WWE wrestlers should consider B.C. politics

The province's capital hit the media big time on the weekend.
A pro wrestler and pop culture figure named Chris Jericho got in a tussle as he tried to leave the local arena, and apparently decked a young woman. (She hit him first.) WWE fans were transfixed, especially as it all ended up on YouTube.
Then on Monday, MLAs arrived a week early, officially to hold an emergency legislative debate on repealing the balanced budget law. Gordon Campbell has accepted the need to run a deficit when times are tough.
Really, the opening of the legislature marks the beginning of the next phase in the election campaign that will end with a vote on May 12.
And that process has a lot in common with the World Wrestling Entertainment that provides a stage for Jericho.
And a big stage it is. A search on Google News revealed 1,402 stories about the altercation and its aftermath. The YouTube video had some 500,000 viewings by Tuesday morning.
The parking lot scuffle was, at least based on peoples' interest around North America, the biggest story out of Victoria in at least 15 years.
And within hours, it was being spun like a square dancer at the Williams Lake round-up.
Jericho, an interesting performer who slogged his way through a northern Manitoba wrestling circuit before hitting the bigs, was either a victim or a thug. Both worked for the wrestling fans, given his bad-guy ring persona. (He is an interesting guy - actor, writer, musician and professional celebrity.)
And spin is what we can expect over the next 12 weeks, as we count down to election day. Either party could hire Jericho and his advisers to guide their campaigns; the biggest differences between them and the parties' operatives are neck size and net worth. (The pro wrestling guys win on both counts.)
That's not really true, I admit. Almost all of the campaigners in the provincial election campaign are convinced they are offering a better path for the province's future. The wrestlers just want to make some money and stay in the public eye.
But the way the politics play out - the preening, the posturing and the over-the-top histrionics, the determination to divide the world into evil villains and white knights - has much in common with WWE wrestling. All that's missing are the steroids.
Our politicians don't slug spectators, for the most part. (Jean Chretien's attempted throttling of a critic being an exception.) But during question period, their feigned outrage and anger are every bit as rude, abusive and silly as the wrestlers' rants after every show.
It's too bad that what should be one of the more serious jobs in society has so much in common with a violent, sexist, cartoonish sports-entertainment-circus sideshow.
And it's mystifying. Out of 79 MLAs, there are bound to be a few whose emotional volume level is always set at 11. And you can expect a handful who actually think it's fun to shout insults at each other, like playground bullies except in dark suits.
But mostly, the people who become MLAs start with the idea of making things better in their communities. And by that, they don't mean making things better for their supporters, but for everyone.
Much of the time, they win the nominations in part because they have shown they can bring people together instead of dividing them. The NDP candidate might have attracted notice on the labour council, but she was also a good school trustee who worked well with parents and teachers. The Liberal candidate might have won praise as chamber of commerce head, but he's also respected for the great job he did rounding up volunteers to work on a new playground.
Then, for too many, something happens when they get elected. The next thing you know, they're standing up in the legislature and shouting about the other side's determination to destroy the province.
It's appalling behaviour in wrestlers; profoundly destructive in politicians.
Footnote: If you think I'm exaggerating, read the transcripts of question period, available on the government web site. (Click on Legislative Assembly on the main page, then Debates, then any afternoon session. Or for a grimmer view, tune in to the legislative broadcast around 1:50 p.m. most days.

Lots of questions on Port Mann project

Eight months ago, the government said twinning the Port Mann bridge would cost about $1.6 billion, with not a penny from provincial taxpayers.
A private consortium would build the bridge and maintain it in return for the future toll revenue. Good deal.
But now, the cost is $3.3 billion.
Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 billion in financing.
Oh, and the bridge isn't being twinned anymore. The existing bridge will be pulled down after a new 10-lane bridge is built.
There is a good case for another bridge to get people across the Fraser River. Traffic is a mess for large chunks of the day. (Though the question of what happens to the thousands of additional cars when they get off the bridge is still largely unanswered.)
But this announcement by Premier Gordon Campbell does not inspire confidence.
The government said the soaring cost is caused by inflation, the decision to tear down the existing bridge and a more realistic look what's involved in the project, like feeder roads.
Still, a doubling of costs before the first shovel of dirt is moved is hardly reassuring. Especially from the government that stuck taxpayers with $500 million worth of surprise overruns on Vancouver's convention centre.
That's far from the only worry.
The government has said the initial toll will be $3, rising with inflation. With a modest increase in traffic, that would produce $150 million a year for the bridge operators. (Toll collection will be high-tech. Electronic devices would log regular users crossings and deduct the toll from an account.)
When the bridge was to cost $1.6 billion, $150 million in revenue wasn't bad. That's about a 9.5-per-cent return.
But at $3.3 billion, the return is down to 4.5 per cent. The consortium is not likely to go ahead - especially not with the risks of construction cost overruns, shortfalls in revenues and interest cost - without more revenue.
So what will the province - that is to say, you the taxpayers - pay to keep the private companies committed to the project? Will it be $100 million a year, on top of the tolls, or more?
And then there's the whole question of the $1.2 billion taxpayers are advancing to pay for the project.
It's apparently a loan, at commercial rates. If it's repaid, the government should make money given its low borrowing costs.
The project is being funded with $1 billion from the construction consortium, which includes Macquarie Group, an Australian investment business that has done well in its dealings with government, but hit tough times. The province is to put up $1.2 billion; other lenders another $1.2 billion.
The theory is that provincial taxpayers are protected. The consortium, with $1 billion at risk, has a big incentive to make sure the project is completed.
But no other lender, no bank or pension fund around the world, could be found to provide the $1.2 billion in financing. That's why the province stepped forward.
OK, it's a skittish time for lenders.
But does that mean taxpayers have to take on the risk? Or should the government have waited for a year, developing a clearer assessment of the risks and a realistic business plan?
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, who has championed the bridge and other Lower Mainland road projects, says traffic delays cost B.C. $1.5 billion a year in lost productivity. If the Port Mann cuts that problem by 25 per cent, it's a good investment.
But that's not clear. And the government's leap into this megaproject is looking a little blind. It's hard not to worry that the desire to get a deal done before the provincial election is encouraging too much haste.
It's been tough to get information about other private-public partnerships. This time, the government should recognize the legitimate public concern and answer all the questions before the deal is done.
Footnote: The project is popular, mostly, in the Lower Mainland. But Liberal candidates in the rest of the province might find it a challenge to defend going ahead with another Vancouver-area megaproject even as cost estimates soar.

Run-of-river gold rush or not?

Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom wrote the Times Colonist to argue there is no boom in run-of-river power applications in the province. The letter, published this week, said:
"Despite the claims of a "gold rush" in new independent power projects, only 46 such projects are in operation; almost half were started under the previous NDP government."
But the government handed out employee recognition awards this week and gave a Gold Award to a cross-ministry team from energy, agriculture and lands, environment and forests for their work on a flood of IPP applications.
"The team was brought together in response to a phenomenal increase over five years of 1,140 per cent in independent power project applications. Without a corresponding increase in resources, agency staff looked for new ways to do business. They came up with an integrated and coordinated inter-agency approach to application management."
Maybe a "phenomenal" 1,000-per-cent increase in applications isn't a gold rush for the minister, but the people who do the work see it differently.

The drug mire in Afghanistan

The plan for NATO troops to start attacking opium producers in Afghanistan seems a pointless step into a nasty mess. The theory that drug money helps supports the Taliban is almost certainly true; if nothing else, looking Taliban leaders can collect taxes or protection money.
But poppy production provides income for one in 10 Afghans, in a country where the average monthly income is about $30. Every effort to end the industry — which provides some 90 per cent of the world's opium - will be fought by large sections of the public.
And, as this fine piece on the fumbling and corrupt eradication efforts from a couple of years ago shows, the effort is likely to cost vast sums and accomplish little.
Drug eradication spending in Afghanistan has been running at about $650 million a year — about $55 million froom Canada — while production increases.
There are alternate approaches. The Senlis Council, an international research agency with a focus on Afghanistan, has proposed a Poppy for Medicine program. Afghan villages would be supported in growing poppies and producing morphine. The pain-management drug is in desperately short supply for medical use in much of the developing world.
Western nations could also subsidize farmers to grow other crops or simply buy and destroy the poppy harvest.

Campbell, thankfully, flip-flops on deficits

Heave a sigh of relief that Gordon Campbell has decided deficits aren't the ultimate horror after all.
Campbell has been an anti-deficit zealot for every one of the 16 years he's been in provincial politics. He brought in a law that made deficits illegal and denounced them as the folly of the weak and morally bankrupt.
Even in late October, when the premier went on television to announce his responses to the economic meltdown, he stuck to the claim that deficits are the tools of the devil.
"Let me be very clear, we are not going to run a deficit in the province of B.C.," he said at a press conference after the talk. "When anyone talks about a deficit, they're talking about turning their back on the next generation and sending our problems forward to them."
Less than four months later, Campbell has changed his mind. He and Finance Minister Colin Hansen called a dramatic press conference this week to confirm government revenues have plunged. Without deficits for the next two years, the government would have to cut spending on health and education. That would be worse than a deficit, Campbell said grimly.
Hallelujah.
The fact that Campbell and Hansen could only be persuaded now, two weeks before budget day, means disaster was dangerously near.
Hansen said if was only in the last couple of weeks that he accepted the impossibility of a balanced budget next year. That means the government was on the brink of a desperate gutting of spending to meet its ideological commitment to balanced budgets. Government officials have spent months looking for programs and spending to cut to bring expense in line with revenues.
The result would have been predictably terrible, with deep and damaging cuts to vital programs.
Hansen said this week that government revenue for the next three years is now forecast to be about $6 billion below the projections used in last year's fiscal plans.
Not surprising, as the resource industries struggle, tax revenues slump and home sales - and property transfer taxes - drop. But huge.
Consider the impact of building a balanced budget with that kind of revenue shortfall.
Assume a two-year freeze on health and education spending, which would mean growing waits and other problems as health authorities cut back to cover salary increases and critical needs.
The government would still have to cut 10 per cent from the rest of its spending to have a hope of delivering a balanced budget. That would mean deep cuts to services and programs, from policing to child protection to retraining.
The fact that Campbell was willing to cling to the idea that could be managed is alarming.
Deficits are, in most circumstances, to be avoided. Spending more than you take in - as an individual or a government - means racking up debt that must be repaid and interest costs. It's an easy way to put off hard decisions and leave the consequences for someone else.
But sometimes it makes sense to borrow to get over a brief period of lower income. That's especially true in a recession, when cuts would further weaken the economy and deprive people of services just when they are most needed.
It's still not clear whether Campbell accepts that reality. He said at the press conference that he only abandoned the idea of balancing the budget when it became clear that health and education cuts would be required. That raises, again, the suggestion that other government functions - children and families, forestry management - are expendable.
And he pledged to still try for a balanced budget, promising cuts to contracts with service providers, grants, contributions and government operations. Service providers - the agencies that actually do much of the work on behalf of the government - are already struggling. Cuts could be disastrous.
Still, count the flip-flop as a sign that Campbell found some common sense, in the nick of time.
Footnote: There was more encouraging news. Hansen said the panel of independent economists the government consults had knocked their growth forecast for this year down to zero. But in 2010, their average prediction is for 2.8-per-cent growth. That would point to a relatively quick emergence from the worst of the slump for the province.

If the courts don't work, what's the alternative?

When only people with money can access the legal system, what are the rest of Canadians to do when their rights are violated? What's to stop the rich and powerful from ignoring the law, knowing their victims can't fight back?
And how long before people decide if there is no legal recourse, they should feel free to take matters into their own hands. If a pushy neighbour builds a fence on your property and you can't afford to deal with the matter in the courts, pushingit over with a backhoe might seem a good idea.
The Times Colonist takes a good look at the issues in this editorial.

Who will get stuck with the $1-billion Games security bill?

You can't blame Colin Hansen for getting cranky about Olympic security costs.
But you also shouldn't forget this mess is partly the B.C. Liberals' fault.
With a year to go until the Vancouver Games, and weeks before the province's budget day, the only thing certain is that security costs are hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.
That's no surprise. The budget - $175 million to be split between the federal and provincial governments - was recognized as unrealistically low from day one.
But now the cost estimates are reported to be around the $1-billion mark.
And since the province is on the hook for Games' cost overruns, that means a big hit for provincial taxpayers this year.
How big is still to be determined. Hansen's officials are wrangling with the feds and the RCMP about what should be included in the actual costs of Games security. They argue that the bill should only include security at the Games venues. Other costs are a federal responsibility, the province says.
Sorting the cost-sharing out won't be easy.
Any manager will recognize the opportunity this situation offers to the RCMP. New equipment, fancy technology, training costs - from the perspective of the force, the more you can dump into the budget the better. It's money you don't have to find somewhere else.
And given the tough economic times, the federal government will be trying to limit its contribution.
Even though the original figure was always seen as unrealistically low - except by various ministers in the Campbell government, who maintained until last year that it was just fine - the costs are staggering.
How can security for a 17-day sporting event cost $1 billion? If you used the money for salaries and hired police officers from everywhere at overtime rates, you could have 111,000 security people working for a month - about 800 to watch each athlete.
Of course, it's more complex. There are border issues and transportation and media and traffic. But $1 billion equals about $60 million per day of the Games. It seems crazy.
The costs were inevitably going to be an embarrassment for the government. The claim that provincial Games spending is strictly limited to $600 million has always been obviously false and contradicted by the auditor general.
The security overrun will enforce even Gordon Campbell to concede the reality.
The overrun, up until the economic slump, could have been covered out of the government's expected big surpluses.
Now a $300-million or $400-million overrun could be enough to push the government into a deficit. That would mean repealing the no-deficit law - the right thing to do, but a big reversal of years of Liberal lectures on the evils of red ink.
And the overrun raises other problems.
Government ministries have been looking for spending that can be cut or put off in light of the plunging economy. Those kinds of changes would be unpopular, but could be pitched as necessary sacrifices.
But that will be undermined if the government is paying a big chunk of cash for Olympic security after years of insisting the budget was adequate.
The governments might try and dance around the issue. If the talks are continuing, they could say the costs are still unknown and would be covered out of a contingency fund.
But having no handle on costs at this point would leave the Liberals open to attack during the election campaign.
It's a tricky problem, in large part because of the timing. Neither the federal Conservatives nor the provincial Liberals want to get stuck with a big bill right now. But neither wants a public spat, either.
And while the problems might be forgotten a year from now, if the Games are a success, the election is May 12. The security problems - and the lack of openness - are going to feature heavily in the NDP campaign.
Footnote: For an example of the scale of Games security, the first major exercise is scheduled for the coming week, involving up to six naval warships, military helicopters and jet fighters and RCMP and emergency personnel.

