Spending on substance abuse just makes sense

VICTORIA - Somebody tried to break into my car this spring, hammering a screwdriver into the lock and then tugging enthusiastically on the front passenger window.
I count myself another victim of our drug policy. The attempted crime took place on a lovely residential street across from Government House, where Lt.-Gov. Iona Campagnolo lives. In Victoria, according to police, 90 per cent of property crimes are committed by people hunting drug money.
That's almost 25 crimes a day, mostly petty offences like the assault on my aging Honda. But the cost is still high. The bill for fixing my car was almost $400. And what's the damage done when peoples' sense of security is undermined by small crimes?
Those kinds of things weren't even included in the latest, most complete report on the costs of substance abuse in B.C.
But it still found that drugs, alcohol and tobacco cost every British Columbian more than $1,400 last year. The study by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse was the first attempt in a decade to calculate the costs of drug, alcohol and tobacco use.
It found substance abuse cost Canada $39.8 billion in 2002 - about $6 billion more than the B.C. government spends on everything, from health care to policing.
Behind the numbers, there's a terrible human cost. Lives destroyed, families broken. For most of us, there's a moral obligation to help people in trouble - and drug abusers are surely in trouble.
Even without the moral component, dealing with the problem makes economic sense. Reduce substance abuse and you reap huge benefits.
The Canadian Centre in Substance Abuse study, based on 2002 data, found illegal drugs created direct and indirect costs of $8.2 billion; alcohol abuse $14.6 billion; and tobacco abuse $17 billion.
Abuse cost $24.3 billion in lost productivity; $8.8 billion in health care costs; and $5.4 billion in law-enforcement costs. That doesn't include the costs of crime or the effect on communities of having downtowns crowded with the addicted and desperate.
It's a such waste, of lives and of money.
Substance abuse won't go away. But any success in helping people to end or reduce their abuse will pay great benefits.
Look at the numbers. B.C. has done relatively well in terms of tobacco abuse. We have the fourth lowest per-capita cost among provinces at $563 a year. But Ontario has the lowest cost. If we could match that province, tobacco-related costs in B.C. would fall by $250 million a year.
Illegal drugs cost B.C. significantly more per capita than any other province. Again, bringing costs in line with Ontario - which is in the middle of the pack nationally - would result in a $505-million saving.
Alcohol abuse costs B.C. $536 per capita, second highest among the provinces. Again, matching Ontario would a $393-million improvement.
So without any breakthrough or miraculous cure, simply by doing as well as Ontario, we'd save $1.1 billion in substance costs.
We know what to do, starting with ensuring that people can get treatment. (That doesn't happen now; if an addict calls and says she is ready to detox, she'll almost always be told to call back in a week to see if a space is available.)
But we choose not to do it. Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to support safe injection sites even though the evidence shows Vancouver's centre has saved lives, made the community safer and resulted in more addicts entering treatment. Attorney General Wally Oppal says a Victoria drug court - which would give offenders help in cleaning up - would be great, but isn't a priority. And treatment is still terribly limited.
Our current approach has failed. Substance abuse costs society more now than it did a decade ago, the study found.
But still we fumble on, unwilling to do make the investments in prevention, treatment and harm reduction that would save lives and billions of dollars.
Footnote: The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Addiction Commission had a response to the national study available on its website within five weeks of it's release. The national study is available at www.ccsa.ca.

Liberal leadership hopefuls hit money hurdles

VICTORIA - Just when the Harper government was looking a little rattled, along comes Joe Volpe to remind voters what they don't like about the Liberals.
The Conservatives looked to be stumbling this week, re-opening the pointless debate on gay marriage.
Pointless because given Stephen Harper's promise not to use the notwithstanding clause to override the charter of rights, the government can't actually do anything to stop same-sex marriages.
And anyway, same-sex marriages have been a fact for almost a year now. Nothing bad has happened. People have quit talking about the issue showing how irrelevant it was in the first place. The Conservatives, by dredging it up, revive fears that the party is intolerant and prescriptive. At the same time, they appear to be badly out of touch with the real concerns of Canada - Afghanistan, health care, crime.
But Harper didn't have to worry. The Volpe affair - and Liberal leadership fundraising issues generally - raised bigger questions about the Liberals.
Volpe is an Ontario MP who is one of 11 official candidates for the Liberal leadership. All the hopefuls are scrambling to raise money. The party demands $50,000 before candidates are allowed on the ballot. Then there's the cost of flying around the country to seek support, paid staff, mailings. Candidates are allowed spend up to $3.4 million; after the first $500,000 they will have to send $10,000 to the party for every $40,000 they spend.
But this is the first leadership race run under new financing rules that bar corporate and union donations and limit individual donations to $5,400.
Volpe's campaign was supported by a group of 20 people who all gave the maximum. Ten of them were current or former executives with one pharmaceutical company; the other 10 were their family members.
Including 11-year-old twins and their 14-year-old brother, who were among five minors who contributed $5,400 each.
Volpe didn't see anything wrong with that. The law doesn't bar minors from contributing. If a couple of Grade 6 kids to decide on their own to hand $5,400 each to his campaign instead of buying hockey cards, so what? He spoke at their school, Volpe said. Maybe they were really impressed.
And it's true - minors can contribute. But it is an offence to make a donation that really comes from another person or to plot to get around the limits.
Volpe eventually returned the kids' money, but he still saw nothing wrong with taking $5,400 cheques from children. "All the donations for our campaign have been in compliance with the law," he said. "We wanted to clear the air and public perception."
The Liberal party response was just as weird. Party brass defended the donations and rejected calls for an investigation.
Have the lost their minds? The Liberals were booted from office in part because of fund-raising scandals. A leadership campaign that reminds voters of past wrongs would be disastrous.
And they look to be risking that. Donations are limited by law. Loans are not. And nine of the 11 candidates - all except Volpe - have borrowed between $30,000 and $200,000 from backers to fund their campaigns. Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison borrowed $200,000 from four men with major business interests in the province. The theory is that the loans will be repaid from donations, but candidates can ask for repeated extensions on the repayment deadline. The potential for abuse - for using loans as a way to get around donation limits - is immense.
Candidates do face a tough fund-raising challenge now that corporate donations are barred. (Paul Martin raised more than $10 million for his leadership campaign, largely from corporate donors.)
There are too many of them, with no clear frontrunners, and the new leader could spend the next five years at least in opposition.
But Canadians are watching to see if the Liberals have learned from the sponsorship scandal. The last week has suggested they haven't.
Footnote: The field may shrink after two leadership debates. The first, in English will be this Saturday in Winnipeg; a French-language debate will follow June 17 in Moncton. The debates won't be decisive, but they will provide an occasion for all candidates to assess their chances.

Secrecy surrounds huge taxpayer gift to forest company

VICTORIA - It’s not as if Weyerhaeuser made any sort of case for a $200-million gift from B.C. taxpayers.
But the Liberal government gave them one, without getting any identifiable benefit in return.
And both Mike de Jong, forest minister at the time, and Rich Coleman, in the job now, have not been able to come up with any answers to explain the gift.
Weyerhaeuser owned large tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. The licences covered both Crown lands and about 90,000 hectares the company owned as private lands, much of it in the Port Alberni area.
In 2004 Weyerhaeuser executives asked the government for a favour. They wanted the private lands - about the size of Manning Provincial Park - taken out of the tree farm licence.
The benefits for the corporation were huge. Land in the tree farm licence was controlled by the government as if it was Crown land. Stringent environmental and replanting requirements, a limit on the rate of harvest, a bar on selling the land for housing and strict controls on raw log exports - they were all part of the deal.
That’s why, in the 1950s the government encouraged forest companies to include their private lands in tree farm licences. Government wanted to be able to guarantee sustainable forest management and protect jobs for British Columbians.
Companies that agreed were compensated with additional Crown timber to make up for any lost profits. That’s how the private lands became part of these licences.
Now Weyerhaeuser wanted the deal cancelled. The benefits to the corporation would be huge - between $18 million and $24 million a year in extra profits.
But what about taxpayers? They had already compensated the company for including the land in the tree farm licence. The local communities and the province both stood to benefit for decades from the ability to manage the land in the best interests of British Columbians. Why give that up?
A ministry briefing note for de Jong at the time didn’t even contemplate the idea of a gift to the corporation. It assumed Weyerhaeuser would pay taxpayers compensation.
But even with that assumption, the ministry recommended that de Jong just say no to Weyerhaesuer.
For starters, the ministry briefing note warned de Jong that communities and forest workers considered the tree farm agreement a “social contract” that ensured local areas benefited from the forests and that sustainable management would mean jobs for their children. (That concern was prescient; the change allowed more log exports and cost local jobs.)
Senior ministry officials also said it would be difficult to get fair compensation from Weyerhaesuer and warned of a political backlash.
The only significant benefits cited were making the corporation happy and perhaps placating the U.S. in the softwood dispute (although that sure didn’t work).
But de Jong rejected the ministry recommendation. About 70,000 hectares were removed from the tree farm licence. Within a few months Weyerhaesuer was in negotiations to sell the whole operation business to Brascan, which ultimately paid $1.4 billion for it.
Nobody spoke up for taxpayers. But the Hupacasath First Nation took the government to B.C. Supreme Court, saying they should have been consulted. They won their case. (The Hupacasath, like local communities, had been kept in the dark.)
Brascan provided evidence in the case, because the company wanted to make sure the deal wasn’t undone. Getting the private land out of the tree farm licence was critical to Brascan’s decision to buy. Its profits from the private timberland were about $25 to $30 per cubic metre higher than on Crown land. The government’s gift was worth $15 million to $24 million a year in extra corporate profits.
Add to that the ability to take the land out of forest production and sell it for housing, and you have a benefit worth at least $200 million.
Why did the government do it? De Jong wouldn’t respond to questions. Coleman isn’t offering any answers. A deal was done, he says, but that’s it.
It’s none of your business.
Footnote: The New Democrats raised the issue in the legislature, but got no sensible answers from Coleman. “There was still a deal done,” he acknowledged in reply to a question from NDP forest critic Bob Simpson. “The member is telling the House pieces of what he thinks he understood took place at the time, but he actually has no idea what the total agreement was, because it isn't public.”

