Khadr video confirms Canada’s disgrace

Most of us haven't paid much attention to the case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian captured by U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan in 2002.
Khadr, then 16, was shot twice in the back during the fight; the Americans believe he threw a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
Since then, he's been a prisoner, mostly at Guantanamo Bay, the detention centre the U.S. set up in Cuba to escape its own and international laws on the treatment of prisoners.
Other western countries, including Britain and Australia, have repatriated their nationals from Guantanamo because of concerns about prisoner abuse and the lack of rights.
Canada, even though Khadr was a boy when he was captured, hasn't made any effort to bring him here to be dealt with in our courts.
And the Canadian government has insisted that it was monitoring the situation and Khadr was being treated humanely.
That probably reassured a lot of people, who then felt they didn't need to think much about the case.
Khadr said he was tortured, but both the Liberal and Conservative governments said everything was fine.
Except the Canadian government lied to us.
CSIS and Canadian Foreign Affairs officials questioned Khadr in 2003 and 2004, when he was still not old enough to vote here.
The government knew then that the Guantanamo interrogation experts had decided to soften up Khadr before the Canadian officials arrived.
For three weeks, the teen was moved to a different cell of holding area every three hours night and day. That's three weeks with no real sleep or human contact.
I'm no expert in international law. But I'm a parent, and if a child of mine were treated that way, I'd call it torture.
And I'd certainly call any government that said the treatment was "humane" both dishonest and morally bankrupt.
The U.S. interest in Khadr is understandable. His parents were Islamic extremists who lived in Toronto and Pakistan. His father was killed in an anti-terrorist raid in 2003. Omar played with Osama bin Laden's children.
When he was captured, less than a year after the attack on the World Trade Centre, the U.S. was desperate for any information on bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
So interrogators started questioning the 15-year-old as soon as he regained consciousness in a U.S. military hospital at Bagram in Afghanistan.
The first U.S. interrogator told Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star that it was "neat" to watch Khadr's vital signs change on the life support machines as he answered questions.
Humane treatment, says the Canadian government.
Khadr's interrogators at Bagram included U.S. Sgt. Joshua Claus, later convicted of maltreatment and assault in the killing of another prisoner - an innocent Afghan taxi driver - during questioning. Claus says he didn't torture Khadr; censored statements by Khadr suggest he did.
Given that governments lied about humane treatment, it is hard to accept claims that Khadr was not tortured.
This week, the videos of the Canadian officials questioning of Khadr were released by court order.
They show no torture.
But they do show what you would expect: A scared 16-year-old, trapped indefinitely in a detention centre, threatened and sleep-deprived, who thinks the Canadian officials are there to rescue him.
He soon learns that's not true. The hidden camera captures him pleading with them to "Help me" or "Kill me." The words aren't clear.
The bare facts should shame Canadians. A child soldier brainwashed by his parents - anyone who knows 15-year-olds knows they are mostly big kids - is captured.
The evidence on whether he threw the grenade is uncertain.
He's abused and says whatever his captors want to hear.
While Guantanamo Bay prisoners from every other western nation are repatriated, Canada won't ask for Khadr's return and questions him - after three weeks of abuse - and turns the results over to the U.S.
And the federal government - under both the Liberals and the Conservatives - lies to Canadians about Khadr's treatment and won't make the simple effort to have him returned here to face a legitimate court.
Footnote: The video released this week made headlines around the world. Most of the coverage focused on the abominable treatment Khadr had received, the pathetic state he was in and the Canadian government's inexplicable failure to do the right thing.

Are we selling off gas resources too cheaply?

Six months into the year, and the B.C. government has sold almost $1 billion worth of gas leases.
That’s just short of the record total for all of 2007. Which on one level is good news. The $970 million collected so far will pay for services or be put toward the province’s debt. On the other hand, we’re making a lot of money selling off non-renewable assets. It’s a bit like like a farm family who decide to sell more and more of the property to cover today’s bills, until there is nothing left for the next generation.
The companies will pay royalties to the province on the gas they pump out of the ground, if their search is successful.
But those too are finite - the money will only flow into the provincial coffers as long as the gas flows from the wells. Then what happens? And the topic of royalties raises a whole other issue. One reason the companies are buying leases and licences in B.C. is because we’re selling off the gas more cheaply than Alberta, our main competitor. We’re charging about seven per cent less than our neighbour, according to one industry expert.
And that’s because last year Alberta decided the public should get a larger share of the record profits energy companies are making. After independent reviews found the province was not getting a fair price for the oil and gas under the ground, Alberta’s Conservative government raised its royalty rates.
B.C. had a similar royalty plan, perhaps a little more generous to the companies to encourage development. But the government hasn’t raised rates here to get a better deal for the public.
Last month, B.C.’s deputy minister for oil and gas told an industry conference in Calgary that the only changes B.C. is considering are incentives - royalty cuts - to encourage companies to invest in infrastructure and deeper wells. The comments won a round of applause.
One problem in all this is that governments face a conflict of interest. Natural gas royalties are forecast at $1.2 billion this year, on their way to topping corporate taxes as a revenue source. The industry provides a lot of good jobs. All governments are always looking ahead to the next election. That means there is an incentive to sell off resources now, at the expense of the future. The lease sales are done by auction, so the companies are paying the going rate. But setting royalty rates - the cut the government takes when gas is taken from the ground - is just as subjective as setting a price for a used car you want to sell.
Make them low, and you can encourage more development now. But if they’re too low, the resource is sold too cheaply and the public loses out. (There’s no need for haste. The gas is likely to get more valuable with each passing year.) That’s why Alberta raised its rates. The government received two public reports - one from an independent panel of experts and another from the province’s auditor general - that found it was selling off energy resources too cheaply, shortchanging the public by up to $2 billion a year. The B.C. government hasn’t done that kind of review.
As you read this, some communications staffer is probably writing a letter Energy Minister Richard Neufeld will sign that points out - rightly - that royalty cuts have resulted in much greater gas development. The letter will also likely say that the Energy Ministry regularly reviews royalty levels to make sure they’re appropriate. But if you ask to see those reviews, you won’t get them. And there simply has not been an independent, open review like those the Alberta government conducted. An independent royalty review would make good sense. So would a heritage fund - a place to set some of these revenues aside for the future.
Partly, that’s simply prudent. These are non-renewable resources. It’s risky to build government spending on revenue that might not be there for our children. And a heritage fund would reduce the temptation for governments to grab the cash and jobs now, even if it means selling resources too cheaply. Footnote: A coalition of environmental groups called for the establishment of a heritage fund in 2004. And the B.C. Progress Board, a business-oriented body set up by Premier Gordon Campbell to provide advice, called for the province to look at setting up a heritage fund for a share of oil and gas revenues in 2005.

For kids in care, a court date is more likely than a grad dance

Bob Ritchie is one of the interesting people I only know because I write a column. We've never met, but he's a prolific writer of letters to the editor and e-mails to politicians and journalists.
Ritchie lives in Qualicum; he's 78 and worked for B.C. Hydro, in an office job.
And he cares passionately about a lot of issues, from the need for a tougher stance on crime to what he sees as a crisis in the state of children and families in B.C. He looks at life in the province, and the future, and doesn't like what he sees.
I don't always agree with Ritchie, but I admire his commitment and bold approach to solving problems, and always read his e-mails with interest.
So do a lot of other people. A quick bit of research found he had raised issues publicly some 60 times in the last 12 months, with letters to the editor in papers around the province or mentions in columns or news stories. (And that is in what has been a very tough year for him personally.)
And I respect him. He gave me a shot this week, an e-mail with this subject line: "Paul please show me that you really care. I would sure like to get more out of reading your articles. You have seemed to have lost interest. Bob."
Ouch.
I haven't lost interest. It does get exhausting being fierce all the time, as Ritchie expects. It takes a lot of research to build an airtight argument. And I don't want to seem like a crabby nag.
But Ritchie is right. It is important to keep raising the issues that really matter.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to a speech by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond last month.
The province's Representative for Children and Youth offered a preview of a massive research project that tracked the lives of 50,000 children born in B.C. since 1986.
The first results confirmed Ritchie's point that we need to do so much better. The data showed, Turpel-Lafond said, that children taken into the government's care were more likely to end up charged with a crime than to graduate from high school.
Think about the teens you know. How many end up facing in trouble with the law?
For adolescents receiving services from the Ministry of Children and Families, 44 per cent end up facing criminal charges.
More than one-third of children in care tracked by the study ended up serving time in jail. That shows major problems, given how hard the courts work to keep young people out of prison.
Of course, children in care very often start off with some big handicaps. Fetal alcohol effect (a big concern of Ritchie's), learning disabilities, emotional problems from neglect or abuse, or health problems from a rough infancy - these are going to take their toll.
Still, are their years in care improving their chances of success - of graduating from high school, instead of into the criminal justice system, for example?
For some youths, certainly. But the statistics suggest not for most of the children in care.
There are lots of areas for improvement. But there's a basic principle behind the failures.
Lots of kids only graduate from high school because their parents encourage, push and grind them. If they skip school or bring home a dismal report card, their parents lean on them any way they can. And the kids make it.
And lots of teens get in the same kind of scrapes with the law that kids in care do. But their parents sweep in and pull them back from the brink. They provide the support the courts are looking for when deciding whether to divert the case to some resolution outside the criminal justice system.
Not kids in the government's care. We've decided not to care enough about them.
OK, Bob?
Footonote: Practically, children in care as young as 13 end up with little support if things go sideways.
Foster parents can't track them and the ministry doesn't know what's going in their lives.
Turpel-Lafond notes almost 600 teens in care, as young as 16, are on "independent living" agreements, living in rooms or cheap apartments on their own. It is a formula for bad choices and worse outcomes.
The full report is to be released this fall.