Blazing a trail with tall wood buildings

Sean Holman over at publiceyeonline.com has an alarming look at serious concerns about the government's push to allow — and encourage — six-storey wood apartment, condo and office buildings.
The safety is being questioned by firefighters; other jurisdictions deny the government's claim that they allow such buildings.
The government says rules will ensure safety. But government also allowed construction of leaky condos — and schools — that brought ruin to thousands of people.

Imagine an independent holding the balance of power in the B.C. legislature

OK, a lot to has to happen. But even the potential election of an independent MLA, as Vaughn Palmer writes about here would be welcome. Party politics, as practised today, has kept a lot of great people from becoming truly effective, representative MLAs.

Harper, maybe Campbell, decide deficits OK

The world has changed. Stephen Harper is acting like a Liberal, leaping into budget deficits and tossing cash around to win votes.
Even Gordon Campbell, who three months ago called deficits a dangerous "addiction," now says B.C. might have to break its balanced budget law next month.
These are signs of how dramatic the economic crunch has become, how badly politicians under-estimated the problems and how worried both leaders are about election prospects.
Harper's budget called for Ottawa to spend $36 billion more than it takes in this year, ending a decade of balanced budgets. (The deficit is forecast at $30 billion for the following year, but that estimate is about as reliable as a $4 watch.)
Spending will jump 10.8 per cent, at a time when inflation is almost non-existent. Revenue will fall by 4.2 per cent, thanks in part to tax cuts.
The rationale is that the government spending will take up some of the slack in the economy. If people are laid off in the forest industry, maybe they will get work on a road infrastructure project.
There is broad agreement among economists that government intervention of this type is necessary in a serious economic slowdown to cushion the impact and hasten the recovery. That almost inevitably means several deficits.
On balance, the government's direction is sound.
But it's the details that should make you nervous.
This is all an inexact science. Few economists will hazard a guess about the real effect of the programs - how much the billions will add to economic output or reduce the jobless rate.
And once the money starts flowing, it's hard to keep track of where it's going or how wisely it's used.
Some stimulus measures make obvious sense. If a bridge is planned for construction in five years, building it now creates jobs and provides needed infrastructure. In five years, the theory goes, the economy will be stronger. The money that would have been spent on the bridge can be used to pay down the debt run up in the deficit years.
Other measures are questionable. The government has promised $160 million in new spending on cultural projects. It's hard to judge the real economic value of that spending - except in make-work terms. And it's harder to see how the government can avoid pressure to keep up the commitment once begun.
And it's committing $3 billion this year to subsidize home renovations and landscaping. That doesn't qualify as smart spending - there is no gain in productivity or long-term benefit. (In contrast, social housing for low-income serniors, the disabled, natives and northerners gets about $500 million this year.)
And some measures are just foolish. The income tax cuts announced in the federal budget aren't targeted to create jobs or improve our long-term situation. While they are nce, they are not going to bring a spending rush to stimulate the economy.
And the $4 billion in foregone revenue over the next three years will now be borrowed, for us - or our children - to pay back at some point. But the cuts will score some political points.
The budget marks quite a transformation for Harper, whose political career has been built on an abhorrence of deficits and rejection of this kind of interventionist role for government.
Gordon Campbell might be having the same kind of conversion. His government made deficit budgets illegal in B.C. Even a few months ago, when he outlined the province's initial response to the meltdown, Campbell pledged the province would remain "a deficit-free zone."
But this week, with the provincial budget less than three weeks away, Campbell told The Globe and Mail he's not sure the government will be able to balance the budget.
That's a big reversal. But probably a wise one - depending, of course, on the prudence and effectiveness of the economic stimulus measures. An ideological aversion to deficits shouldn't become a straitjacket. Families sometimes borrow to get over tough patches; governments have the same opportunity.
Footnote: Politically, I have no idea what the impact will be in the provincial election May 12. Campbell could look a little hypocritical in embracing once unthinkable deficits, if it comes to that. But that's likely better than looking detached from the economic problems affecting so many families and communities.

It's 2009, but roads are still destroying salmon streams

I'll do a column on the topic, but the Times Colonist has a good editorial on a Forest Practices Board report on the number of streams and rivers that are critical fisheries habitat, yet blocked by shoddy road construction. It's appalling, even astonishing, that for all the talk about threats to salmon runs, we still act like it's 1920.
The board, a watchdog on forest practices, has released a number of expert, balanced and useful reports. Take a look a here.