Liberal MLAs put financial watchdog on a chain

VICTORIA - A handful of Liberal MLAs have betrayed the public over the appointment of a new auditor general.
The auditor general is one of several independent officers who work for the legislature, not the government. His job is to make sure the government’s financial reporting is accurate and audit its performance on important issues - from finding out what went wrong with the fast ferries to examining the fairness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacare. He reports to the legislature and the public, not cabinet.
It’s an important job, one that has to be free of any political taint.
That’s why the hiring process is clear. The auditor general, appointed for a six-year term, must be unanimously supported by the legislature. The actual hiring decision is made by the public accounts committee, made up of 14 MLAs from both parties. They agree on a candidate which the legislature then supports.
That hasn’t happened this time. And the Liberals’ solution looks like a sneaky move to avoid the requirement for unanimity and impose a candidate of their choice.
The legislation allows the appointment of an acting auditor general without unanimity, a short-term solution if the auditor falls ill or the search is delayed.
The Liberals, with a majority on the committee, have approved their preferred candidate on that basis, with no limit on how long the acting appointment will last or any plans to continue to search for an acceptable candidate.
It looks like an attempt to subvert the law and turn an independent officer into a partisan appointment.
The committee has been looking for a candidate to replace outgoing auditor general Wayne Strelioff for months now. They had narrowed the field to three.
And, based on bits and pieces that have leaked from the search, the two parties split on their first choice for the job.
The Liberals wanted Arne van Iersel, a respected long-time government employee. Van Iersel was the comptroller general in the finance ministry, responsible for making sure the government’s books were accurate. He held that job under the NDP and the Liberals, and most recently has been helping sort out problems in the ministry of children and families. (Liberal John Yap has confirmed the party’s MLAs on the committee wanted him to get the job.)
This situation shouldn’t be a negative reflection on van Iersel, who has an excellent reputation.
The New Democrats reportedly backed a candidate from Ontario, who came with a recommendation from federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser.
You can see how that would make the Liberals nervous. B.C.’s auditors have been effective, but low key - alright, boring - in the way they presented the information. Fraser has taken a much more high-profile approach in her work, highlighting cases like the sponsorship scandal and the gun registry waste. No provincial government would be keen on that kind of publicity.
And despite van Iersel’s fine personal reputation, it’s easy to understand why the New Democrats were concerned about his appointment.
The auditor general has to look critically at the actions and decisions of government and senior public sector workers. Van Iersel would be auditing the work of people who were his peers only months before, and possibly even critiquing his own past decisions. The perception of conflict is huge.
The nature of this appointment is also damaging to Van Iersel’s ability to do the job. He is now tagged as the Liberals’ choice. His reports - no matter how thorough and even-handed - will be seen through that lens.
Worse, he can now be seen as under the Liberals’ thumb. Auditors general are appointed for a fixed six-year term to allow them independence. Van Iersel can be fired anytime the Liberals on the committee choose; his independence is hopeless compromised.
The Liberals on the committee have blundered. They should retreat now and the committee should come up with a compromise candidate both sides can support.
Footnote: How important is independence? The legislation currently allows the appointment of an auditor general for a second six-year term. Strelioff, in his final report, recommends that be changed becaus it could create the appearance that an auditor’s reports are being influenced by a desire to keep the job.

Teaching respect for gays, others moral and practical

VICTORIA - It's no big thing that the government is going to have schools teach students about respect for gays and lesbians, says Attorney General Wally Oppal.
"This really is a classic case of much ado about little or nothing," he said. "I mean, we're 2006 now and we're still concerned about whether or not we should be acknowledging the contributions made by homosexuals? Why should that be controversial?"
Oppal's right. But the government's actions - under the NDP and the Liberals - indicate this is significant.
The B.C. government announced plans this week to introduce a new Grade 12 elective course that will “explore the nature of a just and equitable society by focusing on social justice issues.” The elective course will look at the economic, legal, political and ethical issues around race, gender and sexual orientation.
And government promised a gradual review of the entire school curriculum over the next few years to make sure it “reflects inclusion and respect for the diverse groups that today make up B.C.'s population.”
Laudable and necessary. But Oppal's claim that this isn't a significant change doesn't really stand up.
The government didn't just decide to introduce these changes. They are part of the negotiated settlement of a human rights complaint , one government has been fighting since 1999. That's when Murray and Peter Corren, a Vancouver couple, alleged systemic discrimination against gays and lesbians in the school system. Only now has the government accepted the need for change.
Even the announcement of the changes showed that this was unusual. The people who write government press releases are normally required to make sure the minister's name is mentioned in the first two paragraphs. A manufactured quote - often clunky - has to be include by paragraph three.
No minister's name made it into this release at all.
Despite the government's edginess, this is a good and overdue change.
The new curriculum need not interfere with anyone's right to disapprove of homosexuality, or of people from a different country or race. Peoples' thoughts are their own.
But it will increase understanding. And it will teach the reality that B.C. and Canada are diverse places and we need to have the knowledge and respect to let us live and work together successfully.
While there's been progress, we have far to go. Three Liberal MLAs toured the province in 2003 as a Safe Schools Task Force. “In nearly every community visited, no matter how large or small, individuals made presentations about the issue of harassment and intimidation based on sexual orientation," they reported. "Even the perception of being homosexual or of being tolerant of homosexuality is enough to result in harassment and intimidation, including both emotional and physical abuse.”
Students reported being bullied and harassed for the colour of their skin, their religion or their ethnic background.
It is wrong that children face discrimination in school, and it is immoral and foolish to allow people to graduate with little respect for others.
B.C. is becoming an increasingly diverse place. Statistics Canada forecasts that by 2017 visible minorities - largely from Asia - will be in the majority in Vancouver. Across the province one-third of the population will be visible minorities.
That's an asset, as Premier Gordon Campbell has noted. The diversity brings cultural richness and can help B.C. become a centre for global business.
But it brings challenges and schools must play a large role in dealing with them.
It's not a question of moralizing or brainwashing. Students need to know about the legal bars against discrimination in Canada and why they exist. They need to learn about the ethical and economic aspects of diversity. They need to move beyond cliche and stereotype. All of those things should be part of the school system from a very early stage.
The changes announced this week are a small step, but a significant one. School will be a better place for many students, and B.C. will be a better place for the next generation.
Footnote: The new Grade 12 course will be ready for testing in the 2007-8 school year and introduced the year after that. Changes to of the rest of the curriculum will take place over several years as part of the normal reviews that the education ministry conducts. But slow or not, the changes are a great tribute to the Correns' persistence.

Government leaps blindly, without a net, into private surgeries

VICTORIA - There’s no reason to set your hair on fire about the principles behind the drive to shift hundreds of thousands of surgeries to private companies.
But you should be nervous about a plan that rests too heavily on hope and ideology.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) is taking the lead on this effort. The authority has just asked clinics to bid on contracts to provide some 20,000 operations a year that are now being done in the public system. The provincial government expects the other health authorities to follow the same approach wherever there are enough private clinics to do the work.
Patients shouldn’t really care who owns the operating room, or hires the nurses. As long as the work is done well, access remains fair and the taxpayer isn ‘t being gouged there’s no threat to the public interest or violation of the Canada Health Act.
The health authorities even hope they can save money and reduce wait times. The private clinics, VIHA say, will be able to do more minor day surgery. That should free hospital operating rooms for additional major surgeries. The authorities are spared the capital expense of adding operating rooms.
And the authority promises that the patients will be protected. Waiting lists will continue to function as they now do. (That is to say badly, but with relatively fair access.) The private companies will be asked to explain how they will limit the poaching of public sector health care staff they ramp up for this business boom.
The big benefit should be the introduction of useful competition into the health care system.
Competition is a good thing. Grocery stores compete for your business, so they spend time looking for improvements that will win your loyalty - better service, lower prices, local produce. Good ideas are rewarded; bad ideas abandoned. Consumers benefit. And that’s just as true for health care consumers as it is for grocery shoppers. (Some people balk at the idea of health care consumers. But that’s our role - we pay money in taxes and MSP premiums and get service in return.)
Competition is almost entirely absent from the world of health care. If one team runs a great hospital, and another a mediocre one, they’re treated in pretty much the same way. Figure out a better way to run an emergency room and your reward is more people showing up for care, not more money or better equipment.
But there are some big, legitimate concerns with the contracting-out push.
For starters, the government has no idea whether this change will save money or cost more. Health Minister George Abbott acknowledges that no one really knows what it costs to do these operations in the public system. Without that, it’s impossible to make a rational decision about contracting out.
The simple and obvious solution is to have the health authority set up its own day clinic and compare its costs and outcomes with private clinics. The government has not taken that basic step.
It also hasn’t prepared a business plan for this enormous shift. How will public hospitals function without the minor surgeries that allowed them to make maximum use of operating rooms? What will happen if nurses or doctors decide the private clinics are better places to work?
There is a real risk that critical major surgeries will be cancelled because the needed staff will be down the road doing minor surgery for a private clinic. Health authorities can now set surgical priorities; once these contracts are in place that won’t be possible.
Many of these same clinics are already charging user fees for faster access to surgery, in practice many would argue is a violation of the Canada Health Act. Health authorities may be subsidizing the expansion of two-tier care
A major experiment with private delivery would be valuable. This looks much more like a poorly planned and blind leap into the unknown.
Footnote: One of government’s most baffling and destructive tendencies is its enthusiasm for wholesale change. Prudent managers test new ideas or approaches on a regional basis and assess results before expanding the initiative. Government - as we see again in this case - too often leaps imprudently toward the next great solution.

