest political advisor and the man who admitted falsely dating a memo during the casino scandal is running for the NDP.
And it is fair to ask voters if they really want former BC Teachers' Federation president David Chudnovsky, an NDP candidate, at the table if an NDP government - having restored teachers' right to strike - faces a showdown with the union.
There is still something depressing about the tactic. This is a sitting government elected with huge popular support - almost 60 per cent of the popular vote - that has driven away one a quarter of the people who elected it. Now the Liberals are reduced to campaigning as the least offensive option, at a time when unemployment is remarkably low and the economy strong.
James didn't do badly. She kept the focus on health, education and trust, all weak points for the Liberals. And she can probably be flattered by the shift in focus. In this debate, the NDP was treated like a party that might actually be the government, not just a strong opposition. That brings much closer scrutiny.
The radio show was also a good outing for Carr. In the TV debate, she was often part of a tag-team attack on Campbell, inevitably as a junior partner. This time she criticized both of the main parties, but the sharpest daggers were aimed at the New Democrats. "You can vote for what we've got now, you can vote for what you threw out four years ago, or you can vote for something new," Carr summarized, a good pitch.
The radio debate, with its limited audience, doesn't have anywhere near the impact of the TV debate. But it still matters as one of only two times that the public gets to see the leaders in action together. Clips from the debate, and observations by people like me, keep it at least somewhat in the public eye.
And it offers a good preview of what's ahead for the final week of the campaign. The Liberals have gone on the attack, acknowledging the strength of the NDP campaign, and their own vulnerability.
Partly, it's a stance aimed at rallying the campaign workers, and discouraging protest votes. Set out to create a strong NDP opposition, and you just may elect a James government, Campbell will say at every stop for the next week.
But it's also an admission of failure. Despite a strong economy, and initial goodwill, the Campbell government is now saying it is in a real fight to be re-elected.
It promises to be a hard-fought final week, and an election night more interesting than anyone would have predicted in the heady months after the 2001 vote.
Footnote: The Liberals should still win a significant majority, barring last-week surprises. But Campbell emerges from this campaign in much weaker position. In 1996, and again this year, Campbell has failed to improve the party's position during a campaign. That will encourage leadership challengers to emerge long before the 2009 election.

Debate helps James within the NDP too - but what happened to First Nations

VICTORIA - Some footnotes from the debate, starting with another reason Carole James' strong performance is significant..
It was assumed some NDP leadership candidates sat out the last race, reluctant to take on the job so soon after the 2001 debacle and confident that James would face some sort of leadership challenge after this election. In the same way, most voters doubted James would deliver on her promise of a more moderate NDP, in part because they doubted she could control the party.
The debate, and what looks like a reasonably good election result, give James a much firmer footing in the sometimes snakepit world of NDP politics, and makes any moves against her politically reckless. That bolsters her clout over the next four years, and may reassure some voters about the NDP's course.
Meanwhile, the post-debate official Liberal spin was that Gordon Campbell, rather than being defensive, was polite, and the unofficial spin was that he didn't want to be seen as the overbearing middle-aged guy lecturing two nice women.
It's the first leaders' debate I can recall where women were in the majority, and that did create a problem for Campbell. That's not necessarily because he's male, but because he's male, widely seen as uncaring, and already unpopular with women voters. It would be tough for him to get into a noisy clash without looking bad.
That shouldn't have ruled out a better performance. Quiet and polite can still be highly effective.
But if gender was a factor in the way the debate went, then we should be working harder to see more women in the legislature. The relative civility - think back to the federal leaders' debate for an alternative - was a tribute to all three leaders.
One of the most surprising aspects of the debate were the number of topics that didn't get a mention.
No leader really talked about First Nations and treaties, despite the importance of the issue to the province's future and the continued difficulty in moving to final agreements.
No leader talked about forestry, beyond the hot button issue of raw log exports. Parts of the industry are booming, Campbell could have noted. And all three leaders could have offered their plan to deal with the coming drastic timber shortage as a result of the pine beetle infestation, or their approach to the never-ending softwood trade battle.
No leader really talked specifically about economic development for B.C.'s regions, and a plan to reverse a steady exodus of young families and resource sector jobs.
The time was short, and six topics were preselected. But the lack of focus on the rest of B.C., the parts of the province outside Vancouver and its sprawl, was surprising.
It was also a little surprising to see that James chose not to raise the Liberals' dubious fund-raising methods that have been in the news for the past week. The approach helped her avoid being seen as too negative, but it meant a missed chance to highlight the NDP pledge to ban corporate and union donations.
Voters did get a first look at a new theme from Campbell, one that will play a role over the next two weeks. "On May the 17th, you'll choose B.C.'s future," he said is his generally flat closing speech. "You're not going to choose an opposition. You're going to elect a government."
The Liberal fear is that voters who simply want a stronger opposition, or to punish the Liberals over specific grievances, will end up accidentally electing an NDP government. They also recognize the value of planting that thought in voters' minds when there are so many close races.
It will take the next set of polls before we know how the debate really affected the race.
But it's already a win for James personally, and a boost for NDP workers. That's important. The party that has the best organization on the ground will win some close races.
Footnote: The TV ratings remind us that most voters will get their information about the debate secondhand. About 37 per cent of the people watching TV tuned in the debate at some point, almost four time as many as watched the runner-up, Jeopardy. But that still means most voters will rely on the media or friends in forming their opinion.

