Poll shows Liberals sitting pretty across B.C.

VICTORIA - It was pretty a good week for Gordon Campbell.
An Ipsos-Reid poll reported strong support for both the Liberals and Campbell’s leadership, high enough to make another majority a good bet.
And two independent economic forecasts predict a strong economy through the end of next year, a happy circumstance for any party in power.
The Ipsos poll, especially if read along with the Mustel Group poll released last month, shows a big recovery for the Liberals. The party is at popularity levels it hasn’t since the very brief honeymoon after the 2001 election. Campbell has never had such a strong approval rating.
As recently as two years ago, the Liberals trailed in an Ipsos poll. The NDP was at 44 per cent across the province — 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland. The Liberals were at 37 per cent provincially and 33 per cent outside the Lower Mainland.
Now the Liberals are at 51 per cent provincially, the NDP at 35 per cent. (Greens have the support of 10 per cent of decided voters.) The support cuts across demographic and geographic lines. Even on Vancouver Island, where NDP support has been strong - the New Democrats took nine of 13 seats in 2005 - the Liberals have a comfortable lead. Campbell’s party is even slightly ahead in terms of support from union households across B.C.
The reasons aren’t complex. The government has come up with more money to ease the problems caused by underfunding in health care, education and services for children and families. It has quit acting the bully with its employees, reaching negotiated settlements with more than 50 unions representing some 200,000 workers.
And it has shed some of the arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes. Just compare last year’s handling of the Sherry Charlie case with this year’s response to the death of Fanny Albo after she was pushed from a Trail hospital. The government denied and stonewalled on the Charlie case until the pressure became too great. This year, the health deputy minister was dispatched immediately to prepare a public report on Albo’s death.
Add to all that a strong economy and no hot button issues and you’ve got a formula for political success.
Bad news for the NDP. Carole James still gets better ratings than Campbell. (They’re effectively tied, each with about 50-per-cent of approval ratings. But almost 45 per cent disapprove of Campbell’s performance; only 29 per cent give James thumbs down.)
But poll numbers like these, for a government in its fifth year, are grim news for an opposition. There’s not much the NDP can do to swing voters away from the Liberals if they are general satisfied. Their only hope is that the Liberals will drive voters way, as they did during their first term.
That doesn’t look likely right now. The Liberals are taking more care not to anger voters needlessly. Education Minister Shirley Bond’s attacks on teachers during the run-up to last fall’s strike helped build support for the union; this time she’s stayed quiet.
There are hints of the old style, like the decision to turn the auditor general’s position into a partisan appointment.
And Forest Minister Rich Coleman may come to regret his claim that B.C. took the lead in reaching the proposed softwood settlement that is now in so much trouble.
But generally the Liberals aren’t picking fights and are steering clear of risky issues.
On a practical level, it’s good news for an opposition. The Liberals abandoned three bad bills in the face of NDP concerns in the spring session, choosing not to risk losing political points in a confrontation. Oppositions rarely have such impact on legislation.
In terms of electoral success, the news is not so good for the NDP. If the Liberals don’t mess up, there’s little really that the NDP can do to cause a big shift in support.
Footnote: The Campbell government was jolted this week by the resignation of health deputy minister Penny Ballem, one of the most powerful bureaucrats through its first five years. Ballem, the architect and defender of most health care changes, set out her reasons in a letter to Campbell. "As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part." No response from Campbell yet.