Stan Hagen

I have a soft spot for Stan Hagen. When he died this week, in a coffee shop a few steps from the legislature, something passed with him.
Hagen was a veteran MLA and cabinet minister. He was always perfect – suit, tie, crisp shirt, perfect white hair, healthy glow. He was always positive and happy. And he always really interested in how you were.
He wasn’t perfect, of course. I always get wary when people suddenly are seen as saint-like after they die.
But Hagen never lost sight of the reason he went into politics. And that was to make things better for the people he represented in the Comox Valley, and the province.
You could argue about choices made to achieve that. But I don’t think you could doubt that Hagen was trying to do the right thing, as an MLA and a cabinet minister.
He represents, to me, the best of the Socred cabinet ministers of the 1980s. He wasn’t a politician. Hagen had been a school trustee — he has five children — but mostly he’d been involved in church and a whole raft of community activities. People knew him and respected him. So in 1986, in his mid-40s, he was elected.
It’s a good route to office. You have a family, experience, a whole life outside politics. And everyone knows you – not just the business types, or the guys from the Steelworkers, or the party stalwarts. When you go out to get groceries, they tell you how you’re doing.
And you represent them in Victoria, instead of representing the government in the riding. When people are unhappy, you say so and think about changes. That culture helped the Socreds to almost four decades of power.
And Socreds, at least until things unraveled, had a useful focus on the individual. Understand one person’s problems, and fix them, and things would get better.
Sure, that led to some mistakes. But on balance, maybe fixing problems that way is better than ending up in endless studies and exercises in process.
Again, this isn’t St. Stan stuff. I remember being terribly frustrated with Hagen’s evasions when something had gone wrong in his ministry of children and families. In part, because I expected better.
But I also remember talking with him in the corridor outside the legislative chamber, when he said he’d told Gordon Campbell he wanted to stay as children and families minister after the 2005 election. The work was so important, he said.
That is one brutally hard job. But Hagen wanted it. He could see the children whose lives were changed, maybe saved, by the ministry’s workers. The families kept together.
And he did have a certain freedom. Hagen held 10 different portfolios during his time in provincial politics. He was 69 when he died. He could say what he thought.
It’s a funny thing, covering the legislature. Ideally, you just don’t know the politicians. That way, you can focus on policy and actions, without worrying that you’re being swayed – either way – by the way you feel about some minister. There was hopeless NDP cabinet minister, but I was always slightly kinder after she talked about how much she missed the Thursday night bowling league back home.)
But my partner grew up in the Valley. She taught piano to two of the Hagen’s five children. And at a desperately hard point in her life, scared and feeling alone, she ran into Hagen, in a restaurant in Parksville. And he listened, for a couple of hours, and didn’t judge and, she says, one of the worst nights of her life was not quite as bad. (You can read her account. There'sa link down a post or two.)
I can imagine people thought of Stan Hagen as the bad guy, the enemy,
Nah. Right sometimes, wrong sometimes. But he wanted to make this a good place for everyone to live.
That’s a pretty good starting point for anyone in government.

The beauty of art and politics

The best all-round Canadian blog, I'd say, has a great post on a street response to Barack Obama's win. The combination of joy and the willingness to do real work to bring it to others are heartening.

Stan Hagen

I'll post something later, but wanted to point to this fine column as a reminder that there is much more to our politicians than the clips we see on TV or the quotes that we see in the newspapers.

If newspapers fade away....

The tone is a little whiney, but an east coast newspaper manager makes points that should be consideredabout the future of news, and specifically the problems when newspapers generate the content but aggregators get the revenue.
Lord knows newspapers have their failings and self-inflicted wounds, but in most communities they put the most money and time into news reporting. Without them, what will happen to that role? What will happen to the shared understanding of community issues - flawed or not - if mass news media fade away?

Where's our Obama, in Canada or B.C.?

It's a disheartening contrast.
Take any moment of debate from the weekend legislative session on the Olympic athletes' village and contrast it with Barack Obama's inauguration speech.
Leave aside, for a few moments, the issues involved in the legislative session. The debate was the usual legislature mix of interruption, insult and vilification. Both sides, as usual, were to blame.
Not that legislature debate need be all warm and fuzzy. There are real issues and real disagreements on how to approach them. Debate is inevitable and healthy.
But I thought of the legislature - indeed of Canadian politics generally - when Obama said it was "time to put away childish things." When he talked about the need for Americans to abandon politics of division and fear and envy.
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them," Obama told the crowds gathered in Washington D.C. "That the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Meanwhile, on this side of the border, stale political arguments are all we hear from our leaders. (That might explain why Obama's inauguration attracted more than two million people who wanted to be part of the change. Can you imagine 200,000 people gathering in Ottawa for the first speech by a new prime minister?)
It was not just the usual rhetorical nod to co-operation. When Obama talked about the current economic crisis, he noted the role of "greed and irresponsibility on the part of some."
But he also told all Americans they share the blame because of "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." Not George W. Bush's failure, or Wall Street's or Republicans', but all Americans.
There was no mention of enemies. The message was that the people of the U.S., and the world, are in this together and have many common goals and aspirations and values. They might disagree, strongly, on some moral issues or policy directions. But not on the fundamental principles that have been part of their national life for 230-plus years.
Our politicians see enemies everywhere. Gordon Campbell dismissed people who rallied outside a Liberal party convention to protest some government policies as stupid and representatives of special interests. Glen Clark called people who disagreed with his government's forest policy "enemies of B.C."
In fact, politicians and their political staffs are always on the lookout for "wedge issues." The aim is to split the society into opposing factions in ways that increase their support at the expense of other parties. The issues don't have to be consequential, or the positions legitimate. The best wedge issues play on emotion, particularly fear. That explains the popularity of tough talk on crime or politicians' love of talking about the "powerful interests" behind other parties.
Obama largely shunned such tactics in his campaign and such topics in his inaugural address. He appealed not to peoples' fears or their self-interest, but to their sense of decency and justice. "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," he said. "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
Instead of ideology, decisions should be based in pragmatism. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
Obama is a gifted orator. But what lifted his address was not clever writing, or a skilled delivery.
The speech was illuminated by a belief in the energy, intelligence, compassion and shared values of Americans - and indeed of people around the world.
Footnote: A striking feature of Obama's entire political career has been his willingness to listen and accommodate the views of other people, while still working toward goals he considers important. He has proved that approach is not only more decent, but also more effective in bringing change and building support.

Campbell's forest land contradictions

Last week, Premier Gordon Campbell told the truck loggers the province would move to create a "forest reserve" to make sure timberland isn't lost to other uses. It was critical to families and communities, he said.
A Times Colonist editorial notes the contradiction between the new commitment to forest land and decisions to allow two forest companies on Vancouver Island to remove land from tree farm licences. Those decisions, criticized by the auditor general, enriched the companies by at least $700 million and produced no benefits to taxpayers.