No big winner, but good night for James

VICTORIA - Here's the debate in a three paragraphs.
Gordon Campbell didn't do well, but he didn't do terribly, which is generally the goal for the front-runner. Nobody who watched the debate would have left saying 'wow, I feel a lot better about that guy.' Nobody would have been plunged into horror at some newly revealed weakness.
Carole James did well, though not enough to make any huge changes in the party's fortunes. There wasn't the Gordon Wilson-Brian Mulroney kind of defining moment that would transform the campaign.
And B.C.'s regions should be steamed at how little attention was given to any issues that matter to them. Forestry never even came up, except in terms of a brief reference to raw log exports. Nothing on mining, or regional economic development, or of ways to provide better services outside the Lower Mainland.
My reaction to the debate doesn't much matter. (For one thing, I'm taking notes, which means I'm not watching the way a typical voter would, and miss some of the gestures and expressions.)
More importantly, the target audience for all three parties is really swing voters, people who will probably vote but are not yet committed to a party.
The pitches were about what you would expect.
James tried to raise questions about weak areas of the Liberals' record. The debate's six topics included health care and education. In both cases James was effective in raising doubts about the Liberals' performance, raising the broken long-term care promise and rising waiting lists, and cuts to school services.
She reminded people of the Liberals' broken promises, on gambling and long-term care beds and BC Rail. (Campbell strangely tried to maintain, again, that BC Rail hadn't been sold.) And she promised balanced budgets and no new taxes.
It was a good effort. James had the most to gain in the debate, as many British Columbians have yet to form an opinion of her leadership, according to polls. The latest Ipsos-Reid poll indicates that James and the NDP gained approval durin the first days of the campaign, while the Liberals slide. It points to an opportunity.
It wasn't a great performance from Campbell, who seemed the most stiff and nervous of the three. But it wasn't bad, and he met the main goal of the Liberal campaign by avoiding any mistakes that would help the NDP.
The Liberals have been running a cautious, guarded campaign, protecting their lead in the polls. Campbell kept on that track Tuesday.
He did challenge James effectively on her promise to restore the right to strike to teachers. And Campbell raised the NDP's record in the '90s. "British Columbia went from being the best economy in the country to the worst," he said.
Still, Campbell didn't do much to advance the party's cause. James did.
Green Party leader Adriane Carr can probably count it as an adequate night. The Greens' objective is to get Carr elected in Powell River-Sunshine Coast. She stressed the importance of having an alternative to the "old parties" of vested interests, and made point of linking the NDP and the Liberals in her criticisms. Carr didn't score any big wins, but she probably helped her personal campaign.
The debate's impact will be carefully measured by the parties' pollsters over the next 24 hours. My guess is that there will be enough of a shift to alter the last two weeks of the campaign.
James took a major step Tuesday, campaigning to form the next government, not just a strong opposition. Campbell raised the possibility of an NDP government as well, in a cautionary way.
The Liberals were on their way to a comfortable majority, with perhaps 50 of the 79 seats. But if the polls show the debate produced even a small shift in party support, the race will be much closer.
And both New Democrats and Liberals will be looking at changing their approaches to the final days of this campaign.
Footnote: The debate format worked well, and all three leaders deserve full marks for allowing the others to speak, generally without interruption. The debate was courteous, and not unreasonably negative. Voters would likely welcome more of the same - especially the debate on regional issues proposed by James.

Liberals show need to ban old-style fundraising

VICTORIA - Yes, the scandal over the BC Liberals' fund-raising practices is real.
Not in the way you might at first think, that the Campbell Liberals are breaking new ground, or some sort of rogues within a generally fine system. In fact, all parties in power raise money in similar ways, and that includes selling access to the leader, or cabinet ministers.
But in this election, the Green Party and the NDP have both promised political financing reform if they form government. Corporate, union and municipal donations would be banned and individual donations limited, as they are federally and in Quebec and Manitoba.
The Liberals are opposed to reform. And that should be an important policy difference for voters.
The money involved in the Liberals' wrong-doing is small, but the specifics are serious. Municipalities, individuals and businesses in the northwest were encouraged to pay to attend an economic development conference. Taxpayers paid to fly in ministers, as well as senior bureaucrat Andrew Wilkinson, a former Liberal party president.
And then the local Liberal party treated the event as a fund-raiser, and pocketed the proceeds.
In Nelson, a similar scheme saw the party profit from what was billed as a breakfast meeting with Economic Development Minister John Les. Want to talk about the interests of your small business with the minister, or hear his ideas? Write the party a cheque.
The Liberals also took money from charities, something party rules rightly bar.
In turn, the Liberals complain the NDP took money from First Nations' governments in 1997, and that unions are skirting election finance laws with their anti-Liberal campaigns.
The Liberals have shown that the current system does not work. According to a national survey in 2000, almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
It does not take any deep study to conclude that a corporation, or union, that donates $50,000 a year to the party in power will benefit as a result. If two editors call me tomorrow with questions about B.C. politics, and one has been running the column regularly and the other rarely, I'll call the supporter first.
Certainly that's the way donors think. The Liberals are in trouble in part because they took money from municipalities. The mayors, and councillors, defend buying tickets to party fund-raisers in part because it bought them access to cabinet ministers that they could not otherwsie get. Pay the price to the party, reap the benefits.
Consider Paul Martin's leadership campaign. Long after competitors had been routed, he was receiving millions in donations.
Why? Supporters didn't have to worry about ensuring a Martin government, as that was already certain. The only explanation, is that they wanted their financial support to be noted for future reference. They expected something. (Corporations and unions both have legal obligations to spend money in ways that benefit their shareholders and members.)
Campbell says disclosure of donations is enough. You should be able to keep track of the thousands of donors, and thousands of decisions by secretive governments, and decide if improper favoritism is being shown. It was always a far-fetched argument, but the Liberal party's current claim that it couldn't even keep track of donors or fund-raising schemes elevates the argument to fantasy.
It's not a complicated problem. Ban donations from corporations, unions and organizations, and set reasonable limits for individuals. Decide how much parties - which are supposedly volunteer-based - really need to operate, and run election campaigns. If donation limits make it impossible for them to get enough money, then come up with equitable public funding.
The issue is simple. Is it likely, or possible, that parties will feel an obligation to those who give them huge amounts of money? Almost all of us - and this what matters - say yes.
That perception alone threatens democracy, and is reason enough to ban corporate and union donations.
Footnote: The Liberals raised $5 million in the first 10 months of last year. About $3.5 million came from corporations and other businesses, while individuals contributed $1.5 million, mostly from people willing to write big cheques. The NDP took in $2.5 million, with $360,000 from unions and the rest from individuals, largely writing small cheques.