Equalization’s easy and it matters, I swear

VICTORIA  - After 14 years as Alberta premier, Ralph Klein still doesn’t have a clue about how equalization works.
He's not alone. Despite all the fussing about the program, most people don't know much about it, and what they do know is likely wrong.
It’s going to be a hot issue for the next few months. Here’s a five-minute primer so you‘ll be more clued in than Alberta’s premier. It’s interesting, honest.
Klein scored some big headlines by threatening to pull out of the equalization program if Alberta’s resource revenues became part of the funding formula. “This is a political showdown,” he vowed.
It made no sense, or no more sense than declaring that Alberta would pull the military out of Afghanistan.
Klein seems to think — like lots of people — that equalization means Ottawa bills some provinces and then passes on the money to Canada’s losers, like forced charity. And he seems to think a province can opt out.
But equalization is an entirely federal program. Ottawa takes some of the tax money it collects and chooses to help poor provinces deliver education and health care and other responsibilities. Alberta could urge its citizens to withhold two per cent of their federal income tax as a protest, I suppose, but there’s no real way to opt out
Back in 1867 the Fathers of Confederation carved up taxing powers and responsibilities between federal and provincial governments. Ottawa got defence and major economic development initiatives; the provinces got health and education and social services.
It made sense at the time, but by the Dirty Thirties things had changed. Education, for example, was a low-cost item in 1867. By 1930 providing education was already costing provinces more than they could afford. (The total cost of education and public welfare programs was less than $5 billion in 1874 and some $360 billion by 1937.)
The problem hit a crisis point in the Depression, when some provincial governments faced huge demands for services they couldn’t afford to provide.
The solution was to shift some responsibilities and tax powers to Ottawa. The federal government was to take the extra revenue and share it among the provinces, based in part on need.
The principle was that some provinces - like Ontario - could raise lots of taxes off their large industrial base. Others struggled. The federal government would transfer enough money to ensure that every province could offer adequate services without taxing its citizens too heavily. You wouldn’t die early because you lived in New Brunswick.
The current debate is about how you calculate those transfer payments. Right now the federal government looks at five provinces - Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. - and calculates their average ability to bring in different kinds of taxes. Provinces that fall below that level get money to bring them up to the average.
Perhaps, the current thinking goes, all 10 provinces, including Alberta with its big energy revenues, should be included in the calculation. That would mean total payments - from the federal government - would rise by $6 billion from the current $9.5 billion.
Mostly Canadians have accepted the idea that all provinces should be able to provide basic services. It’s not a radical principle. B.C. provides some extra money for rural school districts on the same basis.
But Klein is right in one way. The money has to come from somewhere. If the federal government wasn’t helping out poorer provinces, it could cut taxes or spend more on the military.
The basic facts are clear, but the issues are complex. For example, B.C. got more than $800 million in equalization payments in 2004-5. Does the province really need money to deliver basic services? Would higher transfers reduce poorer provinces’ commitment to finding new economic opportunities? Or are inadequate transfers holding them down?
Those are the important questions. Equalization is ultimately a balance of idealism and pragmatism. The public’s view matters.
Your’re now more knowledgeable than Alberta’s premier.
Footnote: The fundamental issues are fascinating. How much revenue should government collect? What share should go to the military and what share to health care? How much tougher should life be in Newfoundland? What should the provinces be able to decide and where do national standards matter? It’s an important debate.

B.C. laggard in regulating payday lenders

VICTORIA - Everyone - even Solicitor General John Les - agrees the province should be regulating payday lenders to protect British Columbians.
So what won't the government do something?
Payday loan companies were almost non-existent a decade ago. Now there are about 1,350 branches across Canada doing $1 billion in business a year.
Unlike banks and other lenders, the industry is virtually unregulated. The safeguards that protect consumers dealing with other financial institutions don't exist.
The companies serve a useful purpose, despite critics' complaints that exploit the poor. They offer loans to people who have no other access to credit. For someone who urgently needs $100 to make to the next payday - to fix a car, or provide for a child - the companies are a valuable service. Show them a pay stub, write a postdated cheque and you can borrow a small amount for a brief period.
For a price. The Criminal Code makes it a crime to charge more than 60 per cent interest. Typically the companies charge 59 per cent. But they also levy fees for each transaction that push up the real cost of borrowing, in some cases to 1,000 per cent.
The loans can quickly become a trap. Borrow the money against your pay cheque, pay it back and then run short again and go back for another loan. A court case in Ottawa heard that a person borrowed $280. A month later, the amount owing for the original loan had risen to $551, a Tony Soprano kind of transaction.
The companies defend the fees. They run a big risk of not getting paid back, they say, and it's tough to make money on a lot of small loans.
But they agree - mostly - on the need for proper government regulation.  The Canadian Payday Loan Association, which represents operators of about 800 of the 1,350 outlets, has urged governments to step in and set rules for the industry.
The B.C. government says no. When New Democrat MLA Rob Fleming introduced a private members' bill this month to regulate the industry, Les was dismissive.
The bill’s contents are fine, said Les, nothing he could disagree with.
But, Les said, the province can't do anything until the federal government changes the Criminal Code and gives the province the power to set maximum interest rates. Fleming has “the cart before the horse.”
It sounds like an excuse, a lamish one.
It would be helpful if the federal government finally acted on the Criminal Code changes after five years of dithering.
But in the meantime B.C. could act, if it had the will.
The Manitoba government has introduced legislation regulating payday lenders. It acknowledges some provisions require changes to federal law. The fact that Manitoba has passed the legislation and is waiting on Ottawa is intended to add pressure.
But the Manitoba law also introduces useful measures that don't require any federal action. Payday loan companies will be required to warn customers in clear language about the high cost of loans. Borrowers will have 48 hours to change their minds about the agreement. Most importantly, the companies will be required to get provincial Public Utilities Board approval for their fees. Their operations will come under close independent scrutiny.
Many of the same measures were included Fleming's bill.
The Liberals aren't going to adopt an NDP members' bill, but the government could and should bring in its own legislation this fall.
The industry fills a need.
But it can also exploit the vulnerable. If any sector of the financial services industry requires regulation, it's the payday loan operators. Yet governments have largely chosen to ignore them. (Not entirely. Manitoba prosecutors have laid charges under existing Criminal Code provisions; Quebec introduced regulations limiting interest rates and the companies have stayed out of the province.)
The government has acknowledged the need for action. Les has indicated general support for Fleming's bill. B.C. has the ability to start protecting consumers and bring some order to a Wild West industry.
It's time for the excuses to stop and some action to start.
Footnote: The only remedy available to introduced so far has been class action lawsuits. But they are a costly and slow vehicle to bring about change. The amounts claimed are typically small and the base of claimants tough to identify and the legal process could take years.

Liberals choose needless deaths over photo radar

VICTORIA - The Liberal government is putting politics and ideology ahead of saving lives when it comes to photo radar.
The NDP raised the issue in the legislature's last days, asking why the government was refusing to use cameras to catch speeders on the Pattullo Bridge. The old, narrow bridge has claimed five lives so far this year, 15 in the last five years. Speeding is a problem, partly because enforcement is dangerous for police. There's no room to stop speeders.
Surrey council has endorsed photo radar for the bridge. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon says it might be useful. RCMP want it. ICBC studied the problem and said photo radar is the best way to save lives and reduce injuries.
Forget it, said Solicitor General John Les. The Liberals promised to get rid of photo radar in their in 2001 campaign, and they're keeping the promise even if it does mean people will die in preventable crashes.
It's a curious bit of blind ideology, one that has already cost the lives of some 160 British Columbians.
Look at history. Photo radar was introduced - badly - in 1996. In the prior five years an average 510 people had died annually in car crashes.
During photo radar's almost six years of operation the annual death rate fell to 412 - a stunning drop.
The Liberals killed it weeks after the 2001 election. In the first three years after it was gone the average number of deaths was 449 - an increase of 37 a year from the photo radar era.
It's not surprising. Every study has shown photo radar reduces speeds and crashes and saves lives. The only variance is in how many deaths and injuries it prevents.
A study on photo radar's first year in B.C. found "a dramatic reduction" in speeding where the cameras were used. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe speed related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
An exhaustive Australian review released this month analyzed data from 26 separate photo radar studies from around the world. The results were conclusive. The number of crashes was reduced by 14 to 72 per cent once photo radar was installed. More dramatically, fatalities were reduced by 40 per cent to 46 per cent.
Enforcing the speed limits saves lives. (That hardly seems surprising or controversial.)
B.C.'s former photo radar was wildly unpopular. People saw it - with good reason - as an attempted cash grab. They considered some locations unfair. And they questioned the use of police officers in the photo radar vans.
But none of those problems are inherent to photo radar. Introducing a new program would be as simple as installing speed cameras in dangerous locations, like the Pattullo Bridge or problematic school zones or a road used by street racers. Put up a sign saying the device is being used and speed and crashes will fall. (Britain has permanent boxes for speed cameras at high-risk areas; the cameras move from location to location.)
Even the existing red light cameras in place at high-risk intersections round the province could also be used to catch people speeding in the same locations. Surely no one can argue against issuing tickets to people driving 30 kilometres per hour over the limit in a busy intersection?
You can argue that other measures may produce better results, or that speeding laws shouldn't be enforced for some reason. But you can't deny the effectiveness of photo radar. That's why so many jurisdictions - including Alberta - have accepted photo radar. That's why polls show wide support.
It's simply fact that photo radar works. Enforcing speeding laws save lives. Photo radar - or speed cameras - is the most cost effective way of achieving the goal.
It's irresponsible for a government to put politics and ideology ahead of the lives and well-being of citizens.
Footnote: The Liberals have talked a lot about getting tough on crime. But we had about 430 motor vehicle fatalities in B.C. in 2004; ICBC says speed was a factor in 172 of them. There were 112 homicides. But somehow speeding, though deadlier, doesn't get the same government commitment.