Hospital food, blogging and politics

My column today in the Times Colonist takes a look at an online campaign for better hospital food and the effective use of the web by a Langley township councillor, as well as musing a bit about the ways the Internet and free software like blogger have opened doors for people concerned with politics and policy.

A great weakness in the carbon tax sales job

I filled up the Neon on the way home Monday, saving about 70 cents by avoiding the carbon tax that kicked in Canada Day. The service station was doing a booming business.
Which suggests that the Liberals' carbon tax works. If people are topping up the tank on a sunny afternoon to avoid paying the 2.3-cents-a-litre tax, then maybe we'll make other changes. We'll bike to work or share a ride one day a week, or cut down on the number trips to the stores on a weekend.
The carbon tax is one of the most interesting public policy issues in a long time, exposing a lot of contradictions.
Premier Gordon Campbell has been cast as the green defender, the champion of social engineering and government's wisdom.
And NDP leader Carole James has aligned with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in opposing the Liberals' carbon tax.
The NDP stance looks mostly like political opportunism. The NDP favours a carbon tax levied at the wholesale level, not retail. Instead of 2.3 cents at the pump, the tax would be hidden in the cost of gas. Not much of a difference.
The New Democrats are on stronger ground when they note that big industries that release greenhouse gases without burning fossil fuels are exempt from any taxes on their emissions. (Like energy companies that flare off gas from wells.)
That regulation is to come - sometime - under a new cap and trade system. It will set emission limits for industries and companies. If a company can't make its limit, it will have to buy credits on the market to offset its excess emissions.
Mostly though, it looks like the New Democrats have decided to ride the wave of public anger without worrying too much about policy distinctions.
It's a bigger wave than I expected. One of the arguments made by critics is that the tax is irrelevant. Gas prices have risen 45 cents a litre in seven months - what's an extra 2.3 cents?
But that's not the way a lot of people see it. They see the government piling on when they're already having a tough time.
You reap what you sow, St. Paul wrote. And the Liberals spent a lot of their first term sowing the idea that government was a bad thing. Campbell liked to tell audiences that one new deputy minister told him she could cut her staff by one-third - and do a better job.
The message was that government was self-serving or incompetent, certainly untrustworthy.
But the sales pitch for the carbon tax relies heavily on trust in government. And the Liberals are struggling in their efforts to win people over.
Ipsos-Reid surveyed British Columbians on the carbon tax in the week before it was introduced. A narrow majority - 53 per cent - agreed that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea.
It was an almost even split when people were asked if they would be willing to pay higher fuel taxes if they were offset by an income-tax cut.
And 61 per cent doubted the B.C. carbon tax would change peoples' behaviour.
The poll also found 82 per cent thought the government should be targeting major industrial emitters instead of bringing in the carbon tax.
And the poll found the public isn't buying the Liberals' claim that the tax is revenue neutral - that the $631 million to be collected next year in taxes on gas, heating oil and other fuels will be offset by other tax cuts.
Only 19 per cent of those surveyed said they believed that would happen. The sentiment that it's a straight tax increase was shared by 57 per cent of British Columbians.
That's a problem for Gordon Campbell. Right now, he needs people to trust in government.
Footnote: Support for the carbon tax is strongest on Vancouver Island, where 23 per cent of those surveyed agreed it was the best way to curb climate change. The north, where only 12 per cent agreed, and the Lower Mainland, at 15 per cent, were the least supportive.
The Liberals will be helped a lot if gas prices stabilize (and if heating fuel costs don't rise higher by fall). But if they keep rising, the public will likely be slow to let go of their resentment.

Campaigning for healthy, tasty hospital food

Is hospital food crappy? Does it have to be? Bernard von Schulmann, fresh from his son's recent birth, says it is and it shouldn't be. He's started a blog betterhospitalfood.com to press for better tasting, healthier food and more choice in B.C. hospitals.

Worries about shuffle's effects on disabled

Mostly, everyone involved seems confused by the shuffle of services for mentally disabled adults out of the children's ministry and a new ministry for poor people, the addicted and mentally ill, housing, gambling, alcohol sales and people with developmental disabilities.
The only sure thing is that there was no consultation. This was planned a by a few people who figured they didn't need to listen to anyone else (notably the people who needed the help, and their families, and those who worked with them).
Here's a positive reaction from one group, and concern from the BC Association of Social Workers, which consistently offers quite useful observations from those who work on the frontlines. (And which is, despite its mandate to represent the issues of members, not obviously self-serving in its analysis.)
Also, for general edification, a note from children and families deputy minister Lesley du Toit on the shuffle.

For the change.

Picking up the pieces: Positive changes for children with special needs

Port Moody, B.C. June 26, 2008

The B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention (BCACDI), which represents and advocates for agencies providing services to children and youth with special needs and their families in B.C., is encouraged by the move of services for children with special needs back to the Ministry for Children and Family Development (MCFD) from Community Living B.C. (CLBC). “This is a change that will see children's services re-integrated into the Ministry that is responsible for all children”, says Bruce Sandy, Provincial Advocate. “A host of government and other reports have pointed out the damage that service fragmentation was causing families and children due to long delays in accessing supports, the absence of appropriate supports, and constant confusion regarding who should be providing services. Many of these barriers will now be eliminated”.

“The operative word in “special needs child” is “child”, says Alanna Hendren, Vice-President of the BCACDI Board. “We have worked for many years to have people in the community recognize children with special needs as children first, so they are not defined by their disability but by their potential. A move back to MCFD shows that the government now supports this view and intends to re-integrate services for children with special needs”.

The Ministry for Children and Family Development has been working with the community, including BCACDI to develop a strategic plan and framework for action for services for children and youth with special needs that works across the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Education and Health to ensure that all services are integrated, coordinated and focused on the best outcomes for each child. This plan has been endorsed by each of the Ministers involved in addition to the Minister of State for Child Care and the Premier.

BCACDI will continue to monitor and work on behalf of service agencies and stakeholders as the children's services are transferred back to MCFD over a transition period. This will be on the agenda for our upcoming meeting with Minister Christensen.

Concerned.

Confusion and Chaos: What else will the new "Super Ministry" of Housing and Social Development offer our most vulnerable citizens?  

The BC Association of Social Workers questions how the provincial government's continuing organizational change will contribute to better services to the public, and in particularly to its most vulnerable citizens. The newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development will now assume gargantuan responsibilities for income assistance, mental health services, housing, services to adults with developmental disabilities, landlord-tenant disputes, transition houses and licensing and monitoring of gambling in BC.

Just what - and who - will be served by collapsing services and programs to vulnerable populations into a "super Ministry"?   The Hughes Report was clear that the child welfare and social service system cannot withstand any more organizational change. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has been equally clear that organizational change and service gaps are creating huge and long-lasting real life and systemic impacts for vulnerable and at-risk populations of individuals, families and communities.
 
Child poverty and homelessness are on the rise. Individuals and families are already struggling to access income assistance, mental health services and community support services. Their difficulties in doing have been exacerbated by the staggering and chronic systemic changes and shuffling of responsibilities along with the instability of leadership and oversight of these public services. We are deeply concerned that in the creation of this "super Ministry"? it will be that much easier for individuals to fall through the gaping holes that already exist for marginalized citizens.  
We share in the BC government's five great goals with particular attention to number 3: Building the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors.  
We believe this goal and these interests are best served by continuing to provide continuity of service for income and employment assistance through a stand alone Ministry, such as the current Ministry of Employment & Income Assistance (MEIA), maintaining strategic operational planning within one organization and utilizing the strength of senior leadership available within MEIA.
 
We further encourage the BC government to leave responsibility for Community Living Services to adults with developmental disabilities within the mandate of the Ministry of Children & Family Development to allow further time for Community Living BC to solidify and stabilize itself as the Crown agency responsible for provision of services to adults with developmental disabilities and their families. With the move of adult services from MCFD to MHSD there will be a further disconnect between the continuity of services and supports, which will have lasting impacts on generations to come.
 
We also renew our commitment to working collaboratively with the BC government, its leaders and other important stakeholders and leaders to strategically stabilize, innovate and renew the social service, mental health, housing and child welfare systems so that BC can truly offer all children, youth, and families the best future possible as BC prepares to enter the light at centre stage of the international and global media and community.

And the deputy minister's comments.

From: Erickson, Jennifer MCF:EX
Sent: Tue 6/24/2008 4:56 PM
To: MCF All Exchange mailboxes
Cc: Burns, Heather PAB:EX; Greschner, John RCY:EX Subject: Message from the Deputy Minister


Dear colleagues:

As you may be aware, the Premier shuffled his Cabinet yesterday. The shuffle did not impact either of our ministers; Minister Tom Christensen and Minister Linda Reid will continue in their current roles as Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister of State for Child Care respectively.

However, responsibility for Community Living British Columbia (CLBC) was moved to the newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development. MCFD will assume responsibility for children's services currently delivered by CLBC. This change will not take effect immediately and we have already started working with CLBC to ensure that the best interests of children are protected through the transition phase.

Some of the communication that was released yesterday with details about the shuffle was unclear about the location of current ministry programs. I just wanted to be clear that Early Childhood Development, Youth Services and Child and Youth Mental Health all remain responsibilities of this ministry and will not be moving. Other than the move of CLBC, there were no other changes to the current ministry responsibilities.