Poll should push NDP, Libs to change campaigns

VICTORIA - If the political parties' polls are showing the same trends as the latest Ipsos-Reid survey, expect some changes in the final two weeks of this campaign.
The Liberals had much to celebrate in the poll, conducted at the end of the campaign's first week. They stood at 46 per cent across the province, compared with 39 per cent for the NDP and 13 per cent for the Greens. In the Lower Mainland, with it's chunk of seats, the Liberals outpaced the NDP 51 per cent to 36 per cent.
It's a commanding lead, the kind of support that would translate into about 50 of 79 seats.
The standings are also basically unchanged from the last three major polls, which found similar leads for the Liberals. Those kinds of results have encouraged Gordon Campbell and the Liberals to run an ultra-conservative, tightly controlled campaign, with no real public events. Only Liberal supporters know where the premier will be next. If others find out - like Don Fornwald, who runs the Williams Lake food bank - they're turned away. The aim is to avoid mistakes or unscripted moments, and preserve the support the party already has.
The Ipsos-Reid results indicate the tactic worked for the first week. But they also signal that there could be trouble ahead for the Liberals.
The pollster asked people how their views and attitudes had been affected by the opening days of the campaign. About 30 per cent said their opinion of Campbell and the Liberals had worsened; 10 per cent said they felt better about him and the party.
For James and the NDP, the numbers were reversed. About 30 per cent had raised their opinion; only 13 per cent had been turned off.
The risk for the Liberals is that if the trend continues, it will at some point translate into support, and seats, for the NDP.
The poll also laid out another problem for the Liberals.
The Campbell party's strong performance in the Lower Mainland is offset by its problems in the rest of the province. The NDP has a six-point lead on Vancouver Island, enough for up to 10 of the 13 seats. Across the North, and Interior, the parties are effectively tied. Take the Okanagan and northeast out of the mix, and there are a lot of Interior and Northern seats that could go NDP.
Sticking with the low-key campaign concedes the loss of many of those ridings. That's not good for a government, which functions best with strong members from across the province. And it would also not be real popular with the Liberal candidates in those ridings, who may begin to wonder if a stronger, more direct and less cautious campaign would be enough to help them to Victoria.
None of these problems compare with the challenges faced by Carole James and the NDP.
The party has some momentum, perhaps, but so far that hasn't translated into actual support.
And the NDP campaign - the campaign period, really - hasn't grabbed people, perhaps because they are not all that dissatisfied with the way things are going. Just over half the people in the Lower Mainland think things have improved in B.C. under the Liberals, the poll found, while 28 per cent think they've got worse. For the Interior and North, it's a statistical draw - 40 per cent think things have got better, 36 per cent worse. Campbell, despite his low approval ratings, is seen as a better potential premier than James.
What it all means is that both parties have to think about doing things differently. The Liberals' strategy of avoiding the public and working to keep their existing support is looking risky, and certainly means writing off seats. And the NDP so far hasn't raised any issues that will define the campaign, or result in a swing in votes.
The pressure is on both parties to do better.
Footnote: Not much will change until after the televised leaders' debate, at 7 p.m. on Tuesday. Expect a stilted affair, since the format is rigid. But the parties are still working hard at preparation, and will adjust their plans for the last two weeks of the campaign based on what happens on television Tuesday.

New children's ministry cuts an election issue

VICTORIA - It's time to ask Liberal candidates how many more cuts are ahead for the ministry of children and families.
Issues come and go quickly in an election campaign, all parties claiming the high ground.
But the news that the children's ministry faces still more staff cuts deserves your attention. The ministry provides critical support for thousands of kids and families who desperately need help, and acts in the role of guardian for some 9,000 children.
And despite wonderful words in opposition, the Liberals have badly mismanaged the ministry.
The NDP released leaked minutes from a ministry regional meeting on Vancouver Island to show that still more front-line staff cuts are ahead.
The region was trying to deal with a budget letter ordering it to cut $1.3 million in spending. That means, according to the minutes, 18 job cuts in the groups that deal with child protection, fostering, adoption, child and youth mental health and youth probation. "The budget letter was clear about the numbers to be reduced over the next three years," the minutes record. "There are more FTEs than salary dollars."
So one in 10 of the people who work with children in the region will vanish.
That might be tolerable in some organizations. But the ministry has already been cut to the bone. The region has lost 25 per cent of its staff working in these areas since the Liberals started cutting.
The ministry says the job cuts aren't certain. But the spending cut is, and that leaves no real alternative but fewer services.
Anyway, the ministry argues, there are fewer children in care, so it's OK to cut staff.
Independent observers dismiss that argument. The ministry provides a range of services, and demand isn't determined by the number of children actually in government care. They work to protect children before they are in peril, on adoptions and other issues. The demand for all those services is rising, not falling.
In fact, keeping children out of care can require more staff. It takes more work and time to help a troubled family, while ensuring child safety, than it does to apprehend a youngster, says the BC Association of Social Workers.
Do other regions similar cuts? The budget letters are secret, so we don't know.
The Liberals' handling of the ministry has been one of its biggest broken promises, and biggest failures. In opposition Gordon Campbell argued passionately for more money for the ministry, which simply didn't have the resources to meet the needs of children and families. He promised to fund it properly, and to restore stability after years of re-orgs.
Once elected, the Liberals said they had a plan to cut the ministry budget by 23 per cent. The plan fell apart, but they pressed ahead with an 11-per-cent spending cut on services for children, families and disabled adults through the ministry.
And instead of stability, they launched yet another major restructuring - and mismanaged it badly that the process created confusion, and disillusionment, wasted money, and languishes years behind schedule.
At the same time, the Liberals eliminated the Children's Commissioner and the Child and Youth Advocate, independent government agencies that reported publicly on the ministry's successes and problems. A new Child and Youth Officer has not provided meaningful public reporting since then.
The NDP's past record in managing the ministry is as bad.
But the party's platform calls for a $30-million boost to the ministry budget - enough to head off the cuts revealed in the leaked minutes. And the NDP would restore both the Children's Commissioner and the Child Advocate to ensure effective public reporting.
We entrust the ministry with some of the most critical functions in government, including looking after children in serious trouble, and providing care for them when families fall apart.
It deserves the money to do the job. And it demands out attention to make sure that it is an election issue.
Footnote: The ministry responded to the leaked minutes not by providing information on budget issues in other regions, but by launching an investigation of the leak and telling employees to keep quiet. Meanwhile, staff and social service agencies are still waiting on any reports from a February consultation by the Child and Youth Officer, at which staffing and service concerns were repeatedly raised.

Wrapping up week one: Notes from the campaign trail

VICTORIA - Campaign notebook: winners, losers and good questions from the first week.

Another fascinating poll, which showed that British Columbians will likely re-elect the Liberals even though they think the province needs a change of government.
The Strategic Counsel poll fits with others recent surveys in its tally of party support, with the Liberals at 46 per cent, the NDP at 38 per cent and the Greens at 13 per cent. No surprises there.
But 58 per cent of those surveyed told the pollster it was time for a change of government. The only explanation is that voters are saying - again - that they don't really like the Liberals, but don't see an alternative.
One Liberal problem remains Gordon Campbell. Almost two out of three people said he doesn't understand the concerns of ordinary British Columbians.
The poll had bad news for the NDP too. Half those surveyed said despite the arrival of Carole James, the NDP has kept most of the people and policies from the Clark era.
Put it together, and you have a good lead for the Liberals, but a lot of dissatisfaction with both parties. That makes for a volatile electorate.