Four months to go, and the Liberals should be worried

British bookies take bets on election results and post odds years in advance.
Perhaps it's the next bit of gambling expansion the B.C. Liberals will look at, now that people are getting less keen on scratch and lose tickets.
But the oddsmakers would be having a tough time right about now.
Even a year ago, Gordon Campbell and company would have been heavy favorites.
The economy was good, Olympic plans were allegedly on track and voters in the Lower Mainland could see big infrastructure projects all over the place.
There were problems - homelessness and street disorder, health care waits and gaps in seniors' care. The forest industry, especially the coastal industry, was a mess.
But problems are part of governing. It's only when they become really serious, or when the party in power doesn't seem to have any plans to deal with them - or worse, doesn't acknowledge them - that voters get really riled
And Carole James and the New Democrats hadn't convinced voters that they could do any better.
The polls suggest that's changing. A year ago, the Mustel Group had the Liberals with the support of 48 per cent of decided voters and the NDP with 36 per cent. (In the 2005 election, the Liberals captured 46 per cent of the vote and the New Democrats 42 per cent.) That kind of lead translates into a comfortable majority.
But the last Mustel poll, done in late November, found the two parties tied.
Since then, the Liberals have run into more problems. Some are definitely of their own making; others are just the kind of bumps - like the global economic collapse - that would jar any government.
MLAs gathered in Victoria for an emergency legislative session to pass a law letting Vancouver borrow almost $500 million. The city needs the money to rescue the botched athletes' village project.
The mess was created by terrible decisions made by Vancouver's former council, not the province. (The new council, now dominated by provincial New Democrats, is unlikely to make things easy for the government.)
But it's bad news for Campbell. The price tag for next February's Games is already an issue, especially as the economy slumps. The $500-million overrun on the Vancouver Convention Centre raised doubts about the government's competence and it has been criticized for secrecy on the real cost of the Games. The security bill is still secret, but will likely be five times the $175 million the province maintained would be adequate.
At a time when the government is looking for programs to cut next year to save money, it will likely be asked to spend some $350 million in extra security costs for a 16-day event.
The global economic woes have nothing directly to do with Campbell and the Liberals.
But he will be judged on two fronts as a result - on the effectiveness of efforts to respond to the crisis and, much more subjectively, on whether he "gets it."
So far, there isn't much sign of a response, although next month's budget will be the real test.
Campbell's real problem might come when voters decide whether he actually understands and cares about their concerns. An Angus Reid Strategies poll last fall found 59 per cent of those surveyed didn't believe Campbell understood the problems of British Columbians.
Campbell did outpoll James on management competence, an important factor in peoples' voting decisions.
That's why the Olympic cost problems are so critical. The Liberal campaign is pushing the themes that the New Democrats can't be trusted and aren't competent. The risks are especially high at such a turbulent time, they will argue.
But the distinction blurs if voters are wondering about the Liberals on the same two qualities.
Campbell and the Liberals are still the favorites. But a year ago, it looked like they were cruising to an easy victory; today, it's a real contest.
Footnote: The Liberals' problems are compounded by the perception that this is a one-man government, with Campbell's enthusiasms - like climate change - setting the agenda. A bigger effort to demonstrate a larger role for ministers and MLAs would have insulated the party from some of these problems.

B.C.'s lobbying laws more hole than net

The promised lobbyist registry was a good idea when it was introduced by the Liberals, and, don't forget, followed the NDP government's failure to do anything to regulate lobbying.
But, as Sean Holman demonstrates at publiceyeonline.com, the lack of effective enforcement means it's perfectly safe to ignore the rules.
After the B.C. Rail scandal, you would expect the government to be keener on dealing with the need to protect the public interest and curb the influence of thjose with political power and money (the two being tightly linked).

The Games nightmare

How did we get into this Olympic thing, anyway?
The Games are a year away, and British Columbians face rapidly rising costs and growing doubts about the event's economic value.
Provincial taxpayers are likely on the hook for more than $2 billion for the Games and directly related infrastructure costs. That's about $450 per person.
Municipal governments - B.C. taxpayers, again - will pay some $600 million.
The federal government will end up contributing another $800 million.
That's a cost of something like $3.5 billion. And that's not including the out-of-control spending on the Vancouver Convention Centre, now at $900 million, or the $2 billion to expand rapid transit to Vancouver's airport. Both those projects went ahead, during a time of high construction costs, at least in part to support Vancouver's Olympic bid.
So just the basic costs tied to the Games will cost the public about $220 million per day during the big show.
That's not how the Games were sold to British Columbians by government. The Liberals, despite looking increasingly foolish, have consistently tried to claim the province is only contributing $610 million.
That required excluding the Sea to Sky Highway improvement costs, which the province's auditor general said should be considered part of the Games expenses. Poor Finance Minister Colin Hansen was even forced to try and claim that the government's Olympic Secretariat was not a Games cost.
And the government also claimed for years - despite mounting evidence - that the initial $175-million projection of security costs was credible. It has now conceded the costs will be higher, but won't say how much higher. Stockwell Day, federal minister on the file, says perhaps $1 billion will cover the costs.
And the federal government is only on the hook for $87.5 million, although expect it to come up with at least some of the increase.
The big risk-taker in this deal was the provincial government, which accepted responsibility for all cost overruns or revenue shortfalls.
Even the costs of the incredible mess in Vancouver, where city council ended up taking on all the risk involved in completing the athletes' village, could end up being worn in part by the province.
That could include at least a share of the hundreds of millions of dollars at risk in Vancouver's bungled plan for athletes' housing. A private developer was supposed to build condos that would be used for the athletes' village and then sold.
But the lender has cut off funding because of cost overruns and market concerns. The city foolishly entered into agreements that leave it guaranteeing all the costs - currently estimated at $875 million - to complete the project in time for the Games.
The money is certainly not all at risk. The condos will have value. But much less than expected, and Vancouver taxpayers will pay for the losses, which could easily be $250 million. And ultimately, the city might come looking for provincial help, pointing to the government's guarantees.
As all this happens, the potential benefits of the Games are shrinking. The long-term selling point was marketing exposure, bringing tourism and investment. But as the global economy chills, so does the chance of luring tourists and investment. (And anyway, how many of you made plans to vacation in Turin after the 2006 Winter Games there?)
Back to the original question- how did this happen? For starters, the whole Games bobsled started down the icy run with a gentle nudge. A group of boosters were interested, then premier Glen Clark kicked in $150,000 to help them and we were off on the thrill ride. We just kept going faster down the slope and no one really stopped to figure out if this was a good idea.
The other big problem has been lack of honest, open information. If the government had accepted the auditor general's recommendations in 2006, the risks would have been managed.
As it is, B.C. taxpayers face a big bill for this ride.
Footnote: The money is mostly spent or committed and the show must go on. British Columbians can at least expect every effort to control costs and protect their interest now - and much more openness. And it's critical to ensure that every effort is made to capture the Games' benefits.

How we stumbled into Olympic problems

First, the NDP government got all enthusiastic about a bid and launched the luge down the icy chute before anyone really thought much about whether we actualy wanted the Games, or why we should.
Second, no one paid too much attention because a) it was just a bid anyway; and b) the Games are a "good thing."
Third, governments got away with too much secrecy and silly claims, as in security costs will only be $175 million.
Fourth, effective oversight was ignored or eliminated. The auditor general's concerns were brushed aside; the public's representatives on the VANOC board reported to political masters.
Fifth, even people like I who raised issues, weren't nearly dogged enough.
Still, I repost a column from before the bid went in that suggests the warning signs were there for all to see.