Kind regards,
Lesley du Toit
 

Shuffle angers supporters of disabled adults

It's been a rough and chaotic seven years for people with mental disabilities and their families in B.C.
And once again, they have been plunged into uncertainty. Without warning or consultation, responsibility for the $680 million worth of services was swept out the Ministry of Children and Families and into the newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development.
The main advocacy group calls the change a shocking betrayal.
The clients and their families had big hopes when the Liberals were elected in 2001. They stayed optimistic despite cuts to services for the developmentally disabled.
Most cheered government plans for Community Living BC, the new Crown corporation created to deliver services, and promises of more choice and control for those with mental disabilities.
And then it fall apart, in a tangle of mismanagement, shoddy planning and ministerial fumbling.
Community Living BC would be delivering services by 2003, said then minister Gordon Hogg. It wasn't. In 2004, a report found there was no real plan for the Crown corporation.
It eventually started operating in 2005 and immediately found it had too little money. Waiting lists climbed into the thousands. Exhausted parents - some in their 70s - were told there was no help available for their mentally disabled children. People were pushed from group homes.
But families held on to the hope that, with some stability, things would improve. The cabinet shuffle changed that.
Community Living BC had been under the Ministry of Children and Families. That was intended to allow a smooth transition. Children with these kinds of disabilities received services from the ministry and Community Living BC until they turned 19, when the Crown corporation took over.
But with no warning or consultation, services for adults with mental disabilities were swept over to Rich Coleman's new ministry last week.
No one saw this coming. And no one outside government - and few inside - know what it means.
It wasn't until almost 5 p.m. on the day after the shuffle that children and families deputy minister Lesley du Toit sent ministry staff an e-mail confirming Community Living B.C. was going. It would now only provide services to adults.
That would mean, du Toit continued, that children and families would have to figure out how to deliver services to the 8,000 children who would be dropped by Community Living B.C. (Du Toit also responded to "unclear" communication on program shifts in the shuffle. If government employees couldn't figure out what was happening, the public didn't stand a chance.)
The B.C. Association for Community Living is the main advocacy group for thee people. It has supported the government's efforts, even when things went wrong.
Until now. The shift to the new ministry "undermines the government's commitment and vision to provide a seamless, life-long system of support for people with developmental disabilities," it said.
The association was "shocked and disappointed at the separation of the service delivery system for children with special needs and adults with developmental disabilities." Families had been betrayed.
It all suggests a decision made without consultation with the most knowledgeable people - the ones who use and deliver the services. Parents, hoping for a good life for their developmentally disabled daughter graduating from a special school program. Or wondering what will become of their son when they aren't around to house and care for him.
No one had proposed this kind of change. It was dropped like a hammer from the blue. And now the community wonders if the government has lost interest in Community Living BC and a family-centered approach to support. (And families wonder about Coleman's interest and expertise in their issues.)
It all suggests arbitrary change made in an autocratic way, and yet another lurch in direction for both the children's ministry and services for disabled adults.
It might make sense. So far, there are more questions than answers.

Shuffle panned by community living group

As people get a chance to look at Rich Coleman's new ministry, concern is mounting about the government's intentions for some disadvanted British Columbians. I'll take a look in a post soon, but here's the response from the BC Association for Community Living. They are not happy that responsibility for adults with mental disabilities is being shuffled out of the Ministry of Children and Families.

The good and the bad of the cabinet shuffle

It's always a bit weird writing about cabinet shuffles. In our system, where the premier or prime minister is king, even ministers don't have that much influence.
And I'm not sure many people could name more than a handful of the 22 cabinet ministers in the Liberal government.
But it does matter. And there are both welcome and worrying developments in the new cabinet unveiled by Premier Gordon Campbell this week.
Start with the good. Colin Hansen is back in finance after three years in economic development, while hanging on to responsibility for the Olympics. Economic development should have been a good job, but when the government is philosophically inclined to leave most decisions up to the private sector, there's not much to do..
Hansen shone in past stints as finance minister and health minister, where his command of the issues was almost freaky. Reporters would ask about obscure local issues in scrums and Hansen would offer informed, detailed and sensible responses.
And while he was obviously partisan, he was never abusive or foolish inside or outside the legislature. I usually left encounters glad he was the health minister. (I'm not so sure he always left glad I was a journalist.)
His credibility and intelligence should help in defending the carbon tax and - like his predecessor Carole Taylor - Hansen is unlikely to be easily bulldozed by the premier.
Then on to more one of those, I've got good and bad news stories. The good news is that Rich Coleman was moved out of the forests ministry, a change unlikely to be lamented by anyone in the sector.
The forest challenges are huge, and many are beyond government's control. But Coleman did more harm than good and appeared indifferent to mill closures and the loss of thousands of jobs. It was hard to see why the government even had a forest ministry, if it didn't want to take any real role. (Coleman did get the government to spend $15 million on an arena in his riding, with the argument if was a good way to showcase B.C. wood products.)
Pat Bell moves from agriculture to forests. It will be a big challenge, but at least as a Prince George MLA he has a connection with the industry and the people who depend on it. He's more likely to listen and try to develop positive ideas.
The bad news - or maybe just the question mark, to be kinder - is Coleman's new job, which looks a little like a ministry of things Rich would be interested in. He keeps housing, an area has shown some interest and accomplishment in. But he also gets welfare and job training and support for people with disabilities and gambling and liquor sales.
There's little in Coleman's record to inspire confidence in these areas, In fact, while John Les took the blame, Coleman was solicitor general while the Coroners Service went off the rails and lax enforcement undermined the security of both casino gambling and lottery ticket sales in the province. There aren't a lot of accomplishments to point to offset the stumbles.
Back to good news, I'm glad of the return of Kootenays MLA Bill Bennett to cabinet, this time as tourism, culture and arts minister, and the addition of Peace River MLA Blair Lekstrom as community development minister (although that's not much of a job, except for the pine beetle responsibilities that are cobbled on).
Both are smart, will speak their minds and stand up for thbeir constituents and are from outside the Lower Mainland. They will be valuable around the cabinet table.
The other additions, replacing the ministers who have decided not to run next year, are Mary Polak, Joan McIntyre and Iain Black.
I have no real idea how well they will do. Backbenchers on the government side are an enigmatic lot. Black championed the cause of keeping kids in car seats longer. Polak seemed nice.
And that's the shuffle.
Footnote: MLAs, after giving themselves a big raise, are paid $98,000; full cabinet ministers $147,000, more than 95 per cent of the people they represent. And the job brings a different work life. There are staffers to brief you and plan your day and help you look smart. You go to big meetings. It's seductive.

A first look at the cabinet shuffle

I'll post a column in the next few hours, but the Times Colonist has tomorrow's editorial online today.

Carbon tax opposition a challenge for Liberals

After a recent column on donating the coming $100 carbon tax rebate to a good cause, a reader in Nelson e-mailed.
His money is spent already, he wrote, going to the 22-per-cent increase in heating costs he's facing this winter.
Count him as opposed to the tax. And the same day Ipsos Reid released a poll that found most British Columbians shared his view.
More than I expected, and they were also more riled up than I would have predicted.
The carbon tax looks like a potentially serious problem for the Liberals, with the election 11 months away.
So far, the issue hasn't had any effect on their support. The Ipsos survey, done between June 5 and 10, found the Liberals at 47 per cent of decided voters, the NDP at 33 and the Greens at 16. (In the 2005 election, the Liberals got 46 per cent of the vote, the NDP 42 and Greens nine per cent.)
The carbon tax doesn't take effect until July 1. If people are opposed now, they'll be crankier when gas prices rise another 2.4 cents a litre on Canada Day.
The NDP is trying to score points on the issue. Leader Carole James kicked off an "Axe the Tax" campaign this week.
It's a crassly opportunistic move. The New Democrats are on record as supporting a carbon tax. Their opposition to this particular version rests on pretty flimsy ground.
At the same time, the federal Conservatives are bashing Stephane Dion's carbon tax, which is more modest than Campbell's, in their typically hysterical way. Left and right are united against the tax.
The Ipsos poll confirmed that. The poll found 59 per cent of British Columbians oppose the carbon tax. Significantly, 45 per cent said they were strongly opposed.
And a majority of voters who identified themselves as supporters of all three main parties - even Green supporters - opposed the tax. Islanders and people with universities were split evenly on the carbon tax, but in every other group - the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province, men and women, rich and poor, old and young - more than half were opposed.
It looks like the Liberals underestimated the backlash (as I did). Premier Gordon Campbell avoided the whole subject in speeches to northern mayors and the party's business supporters, hoping the issue would go away.
It hasn't. Now he's accusing the NDP, with good reason, of playing politics. The tax is important to reduce emissions, he says, and been offset by other tax cuts for all British Columbians.
Some Liberal MLAs think the government needs to do a better job of explaining the tax.
That will be tough. An ad campaign could backfire, prompting complaints taxpayers' money was being wasted to sell an unpopular tax.
And suspicion about the promise of revenue neutrality runs deep. The carbon tax is designed to reward people who change their behaviour to cut their gas and oil consumption. A Lower Mainland resident, for example, can switch to public transit. That's not likely possible for someone living somewhere outside Mackenzie.
The carbon tax still makes sense. It's a small way to change behaviour and at least initially the tax cuts will offset the costs for most people.
But politically, this is a poser for the Liberals.
Tax revolt campaigns tend to play well, even when they make little sense. (Who could really argue the New Democrats would beat the Liberals in cutting taxes?)
And the Ipsos-Reid poll results are worrying. The breadth of the opposition to the carbon tax - and the depth - suggests problems. Liberals supporters might be less keen on showing up to vote. Undecided voters might decide James deserves a vote.
The Liberals might pull some Green supporters, but politically the carbon tax looks a risk.
It's odd. Campbell's big political problem turns out to come when he goes all green.
Footnote: Federal politics are spilling over in a big way. The Harper government launched a total war against carbon taxes even before Dion's proposal was out, ranting about a "tax on everything" and mocking the notion of tax shifts or revenue neutrality.
And the provincial opposition brings a rare unity - business groups, unions, Canadian Taxpayers' Federation and the NDP all stand together.