Harper winning skirmishes, but risks losing public trust

VICTORIA - The first spin was that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had won political victories around big issues in the last week.
But it looks just as much as if Harper has revealed critical weaknesses that could give the Liberals new life in the next election campaign.
The Conservatives were slicing and dicing on an extended commitment to the war in Afghanistan, the unfair abuse dished out to Harpers' choice to head the new commission on public appointments and the firearms registry.
In each case the government scored some political points. But in each case it treated Parliament, and thus Canadians, with heavy handed disdain. Harper demonstrated that once he thinks he's right Parliament and public opinion don't much matter.
It's exactly the kind of thing many voters already feared about him.
Start with Afghanistan.
Harper wanted to extend Canada's commitment to provide troops, which was to end next February, for another two years. He called a surprise debate in Parliament - MPs had two days to prepare, gather the views of their constituents and consider what the situation in Afghanistan might be in two years. Harper limited it to a few hours. And he indicated he would not be bound by the vote.
A "tactical triumph," one commentator called it. The vote passed and the Liberals were split on the issue, with leadership candidates on both sides.
But where's the triumph? Canadian troops have just been committed to a long, deadly mission with no real public discussion of the risks to them, the support they will need and the chances of success. Instead of seeking a full debate and making a strong case, Harper opted for political cleverness on an issue that demanded better.
The Liberals were divided, which the Harper team will emphasize during the next campaign. But their MPs were allowed to vote freely, hardly a bad thing.
Next consider Harper's response when a Parliamentary committee rejected his choice to head a new accountability agency to watch government appointments and make sure merit and not patronage was the big factor.
The committee's decision was a travesty. The opposition members grilled retired EnCana CEO Gwyn Morgan about past comments that had nothing to do with his ability to handle the job, which he had agreed to take on for $1 a year. They focused on his observation that immigration raises social issues, referring to people who "come from countries where the culture is dominated by violence and lawlessness." Hardly a radical observation.
Harper was miffed. His response was to abandon entirely the promised accountability commission to oversee appointments, an act of presidential petulance.
Finally, there was the gun registry.
Conservatives mostly hate it, partly because many rural Canadians have never accepted the idea that they should have to register guns as they do vehicles and partly becuase it is a symbol of waste and dishonesty under the Liberal government.
But the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police want the registry kept intact. Police use it about 5,000 times a day, they say, and it helps keep officers safer. Canadians, conerned about gun crime, are divided.
Harper could have held a vote on the registry's future and left the question to Parliament. That's the essence of this democracy thing.
Instead, fearing defeat, the Conservatives launched a stealth attack without Parliamentary support. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced a one-year amnesty for shotgun and rifle owners who have ignored the registration requirment, effectively rewarding them for breaking the law. The Conservatives chopped funding to the registry and eliminated fees for permit renewals. They are killing it, while avoiding a vote in Parliament.
Clever tactics, I suppose.
But many Canadians feared Harper's certainty would translate into a contempt for the views of others.
His actions in ignoring the legitimate role of Parliament and concentrating all power in the prime minister's office affirm those fears.
In winning some quick battles, he risks losing the longer political war.
Footnote: Two Liberal leadership candidates - Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison - voted with the Harper government to extend the Afghanistan commitment. The other six, including Ken Dryden and Stephane Dion, were opposed. It should be a big issue in the leadership race.

U.S. gets say on B.C. forest policy; public doesn't get say in softwood deal

VICTORIA - The New Democrats took their best shot at digging into the softwood lumber agreement this week, pressing for an emergency debate on the deal.
It didn’t work. And that’s too bad.
The agreement, like any treaty or trade pact, is ultimately between governments. It’s unrealistic to expect MLAs to be able to pick through the softwood deal clause by clause and send government back to the table on any issues they find troubling.
But the legislature - and the public - should get a chance to have an informed say on the broad principles.
That’s what the NDP proposed this week, calling for an emergency debate under the arcane rules of the legislature.
Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson raised the need for an urgent debate. He cited Trade Minister David Emerson's weekend comments that provinces would be expected to check with Washington before making any forest policy changes during the agreement’s seven-year life.
A "surrender of sovereignty," said Simpson, one that would take away the right of future governments to set forest policy for the province.
Forest Minister Rich Coleman didn't disagree. Any agreement would have to include provisions to satisfy the Americans that provinces weren't going to introduce unfair subsidies for the forest industry, he said.
"So we will be going through that with our legal people, and we're at the table as British Columbia making sure that British Columbian interests are taken care of," he said.
Coleman is right. Any agreement has to include some mechanism to make sure that neither side finds ways to cheat.
But there are a range of solutions. The agreement could provide for independent arbitration, for example, which would protect B.C.'s right to set policy.
All we have now is Emerson's comment that Washington will be able to vet any changes in provincial forest policy.
Coleman wasn't reassuring.
"There's nothing to worry about," he said. B.C. won't need to worry about U.S. approval for policy changes between now and 2013 because it won’t make any.
"We won't because we've done ours," he said. The government has advanced the introduction of market-based stumpage in the Interior. It will now be complete before the softwood deal is signed
It’s an alarming answer. Coleman is acknowledging that the U.S. has a say on B.C. forest policy.
And his claim that forest policy is fixed for the next seven years is implausible.
Maybe everything has been done and the province has got policy to the point of perfection. But perhaps markets will change or the pine beetle disaster will have unforeseen consequences. Maybe future governments will overhaul aspects of forest management to increase safety. The notion that our forest policy is now locked in place is unrealistic.
The NDP wanted the softwood deal discussed under a legislature rule that allows for emergency debate on a "definite matter of urgent public importance."
There were only three days left in this session of the legislature, the deal could be signed by June 15 and MLAs don't sit again until the fall.
This is the only chance to get answers about the sovereignty issue before B.C. is committed, Simpson said.
Speaker Bill Barisoff said no. The softwood discussions have been going on for some time and MLAs have had a chance to ask questions, he said. It's not enough that new details about the deal have emerged, and anyway the NDP can raise the issue in the three remaining Question Periods.
The decision fits with precedent. But it’s a loss for the public.
There are important questions about the tentative deal that haven’t been answered. It’s been treated so far as an issue for government and forest companies.
But it also affects individuals and communities. A draft released by the NDP Tuesday said, for example, that export quotas will be based on a region’s average share of U.S. imports from 2001 and 2005. Those were tough years for the coastal industry and boom times for the Interior, rushing to process beetle-damaged wood. Vancouver Island and Coastal forest communities deserve to know if they’re being locked into seven years of limited access to the U.S. market.
A fuller debate now would ensure that the public supports the agreement, and that issues are raised and addressed before we are locked into a long-term deal.
Footnote: The NDP asked Premier Gordon Campbell if he would guarantee a public debate on the deal before it is signed. No, he said. It’s a good deal, B.C.’s policies will govern forest practices and - apparently - there’s no need for a public discussion of the impact of the seven-year agreement.

To understand First Nations blockades, look to Ottawa

VICTORIA - Of course First Nations are going to stage blockades and occupations of disputed land.
It's the only way they can get government to respond to their claims.
What would you do if you launched a legal effort to get back land you believed someone had taken from you and found that you were being stalled for year after year?
People have been getting mightily exercised about the latest First Nations' blockade over some disputed land in Ontario.
And let it be said that everyone has to obey the rule of law or accept the consequences. That's what keeps our society working.
But before you get too righteous, let me tell you about another land dispute here in B.C. Consider the way the federal government handled it, then decide whether you'd be thinking about a blockade too.
The Doig River and Blueberry River bands were part of the Treaty 8 agreements reached in 1900. They were given reserve land near Fort St. John for giving up their traditional territories.
By 1920 settlers had become established. They wanted the province to build a road to Alberta and - not surprisingly - said the best route was through the reserve land.
OK, said the province. It wrote the federal government and asked for 32 acres to be taken from the reserve for a road. The land wasn't being farmed and maybe a road would even make the rest of the reserve more valuable, the province said.
Of course the province didn't want to pay for the land.
Ottawa - the legal protector of the bands' interests - countered by saying that the province could have the land if it would fence the roadway.
No, said the province. So the federal government just handed the land over. It didn't ask the bands if they wanted to give it up. In fact, Ottawa never actually told them about the deal.
But eventually, decades later, they found out. In 1995 the Treaty 8 association decided to submit a claim for compensation. The Crown had ignored its legal obligations and the bands were owed compensation, the association said.
Here's a nice detail. The association didn't want the dispute to drag on, so they used a new "fast-track" process.
It seemed simple. Even today 32 acres up there aren't worth much. There's no tricky precedents involved. The federal government could admit compensation was owed, and negotiate a deal. Or it could say no, the Crown did nothing wrong.
Figure six months as a reasonable period for definitive answer.
Instead, Ottawa did nothing. Eight years went by and the federal government wouldn't respond to the claim.
Finally, after eight years of waiting for any answer, the First Nations had enough and filed an appeal with the Indian Claims Commission.
The federal government had denied their compensation claim and they wanted to challenge the decision.
Get this. The federal government then argued that the natives had no right to appeal to the commission, because there was nothing to appeal. Their claim hadn't been denied yet. It has been ignored for eight years, but it had not been denied.
Come on, said the Indian Claims Commission, grab some common sense. If the federal government hasn't responded in eight years, it has effectively denied the claim. We're investigating and issuing a decision.
And then - cornered - the federal government said wait , we'd rather negotiate. Talks are going on now.
Ottawa's approach was stall, ignore and then attempt to deny access to legitimate appeal channels. People will grow impatient.
And this case appears to be much too close to the norm. One lawyer involved in the process says B.C. First Nations find claims for specific compensation are regularly stalled for years in a gridlocked system.
It's wrong to break the law or defy the courts.
But when I expect it's something many of would do faced with a government that took our property and then ignored us like we just didn't matter.
Footnote: The Blueberry and Doig could afford to be patient. The tiny didn't just lose the 32 acres for the road. Indian Affairs also handed over reserve land and mineral rights to returning Second World War veterans just before gas reserves were discovered. After a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in their favour, the bands received $147 million in compensation.