Meanwhile Campbell is being called "bubble boy" by some of his critics because of his tightly controlled campaign. The other leaders let reporters and the public know where they'll be each day, and what they'll be doing, but Campbell's schedule is top secret. Reporters only find out at the end of each day which part of the province the tour will head for in the morning, and get no advance information about specific events. Campbell is in and out of most communities before anyone except the tipped-off Liberal supporters know he's there. The strategy avoids protests and unscripted moments, but it makes Campbell look like a man not much interested in actually meeting or listening to people who aren't already onside.

Campbell's early days of campaigning included charges that the NDP would rewrite the Labour Code to favour unions. The party's platform doesn't include any reference to labour code changes, and James has said she wouldn't amend labour laws without sitting down with business and labour Campbell's criticism remains fair. The Liberals - although ruthless and dishonest with public sector unions - stayed largely in the middle when it came to labour code changes. Would James, for example, eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot on union certification? She won't say.

Why NDP candidate Rollie Keith had to drop out of the campaign because of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic? Keith is an ex-Canadian Forces officer, who was a NATO observer in Kosovo. He didn't see war crimes being committed, and testified to that at Milosevic's genocide trial at The Hague. Keith met the former Yugoslavian president then, and told the Chilliwack Progress last fall that Milosevic seemed OK.
What I've read suggests Milosevic committed war crimes. But I don't get what was so bad about Keith's comments. He testified about what he had seen. When a reporter asked him for his views, he didn't dance away, in the evasive manner of a schooled politician. He answered the questions. His assessment of Milosevic is unpopular, and may in fact be dead wrong, but it seems to be an honestly held view based on personal experience. What's the problem?
And,if the Liberals really considered this important, why didn't they raise it six months ago, when Keith's comments were published, instead of launching a last-minute attack? (Sorry, I forgot. It's politics, which apparently excuses otherwise dubious behaviour.)

Carole James call for a separate leaders' debate on B.C.'s regions got a cold-shoulder from Campbell. It's obviously a political ploy from the NDP leader, who wants a chance to highlight Heartland problems. But it's also a good idea, and a chance to address concerns that too often get lost in campaigns that inevitably tend to focus on issues important to Lower Mainland voters.

And the official score at the end of week one: all even, as Campbell and James both did the job they needed to do. Campbell avoided mistakes or missteps that would erode the Liberal lead; James pushed the party's message and herself effectively. But neither leader likely succeeded in changing many voters' minds.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Weak Martin bad news for Gordon Campbell

VICTORIA - Poor old Paul Martin, reduced to asking us all to cut him some slack in an sad and uninspired TV sort-of address to the nation.
And poor Gordon Campbell, wondering how the fallout from all this will affect his campaign for a new mandate.
Martin's speech was a touch pathetic, the unkindest description of all. It will appear to many voters that he was either inattentive as finance minister and senior Quebec politico while the sponsorship scandal was unfolding, or willfully blind to events around him. Neither interpretion is appealing, or inspiring, or what he likely hoped for when he planned his TV chat.
The official provincial Liberal position is that voters know that the federal and provincial parties - despite the same name - are chalk and cheese.
The public perception is different. The Strategic Counsel poll released this week found that 37 per cent of voters said the sordid reports from the Gomery inquiry are causing them to question the wisdom of voting for the Campbell Liberals on May 17. That is a large block of potentially disaffected voters, in a volatile campaign.
Martin took to television Thursday night, but not that convincingly. He promised an election within 30 days of the report from the Gomery inquiry, a move intended to head of an election within the next two months.
But neither opposiiton parties nor Canadians will likely be prepared to wait until December, when the report is due, to force an election. Parliament does not appear to be accomplishing anything now. Why wait?
It is all bad news for the provincial Liberals.
Partly, there is simply the risk that voters get grumpy at all governing parties, and punish them without regard for their sins.
That would be unfair. There are lots of criticisms you can make about the Campbell team, but these are not people interested in feathering their own nests or rewarding supporters. They, like almost all the candidates I've met from other parties, ran for office to make life in B.C. better. But angry voters may not be so reasonable in their judgments.
Pragmatically, Martin's failure to rally support makes an early federal election more likely.
And that is a problem for the provincial Liberals. Campbell has pulled together a coalition, including pale pinkish federal Liberals and blood red Conservatives.
They are frequently political enemies federally. The supporters of Stephen Harper and Paul Martin share one belief in common, that the other guys represent the forces of darkness.
But they manage to bury those differences, mostly, when it comes to provincial politics in B.C..
That truce will now be tested. The people who have been working shoulder to shoulder to elect provincial Liberal candidates have already begun looking to a June - or earlier - federal election. And their provincial allies will be their federal rivals within weeks.
It is not a reality that fosters teamwork or commitment. In a couple of weeks these people will be competitors, slagging each other's candidates and competing for everything from big donations to campaign workers to media attention. (In fact, some are already drifting away from the realities of the provincial campaign, wondering where they can stick those federal lawn signs.) It will be hard for them to put those considerations aside as the likelihood of a federal election increases.
Meanwhile the New Democrats, and Greens, will be smiling. Two elections, one NDP worker observed, just means we can drop off federal and provincial party leaflets with one trip.
It is too early to figure out what it all means.
But the provincial Liberals have been running a massively controlled campaign - even the events a few hours ahead are a secret. The Martin TV speech, the likely federal election, they were never part of the plan.
And now it looks much like a June federal election, and a whole new batch of headaches for the Campbell team.
Footnote: It was striking just how remote Martin's TV pitch seemed from life in B.C. Our ad agencies didn't get the money, our concerns and grievances weren't at the heart of the issue. We are just here, the patient audience for the drama. The next step will be decided by Stephen Harper, who has to decid how Canadians would feel about a June vote.