How did Big Pharma win Round One?

I posted a link to a column by a family doctor on the provincial government’s plan to destroy a UBC initiative that helped control Pharmacare costs and save lives.

The Gazetteer – the blogger I find most consistently interesting on a lot of fronts – asked this:

“I, for one, would be interested in your opinion on how this 'decision'
 was deflector-spun out of bounds such that it has remained pretty much 
a non-story despite the fact that it will have a real and lasting
 impact on all British Columbians.
”

Good question.
The government released the pharmaceutical task force report May 21.
The Sun had a story the next day, which led with the report’s conclusion that B.C. was paying too much for generic drugs.
It noted the criticism of the Therapeutics Initiative and included a response from the Initiative and comments from Adrian Dix that Big Pharma dominated the review panel.
The Tyee covered it as well.
A week later, on May 28, The Sun had a front-page story on international criticism of the attack on the Therapeutics Initiative.
The same day Craig McInnes, a Sun editorial writer, had a column setting out the value of the Initiative and criticizing the composition of the panel.
And the next day, Andre Picard. The Globe’s stellar health columnist, defended the Initiative.
On June 4, The Sun ran an op-ed piece from drug-company funded illness groups supporting the review and quicker approval of new drugs.
Vaughn Palmer offered a balanced view June 10.
The Times Colonist ran a ferocious Colby Cosh column defending the Initiative June 16, and the doctor’s column June 18.
I didn’t look at regional papers.
I meant to write about it, but didn’t have time to read the report. Not a great explanation, but true.
There was a lack of news coverage. How much more would drugs have cost without the Iniatitive? Who was on the review panel? What do people like UVic’s Alan Cassels, who has researched pharmaceuticals, think?
But the report on the drug task force report competed for space – and reader attention – with the CBC reports on casino money-laundering and news on people turned away from shelters.
All in all, the media coverage and analysis weren’t bad, though not impressive either.
It is a complicated story to tell in a form that people will read. And it’s less immediately grabbing than an ER closure or someone getting their hip surgery delayed again. We aren't good at complicated stories.
The issue got not bad coverage. But not great, either. And the public didn't pay much attention.
One issue is the balance of interests. For the drug companies, it’s hugely important to get barriers to quick approval of new drugs pushed aside.
For the average person, defending an effective drug approval process is pretty far down the list of worries.
That suggests a bigger public role for those who have a credible voice. Like Dr. Blair.

Province to gut program that avoided costly, dangerous drug spending

One of B.C.'s great health care successes has been its management of spending on prescription drugs. A major factor has been the Therapeutics Initiative at UBC, which assesses the benefits and risks of new drugs, providing the information needed to determine whether they're worth adding to the list covered by Pharmacare.
It's a success story that has attracted praise from around the world and saved the public hundreds of millions of dollars. Now the government, pushed by Big Pharma, wants to gut the Initiative.
A Victoria doctor in family practice offers a view from the frontlines here.

Now Obama is fighting B.C. over mining

Barack Obama is not even elected president yet, and he's already picking on B.C.
It didn't get much attention, but Obama served notice that if he's elected, he'll lend his support to ban mining in the Flathead Valley in southeastern B.C.
The dispute has been bouncing in and out of the headlines since 2003, especially in Montana.
It has already proved awkward for the provincial government.
In mid-2004, Energy Minister Richard Neufeld cancelled Cline Mining's permit for a planned open pit coal mine in the Flathead, citing environmental concerns and pressure from Montana. The company's share price fell 50 per cent.
And earlier this year, BP America cancelled plans for coalbed methane development in the Flathead after taking heat from Montana interests, including powerful U.S. Senator Max Baucus.
But the battle isn't over, and Obama has signed on to the other side.
Cline has another property in the Flathead Valley, farther from the border. Montana environmentalists - and most of the main politicians - are opposed to a coal mine proposed for that site as well.
And, to add a complication to the mix, BP America still hopes to develop coalbed methane in the Elk Valley, just north of the Flathead.
The series of disputes is putting the government in a bad spot. The pressure from Montana - on the province and the companies - is significant. And a lot of people in the Kootenays support protection of the Flathead.
But on the other side, other residents aren't opposed to more mining, which provides excellent jobs.
The province wants the investment and future royalties from coalbed methane. BP said that if it had developed both the Flathead and Elk Valley properties, the investment would have been about $3 billion. The government would get $2 billion in royalties and $2 billion in corporate taxes over the life of the project, the company said.
And at some point, the B.C. government is going to have to decide how much say it will give U.S. interests on land-use decisions within the province.
The Montana crew has a legitimate interest in the future of the Flathead Valley on our side of the border (as B.C. took a legitimate interest in the air quality impact of a proposed power plant just across the border from Sumas).
The Flathead River is a prized asset in Montana. It forms the border of the U.S. Glacier National Park and offers fishing and recreational opportunities. It's that rare thing - an accessible wild river.
The case for being concerned about development in its headwaters is pretty strong.
But how far should that interest go? By taking aim at BP's coalbed plans for the Elk Valley, Baucus and the other U.S. interests are claiming influence on an area 60 kms or more from the border. And the Elk River flows into the Kootenay. It flows into Montana, where it is dammed to create a lake - hardly a wild river.
Bill Bennett is the Liberal MLA from the region and was mines minister until he resigned after a nasty e-mail exchange with a constituent.
He offered a good analysis of where B.C. should draw the line during the just-ended legislative session.
Bennett drew a clear line between the Elk and Flathead Valleys.
The Elk has been home to mining and logging for more than a century, he noted. It's not some pristine wilderness. The Flathead, while there has been logging and recreational use, hasn't been developed in the same way.
Bennett suggested that, at least for now, the status quo should prevail in the Flathead. His constituents don't want to see coal mining in the valley.
But he'd allow more mining and coalbed methane development in the Elk Valley, giving BP a chance to show how clean its operations can be.
It seems a reasonable compromise.
I wonder what Obama will say.
Footnote: Bennett might have a chance to play a larger role. A cabinet shuffle is expected in next few weeks as the premier moves out people like Claude Richmond and Carole Taylor who have said they won't run in 2009. Bennett would be a good addition, but he might be too independent for Gordon Campbell's taste or the party might decide another Liberal needs the profile more.

Carbon taxes and making the most of your $100

The province’s cautious carbon tax is starting to look insignificant as gas prices spike.
But the $100 rebate cheques designed to help sell the tax are still going to be dropping into mailboxes all across the province. And there’s the chance to do something extraordinary with that money.
Say even one-quarter of the people in the Okanagan decide to pass the windfall on – to a church, or the United Way, or an organization working with the homeless or disadvantaged kids. That’s $9.5 million – the equivalent of seven years’ worth of United Way fundraising in Kelowna and Penticton.
First, let’s consider the carbon tax. You’ll start paying it on fuel July 1, with the most obvious change an extra 2.4 cents tax per litre of gasoline.
Back in February, when the Liberals introduced the tax in the budget, it was a little controversial.
Not just because it would climb to 7.2 cents a litre by 2012. Rural communities and industry worried about the immediate impact, on gas and heating oil and the costs of transportation.
Gas prices were about $1.09 then in Victoria. The extra 2.4 cents seemed significant.
Now they’re $1.49 – a 37-per-cent increase in four months. The 2.4 cents doesn’t seem like such a problem.
The politics of carbon taxes have got quite weird. The NDP voted against the Liberals’ tax, claiming the party supports carbon taxes, just not this one.
The position doesn’t make much sense and seems politically risky. Voters who care about climate change and don’t like the Liberals are now going to have to think seriously about voting Green.
Meanwhile, federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion is proposing a tax like Campbell’s. The Conservatives have launched some silly attack ads calling it a tax grab, which they must know is baloney. (The ads aren’t helpful to the provincial Liberals, Premier Gordon Campbell acknowledges.)
The Harper crew look pretty hypocritical. The federal government collects GST on gas. The price increases of the last four months alone have meant an extra two cents a litre in sales taxes. That’s not far off a carbon tax.
And remember that in the run-up to the 2004 federal election, Stephen Harper pledged to lift the GST on any gas price above 85 cents a litre.
Ultimately, it seems simple. If you accept that carbon emissions are causing global warming and the problem is serious, then higher fuel prices encouraging conservation, efficiency and new energy sources make sense. They change behaviour.
The trick is to bring in the tax in an equitable way. On that basis, the Liberals’ plan still makes sense.
What’s looking a little less sound is their promise that other tax cuts would offset the carbon tax. It probably would have made more sense to devote the new revenue to efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
The $100 rebate – a bribe to make people feel better about the carbon tax - makes less sense. It will go to everyone in the province, even babies. The tenuous connection is that it will somehow allow you to buy a more efficient car or insulate your basement, so you can avoid paying the carbon tax.
More likely, the rebates will be seen as a windfall by a lot of people.
And that creates an extraordinary opportunity for British Columbians. The government is sending out about $440 million in rebates (and spending $10 million to do it).
For many people, that money is badly needed and already spent.
But for a lot of us, the cheques offer a great chance to make a difference in our communities — to take a serious look at which agencies or organizations are making a difference, and pass the money on. The donation could be to organizations working on climate change, or with the homeless, or helping children.
SWhat a difference we can make, together.
Footnote: It’s not just the money. It’s a tough slog for non-profits, a constant search for money to provide the services. When a $100 cheque comes in the mail, it’s a vote of confidence, And most will welcome some questions about how they plan to use the money before you pass your rebate along.