Liberals move to centre and rise in polls

VICTORIA -  It's time to start thinking about a B.C. Liberal dynasty.
The Mustel poll released this week confirms the success of the Campbell government's effort to move towards the centre. And it suggests that the Liberals have the chance to become a multi-term government, like their Socred predecessors.
It's just one poll, with the usual margin of error, but it has Liberals smiling. The poll showed the Campbell party has the support of 54 per cent of decided voters, up from 45 per cent in November. NDP support fell to 37 per cent from 41 per cent.
It's a great showing for the Liberals. The party only had the support of 46 per cent of voters in last May's election. In fact they haven't done as well in a Mustel poll since the fall of 2001, when the post-election honeymoon ended badly.
The poll doesn't reflect poorly on the New Democrats. Their support is down from the 42 per cent they attracted in the election, but within the range of results from the last few years. Green support is at five per cent, the lowest in a Mustel poll in five years.
The NDP hasn't made any big mistakes. The New Democrats may not have been quite as effective in Question Periond this session, but they've pressed the government effectively on emergency room problems. They’re still getting good coverage in regional newspapers on a range of local issues.
But the poll - and remember, it's just one snapshot - suggests that it's hard for even an effective opposition to gain ground if the government doesn't give people a reason to be angry at them.
After four years in which the Liberals didn't seem to care what voters thought about them,  they've got smarter.
Sure, the Liberals still refuse to admit obvious problems for far too long. They denied problems in the children and families ministry for years, looking increasingly ridiculous. But finally they acknowledged reality and appointed Ted Hughes to investigate. They now have a window to show that they learned from their blunders.
The biggest evidence of the changed approach change came in public sector labour relations. The Liberals stomped on their employees for much of the first term, ripping up contracts, conducting mass firings and rolling back wages for the lowest-paid employees.
The approach changed after the teachers’ strike. The Liberals were shocked to find that the public solidly supported the teachers even after the strike was declared illegal.
So when contract talks started they reacted with a fair wage mandate, the clever idea of a signing bonus linked to early agreements and and a determination to reach negotiated deals.
It worked. And I'd wager that the poll results would be much different if the government was at war with health care support staff right now.
The Liberals have learned some lessons. This week they pulled the plug on three controversial bills in the face of NDP opposition and public concern. They had defended a new law that would have allowed government to keep details of public-private partnerships secret, even in the face of sharp criticism from Information Commissioner David Loukidelis.
But when the pressure mounted, they bailed instead of stubbornly pressing on and alienating voters.
It's been a big change for the Liberals. And it looks like it's working.
Given a strong economy, a tolerable leader, no disasters and a government that doesn't poke people in the eye, a centrist party can stay in power for a long time in B.C. The Socreds went 20 years, were out of power for three, and back for 16 years.
Gordon Campbell has become a more tolerable leader. His approval rating, at 46 per cent, is higher than he has ever received in a  Mustel poll. Carole James received the same approval rating.
The Liberals looked much like a potential two-term government through their first four years.
They’ve changed. And so have their chances of a longer run in government.
Footnote: Mustel tracks British Columbians’ views on top issues affecting them. The latest numbers show unsurprisingly that health is the main issue. But the number of people identifying it as their main concern has fallen to 40 per cent, the lowest in 2 1/2 years, despite the current ER problems.

Straight answers could have headed off Olympic cost concerns

VICTORIA - I probably wouldn’t even be writing about Olympic costs if the Liberals were serious about all their “most open and accountable” government talk.
But faced with the chance to be open about spending, the Liberals opted for secrecy.They ended up looking foolish and turned a small issue into a bigger one. New Democrat Harry Bains has been pushing for answers on Olympic spending during budget debates. But estimates debates, as they’re called, don’t grab much attention. So this week, Bains took the issue to Question Period, the daily 30 minutes guaranteed to get noticed.
How much, he asked Hansen, is the government spending on 2010 Legacies Now?
I don’t know, said Hansen, the minister responsible for the Olympics. Despite its name the agency doesn’t have anything to do with the Olympics, Hansen said, so don’t ask him.
Anyway if people want to know how much has been spent they can wait until June and search through hundreds of pages of Public Accounts. Don’t expect the government to answer a question about how taxpayers’ money is being spent voluntarily.
OK, said NDP leader Carole James, surely Finance Minister Carole Taylor knows how much has been spent. James asked her.
But Taylor stayed in her seat. Hansen, the man who said it had nothing to do with him, leaped up again and refused to provide the information.
So it remains a secret how much taxpayers’ money has gone to 2010 Legacies Now in the last fiscal year.
The Liberals appear to be nervous about the whole issue of Olympic costs. They maintain that the province will contribute only $600 million to staging the Games. Other expenses - like 2010 Legacies Now - are mostly on things the government would have done anyway and shouldn't be counted, they say.
Bains has been making a good case that the tab is really higher.
Most obviously, the government has chosen not to count the Olympic Seretariat as a Games' cost. That would strike most people as illogical; without the Olympics surely we wouldn't need an agency to oversee the province's role. So far the Secretariat has spent $26 million, with the biggest costs still ahead. (The original forecast put the total cost of Games' oversight at $15 million.) The government can make a better argument for keeping 2010 Legacies Now out of the tally. The agency is obviously linked to the Olympics - its website says the agency "creates sustainable legacies that will benefit all British Columbians as a result of hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games." It was launched, with fanfare, as an example of the kind of great benefits that would flow from the Games.
But the activities are varied, from literacy funding to supporting minor sports to paying for big video screens for communities to watch the Games. We would have spent some of that money anyway, says Hansen. Other agency projects are aimed at taking full advantage of the opportunities the Olympics provide to inspire people.
Maybe. But Legacies Now has also been doing activities that are clearly linked to the Games.
In any case the obvious solution is simply to come clean on how much is being spent by Legacies Now and where the money is going. People can decide whether the spending is Olympic-related or not. (And the public can decide if it was worth setting up a new agency to handle the money. Legacy Now adminstration costs ate up $3 million last year; the agency only handed out $17 million.)
Tell the public what you're spending their money on, and how much. Don't refuse to answer, or tell people it's a secret unless they're prepared to wait and search through hundreds of pages of spending information.
It's the right thing to do. And it seems the politically sensible thing to do.
By stonewalling, the government just increased suspicions that it has something to hide on 20101 Legacies Now and Games' costs.
Footnote: For the record, B.C.'s auditor general estimated B.C. taxpayers will be spending $1.25 billion to host the Games, including costs like the Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements and the Olympic Secretariat. The government turned down the auditor general's request for additional funds to allow his office to monitor Olympic spending.

Campbell strong on Kelowna Accord, but Harper not listening

VICTORIA - Gordon Campbell gave a great speech on the need to honour the Kelowna Accord.
But it doesn't look much like anyone outside the province noticed, or that Stephen Harper even cares much about B.C.'s views on the agreement.
Campbell spoke two days after Harper's first budget effectively repudiated the accord, which allocated $5.1 billion over five years to try and address the economic and social problems that afflict First Nations.
The Conservative government's decision was a blow to First Nations and an unintentional slap in the face for Campbell, who had championed the agreement.
And it created a special problem for the B.C. government, which has taken great care to work positively with Ottawa since 2001.
Campbell's carefully crafted response, delivered in a special statement to the legislature, worked hard at keeping a positive tone. He welcomed the budget commitment of money to address First Nations' housing problems and acknowledged that the Conservative government might have its own ideas on addressing First Nations' problems. (The budget commitment was between 25 per cent and 70 per cent of the money promised under the Kelowna Accord, depending on who is doing the counting.)
But the speech made it clear that the B.C. government believed that abandoning the accord would be a betrayal and a tragic mistake, calling it "Canada's moment of truth."
"It was chance to do something that had eluded our grasp as a nation for 138 years - to end the disparities in health, education, housing and economic opportunity," Campbell said. "First ministers from all the provinces, all the territories and the federal government came together. They lit a torch, and that was a torch of hope. It was a beacon that we should hold high." The honour of the Crown is at stake, he said. Ottawa should not abandon a unanimous agreement between all provinces, the federal government and First Nations.
The speech was tremendously well-received. First Nations leaders, on hand for the speech, and the NDP joined in a standing ovation.
But it caused barely a ripple outside the province's borders - almost no national media coverage, no real response - positive or negative - from the Conservative government.
The reaction was a reminder that B.C. remains a peripheral province. If a premier from Ontario or Quebec had made a similar speech, it would have been a major national story.
And it shows that First Nations' poverty and despair have not yet become a national issue.
The Kelowna Accord matters a great deal in B.C. Campbell rightly calls the poverty, illness and despair among natives across Canada a national disgrace.
And the accord is linked to the province's New Relationship initiative, which is intended to replace confrontation and conflict with co-operation. That's a key element of future economic development.
But the issue isn't a priority for the Harper government, which has stayed tightly focused on five priorities ( Accountability Act, child care payments, GST cut, crime and health care wait times).
The accord is also tainted in Conservative eyes because it was signed by Paul Martin days before the last election. "Something crafted on the back of a napkin," Conservative MP Monte Solberg said last January.
But the agreement was reached only after 18 months of negotiations and work by provinces, Ottawa and First Nations.
It's tough to see a way to salvage the deal at this point. Campbell's speech was applauded in B.C., but went unnoticed on the national stage. It's possible that the agreement could be saved if other premiers joined the effort, but there is no sign of that happening.
Worse, the Conservatives have shown no evidence of having a replacement  plan of their own.
The Kelowna Accord was an important commitment. It was part of a new relationship that is important for B.C.'s progress and propserity.
And it was an effort to end the suffering and despair of Canada's First Nations, a situation that is a true national disgrace.
Footnote: There is a certain irony here. Five years ago Campbell was heading his own new government and insisting on a destructive treaty referendum despite warnings that it would seriously harm relations with First Nations. Now he is the champion of reconciliation, sending similar warnings over the death of the Kelowna Accord.