Campbell sets out on a carefully dull campaign

VICTORIA - Get ready for an impressively boring campaign from Gordon Campbell and the Liberals.
Campbell made the obligatory trip to Government House, the swell residence of lieutenant governors in B.C., to ask Iona Campagnolo to dissolve the legislature and allow an election.
Fortunately for all concerned, she agreed, allowing Campbell to make his way to a red-carpeted room on a lower floor and briefly face the assembled press.
Nothing he said was surprising, which is pretty much what you can expect for the next four weeks. The Liberals have a significant lead, and - for better and worse - most voters have formed their opinions of Campbell and the party. If the Liberals can maintain their current support, then they'll win another large majority. So their focus will be on avoiding mistakes and surprises, and keeping the NDP on the defensive.
Campbell sounded four themes.
First, the Liberals' plan has worked, and a stronger economy is benefiting people across the province and allowing more spending on health care and education.
Second, despite some broken promises - like the BC Rail sale, and gambling expansion, and the missing long-term care beds - the Liberals can be trusted. "We're building trust by actually delivering on 90 per cent of the commitments we made in 2001," he said.
Third, that the New Democrats can't be trusted, despite any claims that the Carole James might make about a new direction for the party. "They've tried to run a very low-key, under-the-radar campaign," Campbell said. "They're running an attack campaign and they're trying to keep it under the radar." The NDP hopes to sneak into office, and then would take B.C. back to the bad old days of the '90s, he said - and will say again and again over the next four weeks.
And fourth, that given another term the Liberals will make big progress in areas that are important to British Columbians.
It's a pretty simple set of messages, and the Liberals will stick to them. The campaign is tightly scripted, and being managed to avoid all chance of disruption or surprise. (Reporters climbing on the campaign bus after a rally in Victoria Tuesday weren't being told where the tour was heading the next day, the better to make sure no troublesome unscripted moments occur.)
At the same time, the LIberal staff will be working hard to bump the NDP campaign off track. Campbell took a shot at James for reshuffling some of the financial numbers in the party platform, which had included a pledge to take some of the money from the LIberals' election slush fund and re-allocate it to health care.
Aha, the Liberals quickly said, that money is going for rinks and arenas and other good things. The New Democrats reversed their plan.
Same old New Democrats, said Campbell. "It has taken the NDP less than a week to start eating into their fiscal forecasts."
Except no one knew where the slush fund was being spent, because the government wouldn't say - until the NDP platform came out, and openness became politically expedient.
Expect the Liberals to pounce on real or imagined gaffes, contradictions or blunders by NDP candidates over the next four weeks, both to raise concerns about James and bump the New Democrats off their own plan.
Trust, for most swing voters, is probably the most important issue. They aren't going to have the time, or inclination, to delve deeply into the parties' positions on a bunch of issues. A large part of their final decision will be based on an assessment of who will make the best decisions over the next four years as issue arise. On who they can trust.
The NDP needs, and probably has the opportunity, to make gains over the next four weeks. The Liberals just have to hang on to the support they have.
And that should make for a cautious, guarded campaign from Campbell.
Footnote: The Liberal effort to avoid mistakes is already taking at least one risky form, as the party's representatives avoid debates or discussions that include New Democrats. It's safe, but the Liberals risk looking afraid to defend their policies or plans in front of the public.

Liberals in command, James has the upside potential

VICTORIA - Here's the starting point. If the election campaign doesn't produce any surprises, or change anyone's mind, figure a little over 50 seats for the Liberals, and something over 25 for the NDP.
A lot can happen, of course. And both leaders, and all the strategists labouring away on wedge issues and daily talking points, will be judged on whether they can improve their parties' standings over the next four weeks.
But today, that's where things stand.
I'm basing that largely on last week's Mustel poll, which showed the Liberals at 46 per cent support among decided voters, and the NDP at 38 per cent. That's a statiscally significant lead. It's also slightly larger than Gordon Campbell and company had two months ago, indicating a relatively stable situation. Those results suggest about 50 seats for the Liberals.
That seat forecast is also not far off the results so far from the UBC Election Stock Market, a forecasting exercise that requires those involved to risk money on the accuracy of their predictions.
And it's consistent with an informal survey I did with 27 people from around the province, all political watchers, none involved directly in campaign. Their average forecast was 53 seats for the Liberals, 26 for the NDP. (I have been reading The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki. which argues convincingly for the power of group decision-making over experts in producing accurate forecasts and sound judgments.)
It's all good news for the Liberals, who have been tied with the NDP for much of the last 18 months. The party has managed to move far enough to the middle to win over some disaffected voters. That's been especially helpful, the Mustel poll suggests, in sharply reducing the gender gap which saw women much less likely to support the Liberals. Gordon Campbell remains unpopular - 53 per cent of those surveyed disapprove of the job he's doing, 40 per cent approve. But that's stabilized too.
The Liberal job for the campaign is to execute. They've handed out the pre-election cash and got the headlines, and can't really expect to gain much ground over the nextfour weeks. Their challenge is to hold their support, avoid mistakes, and keep the NDP on the defensive.
But the poll isn't bad news for the NDP either. There's an advantage to them in being the underdog. Many people who say they plan to vote NDP are aiming to elect a much stronger opposition, after four years of a virtual single-party state. Some of them will change their vote if they think the NDP stands a chance of being re-elected.
And the New Democrats do have a chance to improve their position. Wisely or not, Carole James put off releasing the party's platform until last week. It makes an effort to shift the NDP to the middle in the same way the Liberal's election budget eased them toward the centre. If it works, if the move seems real, that will attract voters.
Much also rests on James. Right now she's got a 70-per-cent approval rating among people who have formed an opinion of her job performance. (Campbell is at 43 per cent.)
But more than 40 per cent of the public still haven't formed an opinion. That includes a large group of people who so far plan to vote Liberal.
That's a potential upside for the NDP. James handled the party platform launch well. (I know, it doesn't sound hard. But fire up the TV lights, and bring in a roomful of faintly crabby reporters waiting for you to make a mistake, and it all gets difficult.) James needs to do the same in the debate, and every day on the campaign.
Both leaders also have to convince voters that they will actually do what they say. Campbell has the burden of broken promises; James the NDP's record.
The campaign is on, with a sizable advantage for the Liberals.
Footnote: One surprise is how little impact the Green Party now has. Party support stands at 10 per cent, below the share of the popular vote the Greens got in 2001. Despite the vacuum created by the NDP's near-death experience, the Greens have failed to convince voters they offer a serious alternative approach.