Chopping support for at 19 makes no sense

VICTORIA - Everybody knew something bad could happen if Neil Fahlman was cut loose with no support when he turned 19.
Even the government’s psychologist warned things could go really wrong.
“Without the supports now in place Neil would be extremely vulnerable to his own aggressiveness and impulsivity,” the psychologist found. “He could do significant harm to himself and the community.”
But rules are rules and budgets are budgets. Community Living BC, which delivers services to people with mental disabilities, has a rule that it inherited from government. It is not enough to need help. If your IQ is 70 or above, support stops at 19. You are on your own.
Neil tested at 79, low enough to place him in the bottom 10 per cent of the population. But high enough, according to the policy, that Neil no longer needed help.
This is where the story could have gone very wrong and those warnings of “significant harm” come true.
But Neil’s mother wouldn’t accept the decision. She took the case to B.C. Supreme Court and this month won a victory for Neil and thousands of others.
Fiona Gow adopted Neil when he was five weeks old. When he was diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, attention deficit disorder and other problems, she sought help. By the time he turned 15, Neil was a big, volatile kid - he’s now over 300 pounds. Gow and her husband couldn’t cope. Foster care didn’t work, for similar reasons.
Community Living BC helped with a solution. With the help of one-on-one support seven hours a day, Neil started living successfully by himself in a small cabin in a quiet Vancouver Island community. (He qualified for social assistance disability benefits.)
Then his 19th birthday approached. And despite the fact that Community Living BC had approved the support for Neil, and despite the warning from its psychologist, the agency said it was cutting off support, citing the IQ policy.
Leave aside the legal issue for the moment. This is a person with serious behavioural problems, possibly living in your neighbourhood, who has been identified as a danger to himself and others. Is it really sensible to cut off support when he turns 19?
The court did look at the legal issues. Mr. Justice Eric Chamberlist found the legislation establishing Community Living BC said it was to "promote equitable access to community living support" and to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities." Denying people needed support because of an IQ test score is contrary to the purposes established by the legislation, the court ruled. If the government wants to cut costs by using arbitrary tests, it needs to amend the legislation or pass a cabinet order.
Community Living BC is trying to figure out whether to appeal.
The issue is really money. The IQ standard was a way to restrict the number of people eligible for help, dumping some who needed it. Fahlman's support - seven hours a day, every day - costs about $1,500 a week.
If Community Living BC has to honour its obligations to people like Fahlman - and there are many of them - it will have to cut somewhere else.
Unless the government recognizes that it is wrong and foolish to abandon people like Fahlman. Impulsive, easily led, unable to consider consequences they can easily be preyed on, or become offenders. Whatever happens, things tend to turn out badly.
It's important that government worries about costs.
But it's ridiculous to say that someone who needs seven hours a day of support, for his own well-being and the protection of the community, is suddenly fine to make his own way in life because he turns 19.
We are just throwing those people away, to land in their parents' basements, in jail or on the streets.
The court ruling could mean an end to that waste. All government has to do is accept it.
Footnote: It is not good to turn 19 in B.C. if you have problems. Children in care are also generally abandoned by the system on their birthday, sent packing from their last foster home, often with few skills, emotional issues and no money. It is cruel, and a formula for disaster.

Cellphones, seatbelts and saving young drivers' lives

VICTORIA - What's wrong with saying to people in their first two years of driving that they shouldn't talk on a cellphone while they're trying to get off a highway or make it through a school zone?
The Canadian Automobile Association wants provinces to look at laws to bar new drivers from talking on the cellphone or fiddling with their iPods when they're behind the wheel.
The distraction is the last thing an inexperienced driver needs, says the association. Police could keep an eye on drivers with an 'N' for novice on their car and issue tickets to new drivers using cellphones.
Solicitor General John Les isn't keen on the idea. It's more important to improve driver education, he says.
It's unclear why the government can't do both. Few people would argue that distraction is a problem for any driver, with the risks rising for the less experienced. The moments it takes to find a ringing cellphone amid the front-seat debris and fumble with the tiny buttons to answer can bring a crash closer. Driver experience will be one factor in avoiding disaster in that kind of situation.
The CAA cites a U.S. study, that found distraction of all kinds - from cellphone use to squabbling kids to managing that burger and fries - played a role in 80 per cent of crashes. (ICBC puts the number much lower, saying only nine per cent of serious and fatal crashes are caused by driver distraction, with cellphones a tiny factor.)
The anecdotal evidence closer to home is convincing. In May a new driver in Chilliwack, talking on her cellphone, drifted on to the shoulder and crashed into a cyclist, killing the mother of two.
The real problem with the law is that it wouldn't be enforced. Hard-pressed police are juggling a tonne of priorities, with the public expecting action on all of them at once. Any law relies on two factors for its effectiveness - the likely penalty, and the chances of actually being caught. If enforcement is non-existent - think of the bicycle helmet law these days - then the penalties are meaningless.
But there's still value. Like the bicycle helmet law, a ban on cellphone use for inexperienced drivers would send a message that the behaviour is dangerous. It would be available when police encountered especially risky behaviour. About 40 countries, including Australia, Britain, Israel, Italy, South America, and Spain and several U.S. states have introduced bans. So has Newfoundland.
Les isn't likely to change his mind.
So instead of a cellphone ban, here is a safety proposal -also aimed at new drivers - that should be easy for government to embrace.
There's one common factor in virtually every serious crash involving new drivers. Not cellphone use, or speed, or impaired driving, although the latter two are also tragically common.
The almost universal factor is failure to use seatbelts. Vancouver Island's crash team looked at a string of crashes involving young drivers in its first months. And while there was a lot of risk-taking, every one had common element. "The lack of seatbelts is absolute -- there wasn't one crash we went to where seatbelts had been used," police said.
Why? New drivers are often young and consider themselves invulnerable. They don't understand the seriousness of driving. And they know that there is little chance of getting a ticket for not using a seatbelt and facing the $138 fine.
The answer is simple. Make seatbelt use effectively mandatory for drivers 'New' or 'Learner' status. Instead of a fine, impose a 30-day licence suspension. New drivers not using a seatbelt don't understand the risks of the road. Give them time to consider them. Make enforcement a priority.
At the least, we'll keep some people alive.
At best, the very act of putting on a seatbelt will remind people each time they start their cars that driving is an activity with some significant risks that calls for care and caution.
Footnote: The government could also make failing to wear a seatbelt an offence that carries penalty points for all drivers, like most other infractions. ICBC estimates about 90-per-cent of drivers use seatbelts, but a Transport Canada survey in 2002 found that in smaller communities in B.C. seatbelt use was about 80 per cent, eighth among provinces and territories.