Tuesday, June 22, 2002

Olympics' bid looking fiercely expensive

British Columbians should be getting mighty nervous about what the Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games could cost us.
The 2010 Games could turn out to be a great thing for B.C., a chance to showcase the province before the world.
But the Olympic bid is steam-rolling forward without nearly enough public information or consultation on the costs and benefits.
The Olympic bid committee has already sent its proposal off to the IOC, a list of promises of all the things you will do to make these the best Games ever.
Sadly, you won't know what those promises are, the bid committee having decided they should stay secret. That seems a little odd, since Bern, Switzerland, one of B.C.'s top rivals, has posted its proposals on the web site for all to see. Bern also plans a referendum before going further, something citizens in Whistler have unsuccessfully been seeking.
There's much encouraging in B.C.'s Olympic bid. The Games are expected to be officially self-supporting, with revenue covering the operating costs and maybe leaving a little money over. And the province could well score future tourism business and some nice sports facilities.
But the self-supporting claim is misleading.
Organizers already have about $9 million from the province to help make the pitch to get the Games. Ottawa and B.C. have promised $310 million each for new facilities for sports events.
And on top of that, the federal and provincial governments are on the hook for security costs, easily $500 million if recent Games are an indication.
And there's more.
The Games bid requires an expanded convention centre, which would serve as the headquarters for some 10,000 journalists, and cost some $500 million.
There's a strong case for a new convention centre, but it's certainly not clear why those who will benefit - Vancouver hotels and restaurants - shouldn't pay the bill.
Bid chairman Jack Poole also says that without major improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler, Vancouver won't win the Games. Figure $1.3 billion for that. And proponents also want a rapid transit line from the airport, another $1.4-billion megaproject.
Add them up, and you'll see that those cost-free Games will really reach into taxpayers' pockets for $5.3 billion.
Of course there will be benefits, including an estimated $2 billion in tax revenue for the two levels of government. But that doesn't come close to the costs.
And that too would be fine if we had decided that the most important capital priorities for B.C. were a better highway to Whistler and rapid transit from the airport.
But we haven't made that decision. And I'm not sure that people bouncing over rutted roads in the northeast would be so keen to know that their tax dollars were being used to make it easier for people to get to their chalets in Whistler. Or that people in the North and Interior facing health care cuts would think that a better way of getting from the airport to downtown Vancouver should be a top priority.
The Olympic bid has crept up on British Columbians. Few people realize that a specific proposal has been submitted, or that in about a year B.C. could have actually won these Games.
That's partly our fault. The Games people have been out talking about their plans, but the public hasn't paid much attention.
But it's also the proponents' fault, for failing to provide enough information about exactly what this will cost and where the money will be found within the finances of a government that says it's too broke to provide a wide range of other services to citizens.
The Games may make sense. But right now, it feels like we're being asked to hand over a lot of money with no clear idea what we're getting, or why we should want it.

Polygamy issue thorny, but charges needed

The effort to test Canada's polygamy laws isn't likely to go well.
But it's still necessary.
Leaders of two religious communities in southeast B.C. have been arrested and charged with polygamy. One, Winston Blackmore, has acknowledged having many wives, reportedly more than 20, and some 100 children in his community of Bountiful.
The facts basic facts aren't likely to be in dispute.
But prosecutors have decided against charges for some 20 years because of the other issues the case is going to raise.
Most people don't like polygamy, especially when they hear of middle-aged men taking large numbers of teenage brides.
The sense that women are being exploited - and children treated unfairly - is unavoidable.
But the men are certain to argue that the polygamy laws violate Charter of Rights and Freedoms provisions - for starters, on religious freedom. They're members of fundamentalist sects that broke away from the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy in 1880. Polygamy is mandated by their faith, they maintain.
Religious freedom isn't absolute. But the charter ensures that the courts won't limit it lightly. Nor should the state be telling people what or what not to believe, unless there is demonstrable harm as a result of actions linked to those beliefs.
The defence will also be able to argue on wider grounds, suggesting it is none of the government's business if consenting adults decide that to live together in any arrangement. Lawyers will likely suggest thousands of Canadians are living with more than one partner without being prosecuted.
That means the prosecutors will have to show harm from the practice to justify the limitation on individual rights.
And if harm is being done, the defence will argue, prosecutors should lay charges under the laws governing those offences.
Proving harm will be challenging. The RCMP has launched investigations into sexual exploitation allegations and interviewed scores of people without finding anyone who would testify. The communities are tight-knit and socially isolated.
But the prosecution can still make the case indirectly.
Some of the facts speak for themselves. Blackmore, for example, has in the past acknowledged taking wives as young as 15. Under Canadian law today, the age of sexual consent is 16. (It was 14 until last year. The law also sets the age at 18 when one person is a position of authority or dependent upon the other.)
The court could also be asked to consider the actual likelihood of free consent of girls raised in a religious community, with no real options should they run afoul of those in power.
Witnesses can describe the effects on the boys and young men of the communities, Their chances to be married within the only faith and home they have known are slim, as older men take multiple brides.
And the court can hear expert testimony about abuses confirmed at similar Mormon splinter groups in the U.S.
The outcome is still uncertain. Religious freedom is important and the defence will have its own list of witnesses to describe the happiness and freedom of community members.
Prosecutors have consistently recommended against charges, partly for fear that the law would be struck down under the Charter.
Attorney General Wally Oppal has pressed to have the charges laid. That seems sensible. There is no point in a law that will never be used.
If the charges are proved and the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately sanctions the limit on religious freedom, then Oppal's decision will be justified.
And if the effort fails, but the trial reveals grounds for concern about the effects of polygamy, then Parliament has the chance to draft laws that will provide protection for those who need it.
These communities have sparked concern about human rights for some two decades, with no action.
Oppal deserves credit for ensuring that the issues will finally get the public, far hearing they deserve.
Footnote: An earlier version of the law, introduced in Canada's first Criminal Code in 1892, specifically mentioned the Mormon faith. The issue of faith-based polygamy is now wider - the Koran allows up to four wives and at least some Canadian Muslims reportedly practise polygamy.