James' platform aims to move NDP to middle

VICTORIA - The NDP's platform launch got the party's campaign off to a pretty good start this week, despite one major goof.
The broad thrust was clear. NDP leader Carole James wants to persuade people that she's moved the party to the middle. No more deficits, no tax increases and no turning back the clock to undo Liberal changes.
"My platform is pragmatic and achievable," James said. "It promises what can be done within our ability to pay." It's kind of an 'NDP lite,' compared with the government that ran the province through much of the '90s.
So James pledged to hire 1,500 more teachers, but she also ruled out any new taxes on business. She promised 1,000 new long-term care beds this year, but said an NDP government would still make sure to end the year with a surplus. Teachers would get the right to bargain class size, and to strike, but hospital workers shouldn't expect to get back their jobs, or pay cuts.
And perhaps most importantly, the platform includes a clear explanation of how the NDP will pay for any new spending it does plan.
An NDP government, the platform says, would come up with $32 million for the children and families ministry, and to restore the Children's Commissioner. It would find $40 million more for aid for communities hit with the pine beetle disaster. And it would come up with $103 million to open long-term care beds and cut surgical waiting lists.
The money would be found by reducing the contingency fund, and trimming bits and pieces from government.
But - and politically this is a stumble - most of the money would come from "deferring or cancelling" money for projects the Liberals are funding from their election slush fund.
That probably sounded reasonable in a planning session. The Liberals set aside a $250-million election fund this year - the same budget category was $18 million last year, and will be less than $50 million next year. Surely the public shouldn't be keen on blatant vote-buying?
But $100 million of the money has gone to create two locally directed $50-million economic development funds, one for the Southern Interior and one Vancouver Island and the mid-Coast. The NDP supports those, and has pledged not to touch them.
So far the Liberals have promised another $73 million from the fund. Smithers gets $1.7 million for a rink, Kelowna $6.5 million for a pool, Victoria $19 million for a sports complex, and so on. And another $70 million worth of announcements are planned for the next few days.
Crass vote-buying, perhaps. But the people in Nanaimo probably like the idea of an $8-million contribution to a better arena. They won't be keen on James taking the money away.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen was the designated government guy to dump on the platform. (He is effective.)
He naturally jumped on the threat to promised projects.
And Hansen raised a couple of other themes you can expect to hear from the Liberals through the campaign.
The NDP may promise no new taxes, Hansen reminded, but in government they raised tax rates in B.C. above our neighbours.
And an NDP government would give too much to organized labour, Hansen suggested, tipping the Labour Code in favour of unions and allowing teachers' strikes. (James has promised teachers the right to strike, a strange and empty commitment. No government will allow more than the briefest disruption to schools. It's a sham, and the Liberal proposal to reform bargaining makes sense.)
Still, a good start for James. There are credibility issues, a terrible party record and candidates who may have an entirely different policy view.
But James, after 17 months on the job, got the party to produce a platform that made sense, added up and could attract support from the voters who matter - the people in the middle.
It's not a bad beginning.
Footnote: The Greens got stomped on by the NDP. Adriane Carr had scheduled the party's platform launch, but the NDP put out a release saying their platform would be unveiled at the same time. An accident, said James. The Greens are not convinced.

Timing political, but Cariboo highway a good project

VICTORIA - It's election time. Break out the highway construction equipment.
Gordon Campbell's pre-election road show rolled into Prince George this week, and out of pretty much nowhere the Liberals unveiled a $200-million plan to begin a big upgrade of Hwy 97, the critical route from Cache Creek through the heart of the province.
Just part of the plan, the premier said. That came as a big surprise to people in Prince George, expecting a $33-million commitment to twin a highway bridge. Instead they got the downpayment on a $2-billion highway megaproject, albeit one that will unfold over decades. The first phases - $200 million over five years - barely starts the job of turning the highway into the promised 'Cariboo Connector,' a 460-km four-lane route through the Interior. About 37 kms are currently four-lane. By 2010 the government hopes to have added another 45 kms, with most of the initial work near Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House and Cache Creek, where congestion is a problem.
The announcement - eight days before the official election campaign starts, and the big spending stops - is obviously political.
But improving the highway, and branding it, is a good investment in the region's future. That would be valuable in any case. It's critical given the coming economic crisis, when the pine beetle wood is harvested and allowable cuts are slashed across much of the region. Economic diversification will be part of any potential solution, and improved transportation is a critical part of the puzzle.
A Progress Board report last year urged governments to make transportation improvements a priority. Communities across the province can already be brought together electronically, removing one barrier to economic development. Better transportation networks can make a large difference in removing the physical barriers, effectively moving cities hours closer to each other.
 "A key strategic consideration should be establishing a workable timeframe for improving - to the greatest extent possible - key segments of east-west and north-south highways to 'shrink the distance' between major centres and to enhance external market connectivity," said the report, written by UBC prof Michael Goldberg. Goldberg said improving the Trans-Canada Highway in the Rockies, removing Lower Mainland bottlenecks and four-laning parts of Hwy 97 should be top of the project list.
The report released by the Progress Board also suggested more tolls to pay for the roadwork, and get the projects moving more quickly.
And four years ago, that might have been in the Liberals' plans. Remember the effort to sell the Coquihalla, letting a private company collect the tolls and take over the maintenance? The cash from the deal was supposed to pay for more road improvements. The principle was that users should pay for better highways.
But people hated the idea. Their response seems to have finished off not only that privatization scheme, but also plans for other private, toll projects in the Interior.
That might be a mistake. If a toll road, or private partner, allowed much faster progress on the project the benefits might outweigh the obvious public dislike for paying directly to use highways.
There are other options for moving more quickly. Campbell said federal money could help advance the work schedule. That should include money from Ottawa intended to help deal with the pine beetle crisis. The improvements should help the region. Highway travel issues are critical across much of the province, where large distances and sometimes difficult conditions cause delays and safety issues. Travel problems cost individuals and companies money, hurt the prospects for economic growth and create conflicts between users.
And highway issues are a critical barrier to tourism development, keeping travellers away from the Cariboo and locked into the southern quarter of the province.
Sure, the timing is obviously linked to the election, and to winning seats for the Liberals.
But the Cariboo Connector makes economic sense. On with the work.
Footnote: The project makes sense; the Cariboo Connector name doesn't. The highway’s new name should be aimed at persuading tourists that a trip to Prince George - and then to Prince Rupert - should be part of their plans. The route's name should sell the region's history and beauty, and lure tourists down the road.