BC Ferries safety questions demand government answers

VICTORIA - It’s been a choppy patch for BC Ferries.
Fares have soared. The Queen of Oak Bay crushed a flotilla of boats last year in Horseshoe Bay.
And then in March the Queen of the North sank, claiming two lives and wreaking havoc on service between Prince Rupert and Port Hardy.
So far, the Liberal government has stayed above the fray. It changed B.C. Ferries from a Crown corporation to a sort-of independent business in 2003. If you’ve got worries, talk to the company, cabinet ministers said.
But three years on the pretence that ferries have nothing to do with government has pretty much unravelled.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon might have just been able to dodge most questions about soaring ferry fares and their effect on regional economies.
But he can’t avoid the hard questions about safety on BC Ferries in the aftermath of the Queen of the North disaster. David Hahn, the corporation’s CEO, has been handling the issue, but his credibility has been damaged. People need to hear from the government, which owns the corporation and is ultimately responsible.
Hahn and the BC Ferry and Marine Workers have been feuding about safety. It’s been a bizarre spectacle - try and imagine Air Canada’s management and unions tossing public abuse at each other after a plane crash. The union complains safety issues have been ignored. Hahn says union members are refusing to co-operate with an internal investigation into the sinking.
And then Derik Bowland dropped a bombshell on BC Ferries.
Bowland isn’t just another critic. He started with BC Ferries in February as director of safety, health and environment. He left a $200,000 job as cruise ship captain to take on the senior safety job. And then five days after the sinking - less than two months after he started work - he left.
Now Bowland is suing B.C. Ferries, claiming its refusal to address safety problems and efforts to prevent him from doing his job effectively forced him from the post.
It’s important to remember that he has his own agenda as an ex-employee suing the company. And none of the allegations in his statement of claim have been proved.
But they are terribly serious. Bowland alleges he began pointing out major safety shortcomings soon after he began work and warned warning that “there was a strong likelihood of catastrophic incidents if safety practices and protocols were not immediately improved.”
Bowland alleges the corporation refused to recognize serious problems in safety policies and practices. If it had the Queen of the North might not have sunk, he says.
And he alleges B.C. Ferries executives first undermined and the blocked entirely his efforts to investigate the sinking, which claimed two lives. That’s when he left the job.
Hahn has given one radio interview on the lawsuit, saying Bowland was a short-term employee who had never been on the Queen of the North. No warnings of safety problems reached him or other senior executives, he says.
But Hahn has a credibility problem. The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the sinking. On May 11 it delivered a letter to him warning of problems. "Information gathered so far has revealed that some bridge team members were not familiar with the use of all the bridge equipment and controls," the letter warned. B.C. Ferries needs to examine its training, the letter said.
Hahn didn’t reveal the letter’s existence for two weeks and then described it as “benign” in an interview. When a reporter uncovered the letter the warning looked far from routine. (Hahn now says he will release material from the safety board within 24 hours of receiving it.)
The questions are beginning pile up. The answers from B.C. Ferries are inadequate; the report from the Transportation Safety Board is months - perhaps more than a year - away.
It’s time for the government to step in, review safety and report to the public.
Footnote: Hahn has proposed B.C. Ferries do its own safety audit and release the results. He says he is talking to a “credible” individual about leading the review. At this point, an internal review won’t be enough to provide the needed reassurances about safety. The government needs to take the lead.