BC Rail prosecution a travesty

The BC Rail corruption trial grows more surreal - and more remote from justice as most us understand it - with each passing month. And there have been a lot of them - 53 months since the raid on the legislature.

The Crown is fighting to keep the defence lawyers from hearing the evidence of informant. The B.C. Supreme Court justice hearing the case ruled the defence lawyers had a right to be present; the Crown prosecutor has challenged the ruling in the B.C. Appeal Court and has vowed to continue to the Supreme Court of Canada. (Money is no object, when taxpayers are signing the cheques.)

The case has long past the point at which it is bringing the entire justice system into disrepute, with much of the responsibility falling on the prosecutors.

Bill Tieleman - as always - has excellent updates on the latest hearings.

Tribunal wrong place to take hate-speech claims

The hysteria greeting a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing on charges that Maclean's magazine incited
hatred against Muslims is kind of creepy.
The critics of the process are right; it is a threat to free speech. And the issues are important.
But the rhetoric and the casting of the case as the last battleground in defence of Western civilization has been
over the top. By time the hearing concluded, the public battering of the Muslim complainants started to look a lot
like a one-sided schoolyard brawl.
The case goes back to 2006, when Maclean's printed excerpts from Mark Steyn's book America Alone.
Steyn is a clever, provocative U.S.-based right-wing writer who courts controversy and recognizes its marketing
value.
The magazine made the piece a cover story, but it was pretty much ignored.
Steyn's piece argued that demography is dooming North America and Europe. The world's Muslims have larger
families and a much younger population, while the West is aging. They would end up taking over by dint of
numbers and unity.
He cited dubious examples of the looming takeover. Somehow an assault on a bus in Antwerp by three young
Moroccan men became a symbol of Muslim advances.
It didn't convince me, but Steyn's argument was certainly legitimate commentary, raising relevant issues.
The Canadian Islamic Congress didn't think so. It tried to persuade Maclean's to run a rebuttal of equal length. The
magazine said no.
So the congress, through individuals, filed complaints with the federal, Ontario and B.C. human rights tribunals.
Ontario's commission wouldn't hear the complaint, though it criticized Maclean's for not allowing a full response;
the federal process is still ahead; and the B.C. tribunal has heard the evidence and is considering its decision.
Human rights bodies, with the power to hear complaints and make judgments, are important. We've agreed that
individuals have rights, including the right to an equal chance in life. Discrimination based on race or religion or
sexual orientation or colour violates those individual rights.
People need a way to defend themselves against discrimination. The human rights tribunals were created to
provide an accessible process, one that offered a chance to reach settlements but still had the power to impose
judgments. The process is less formal than the courts.
The B.C. tribunal tends to make the news with unusual cases. But is serves an important role in protecting people
from acts of discrimination.
And that is one critical factor that is different about the Maclean's hearing. There are no acts of discrimination to
address.
The complaint is levelled under a section of the B.C. Human Rights Code that makes it an offence to say or write
something that is likely to expose a person or group to "hatred or contempt."
It's not an appropriate role for the human rights tribunal. The process - as demonstrated in the Maclean's hearing
- is too informal. The code doesn't distinguish between hate-filled rants and political or cultural argument. And the
offence can be highly subjective and based on feelings, not actions.
It is the wrong way to make any decision limiting the right to free speech.
Minorities have a legitimate need for protection from writings or statements that incite hatred against them.
That protection is already provided by the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to incite hatred against any
group "where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace." That is a critical distinction.
The Criminal Code also sets out acceptable defences, including protection for statements made as part of an
honest debate on a matter of public significance. Again, a critical distinction.
And the criminal process ensures a rigorous and consistent approach to deciding the issue.
The Maclean's case has highlighted the major flaws in the current approach to these types of cases under human
rights' laws. The solution should be to remove these offences from the code and allow tribunals to focus on acts
of discrimination.
Footnote: Don't expect any action from the provincial government on the issue. Human rights legislation is
politically charged, with any changes watched closely by minority communities for signs protection is being
eroded. Governments are loathe to make changes that could cost them votes.

Corky Evans on life in politics

The Times Colonist had a nice editorial on the announcement that Corky Evans is retiring from provincial politics.

The Arrow Lakes News offered an interesting Q&A interview to mark the occasion.

I can't forget that Evans was part of the train wreck of an NDP government of the late 1990s; that's not a great resume item.

But he did bring a consistent view that government's role is to help make life better for the people who live in the province, not to just stand back and hope for the best.

And, as this earlier column from the Times Colonist shows, Evans is one of the best speakers in the legislature.

Bountiful’s child brides a thorny problem

You can't blame Attorney General Wally Oppal for struggling with what to do about the polygamous community at Bountiful.
About 1,000 people live in the community near Creston. They're members of a sect that split from the Mormon Church in 1930, about 40 years after it renounced polygamy. They've had a Kootenay outpost since 1946.
Their religious views clash with the values of most Canadians. Men must have multiple wives - at least three, but often many more - to be assured of the highest form of salvation.
The leader/prophet is considered God's anointed, with powers to match. (But then, so is the Pope.)
He is considered divinely ordained to order girls to marry husbands - or take them away and remarry them to someone else. There are strict dress codes and a lot of religious rules.
Polygamy is theoretically against the law in Canada; the sect acknowledges men in Bountiful have more than one wife. Prosecution should be straightforward.
But the Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedom. The courts could decide that protects polygamy.
The law does appear to trample on individual rights. It's a crime in Canada to be in "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time."
It doesn't have to be marriage. There doesn't have to be any sexual relationship. It's still a crime for three or four people to be in a "conjugal union."
It's hard to see what right the state has to poke into the way people choose to live. Add the issue of religious freedom, and the law looks dubious.
That's been the concern of the province, which has balked at laying polygamy charges.
Oppal has just hired a third outside lawyer to review the possibility of laying charges. The first two suggested asking the courts for an advance ruling on the charter issues.
Oppal appears to want a special prosecutor ready to take a chance on a polygamy charges.
While polygamy in the abstract raises issues of religious freedom, the reality is grimmer. Winston Blackmore, the prophet of the Bountiful sect, hands out the brides. He has at least 26, and more than 100 children.
What about the rights of the girls, as young as 15, handed off as brides - sixth or seventh or twentieth wives - to middle-aged men? Do they really consent? What if their husband falls from favour, and they are handed to a new man, like a piece of property?
What happens to the 40 or 50 children sired by a single male?
And, as older men are assigned all the young women, what happens to the "lost boys," the young men who grew up in Bountiful, but have no future?
There is good reason for concern. The sect acknowledges 15-year-old girls have been married off to men three times their age, on Blackmore's orders. (That would be illegal now that age of consent has been raised.)
Are they simply young women who have made an informed choice to embrace the religious beliefs they have been taught since birth? Or brainwashed or coerced victims, forced into having sex with old men against their wills?
Sorting that out is not easy. Bountiful is a closed world. It has its own school - provincially funded - and is cut off, unless Blackmore decides to allow members to speak. There are few witnesses to share their stories.
Research suggests polygamous communities are bad places for children - but so are a lot of other environments.
So what should happen? Ideally, police and prosecutors would establish other reasons to intervene. The Education Ministry could ensure the school has been adhering to the provincial curriculum. The Children and Families Ministry could be alert.
But ultimately, the polygamy law will likely have to be tested. Prosecutors should pick the best case and be prepared to demonstrate that the damage done justifies the legal ban.
And then the courts can balance the competing rights.
Footnote: Texas authorities removed children from a similar compound in April, citing fears of child abuse. But at the end of May, the Texas Supreme Court ruled the child protection authorities had gone too far and ordered them returned. The case indicates the challenges of dealing with closed religious communities.

Liberals betray democracy by forcing through bills without debate

Left, right, green or in-between, you should be appalled at the way the spring legislative session ended last week.
In the space of 67 minutes, the government forced six bills through the legislature.
No debate. No chance for any MLA - government or opposition - to ask how the new laws would affect the people they represented.
Just a rubber-stamp vote on laws imposed from above that will change the way British Columbians live, without debate or questions.
These weren't housekeeping bills. In the space of minutes, the government forced through a bill authorizing a carbon tax which will, by 2012, bring in more than $1 billion a year in taxes on fuels. (The money will be redistributed through other tax breaks.)
I think that's a good idea. But a lot of people - from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to Williams Lake Mayor Scott Nelson - disagree. Critics say the tax will be costly and unfair, hurting northern communities.
MLAs should debate a fundamental economic change like the tax. They should be able to ask questions about the effects on their communities. That didn't happen.
It took 11 minutes to ram through a bill that limits the ability of individuals or organizations to raise public policy issues in the three months before an election. Only political parties are free to communicate their views. The bill was rushed through despite Attorney General Wally Oppal's earlier promise of a full debate.
And on it went, in a process that wouldn't be out of place in Castro's Cuba.
You can argue about whose fault this was.
But everyone should agree it was a travesty. Laws were imposed on ordinary people with no debate or scrutiny. A handful of people - an inner circle of politicians and bureaucrats - dictated how we will live.
The Liberals blame the New Democrats for taking too long to debate the budget and other bills.
But the government introduce its last 10 bills with less than 16 sitting days left in the session and piles of earlier legislation still not debated.
The NDP says the government could have extended the session to allow debate on the laws. Or it could have delayed some legislation to the scheduled fall session, where the bills could have been fully debated.
Instead, it used closure to force the bills into law, with no debate, in the final moments before MLAs returned to their constituencies.
The fixed legislative session introduced by the Liberals included plans for a fall session - six weeks are scheduled this year.
But Premier Gordon Campbell has tried to avoid fall sittings. (In fact, the Liberals have not been keen on having the legislature sit at all.)
That's understandable. When the legislature is sitting, the government face daily questions from the opposition. The issues are troublesome and the media is paying attention.
When the legislature isn't sitting, the government has much greater control of the agenda, deciding when and how to make announcements.
As a journalist, it is a little embarrassing to acknowledge that the media is so dependent on the 30 minutes of question period to generate stories. But, there it is.
Despite all the finger-pointing, the government - that means Campbell - has to take responsibility for this assault on democracy.
Even if it believes the NDP took too much time debating the budget or other measures, it was the government that decided to push these bills through the legislature without debate.
It had options. The election gag law, for example, could have been introduced last year. Other legislation could have waited until the fall.
Instead, the Liberals - unlike any government in B.C.'s history - have made closure a routine way of doing business.
The principle that laws must be debated by the peoples' representatives before they are voted on is central to our democratic system.
The Campbell government's failure to accept that basic tenet of democracy betrays a dangerous arrogance.
Footnote: The expectation is that the Liberals won't call a fall session of the legislature, meaning that MLAs won't sit again until next spring. The legislature will have been in session for 47 days this year, one of the briefest in a non-election year in two decades.