Little to cheer for B.C. in budget

VICTORIA - Finance Minister Carole Taylor was quick to offer enthusiastic support for the federal budget.
It’s a little hard to see why.
The quickness was understandable. Radio reporters are always looking for fast reaction for their next newscast and the two Caroles - the NDP’s James and the Liberals’ Taylor - were ready to deliver first opinions an hour after the federal budget was released.
But the support was a little harder to fathom. On balance the federal budget seemed to merit a best an OK rating from the province’s perspective. Some good news, some bad news and nothing defining either way. (That’s not surprising from the first budget from a spanking new minority government.)
Start with the most obvious good news. The budget includes $400 million over two years to deal with the pine beetle crisis. That may not be enough, but it’s a welcome start and an improvement on the $100 million a year coming from the former Liberal government.
There are still a lot of questions about how the money will be used, especially in helping communities prepare to cope the post-beetle crash in the timber supply. But the money is a welcome downpayment on what is needed.
Taylor also praised the Harper budget for maintaining the Liberals’ promise of $591 million for the Pacific Gateway project, a major effort to improve transportation - road, ports and the rest - to help build trade with Asia.
But the Liberal government had promised the money over five years, working to a timetable that reflected the urgency of seizing trade opportunities.
The Harper government has pushed the commitment out over eight years, a significant watering down of the commitment.
Then there’s the bad news.
The biggest disappointment for the B.C. government is the Conservatives’ repudiation of the Kelowna Accord on First Nations. Premier Gordon Campbell travelled the country to win support for the agreement, which committed $5 billion over five years to improving conditions for natives across Canada. He championed it as a moral and economic obligation to end a shameful situation. The deal won the unanimous agreement of premiers and then prime minister Paul Martin in Kelowna last fall and was supported by First Nations leaders.
And the Conservatives blew it up within 90 days. The accord promised about $1 billion a year to improve housing, education and social conditions for First Nations. The Harper budget has committed less than one-quarter that amount.
The Conservatives complained that the Kelowna Accord lacked substance and was simply an attempt to throw money at a problem. That’s a serious rebuke to the Campbell government and setback for dealing with a national disgrace.
(The decision drew quick fire from First Nations’ leaders. Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs said it showed the Conservatives couldn’t be trusted - he actually accused them of speaking with “forked tongue.”)
The budget also failed to provide any money to cover Olympic construction cost over-runs.
The cost of Games venues is forecast to be $110 million over budget. The B.C. government has already agreed to pick up half the extra costs.
But despite a big lobby effort from the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee, Ottawa hasn’t said it will contribute any more money.
If it sticks with that position B.C. taxpayers could be squeezed for more cash. (B.C. has agreed to take responsibility for all Games cost over-runs or revenue shortages.)
Taylor said she’s confident the federal government will come through. Trade Minister David Emerson is responsible for the file, she said, and understands the seriousness of the issue.
But if he does, where’s the money?
Details of the budget - good and bad - are still to come. The Conservative plan offers a vague indication of an army presence in B.C., which could offer benefits to a community. There are details of specific provisions for targeted industries still to come.
But so far this looks mostly like an adequate budget for B.C. There are few reasons for cheerleading.
Footnote: James seized on the expected lack of child care funding as a significant problem. The Conservatives’ decision to cancel the federal-provincial child care deal in favour of a $1,200 child allowance was expected, but it leaves B.C. without a clear plan for child care.

Perfect storm battering tourism; aid needed now

VICTORIA - The NDP was asking about BC Ferries Monday, but missed the most urgent questions.
BC Ferries wasn't their first choice. The New Democrats were keen to ask about emergency room problems, but neither Health Minister George Abbott or Premier Gordon Campbell showed up in the legislature.
So the opposition turned to the sinking of the Queen of the North. The questions were fine, about fare increases and environmental damage and whether BC Ferries should should keep getting paid a subsidy for the route now that it's not delivering the service. But they missed the big issue.
The sinking of the Queen of the North and the drastically reduced service for this summer are a tourism disaster for Prince Rupert and northern Vancouver Island.
And their impact is going to be felt across the entire province.
In the past that would have mattered less. The tourism industry was strong enough to handle even a serious problem like reduced ferry service on a key route.
That's no longer true. Tourism is getting clobbered by a storm of bad news. Start with the Canadian dollar, which topped 90 cents US this week for the first time since 1978. Three years ago our dollar was worth about 70 cents US.
Good news if you're heading to Seattle. Bad news for B.C. tourism.
An American tourist looking at a weekend in B.C. might plan on spending $400 Canadian. Three years ago that would have cost him less than $300 US. Today the same trip would cost him $375 US. That's the kind of increase that makes people think twice. Then consider gas prices. Three years ago gas was about 70 cents a litre. Now it's $1.12. Add the effects of the rising dollar and a driving holiday in B.C. that would have cost an American tourist $190 for gas three years ago would now be $385. (BC Stats estimates that each one-cent increase in U.S. gas prices results in 6,000 fewer tourists. American gas prices are up 55 cents from a year ago, enough to cost the province 330,000 visitors.)
On top of those problems add confusion about the U.S. government's coming requirement that American travelers have a passport. Only about 30 per cent of Americans have passports, and few are likely to get one for a brief trip to our province.
And now BC Ferries has slashed service from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. A few years ago we did an RV trip from Prince George to Prince Rupert, and then down on the ferry to Port Hardy and home. It was early fall and the trip was spectacular. Most nights we met tourists from Europe, doing a big loop out of Calgary in rented RVs.
The threat of cancelled sailings is enough to make tourists consider other options. The effects will be felt from Nelson to Nanaimo.
The problem is already with us. Visits from the U.S. - by far our major international tourist market - fell 4.6 per cent last year. The number of U.S. visitors in February was the lowest of any month in 25 years.
Government can't ride to the rescue every time an industry hits hard times. Aid often just delays needed adjustments.
But the tourism faces extraordinary challenges. There is a role for government aid.
To its credit the government has sharply increased tourism funding in recent years, doubling support for Tourism B.C. to $50 million a year and providing one-time grants to the six regional tourism authorities.
A one-time emergency grant now now could help the industry through this year.
Tourism BC and the regional authorities could decide best how to spend the money. But a campaign aimed at assuring tour operators that the Rupert-Hardy trip is still possible would make sense. So would efforts to attract more visitors from within Canada, or encourage Americans to visit before passport rules kick in.
It's a good time for the government to land a hand to a key industry.
Footnote: The NDP questions on BC Ferries focused on whether the supposedly independent corporation would be docked money for failing to provide service on the route. Maybe, maybe not, said Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. The reality is that penalizing the corporation would just mean higher fares for users.

New class size law a reasonable compromise

VICTORIA - Hey, the system works. Look at the government's move to set class size limits.
The Liberal government is in the process of bringing back size limits for Grades 4 to 12. It has acknowledged that eliminating maximum class sizes was a mistake. Too many children were lost in large classes.
That's a win for the students and for the BC Teachers' Federation, which went on an illegal strike last year at least partly over the issue.
The strike worked. The government had steadfastly maintained there was no problem with class size. That was contradicted by Industrial Inquiry Commissioner Vince Ready, who said the issue had to be addressed. And now the Liberals - to their credit - have admitted they were wrong.
At the same time the BCTF didn't get all that it wanted. Class size limits used to be in the teachers' contract. The Liberals used legislation to break the agreements. Class sizes and the number of special needs students were educational issues to be decided by trustees, they said.
The problem is that they are also workplace issues, which are usually subject to collective bargaining.  
The union would have liked to see the class sizes back in the contract. But this is a reasonable compromise. Teachers get influence, if they can keep the public's support.
The government refused to do anything about the issue until last fall's strike. Its interest appeared to be waning until negotiations with the union reached a critical point this month. That's when the legislation was introduced.
It was a pragmatic move. The BCTF is the last significant public sector union without a contract. The government wants to negotiate a deal without job action, especially after last year's strike. The public's support for the teachers did much to shape the government's new, more moderate approach to labour relations.
Partly, the union won support because the public had just grown tired of the government's rough treatment of its employees. People were prepared to tolerate some righting of the union-management balance after the NDP years. But after four years time had run out on tolerance for union-bashing.
The BCTF also made the strike about class sizes as well as about wages. It's an issue much more likely to attract public support.
The legislation pretty much takes that option away as teachers bargain a new contract. BCTF head Jinny Sims accepted the class size legislation as "a small step" forward.
Now contract talks will be largely about money. The union is apparently seeking something above 20 per cent in a three-year deal, citing the need to keep up with Alberta and Ontario. The government is looking for am agreement by June 30 that would match the rest of public sector deals - about 11 per cent over four years, plus a $3,700 signing bonus. The public is not likely to be onside if the BCTF demands more than other public sector unions. Sounds like good news for everyone, right?
Not for school trustees, and perhaps not for some students. The old regulations let districts have some large classes from Grade 4 up as long as the district average was under the cap. Now with the new law districts will face strict limits. That means some larger classes will have to be split and districts will have to hire additional teachers. But while the government is passing the law, it's not providing any more money to to school districts. They face increased costs and fixed funding; some other area will suffer. The problem will be especially serious for rural school districts, which will have fewer chances to shuffle students around to try and stay within the new limits.
It's far from a perfect outcome.
But class sizes have been addressed, as the union wished. The decisions have been made outside collective bargaining, as the government wished.
Students won't face extremely large classes. And a strike is now less less likely.
Score one for this democracy thing.
Footnote: The new law also deals with special needs students. Until 2002 classes with special needs students were required to have fewer students overall. The new law sets a soft limit of three special needs students per class. Advocates fear this will mean special needs students are shuffled around.