BC Rail scandal a symbol of failure

Imagine a place where police raid the legislature offices of political aides in a corruption probe involving a billion-dollar sale of a public asset.
The police talk about the destructive reach of organized crime and seize thousands of documents. The investigation involves a number of political power brokers.
Then imagine that five years later, the public still has few answers. No trial; no inquiry.
Silence from the government, which refuses to answer questions because the matter was "before the courts."
And endless delays that left the public in the dark, the three men charged in limbo and the government under a cloud.
Most people would assume, at best, that the country's system was broken.
At worst, they would fear that corruption was rife in a political and legal environment unable or unwilling to deal with it.
Welcome to B.C.
It's was a little more than five years ago that RCMP officers and Victoria police swooped in on the legislature offices of Dave Basi, a political assistant to then finance minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who did the same work for transportation minister Judith Reid. (Collins and Reid have since left politics.)
They hauled away boxes of evidence. Officers also collected documents from lobbyists and operatives with ties to the federal and provincial Liberal parties.
Gordon Campbell, after completing his Hawaiian holiday, returned to say he knew nothing, but the government would co-operate fully with the investigation.
That hasn't really happened. The government has chosen to argue that a number of documents sought by the defence lawyers should be kept secret.
It's exercising its option to claim the documents are privileged, either as legal advice or cabinet material. If the government had chosen to, it could have released all the relevant material. Instead, legal wrangles have delayed the trial.
And the questions have mounted, as the only information - almost all unsubstantiated - has trickled out during various pretrial legal hearings, generally over the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence.
It's known that the RCMP alleged lobbyist Eric Bornman paid Basi about $24,000 over the course of a year for information and steering clients his way. The two knew each other well; both were active in the federal Liberal party. Police also alleged Basi and his cousin Virk went with their spouses to Denver in 2002 and watched an NFL game. They sat with Gary Rennick, a top exec with OmniTRAX, then a bidder for BC Rail. Lobbyist Brian Kieran, a partner with Bornman in Pilothouse Public Affairs, paid for the trip, police claimed.
Both men are expected to be witnesses; neither was charged. Basi and Virk face fraud and breach of trust charges.
And it's known that enough went wrong that the government was forced to cancel the sale of a B.C. Rail spur line after the process was started in case the process was corrupted. That cost taxpayers more than $1 million. (Legal costs are likely 10 times that amount already.)
But nothing has been proven. The public has no answers about what information, if any, changed hands. Defence lawyers have suggested they will show the two men were simply acting on behalf of their political masters and have done nothing wring.
The raids took place Dec. 28, 2003, midway through the Liberals' first term. There were no answers by the 2005 election.
And there will be no answers before the 2009 election. The special prosecutor is going to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that defence lawyers have a right to know the identity of a secret informant.
Meanwhile, of course, Basi and Virk and Aneal Basi, another government employee charged, are under a cloud with no chance to clear their names.
Imagine a place where corruption in the corridors of government had been alleged five years earlier, charges had been laid and there were still no answers. Welcome to B.C.
Footnote: The odds are increasing that the case will be tossed out due to unreasonable delays, although the defence camp has said that it wanted to be vindicated in a trial. If charges are dismissed due to delay would leave a public inquiry as the only way to answer the corruption questions. (For a great guide to the case, see billtieleman.blogspot.com.)

Some lessons from a bizarre year

So how about these four lessons from 2008?
Things can change dramatically and rapidly.
People who are supposed to be smart and knowledgeable are neither.
People who are supposed to be looking after the public interest aren't.
And in response to those three, we have to accept our personal responsibility - including our responsibility to demand better from the people who are supposed to be acting in our interest.
A year ago, Premier Gordon Campbell was all fired up about climate change. Dealing with it was a moral and practical imperative, he said, calling for a focus and effort like Canadians brought to two world wars. People should be prepared to sacrifice.
And the public was mostly onside. After all, homeowners were feeling pretty rich as prices climbed ever upward. The economy was ticking along nicely, unless you were a coastal forest worker. Most forecasts called for more growth and rising markets.
A year later, nothing seems certain. The news is all bad and there's no clear bottom in sight. The public isn't quite so convinced that climate change is the big priority.
And the people who were supposed to see the change coming - the ones who are paid well because they claim that ability - didn't.
Packs of quite smart, trained people are paid to focus on a limited number of companies and report on their prospects. They've got great educations, superb technical support and good access to information.
And they were hopeless. An analyst tracking one media company rated it a speculative buy and set a target price of $3.50. It's trading at 50 cents.
They're hopelessness was exceeded by the failure of the agencies that were supposed to be protecting the public interest by regulating markets.
Start with government, of course. It's become fashionable to see regulation as a bad thing. Gordon Campbell even set up Kevin Falcon as junior minister of deregulation in 2001 and set out to cut one-third of the rules in place.
The U.S. deregulation push removed rules that have prevented lenders from offering $500,000 mortgages, with no payments for a year, to people earning minimum wage.
Deregulation allowed the lenders to package the loans in bundles, claim they would produce a steady income, and sell shares in them to other companies. They in turn flogged them- including to people trying to set aside money for retirement.
Deregulation was supposed to be good for the economy. The people who have lost billions and the taxpayers bailing out companies won't agree.
It's not just government regulators who have failed. The big accounting firms audited these companies and didn't report any problems. Bond rating agencies reviewed them and gave great ratings for stability and safety.
Economies go through good and bad times, of course.
But this collapse, without warning, did terrible damage. Remember, in early October Prime Minister Stephen Harper was suggesting the drop in markets was a "buying opportunity." Anyone who took his advice and bought a bundle of leading Canadian stocks has lost about 35 per cent of his money so far.
Cutting unneeded regulation increases freedom and encourages innovation and brings few risks. The fewer unnecessary rules the better. Letting barbers cut hair without a licence means a few people might look funny, but a few great haircutters might emerge.
But that kind of deregulation wasn't at the core of the agendas of many governments over the past two decades.
Which leads to the fourth lesson, based on the first three.
If you want something done right, be prepared to take some personal responsibility. The people who are being paid to work on your behalf might not.
That includes taking responsibility for the people you elect to all levels of government - to vote, of course, but also to keep informed about what they're doing and offer your views.
Onward to 2009.
Footnote: After more than a hundred columns over the last 12 months, I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to read at least some of them and the editors who have found a place in their newspapers. It's a great privilege to have the chance to be part of a discussion with the people who will decide our shared future.

Teachers' union opposition to FSA test unfair to children

It would be a great loss to toss out the Foundation Skills Assessment tests and the chance for more effective public education.
The B.C. Teachers' Federation - and a lot of teachers - want the tests dumped. They are both wrong and short-sighted.
The FSA tests are taken annually by every student in Grades 4 and 7. They provide a snapshot of reading, writing and numeracy skills.
Most parents like the information. They might know how their children are doing and have report cards from school. But the tests are a useful way to help confirm a child is mastering some critical skills.
The teachers' union doesn't like the tests, which among other things, allows comparisons between the success rate in schools, or classrooms. School superintendents aren't that keen either. Districts can also be assessed using the results.
Even Education Minister Shirley Bond, who blasted the teachers' federation on the issue, has been critical of the use of the results. Bond is a former school board chair in Prince George.
The tests are far from perfect. The information they provide has been neglected. There are risks of misuse.
But they're still great tools. For parents, obviously. But also for anyone who cares about doing a better job for students.
The opposition to the tests seems contrived or wrongheaded. The teachers' union says students are stressed by the tests. But it's hard to see why, unless the stress comes from the teacher. There's nothing riding on the tests, and students can be told that.
The union complains about lost teaching time. But two sets of tests in eight years hardly seems a problem.
The union fears teachers are spending too much time preparing students for the tests. If that's a problem, they should stop. There's no need to cram for skills tests.
Then there are the philosophical arguments. The information should not be gathered because someone might misuse it. You can't measure education. The exams just test literacy and numeracy skills, and don't assess all the things that schools provide students. They don't reflect students' backgrounds. The whole idea of testing is seen as a plot by some.
Of course the tests don't measure all the wonderful things schools offer students. But reading, writing and numeracy, those are fundamental enough to be worth measuring.
Of course some people could misuse the data. But that argument could be used to shut down almost every form of research being done in the academic world today. It is a prescription for ignorance.
And of course the results don't reflect different social and economic factors. It is an absolute certainly that the children sent to a $20,000-a-year private school in Vancouver will score better than their Grade 4 counterparts in a school in poor inner city neighbourhood or struggling resource community. But everyone knows that. The results also let you compare schools dealing with similar student populations.
If one is achieving much better results in the core skills tests, we should know that.
The tests should encourage different ways of teaching or preparing children for school or involving parents. Creative, bright people in the system can test new approaches and measure how well they work.
And the results allow valuable research. In the last four weeks, a Simon Fraser University professor released a study on the gap in FSA scores between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students in B.C. Some districts have almost closed the gap; in others, it remains dramatic. The study identified strategies that help improve aboriginal students' success. That could not have been done without the FSA results as a starting point. (The study, of course, adjusted to compensate for socio-economic factors.)
The FSA tests aren't perfect. But eliminating them would be a great step backward.
Instead, parents and teachers should be using the results to learn. And to force the government to provide the support needed so all schools can achieve the best results for children.
Footnote: The teachers' federation is threatening a boycott of the tests. That's irresponsible. The union doesn't run the school system and is accountable to no one but its members. Elected trustees and the provincial government have a mandate to make decisions about education.