Insite ruling and a new way forward on drugs

The ruling on the future of Vancouver's safe injection site should change the way we talk about drugs and addiction.
It will certainly reveal that those who cling to the status quo - like federal Health Minister Tony Clement - place prejudice ahead of evidence and the law.
Justice Ian Pitfield was ruling on an injunction application aimed at preventing the federal government from closing Insite.
The injection site needs an exemption from drug possession laws to operate, so people can bring their drugs to he centre. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority would likely not continue funding if the site was operated illegally.
With barely one month to go before the current exemption expires, the government wouldn't say if it would renew it.
The critical aspect of the judgment rested on one main issue. Would shutting down Insite violate the users' charter rights to "life, liberty, and security of the person"? And if it did, was the violation of their rights justified by the greater good? Governments are allowed, under the charter, to strip individual rights with a good reason.
Answering those questions raised issues fundamental to the way we think about drugs and addiction.
First, Pitfield had to decide if Insite did protect individuals' charter right to safety and security. If not, then closing it would be fine.
Both sides presented evidence. The federal government's established that the scientific debate about whether harm reduction or abstinence-based approaches were most effective continues.
But the evidence and research showed that allowing people to inject in a clean, supervised site reduced death and illness, (as well as public disorder). It was health care to deal with the sickness of addiction; removing it would violate the clients' right to personal security, just as denying care to a lung cancer patient would.
The federal government also raised an important argument. People choosing to use drugs, its lawyers argued. The charter of rights doesn't provide any protection if people make bad choices.
Pitfield reviewed the medical evidence supplied by both sides.
And he found that Insite users weren't making a choice to inject drugs. Addiction is a disease.
"However unfortunate, damaging, inexplicable and personal the original choice may have been, the result is an illness called addiction," he found.
"While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be said against denying addicts health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition," Pitfield found. "Society does that for other substances such as alcohol and tobacco."
The decision was based on the evidence.
But anyone who looked at the life of a hardcore injection drug user wouldn't see it as a choice. How many people want poverty, homelessness, a one-in-six chance of contracting HIV, almost certain hepatitis, dangerous sex work, abscesses, fear and a constant need to get more drugs?
That left one issue for the court. The government can remove individual rights for the greater good - if it can show a pressing reason.
The federal government argued that the allowing Insite a continued exemption would increase drug trafficking and might violate international treaties.
But it had little evidence. And drug laws, Pitfield ruled, could still prohibit possession while allowing specific exemptions for programs like Insite.
That's an important point. The government can still do as much as it wants to arrest dealers or users. It can ramp up prevention programs and add treatment centres. Insite is no barrier.
Pitfield's ruling doesn't say society should condone drug use. It does find addiction is an illness - a potentially deadly one - and proper health care can help people survive, while reducing the damage to the community.
It is a good starting point for rethinking the way we treat those suffering from that illness, and help stop others from stumbling into that terrible sickness.
Footnote: Clement said the Harper government still doesn't approve, though he did not explain why people should die for its prejudices. The facts, as the court found, support Insite, which is also supported by Premier Gordon Campbell and Health Minister George Abbott and is funded by the province. Vancouver's mayor and police force also back its continued operation.

Insite judgment well worth reading

I'll get a post up on the Insite judgment in B.C. Supreme Court judgment tonight or tomorrow morning, but I'd urge you to read it. It's a remarkable piece of work by Justice Ian Pitfield, one that cuts straight to the basic medical, social and legal issues and sorts them out in a clear, logical way.
It's about 60 pages, but you can skip big sections where he quotes from previous court decisions and focus on his summary of the law and the evidence and his analysis and ruling.
You can find it here.

Barring poor voters, Tasers and barking MLAs

Making sure poor people don't get a vote, the Taser scam and zapping MLAs who behave badly. Sometimes, there are just too many good topics, so several items get rolled into one column.
Start with the changes to the rules for running elections. The attention has been on the Liberals' gag law, which restricts the right of individuals to run ads to raise issues in the five months before an election.
The bill has another creepy provision, which will make it harder for poor people to vote.
The law will be changed to prevent people from voting unless they have a home address and government-issued photo ID to prove it.
So if you don't have a driver's licence, or a home, then no vote for you. Estimates put the number of people deprived of the right to vote at 170,000.
Attorney General Wally Opal says the changes were recommended by Elections B.C. to guard against voter fraud.
That's just not true. (I'm not saying Opal is lying; he's not a detail guy, to put it kindly, and relies on what people tell him. But someone isn't telling the truth about this.)
In fact, Elections B.C. is trying to make it possible for more people - including the homeless - to vote. Its last annual report looked at voter fraud and found it's just not a problem in B.C. Not at all.
No one except the Liberals - literally - has said this change is needed.
Which leaves it looking like the party in power is trying shut out some voters in next May's election to increase its chances of success in close ridings.
The link between that topic and Tasers is the question of honesty.
The government has always maintained Taser use was governed by rules designed to protect police and the public.
Those rules, it said, were strengthened after a review done for the Police Complaints Commissioner in 2005. That report said Tasers should only be used when suspects are "actively resisting" police. People who were just unco-operative or difficult shouldn't be zapped.
The claims just weren't true. The solicitor general's ministry sent out a letter to police chiefs after the complaints commissioner's report, with a copy to the RCMP.
But it said nothing about changing policies to limit Taser use. (And in any case, the RCMP, which polices about 70 per cent of the province's population, doesn't accept any direction from or accountability to the provincial government.)
The head of the B.C. Association of Municipal Police Chiefs confirmed the lack of leadership at the current inquiry into Taser use.
"The lack of clarity, the lack of a provincial policy and different opinions is something that has made it more difficult and I look forward to the process of making it clear for our office," said Bob Rich, a deputy chief in Vancouver.
And, finally, a suggestion from Liberal MLA Dennis MacKay that harnesses the power to zap people in a way that might bring better government.
MLAs get to make members' statements just before question period each day. Usually, they say nice things some person or event in their riding. (Though sometimes there's substance - Liberal Bill Bennett and New Democrat Corky Evans have offered thoughtful commentaries on the polygamous community at Bountiful this session.)
MacKay chose to pass on a suggestion from a constituent.
He noted - quite accurately - that many MLAs behave wretchedly during question period, braying and shouting insults and abuse.
"The behaviour would not be tolerated in classrooms in our school system today," MacKay said. "At times it sounds like dogs who bark just for the sake of barking."
You can buy electronic collars that give dogs a shock when they bark, he noted. "I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you could look at a similar device to control members of this Legislature. All members who enter this chamber for the debates would be required to wear a similar device."
Shout or heckle, and be zapped.
Footnote: The political culture that embraces, and sometimes celebrates, stupid and rude behaviour in the legislature is baffling and destructive. Most MLAs don't participate, but enough do to disgrace them all. Insults and abuse substitute for sensible questions and answers. Behaviour that would see an eight-year-old sent to his room draws enthusiastic desk-pounding from performing seals on either side of the legislature. It's a sad waste of good people.

Big tobacco's best customers

If you're schizophrenic, you're most likely a smoker. In fact, if you're diagnosed with any mental illness, you're twice as likely to be using cigarettes. I haven't seen stats for people with other addictions and smoking, but based on my observation, they are big tobacco users too.
This Youtube video by a Victoria group looks at the issue.
It would be nice if a lot of people saw it.