Softwood deal looks a bad bargain

VICTORIA - It sounded like big news, an end to the costly softwood dispute.
The first reports said Canada and the U.S. had hammered out a framework deal to end the trade battle, news that offered hope for a more secure future for B.C. forest communities.
And then it all started unravelling as forest companies and provinces picked at the deal reached by the new federal government.
Rightly, based on the sketchy details available. After almost five years of duties and legal battles Ottawa appears to have reached an agreement that looks much like capitulation.
Start with one big issue, the $5 billion in duties collected by the U.S. since 2001. Canada’s position has been that the duties are illegal. The federal government has claimed success in a series of legal skirmishes, even winning a NAFTA ruling that the money should be returned.
But the draft agreement would see the U.S. keep 22 per cent of the money, likely to hand it over to the American companies competing with Canadian producers. Canadian companies would only get back 78 per cent of the duties they had paid.
Disappointing, but not a dealbreaker if that was the only negative aspect.
But it isn’t. Canadian companies still face duties and trade barriers under the proposed settlement.
Canada had argued for free trade, rejecting the American argument that our industry was subsidized because provinces didn’t charge enough for trees on Crown land. The NAFTA agreement means Canadian producers should be able to sell into the U.S. without restrictions or tariffs.
The proposed deal includes both.
Canadian producers would be limited to supplying 34 per cent of the American market. That’s less than Canada supplied in 1995, the year before the last softwood deal was signed. And it’s about the level Canada has captured over the last few years, even with the duty.
So much for hopes for free trade. Even if Canadian producers were more efficient, and able to offer lumber at better price, they would be limited in how much they could sell to the U.S. The quota would do the work the duties have done for the past five years.
And even if Canada’s share of the U.S. market was below the ceiling a duty would be imposed anytime lumber prices fell below $360 US. Prices were below that level for much of last year.
It doesn’t look much like a win for the Canadian side. Quotas and duties remain in place, and the industry forfeits $1 billion.
The reaction was swift, and negative.
Even if companies - and provinces - could live with the terms, there are some major problems ahead.
It sounds simple to say Canada will observe a quota limiting exports to 34 per cent of the U.S. market.
But practically it’s a nightmare. Who allocates the quota, and how much does each company get to sell? The 1996 deal allocated quota based on sales over the previous few years. Coastal companies had been selling into a hot Japanese market during those years. When that collapsed, they were left without access to the U.S.
It’s not just competition between companies. Ontario is already complaining about unfair treatment. It had a poor year for exports to the U.S. in 2005, in part because of B.C.’s ramped up logging of pine beetle wood. Ontario fears that will be used to justify a permanent smaller share of the quota.
There are solutions. The quota could be auctioned and traded among companies.
But all in all, this looks like a mediocre deal after five years of sacrifice and struggle.
While B.C. may stand to do well on quota in the short term, the agreement falls far short of what the Campbell government has been arguing for over the last four years.
It’s not the agreement anyone wanted. Now we’ll see if companies and governments are desperate enough to accept it.
Footnote: B.C. launched a major overhaul of its forest management and stumpage systems to try and demonstrate to the U.S. that producers are not subsidized. The costly, complicated restructuring will have other benefits, but it didn’t help on the softwood front.

Campbell’s evasions leave children and families’ worries

VICTORIA - I don’t understand why Premier Gordon Campbell doesn’t want to say he’s sorry the government mismanaged the children and families’ ministry.
Acknowledging error and promising to do better - sincerely - is usually well-received.
But it’s the premier’s call. If he doesn’t want to say sorry, no one can make him.
What’s worrying is that Campbell may actually believe that the government did a competent job of managing the ministry. That would mean he has misread the Ted Hughes’ report on the ministry. And worse, it would mean that he had failed to learn from five years of fumbling.
And that would be bad news for children and families who need the ministry’s help.
The legislature was back Monday after a two-week break, giving the opposition its first chance to ask about Hughes’ report. Will Campbell admit mistakes and apologize, asked NDP leader Carole James? (OK, it’s a political question.)
Here’s how Campbell responded. “What we should all learn from Mr. Hughes' report is that the government undertook initiatives which Mr. Hughes endorses,” the premier said. “He also says that we, perhaps, took on too many initiatives at once.”
That’s not really what Ted Hughes said. "The strongest impression I have gleaned from this inquiry,” he wrote, “is one of a child welfare system that has been buffeted by an unmanageable degree of change. . . Much of this has gone on against a backdrop of significant funding cuts, even though it is commonly understood that organizational change costs money."
Campbell went on to say if the government had any failing, it might be that it was trying too hard to help children. “We did not carry that out as well as we should have,” he said. “There is no question about that.”
He acknowledged problems, including budget cuts. “In fact, in December of last year we pointed out that there may well have been challenges with funding,” he said. “In this budget this year we provided an additional $100 million, which Mr. Hughes endorses, to allow us to move forward and to build on the regionalization concept which we announced in the throne speech.”
But the budget cuts started in 2002. Campbell didn’t explain why he didn’t know about the problems until last fall.
And here’s Hughes on the move to create regional authorities. "Decentralization can not be done off the side of a desk. It requires a dedicated team, and resources. It can not be accomplished in an environment of instability and ever-changing priorities.”
Campbell sees a government trying to do a little too much.
Hughes reports "a climate of instability and confusion" and a ministry "stretched far beyond its limits." Basic elements like support for children who had problems with the system and help for teens who left foster care at 18 were chopped. Things fell apart all over the place.
If Campbell doesn’t want to acknowledge the problems, that’s one thing.
But if he really doesn’t see them - as he apparently didn’t see them over the past four years - that’s another, far more serious problem.
“I can tell you this: at no time was there anything in front of this government except for what is in the best interests of young children and their families in British Columbia,” Campbell told the legislature.
Really? How was it considered in the best interests of young children to cut the budget to help them by 11 per cent?
Maybe it’s just politics. I remember Campbell in opposition, arguing passionately for more money for the ministry, pledging to work with the NDP government to help make things better.
He was rebuffed.
Now it was James, writing Campbell two weeks ago, asking for a meeting to talk about making things better.
She was ignored.
I think the government has much to apologize for.
But right now, I’d settle for a sign they had really learned from the mistakes and failures of the last four years.
Footnote: Back in December Solicitor General John Les called off an internal review of how 713 incomplete child death reviews were forgotten in a warehouse. The government had messed up, he said. Hughes would provide more answers. Hughes immediately wrote Les and said he couldn’t, a fact Les never revealed. Now he says the file is closed.

Posturing aside, there is no Conservative child care plan

VICTORIA - Stephen Harper is busily talking tough about the Conservatives' plan to send $1,200 per preschooler out to Canadians.
The money's going to be in the budget, Harper vows. If the opposition votes against it, we'll have another election.
It's Harper's right to spend your money this way. He campaigned on the promise.
But the opposition parties have no intention of waging a fight to stop the payments. What politician in his right mind would take a stand aimed at keeping parents from getting money?
Once Harper is through posturing, he needs to recognize that it's ridiculous to call the payments a child care plan.
The Conservatives want to send families $1,200 a year for every child under seven.
It's a weird notion. The idea that the government will take money from a low-income senior in Duncan and hand it to a millionaire parent in West Van makes no public policy sense.
Still, for many parents the money will make a useful difference. A single parent with two small children on welfare in B.C.receives up to $555 for rent, and another $573 a month for all other expenses. It's tough life, and children suffer. The extra $1,200 a year will make a real difference. (Income Assistance Minister Claude Richmond has promised the province won't claw back the money.)
But it's not a child care plan. It's not enough money to come close to allowing parents to pay for child care, which typically would be about $550 per month. And it will not stimulate entrepreneurs or non-profits to provide more spaces.
The Harper government says it will eventually unveil a plan to create child care spaces. Companies will be offered $20,000 per space in tax credits. The government says it will offer a total of $250 million in credits, enough to pay for 125,000 spaces.
But Ontario and Quebec have tried similar tax schemes, without success. Companies don't want the headaches of becoming responsible for a child care centre, even one run by a contractor. It's a complicated, regulated, demanding operation. Their focus is on their business.
Nothing Harper has talked about replaces the $5-billion federal-provincial child-care agreement negotiated by the Martin government.
That five-year deal provided the provinces with money to increase child care access. They could subsidize new centres, or come up with targeted assistance for parents or add child care to community schools. B.C. planned to increase parent subsidies and aid for child care providers with its share.
B.C. was to get about $120 million a year. Harper honoured this year's commitment, but told provinces to forget about seeing any more money under the program.
Child care is a real problem.
Parents can't find it, and many can't afford it even if they do. If they are fortunate, a friendly neighbour or relative can provide care. Otherwise the lack of child care becomes a serious barrier to employment.
Children who would benefit the most from quality care are often from families least able to afford it. They lose out on a chance for a fair start at life.
And the problems are yet another drag on productivity. People who could be working aren't, and companies suffer as employees book off to handle the latest child care crisis.
Sending $1,200 cheques out to parents isn't going to takes us closer to solving the real problem. It was politically effective, and is highly popular among parents campaigning for their right to subsidies even if they stay home to care for their own children.
But it's not going lead to better care, or more spaces, or real help with what is a serious crisis for many families.
The provinces haven't given up. They accept the fact that the $1,200 cheques are going out, but hope Harper can be persuaded to honour the federal-provincial child care deal.
It would be a wise decision.
Footnote: The child care debate has focused on costs. What's also needed is a serious consideration of benefits. What's gained if we can offer a three-year-old a safe, educational and stimulating social environment, especially a child who would otherwise start school at a significant disadvantage? For many children the cost would be an investment with lasting benefits.