Liberals’ star candidates bring big changes

VICTORIA - It’s tricky bringing star candidates like Wally Oppal and Carole Taylor into the Liberal ranks.
Take one issue. All those new stars shining so brightly - Oppal, and Taylor and Virginia Greene and even Daniel Igali - are from the Lower Mainland. If they end up in cabinet, as they all expect, then the government focus inevitably shifts further towards Vancouver and its sprawl. It’s not something anyone intended, but it’s the reality. After all, Gordon Campbell hasn’t shown up to welcome new high-profile Liberal candidates in the North, or the Kootenays so far.
Star candidates can add value. Oppal’s decision to run for the Liberals in Vancouver-Fairview generated a week’s worth of speculative news stories, and drew a pack of reporters and TV crews to the big announcement. He’s seen as bright and fair and the kind of person who can make things better - and he can get on the evening news.
Star candidates can also bring needed freshness and independence. It is easy for any group of people who work together - a union executive, or corporate management group, a cabinet or even journalists - to slide into ‘groupthink,’ a shared vision of the world and the way it works. (And it is especially easy when power is concentrated in the hands of a strong leader.)
But a new person, with stature conveyed by recruitment as a star candidate, can safely challenge the common view, and propose new responses or solutions. They bring fresh ideas, a different background and independence. Those are critical elements if groups are to reach the best decisions.
For the Liberals, the benefits are even greater. The party needs to look a little more moderate, not mean, or too far right. Oppal is a socially progressive judge; Taylor the ex-chair of the CBC; Igali an Olympian who cares about kids. They are made-to-order.
Still, the arrival of the chosen has to rankle, and brings some problems for the leader who has done the recruiting. Chilliwack MLA Barry Penner, a lawyer and hard-worker, had been mentioned in reports as a potential attorney general. Oppal is now on track for that job. Taylor, Green and Igali may all dash someone’s hopes for a cabinet post.
A lot of MLAs have worked hard for the last four years, and believe they deserve a chance to be in cabinet. The odds are still good - if some 50 Liberals are elected, more than half will get cabinet positions - but some of the best jobs are going to the new stars.
The arrival of ambitious people who have not been part of the long Liberal march to power also changes the group dynamic. This government has been noteworthy for its unity. Only two MLAs out of 77 - Paul Nettleton and Elayne Brenzinger - have walked away, and there’s been no public bickering. One factor is a shared history. These people saw Campbell build the party, and lead it to a huge victory, and remain grateful.
But the newcomers don’t have that experience. Instead, they have a vague sense that perhaps they could do a better job of leading the party. Given the chance, they may be quick to offer their ideas for the government.
And suddenly things get much more complicated. Because then the people already in cabinet who think they might be good leaders decide that maybe they should be working a bit harder to get into the right place to challenge - just in case. The willingness to stay in the message box begins to slide.
All of which are good things for the public. The best cabinet, or caucus, would be one with a wide range of experience and expertise, with each person prepared to speak their mind. Bringing in independent newcomers helps any government move closer to that ideal.
But for the party, and the leader, things can get bumpier along the way.
Footnote: The prospect of Oppal as attorney general, working alongside Solicitor General Rich Coleman, is intriguing. Oppal is seen as more interested in the social roots of crime; Coleman in enforcement and punishment. The two - an ex-Mountie and ex-judge - may well be be sharing responsibility for law and order in B.C.

Brault bombshell will reach into B.C.

VICTORIA - We're jaded out here, accustomed to seeing Ottawa as some strange distant land, kind of like the Emerald City in Oz.
There are gatekeepers, and shiny buildings, and men behind curtains pulling at levers to create the illusion of the great and powerful wizard, and it's all surreal and far away.
Then along comes Jean Brault, tugging on the curtains.
Brault is the first blockbuster witness at the Gomery Inquiry, naming names and dates and amounts. His testimony was at first secret, then public. It's very bad.
Brault ran Groupaction, a middling ad agency in Montreal. He wanted work from the federal government. So Brault says that in 1995 he hired Liberal fundraiser Alain Renaud, who promised federal contracts for Groupaction.
Over the next five years, Brault paid Renaud $1.1 million. More than $200,000 a year for part-time consulting, with no specific duties.
It worked. Federal contracts, big ones, came to Groupaction. Renaud introduced Brault to the big guys, including Jean Chretien advisor Jean Carle. Renaud spent most of his time working for the Liberal Party, Brault says, but who cared. Everybody was making money. Brault was told to buy some tickets for fundraisers, then hire some Liberal workers and write some big cheques, he testified. Big wheels from the Liberal party’s Quebec organization kept asking Brault for money and favours in return for federal government contracts. He kept saying yes.
So he paid the salaries of three Liberal party workers, gave $4,000 to Jean Chretien’s brother, hired Chretien's niece and agreed to pay $100,000 to get a contract to promote the gun registry. (Albertans faint in indignation here.)
It was sordid. Brault said Benoît Corbeil, the executive director of the party's Quebec wing, asked for a $400,000 donation and promised a $3-million sponsorship contract in return. Jacques Corriveau, a Chretien confidante, got $500,000.
"When it comes to sponsorships, it's clear in my mind. If it wasn't for the investments of all types that we made towards the party, despite our abilities, our share of the pie would have been very small," he testified.
His actual share was very large. From 1995 to 2001 he got $112-million in advertising contracts and $60-million in sponsorship contracts from the federal government.
It all has a Sopranos quality to it, lots of cash and mystery and nods and winks, an envelope of money left on a restaurant table while Brault goes to the washroom, gone when he gets back. The Liberal Party got $1.2 million in all, Brault says.
None of this is ancient history. It was all going on up to three years ago, when the news of the scandal broke and everyone went to ground.
None of this is proven either. Maybe Brault, facing criminal charges, is lying. Maybe, as the Liberals claim, they're the victims, unwitting dupes of clever, bad men who took advantage. Maybe other evidence before the Gomery Inquiry will provide a different view.
But today Canadians are left with the image of sleazy governing party that enriched friendly businesspeople and channelled tax dollars to itself. And they are wondering how an operation of this scale could be invisible to those at the top - why they didn't wonder, for example, about those operatives who seemed able to work full-time for the party without ever expecting a salary.
The New Democrats and Conservatives face a decision. Will people be more upset by the scandal now, or in the fall when Gomery reports? (The Bloc Quebecois does not have to worry. The anger in Quebec is lasting.)
The fairest course - and the best one - would be for them to wait until all the evidence is in before sending us back to the polls.
They don't have to worry about memories fading. Even for jaded British Columbians, this all seems too grand to be waved off as just one of those Ottawa things.
Footnote: The scandal is devastating to Liberal prospects in Quebec, and ironically - given the sponsorship program's stated aim - a boon to separatists. But the question figuring heavily in the parties' calculations is whether even this kind of damaging evidence can persuade Liberal voters in Ontario - or B.C. - to vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Waits still longer for most surgery, future still vague