Campbell betrays principles with election gag law

It’s a bit much to hear Gordon Campbell claim the Liberals’ election gag law is needed to reduce the influence of big money in politics.
Campbell opposes any limits on political contributions. A forest company is free to give $1 million to the Liberals.
But under the proposed law, citizens who wanted to make forest policy an issue ina riding would be limited to spending $3,000 on advertising in the five months leading up to next May’s election.
And Campbell passionately, even ferociously, denounced a 1995 effort by the NDP to bring in a similar law limiting third-party advertising during an election campaign. (That is, advertising by anyone except political parties and candidates.)
“A gag order on third-party interests is simply wrong,” Campbell said . “This government has a record of restricting freedom of speech and this is simply another example of that record.”
What’s different? Then, the New Democrats’ gag law was aimed at preventing business groups from buying ads questioning their record during the imminent election campaign. (It was overturned by the courts and repealed by the Liberals.)
Now, the Liberal gag law is aimed at silencing unions or other critics in the same way.
There are differences. The NDP bill limited spending to $5,000, but only covered the election campaign period.
The Liberals’ gag law covers the five months before an election. It limits third parties to spending $150,000 across the province, or $3,000 in any individual riding.
Campbell pointed to those differences while trying to defend his flip-flop. But his opposition in 1995 wasn’t about the amounts. The Liberals opposed silencing citizens on principle.
In fact, some sort of third-party spending limits do make sense. Otherwise, a group or organization with big money could have an inordinate influence on an election campaign. Once they establish that influence, they could also have a lot of influence over the political party they backed. Otherwise, perhaps the money wouldn’t be there next time.
The trick is to get the balance right, setting limits that allow effective free speech while ensuring that elections aren’t decided by those able to spend the most.
The Liberal bill doesn’t come close to meeting that test. The $150,000 limit on advertising — $30,000 a month — isn’t enough to raise an issue across the province. The political parties are allowed to spend $6.6 million each during the same period.
And the riding limit is worse. There is no way a group can raise an issue effectively on a $3,000 ad budget. Individual candidates are allowed to spend 45 times that much to reach voters with their messages.
Whether it’s citizens concerned about the release of land from tree farm licences, or aquaculture companies worried that their practices are being unfairly criticized, the $3,000 limit denies them the right to raise their concerns in a local campaign.
That’s one of the things that’s striking about the Liberals’ bill. The opposition is strong from left, right and most points in between. B.C. unions launched an ad campaign against the bill — a pretty good one, featuring pictures of people with their mouths taped closed and the headline, “Gordon Campbell wants you to just shut up.”
But business leaders — like Phil Hochstein, of the association representing non-union construction associations — also oppose the bill. So do the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other groups.
Across Canada, there has been a movement to limit the influence of big political donors. The federal government, as one example, has banned union and business donations and limited individual contributions.
Campbell doesn’t want any limits. If Teck Cominco wants to give $118,000 to the Liberals, as it did last year, that’s OK, as long as the donation is reported.
But he does want to limit the public’s right to raise issues in an election campaign, and is prepared to force the bill through the legislature without debate.
Footnote: Are the Liberals worried about the next election? As well as the gag law, the same bill includes measures that will deny homeless people and those without photo identification from voting. Elections BC says there’s no voting fraud problem; it wants to encourage more voters. The bill looks like a crude attempt to protect Liberal candidates in close ridings by denying the poor the chance to vote.

Public sold a phony story on Taser safety, use

Two things have jumped out from the provincial inquiry into Taser use.
First, the public has been misled at best, lied to at worst, about the safety of Tasers and the way they would be used.
And second, that civilian oversight of police is a myth in B.C. Government's claims that it sets policy on Taser use and most other police activities are empty.
I was an advocate for Tasers after a pilot project here in Victoria in 1999. They were pitched as a great tool that could make things safer for police and public.
At the end of a six-month trial, one of the officers enthusiastically talked cited examples from the nine times the Taser was used zap someone.
One case involved a naked, crazed man coming at officers with a long metal spike and deer antlers. If the Taser hadn't been available, he might have been shot.
Another involved a deranged man determined to leap up the window in his 12th-floor apartment. Police tasered him in the nick of time. (The officer who provided the examples and pushed to have the weapon approved received stock options from Taser International two years later for his work on a holster design.)
The police convinced me the weapon offered a safer alternative than other options in some cases. The claims were always about taking down armed attackers or dealing at a safe distance with suicidal or dangerous people, something not possible with pepper spray.
More importantly, they convinced then attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh.
But Dosanjh told the inquiry this month he was misled about the way police would use Tasers.
Kevin Begg, assistant deputy minister in the Solicitor General's Ministry, referred to "slippage" in Taser use. Instead of taking the time to de-escalate a situation, police are just zapping people who don't co-operate.
Begg isn't an armchair quarterback; he was an RCMP officer for 23 years. And he too was an initial supporter, describing the Taser as "a very valuable alternative to shooting someone with a firearm" when the pilot project was launched.
But that's now how the Taser has been used. The provincial inquiry was ordered after the death of Robert Dzienkanski at Vancouver's airport. Video evidence showed police made no effort to defuse the situation.
Earlier this month police zapped an 82-year-old man, who needs oxygen just to walk, as he lay in a Kamloops hospital bed. He was delusional because he couldn't catch his breath and refused to drop a knife with a three-inch blade.
But he wasn't enough of a danger to prevent an RCMP officer from approaching close enough to press the Taser against his stomach and zap him three times.
And Vancouver's transit police have tasered people, including fare evaders, for being "non-compliant."
That policy, changed last week, highlights the underlying problem.
As the death toll mounted, B.C.'s Police Complaints Commissioner did a review of Taser use and recommended clear limits. People had to be "actively resisting" officers before they could be hit with the electric charge.
The Solicitor General's Ministry claimed the new policy was in place. But all it did was send a one-page letter to police chiefs. As the transit police confirmed, the policy was widely and blatantly ignored. (Transit police even ignored a call to testify at the public inquiry until Solicitor General John van Dongen ordered the force to appear.)
Anyway, the policy is irrelevant for most British Columbians. About 70 per cent of them are policed by some 8,000 RCMP officers. The force does not accept any civilian oversight and refuses to allow the provincial government to set policies.
The Taser is still a potentially valuable tool. But seven people have died in B.C. after being the weapon was used on them; more than 300 in North America.
Police continue to insist there is no risk, and use it accordingly. Many continue to reject the notion of civilian control or oversight.
It's a dangerous combination.
Footnote: Taser International continues to insist the only risk from using the weapon is that the victim might fall and be injured and tells police to use it on that basis. This week, two cardiologists told the inquiry the stun guns could "almost certainly" cause heart attacks.

Government stumbles badly on forest industry

The Liberals are making a mess of the forests file, politically and practically.
It's painful to watch Forest Minister Rich Coleman bluster in the legislature.
And it's surprising. In their second term, the Liberals have avoided getting hung up on ideological positions that leave them looking uncaring or inept.
Not on this issue. There's a disaster going on in the forest industry and the communities that depend on it. Mills are closing across the province, many of them permanently. That Bruce Springsteen lyric - "These jobs are going boys, and they ain't coming back" - is sadly apt.
The industry has shed about 13,000 jobs in the last year. In the same period, the economy has added about 70,000 jobs, so there are opportunities.
But the people being booted out of the forest industry aren't necessarily at the front of the line to get those jobs. And the plunge from an income of $60,000 a year to $25,000 is difficult.
Vonsider Mackenzie, a beautiful town of some 4,500 people, about two hours north of Prince George. In January, AbitibiBowater closed two sawmills and a paper mill. Those closures threw 325 people out of work. Now the Pope and Talbot pulp mill has closed shut. Another 260 people with no idea when, or where, or if, they would work again
In less than six months, 585 good, well-paid jobs were gone - about 20 per cent of the town's workforce.
Bad news for stores. People are spending as little as possible. If families start leaving, one of the two elementary schools could be threatened. The town, deprived of property taxes from the pulp mill, has to start looking at the rec centre budget.
And those people who have no jobs are trying to figure out where to go and what to do. Do you even list your house, when sellers outnumber buyers 10 to one?
The job losses in Mackenzie over the last five months are the equivalent of something like 220,000 layoffs in Greater Vancouver. That kind of economic and human catastrophe in the Lower Mainland would get some major government action.
But the Liberals have basically been spectators as the forest industry unravelled since they were elected.
Coleman is right. There are tough problems beyond any government's control. The U.S. housing market has collapsed. The Canadian dollar was worth 90 cents U.S. not a year ago; now the currencies are more less equal in value. That factor alone means producers are getting 10-per-cent less for their products than they did a year ago.
Those are significant factors. But Coleman seemed too much like he was making excuses.
After setting out all the problems in the legislature, demanded the Opposition "Quit selling false hopes over there."
Which sounded much like the government writing off the industry, and the families and communities that depend on it.
Coleman tried to recover. The government rushed an announcement of the ways it would spend $129 million in forestry aid from the federal government over the next three years. He quoted analysts who said things should get better in 18 months.
It's a tough sell. The government has appeared disinterested in the forest industry. There have been a lot of announcements and plans, but not much action.
As those 325 people in Mackenzie were losing their jobs in January, Premier Gordon Campbell announced a forestry roundtable. It seemed a bit like a cruel joke. The roundtable has yet to report.
Meanwhile, Coleman has handed Vancouver Island forest companies breaks worth hundreds of millions of dollars, because they asked for them. The result has been to free what was protected forest land for real-estate development.
The government has allowed increased raw log exports to protect jobs in the woods, accepting the damage to B.C. mills.
It looks like the government has just decided the industry's future is beyond its ability to influence.
Footnote: Expect a lot more questions for Coleman in the last days of this legislative session. The New Democrats believe he's much more interested in the housing side of his portfolio than forestry. And expect critics to compare the lack of new provincial money for forestry with the plan to spend a bundle on a new roof for BC Place stadium in Vancouver.