New children and families head has chance for change

VICTORIA - I have not quite been able to let go of Ted Hughes' report on the children and families ministry.
The government has just announced a new top manager for the troubled ministry. Lesley du Toit, the South African who spent the last few months working in the premier's office, now has the permanent job.
But big questions about what went wrong remain. Hughes said the government has mismanaged the ministry for five years. Big changes were introduced without any effective plan. Unreasonable budget cuts were made, Hughes found, even though implementing change costs more money. So children and families suffered.
Governments, like all of us, mess up. What's baffling is that for four years the government was in denial. Plans were falling apart, budgets were based on wishful thinking, child death reviews were forgotten in a warehouse. And the politicians said everything was just fine.
We still don't know if they were hopelessly out of touch, or misleading us. Hughes said he favours the out-of-touch explanation. But if politicians are so insulated from reality that they can ignore warnings from front-line workers, families and the public, we have a profound structural problem.
There was, for example, no plan or budget for completing child death reviews after the Children's Commission was eliminated in 2002. Long after the failure became a major issue Gordon Campbell stood in front of reporters and said there was both a transition plan, and a budget. Somebody must have messed up, he said.
As Hughes pointed out, the premier was wrong. There was no plan, and no money.
Politicians shouldn't be so sadly and obviously misinformed. How can they be accountable, if they don't know what's going on?
Enter du Toit, newly named deputy minister for children and families. She's spent the last few months talking to staff and service providers as part of her consulting work for the premier's office. This week Campbell surprised no one by appointing her deputy minister.
Du Toit becomes the ninth deputy minister in 11 years. If you're on the front line, you aren't be betting much on her longevity.
But du Toit has some advantages, starting with a four-year contract. That's consistent with Hughes' concern about turnover in the ministry's senior management ranks.
She can still be dumped, or course. But the government would have to explain why it had soured on its chosen candidate, and had ignored Hughes' call for stability.
That gives du Toit considerable power to make change. The government has budgeted an extra $100 million over the next three years to fix things, based on the recommendations from Hughes and other reports that are still due. (It's alarming that after five years of fumbling the government is still waiting to figure out how to help kids and families in crisis. But that's where we are.)
Du Toit has the mandate, the money and the clout to make things better. For a year or two, she is charmed. The premier annointed her; should she fail, it will be a reflection on his judgment. It's a talisman for a manager.
Can she deliver? Those who have had dealings with her are impressed so far. She's familiar with many of the issues in B.C., serving as an advisor to the ministry since 2001, mainly as part of an international advisory panel.
It's tougher to see how her resume fits with this job. In 1995 du Toit helped set up the a child and youth care system for the Mandela government, a significant task. Since 1999, she's been executive director of the Child and Youth Care Agency for Development. That's a small organization, involved heavily in helping communities' cope with the effects of HIV/AIDS.
It's a leap to become top manager of a large, troubled B.C. ministry. But at least du Toit starts with the political clout to make the premier's office finally pay attention.
Footnote: A key thrust of du Toit's South African agency is promoting Circles of Care. HIV/AIDS has destroyed traditional family and community support for children in the many communities. The agency is experimenting with ways of building new local capacity to help vulnerable children and youth. The lessons should be applicable in many First Nations' communities.

Spending now, to help the wounded, is just good sense

VICTORIA - I got a call a couple of years ago from a man who wanted to talk about his son. The boy had fetal alcohol syndrome. He couldn't see the consequences of actions, and made terrible decisions.
That had changed for a while in foster care, when he was living on a small farm. Life was structured, and he took to the responsibility involved in caring for the animals. Things were good.
But he turned 19, and was pushed into the world. Trusting and inept, he hung with the wrong people, and became criminal and victim. His dad expected it to end with a terrible phone call.
Meanwhile it was costing us a lot of money to patch him up, lock him up and push him back on the street.
Just like my acquaintance Dave. He's often charming, and an addict. I suspect some fetal alcohol disorder, since he makes such bad decisions.
Dave is a very expensive member of society. In the last year I count two jail stays, at a cost to you of about $12,500.
He landed in hospital at least three times once with one of those nasty - and expensive - drug-resistant infections. Dave skipped out of hospital twice, once with an IV attached to his arm. The ER is still looking for the borrowed crutches, I'm sure. Figure $13,000 for hospital bills.
Then there's the regular calls for an ambulance and ER visits. Say another $1,000.
There's more. Dave sleeps mostly in shelters, or on the street when they kick him out for bad behaviour. Living half the year in shelters, at $70 a night, would cost $13,000.
Social agencies provide support, police keep him moving - say $5,000 minimum for their efforts. And then add welfare, at $7,300 a year.
The grand - yet understated total - is $52,000 a year. All that's buying is a slow-motion decline.
That's not even a complete tally. Here in Victoria people have started to get worried about homeless men and women sprawled on the sidewalks around our busiest shelter. They are bad for business, and tourists don't want to see rough-looking people in sleeping bags sprawled on the sidewalk. There's a cost to that. (People are understandably concerned. It's not good for anyone to have often difficult people camping on city sidewalks.)
Still, figure $52,000 for Dave, without actually providing much of a chance for change. (Dave is a real person, heavily disguised.)
Dave really needs a place to live, with a house parent to help him with choices and talk him out of bad ideas. It could probably be done for about $30,000 per resident.
He'd be better off. Maybe he'd even start to get a handle on things
And we'd be spending $30,000 instead of $52,000.
So why doesn't the government do it?
I got to thinking about how much Dave costs because of a Malcolm Gladwell article in The New Yorker that looked at some of these issues. He was writing about power law theory, which suggests that to fix a problem you don't need to come up with a solution that works for everyone involved. Target the hardcore, and things improve dramatically. (For them, and the collective.)
But Gladwell notes that can be a tough sell. How can we provide free housing to a self-destructive alcoholic, and not to a more deserving single mom? We'll save a fortune by keeping the alcoholic out of jail, the ER and the street, but it still troubles people.
And partly we just don't think people like Dave deserve that kind of help.
But he does. He's clever, and charming and pays attention to what much of the time. He just needs help at life.
And even if you're not so sure he deserves it, the numbers are clear.
Spend $52,000 to support a crazy, dangerous life, or $30,000 to provide a home.
Catching him, and keep him safe, is just the right thing to do.
Footnote: Addiction treatment offers enormous payback. Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill says that 90 per cent of property crime in the city is done by addicts looking for drug money. That's 8,500 crimes last year. Deal with the addiction - or even just the daily struggle to get drugs - and you create safer cities, and free police for other issues.

Grow op law erodes your right to privacy

VICTORIA - You can understand firefighters' concerns about marijuana grow ops.
Almost 10 per cent of building fires in Surrey last year were in grow ops, says Chief Len Garis, and many were particularly dangerous to fight. In a normal house fire breakers trip and kill the power supply. But in some grow ops jury-rigged electrical systems mean firefighters encounter live wires as they fumble blindly through smoke-filled rooms and tangles of equipment.
That's why Garis and other fire chiefs lobbied for the new law that will force BC Hydro and other utilities to hand over information on customers and their electricity use.
But the law raises serious privacy issues. The legislation - still to be passed - would let municipalities require BC Hydro or other utilities to provide two years worth of power bills for every resident. (Regulations will limit the act's application, government officials say. Hydro will screen the reports and just pass on ones that show people who use a lot of power.)
The town will look at the files, and then be able to come to your house and post a notice giving you 48 hours to prepare for an inspection. The idea is that if you have a grow op, either you'll dismantle it or the inspectors will.
The plan worked in a Surrey pilot project. More than 90 per cent of the flagged properties had grow ops; 119 marijuana operations were shut down.
Or were they?
More likely they moved down the road, or into a neighbouring community. There is money to be made at a risk level that many people find acceptable.
And the tactic likely worked in part because the operators weren't aware that their power use information was being shared with the municipality. Once they are, they will adapt. The dangers may actually be increased if growers decide to try improvised wiring to bypass the power meter, or switch to propane or gas-powered generators. A move to more smuggling, or large outdoor grow ops, would bring different problems.
The firefighters' frustration is understandable. A University of the Fraser Valley study on grow ops found that in 1997 police across B.C. investigated more than 90 per cent of grow op reports within one month. By 2003, that had fallen to barely 50 per cent. That means grow ops operate longer, and the risks for firefighters increase.
But the new law isn't likely to make people stop growing marijuana, or make firefighters safer.
It will expand the state's reach into the lives of its citizens. Authorities can get your electricity records now. They just have to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that you may be running a grow op. But BC Hydro has refused to hand over their customers' information on a random basis, citing privacy laws.
It's an important principle. The state doesn't get access to information about you unless it can show a good reason. The BC Civil Liberties' Association opposes the new law. B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis questioned the need for it, and says this kind of government surveillance - without any grounds for suspicion - is increasing, and a cause for concern.
It's not an easy public policy question, and it's made more difficult by our fumbling approach to marijuana use generally. The Harper government has announced it won't go ahead with decriminalization. But practically, marijuana use is legal since the laws are not enforced. Even grow ops have - as the study showed - become a low police priority.
StatsCan found almost 600,000 British Columbians fessed up to using marijuana in the last year. That's an attractive market. It is hard to imagine what sort of enforcement would actually cut off the supply of a product that many people want.
That's the challenge. Maintain some enforcement, especially aimed at organized gangs and keeping residential neighbourhoods safe, without sacrificing police resources needed elsewhere.
It's a tough balancing act. But it should mean the careless loss of individual rights.
Footnote: If the main marijuana public policy issues are the risks of grow ops in neighbourhoods and the role of criminal gangs in profiting from the industry, a different response should be considered. Allowing people to grow a handful of plants without penalty would reduce the threat to neighbourhoods and the available profits for gangs.