VICTORIA - I guess it's good news that the government has discovered that 11,000 of the 80,000 names on surgical waiting lists shouldn't be there.
At least the problem has been identified, and is apparently being fixed.
But that's the extent of the good news, and there's much that's discouraging in the discovery, and in the fact that waits for many procedures are still up over the last four years.
The number of names on a wait list shouldn't matter much. Most of us care about how long it takes for us to get the procedure done, not how many others are on the list with us.
But wait lists matter to people who manage the system. If the list for one procedure keeps growing, then managers devote more resources to the treatment. And if the decisions are based on bad information, then money may be misspent.
The health ministry says it's identified the problem, and will have a new wait list system within the next year that will offer patients and managers accurate information. But it's 2005, long into an era when health care and waiting lists are supposed to be a priority, and basic management information isn't available. (A situation that is true across Canada.)
The news is also gloomy on the wait time front.
Deputy health minister Penny Ballem stresses the progress in providing treatment. The system provided 33 per cent more knee replacements in 2003-4 than it did three years earlier, and 41 per cent more angioplasties.
But the system has not kept up with demand.
The latest data shows that median waits have increased for 11 types of non-emergency surgery since the election, and fallen for five procedures. The wait for cardiac surgery has been cut by about four weeks, to two months.
But other waits have increased substantially. People are waiting one-third longer for knee replacements, with the media wait now 28 weeks. Since the median wait measures the time it takes for half the people to get surgery, that means that many are waiting much longer. The median wait for hip replacements has increased by a month, to almost 22 weeks. Both waits are shorter than in Ontario, acording to a new review; both are much longer than the standard recommended by the Canadian Orthopaedic Association.)
Lots of factors have driven the increased demand. The most significant, Ballem says, is an increase in the rate at which most procedures are being performed. Surgeries hurt less, require less rehab time and provide more consistently successful results. More people are candidates. In 1990, about 1,300 people had knee replacement surgery in B.C.; the annual number is almost three times that today.
The procedures work, so people in pain or with other problems expect treatment.
And since we are not paying for enough surgeries to meet the need, waiting lists grow. In the long term, we can find ways to keep people healthier and reduce demand, and increase efficiency. But now, either governments provide more money or waits increase.
That decision deserves much more open public debate, starting with a clear statement of how long it's reasonable for people to wait for different types of treatment, based on the severity of their condition and the impact on their overall health and lives.
The Wait Time Alliance of Canada, a doctors' group, has just released its proposals. Health Canada is supposed to have a list of acceptable wait times by the end of this year as part of the last health accord signed with the provinces.
We are fumbling with the issue of wait times, with too little information - as the wait list problems showed - and too little honesty.
People need to know what their governments are prepared to deliver, and at what cost.
Only then can they decide if that is enough to meet patients' needs.
Footnote: The model that has worked in at least some other jurisdictions is wait guarantees - knee replacement for moderate case within nine months, for example, of the government pays for surgery outside the system. The process forces an open, honest debate on what we are prepared to promise, and pay for.

Liberals shovel money off their own campaign truck

VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell showed why he’s everybody’s favorite visitor this week, rolling into Kelowna for a 30-minute speech and showering some $65 million on the region before guests finished dessert.
Kelowna, you get $6.5 million for a pool, complete with 1,000 spectator seats. Penticton, $9.7 million for an arena with two ice hockey surfaces - one Olympic size, and one for good old Canadian hockey. Vernon got its share a day earlier - $1.4 million for the cross-country ski club.
And, the big one, $50 million for an economic development trust for the Southern Interior, largely locally controlled.
Of course the premier can’t be everywhere. So while he was in Kelowna others got to announce that Smithers would get $1.7 million fo a second sheet of ice at the arena, Kimberley $1 million for a mining museum, Surrey $500,000 for YMCA improvements, Chemainus $350,000 to fix the wharf and Saanich $120,000 for a climbing wall.
All in, figure $70 million in spending and just another day on the unoffical pre-election campaign tour. Last week, the total was about $200 million - including a similar $50-million economic development fund for Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.
There’s lots to be enthusiastic about in the spending announcements. The government has the money. And most of the spending, I think, offers long-term benefits.
But there is lots that’s troubling too.
Start with the fact that this was supposed to be a New Era. It was in Kelowna, back in 1996, that the Liberals staged their own campaign stunt to mock the NDP’s pre-election spending spree. They had a guy in a bad Glen Clark mask slinging gold coins off a dump truck. Campbell was there with a shovel, scraping the coins up off the pavement and throwing them back.
There are differences, of course. The NDP didn’t actually have the money they were tossing around. They said the budget was balanced, and it wasn’t.
Still, the claim was that the Liberals would be different, and they look much the same.
Then consider the fact that none of this spending has been approved by the legislature. The MLAs could be sitting now, conducting the usual detailed review of spending plans, including all these projects. Instead the Liberals shut down the house.
Consider also that much of the spending being announced now could have been provided months ago. The government had an assured surplus. If a $50-million economic fund for the Southern Interior was a good thing - and it likely is - the work could have begun last year.
Finally, consider that all this electioneering is at taxpayers’ expense. Once the official campaign starts, the Liberal party will have to send out the press releases and fly the premier and company into places like Kelowna. Right now, it’s your dime.
Campbell’s position is that the Liberals are just following their plan. Tough decisions, service cuts, improving economy, chance to spend. The proximity of the May election, he says with a small wink, is a coincidence.
Not many people will buy that claim. But it probably doesn’t matter that much politically. If the only way a community can get funding for priority projects is to wait for an election campaign, it will wait and be glad of the money. (This kind of behaviour - especially the contrast between the way the Liberals pledged to do business when they were in Opposition and the current same-old style - likely does increase general cynicism about the political process. That’s good news for the ‘yes’ side in the STV referendum.)
And all this spending activity - and the taxpayer-funded announcements - have let the Liberals control the agenda, and keep the NDP largely out of the news during this unofficial campaign.
Meanwhile, you might as well hope the premier drops by your town for lunch over the next two weeks. He brings nice gifts, even if you ultimately pay for them.
Footnote: The $50-million development trust will be spent by a board including eight municipal representatives and five provincial appointees. The idea is that people in the region can make their own decisions on investments to develop the local economy without going through the process of winning provincial approval each time.