Dismal report on First Nations child protection

The stats for First Nations children in B.C. are dismal. Being born native brings a much greater likelihood of struggle in almost every area of life.
Including the risk of ending up in the government's care. More than half the approximately 9,000 children in care are native; they make up less than one-tenth of the population.
The auditor general reported on how the government is doing in looking after those 4,500 kids, keeping them safe and giving them the best possible chance in life.
Not very well, is the conclusion. It's a tough job. By the time children are in care they often have other problems, physical and emotional.
But the Liberal government - after seven years - hasn't even taken the most basic steps to address the problems.
They aren't complicated or mysterious. In fact, they are exactly the things the Liberals pushed for when they were in opposition, rightly criticizing the NDP for its mismanagement of the ministry.
That makes the failures worse. The government has knows what needs to be done, but hasn't acted.
"As a result," Auditor General John Doyle reported, "many of the child protection needs of aboriginal children and their families continue to remain unmet."
Start with the most basic management tools. In opposition, the Liberals called for a needs-based budget for the Ministry of Children and Families.
Figure out what services were required to look after children properly and what they would cost. Not everything might be possible, but start by understanding the needs.
The government hasn't done that. "The ministry has not identified needs and resources required for aboriginal child protection services," the report says. That's a pretty elemental failure.
Because of that, the ministry doesn't have enough money to fill important service "gaps," Doyle found. "We recommend the ministry make a persuasive business case for the funding needed to deliver the services in an effective way." After seven years, it's troubling - but not surprising - that the government still doesn't really know what it's doing.
The report found the ministry "is only partially successful at delivering effective, equitably accessible and culturally appropriate services."
Its major goal of shifting to service delivery by delegated aboriginal agencies is a good idea, but moving slowly. Some of the smaller agencies might never be ready to take over, reported Doyle.
In the meantime, the ministry needs to ensure uniform standards and effective services.
The auditor general reported the ministry still hasn't set up any reliable system for monitoring how well the child-protection system is working - especially in terms of how well the children and youth being served are doing.
The ministry's service plan includes just two measures dealing with aboriginal child protection. (It didn't meet either target.)
The auditor general said the ministry should be reporting to the legislature and the public "on the costs, successes and challenges of the aboriginal child welfare program."
The report was discouraging reading.
And the ministry's response, included with the audit, was perhaps more discouraging. It was two pages long, dismissive and vague.
The specific concerns raised by the auditor general were ignored. The ministry says it's a doing a great job and already implementing most of the recommendations.
But it doesn't say how, or by when. It points to a plan - Safe and Supported: A Commitment to British Columbia's Children and Youth - available on the ministry website. But the plan and the supporting "Operational Framework" are vague in many areas.
The ministry could have made a good start by responding clearly and completely to the recommendations within the auditor's report.
Minister Tom Christensen didn't do much better in the legislature. He acknowledged the problems, but still put considerable spin on his answers.
It's been 12 years of lost opportunities for aboriginal children and families since the Gove report.
If government had moved quickly and effectively to provide needed services, things would be different today for thousands of children, and for aboriginal communities.
Footnote: The report came as Christensen was forced to withdraw a bill establishing regional aboriginal child care authorities promised years ago. First Nations critics, who said their concerns had been ignored, staged a last-minute protest that forced the government to abandon the move.

Liberals walk into cover-up charges in deaths

It's rarely mistakes that get governments in trouble. It's the attempts to conceal them.
The Liberals are falling into that trap, fighting to keep important evidence from being heard at inquiries into two terrible deaths.
There's a grim inquest under way in Victoria, one touching on a lot of critical issues. A man broke stabbed to death his wife, young son, her parents and then himself.
The woman, Sunny Parks, had predicted the killings six weeks earlier, when Peter Lee crashed their vehicle into a utility pool in what she saw as an effort to kill or injure her. She had also recounted past abuse to police. She told them he always carried a knife.
But Crown prosecutors decided he should be released on bail. The police officers who had investigated disagreed. They thought Lee was dangerous.
But the prosecutors were unconvinced. Lee was released, with several conditions.
He didn't obey them. He violated orders not to call his wife and to stay away from her and the family home. Lee's bail supervisor warned she was having trouble tracking his movements.
So a bail review was scheduled. Neither Lee nor his lawyer showed. It lasted one minute. The Crown accepted an adjournment and a new hearing was set, for a week later. Lee knew bail might be revoked. And hours before the hearing, he went on a killing spree.
There were two chances for a different outcome. If prosecutors had argued that Lee should have been held in the first place. Or if they had argued that a warrant should be issued when he failed to appear for the second hearing.
There's no clear answer here. Locking up someone who might be innocent shouldn't be done lightly. Lee had no criminal record and owned a business. Jail would be a serious hardship.
A five-person jury is hearing the inquest evidence. The province sent a supervisor of Crown prosecutors to testify. She said the prosecutors did everything right - although police might have been at fault, she said. No policy changes were needed.
That was a little bit puzzling, given the five bodies.
Another Crown prosecutors manager frustrated the inquest by saying she couldn't answer many questions, because she wasn't involved in the actual decisions.
Lawyer Diane Turner, representing the B.C. Task Force on Family Violence at the inquest, described the first supervisor's testimony as "an insult the victims."
The jury and coroner Jeff Dolan decided they needed to hear from the prosecutors who made the decisions.
That seems reasonable. There are serious unanswered questions. Experts have testified the available information indicated Lee was a serious threat.
So why didn't the prosecutors act on that basis? Is their training in family violence adequate? Did a heavy workload influence the decision to let Lee be on the street? Were they worried that the local detention centre was already overcrowded? Did communication with police break down?
Fair questions, which only the prosecutors can answer. The coroner ordered the prosecutors to testify.
Then the provincial government stepped in. Prosecutors wouldn't be allowed to testify.
So even though Premier Gordon Campbell promised the inquest would answer all questions, it's now shut down indefinitely. The government is trying to get the coroner's order that the prosecutors testify overturned in B.C. Supreme Court.
It has linked the case with a similar battle at an inquiry into how Frank Paul was left by police to die in a Vancouver alley. The government is fighting the inquiry's order to hear from prosecutors in that case as well.
The questions are reasonable. Only the prosecutors can answer them.
And prosecutors have often testified at other inquiries. (In fact, Richard Peck, the lawyer the government has hired to argue prosecutors don't have to testify, demanded prosecutors be called when he was a defence lawyer in the Air India case.)
A family is dead. And the government is fighting to withhold evidence.
Footnote: The government is claiming that prosecutors - like judges - never have to account for any action or inaction. But judges are appointed; prosecutors are hired. Judges' decisions can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; there's no recourse or review of a prosecutor's decision.
Attorney General Wally Oppal says allowing them to testify would mean prosecutors would constantly have to second-guess their decisions. It's hard to what's so wrong with that; but the reality is that inquiries and inquests like these are extremely rare.
Among the victims are the two prosecutors being barred from testifying. The government's intransigence denies them the chance to talk about the efforts they made to reach the right decision.

Middle class losing ground in B.C.

Disturbing news in the latest StatsCan report on incomes in Canada.
The report, which used data from the 2006 census, found that people's perceptions were correct.
In Canada, and B.C., the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer.
And in B.C., particularly, those in the middle have seen their incomes shrink since 1980.
Over 25 years, the real median income in B.C. fell 11.3 per cent, to $42,230. (The median income is the midpoint; half the people in the province earn more, half learn less.)
That's a big hit, for the middle class. Canadians have, for a couple of generations, believed that with hard work they could get ahead. That's not happening.
Even since 2000, average British Columbians have been losing ground. The real median income - adjusted for inflation - has fallen 3.4 per cent even as the government has celebrated its economic success.
What's most striking is how rarely this issue is even considered by government.
There's a great focus on overall economic growth - the rise in the gross domestic product each year. And governments track both job creation and employment statistics.
But they rarely - perhaps never - talk about targets that reflect not just the overall numbers, but the improvement or drop in the living standard of average people in the province.
Even Premier Gordon Campbell's response to the bad news from StatsCan fudged the issue.
Campbell noted "personal disposable income per capita in B.C. is up 17.2 per cent since 2000."
But again that's an aggregate number; the response ignores the way those increase are - or are not shared - among British Columbians.
The traditional view of government is that a rising tide lifts all boats. If the economy grows, everyone benefits.
But the StatsCan numbers show that's not true. That at the least, governments should be factoring income distribution into their plans.
There are lots of different ways to look at income numbers. The effects of taxes and transfers tend to reduce inequities slightly. And family incomes can rise even as individual incomes decline if two parents - and perhaps a child - can all find jobs in a good market.
But the fact remains the average British Columbian has a lower real income now than in 1980.
Some of the reasons seem obvious. Thousands of good jobs have vanished from the forest industry and fisheries. They were replaced with lower-paying work.
None of this is to suggest governments can guarantee wages. Some of the factors - the rise of foreign competitors for Canadian businesses, the decline of a forest industry that has cut down the best, most accessible timber - are largely beyond government's control.
Protecting mill jobs, for example, by requiring timber to be processed locally, might mean companies decide to shut down both logging and processing.
But government should at least be considering the effect of its decisions on individuals, not just on the broad economic impact. There's little evidence that is happening.
The federal and provincial governments have, for example, launched a radical expansion in programs to allow temporary foreign workers. Some 125,000 people from other countries have been accepted as short-term residents because employers say they can't find workers. About 36,000 were in B.C. in 2006.
The governments say without the workers, the economy would be hurt. But the reality is that they also depress wages in a market-based economy. Without them, some employers would pay more to attract the workers they need.
It might be a good program for the economy, but governments offer little evidence that they have given weight to the effect on average Canadians.
There is nothing inevitable about economic growth and the way in which the benefits flow. The results reflect the decisions government make.
And over the last several decades, those decisions have resulted in rising incomes for the rich, greater struggle for the poor and - in B.C, - lost ground for those in the middle.
Footnote: Campbell's response also noted, correctly, that tax cuts since 2001 have increased after-tax income for most British Columbians. But the benefits for a family of four with a household income of $90,000 are more than 50 per cent greater than the benefits to a family with an income of $30,000.