Ken Thomson, Charles Bronson and me

VICTORIA - Mostly what I thought when I heard that Ken Thomson had died was that now I could only claim personal acquaintance with two billionaires.
Not that I knew Mr. Thomson well, but we did dine together. Thomson Newspapers, in the last years that there was such a thing, had a conference at a golf resort in Florida and he had flown in for the last day. Since I was in my beloved corporate stage at that point, and could be counted on to use a knife and fork at dinner, I was seated at the chairman's table that evening.
Talk was strained. Thomson seemed shy, and a little odd. He tossed his tie over his shoulder when the soup came to avoid spills - although his crisp white shirt was then exposed to risk. He spoke of his father Roy - who had been dead for almost 20 years - as if he were a powerful presence. What would Dad say, he wondered, when talk turned to some difficult decision.
Thomson's brilliance in the 30 years he ran the company was in knowing when to get in and out of businesses. The corporation moved into North Sea oil and then out when growth prospects slowed. It made money in retailing with the Hudson's Bay Company and then left the business. Thomson built its British-based travel operations into a $1-billion business and then sold it.
By the time we sat down to dinner Thomson was giving newspapers one last chance.
The corporation had done wonderfully from papers since Roy Thomson bought the Timmins Express in 1934. Up until the 1980s the monopoly newspapers in towns across North America produced huge profit margins and cash that was used to expand the corporation, both into international newspaper holdings and new business areas.
Then urban sprawl engulfed many of the communities Thomson newspapers had dominated, and competition rolled in along with it. New technology slashed the costs of entry for rivals.
By the late 1980s the newspaper business was still producing good profits, but it wasn't growing. Thomson had a richly deserved reputation for frugal operation, so cost-cutting to boost profits wasn't an option. There was nothing to cut.
But to his credit Thomson was not prepared to give up on newspapers, the foundation of the business, without giving us a good chance. By the time of that dinner the newspaper division - some 150 papers with more than $1 billion in revenue - was on its second batch of senior managers charged with finding ways to deliver growth.
It didn't work. Within a few years the newspapers were up for sale. The Thomson Corp. focused on electronic publishing, selling specialized information about banking and the law to clients who would pay top dollar.
But back to dinner. Conversation did not flow terribly smoothly, despite our best efforts. Thomson, while very nice, was not one of those big guys with an easy and entirely superficial charm. We struggled for topics.
Until the publisher from a Louisiana newspaper - not just smart but a woman, ensuring her place at the favoured table - mentioned traditional New Orleans jazz. Thomson became genuinely interested. He loved the music, and then wondered if we had seen a Charles Bronson movie called Hard Times, set in New Orleans in the '30s. (It is a good movie.)
One of his favourites, said Thomson, who said he was a fan of Bronson, although a bit disappointed in some of the later Death Wish sequels. He had sent Bronson a note when he was shooting in Toronto - it might have been Death Wish V - inviting him to dinner, but never got a reply. Thomson looked kind of sad at that. He really would have found an evening talking movies with Charles Bronson a great pleasure.
It was charming. Not just his fondness for the movies, but his willingness to share his enthusiasm with us.
A smart business guy, of course. But I'll think of a movie buff, and a grown man still faintly intimidated by a larger-than-life father.
Footnote: For those interested, the other billionaire acquaintances are two of the senior members of the New Brunswick Irving family, for whom I managed newspapers for a time.

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.