The case for throwing shoes at Bush

There have been many times, standing in a press conference or even doing an interview, when I've wanted to take off my shoes and peg them at a politician.
I expect there have been times when some politicians have thought briefly about sending a loafer my way.
Muntadar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist, has become famous for throwing his shows at U.S President George W. Bush at a Baghdad press conference on Sunday.
He missed, but they were pretty good pitches from across the room.
Journalists aren't supposed to throw stuff at the people they cover. The tacit agreement is that they gather information by asking questions, but don't take sides or protest. The process can be rude and chaotic, and often pointless, but the understanding is that in return for access, they act within some broad rules of behaviour.
But I'm pretty sympathetic when it comes to Zaidi's protest.
The Globe and Mail got quite exercised about it all.
In an editorial headlined "A disgrace to journalism," the paper said Zaidi is a "disgrace to his profession and should be fired by his employer." The editorial blasted reporters' organizations for not condemning his actions.
OK, he was wrong. It would be too bad if politicians stopped doing press conferences in case people started throwing things.
But Zaidi, although he had some zip on the throws, was no threat to Bush, who ducked the shoes and appeared mostly puzzled. He was making a point, as his words indicate. (You can judge; the video is on YouTube and has been viewed more than two million times.)
"This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog," Zaidi shouted as he threw the first shoe.
The second was on behalf of others: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," he called.
It was a double insult: Hitting someone with a shoe and calling them a dog both show great contempt in the Mideast, where they are seen as symbols of dirtiness.
But consider all this from Zaidi's perspective.
Bush instigated an invasion of Iraq based on false claims that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction and aiding al-Qaeda.
The war was launched with no real planning for what would happen next, and an apparent expectation that the Iraqis would all do a spirited dance of welcome in the streets and then quickly aside their sectarian differences, elect a government and live happily ever after. Mission Accomplished, as Bush claimed five years ago.
When that didn't happen, the U.S. has bumbled and fumbled.
And Iraqis suffered. About 4.7 million people - more than the population of British Columbia, or one in six Iraqis, are refugees. They have been driven from their homes by fighting, or their homes have simply been destroyed.
At least 100,000 civilians have been killed, more than the Canadian deaths in the First and Second World Wars combined. Some estimates have put the number of deaths much higher, at more than 500,000, when the effects of collapsing health care and other problems are included.
After five years - a period of suffering longer than Europe endured in the Second World War - no end is in sight. Iraq is ranked as one of the five worst "failed states" in the world, worse than Afghanistan. The U.S. is in a rush to leave; the Iraqis face years of internal fighting, external threats and poverty and disorder.
Zaidi didn't act like a journalist. But he did act on behalf of millions of people in Iraq who have been damaged by the ineptitude, recklessness and arrogance of the Bush administration. He's being cheered in the Mideast.
And he's not being much criticized in the U.S. either. Bush leaves a mess - unresolved conflicts, massive debt, a world economic crisis and a discredited and demoralized country.
Dodging a couple of shoes seems a small penance.
Footnote: Zaidi took responsibility for his acts. He faces imprisonment and has already apparently been beaten. The incident does raise significant questions about security; the video shows a sluggish response before officers pile onto Zaidi; if he had been throwing cameras instead of shows, Bush could have been hurt.

A split decision for B.C. coalbed methane

The politics of coalbed methane in B.C. are a lot more complicated even than getting the stuff out of the ground.
Just look at the government's latest news release on the resource, headlined "Leadership shown in unconventional gas development." Not too informative in itself.
The first paragraph - the lead, as they say - was surprising. Leadership in development in this case meant not going ahead with a coalbed methane project: "Shell Canada will take a break in exploration activity in the Klappan and have more discussions with First Nations and the community, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Richard Neufeld announced."
The government was "facilitating this" by barring activity for two years, Neufeld said.
Only then did the release get to the actual development part. The government announced it was awarding a coalbed methane tenure to BP Canada's Mist Mountain project in the East Kootenay.
Even there, the government treaded carefully. It excluded land in the Flathead Valley, near the Montana border.
The Flathead is a revered river in Montana. The state's politicians, and even Barack Obama, were opposed to any coalbed methane development on our side of the border.
So in southeast B.C., near Fernie but away from the U.S. border, coalbed methane is OK.
In the northwest, north of Terrace, not so much.
How come? Partly because environmental groups have targeted the Shell project. They have called the area the Sacred Headwaters, an even more market-savvy name than Great Bear Rainforest.
The opposition, along with First Nations concerns, scared Shell and the government. What oil company or government wants to be blamed internationally for despoiling the Sacred Headwaters?
There are other reasons for the split decision. The Shell project is in a relatively pristine area that includes the headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine rivers. There's little local support.
The project in the East Kootenay is in an area that's been used for mining and forestry. Many people in the region, and some local governments, supported the development.
But there is still going to be significant opposition. Neufeld says the BP project won't go ahead unless the company can meet the environmental requirements.
The B.C. government has been promoting coalbed methane development for more than a decade. So far, all the province has to show for it is a scattering of test drilling programs, including efforts in the Campbell River area and around Courtenay. The Island’s coal-mining history has attracted considerable interest.
The Mist Mountain project might bring the first real producing wells.
Coalbed methane is the equivalent of natural gas. It's found, as the name suggests, in coal seams, which B.C. has in abundance. But there are some big differences when it comes to getting it out of the ground.
Conventional natural gas is typically found in big pockets, under pressure. Companies drill a couple of holes, the gas rushes out and is sent off in a pipeline. When the deposit is gone the well is capped and that's that. It's relatively tidy and we have a lot of experience with it.
But coalbed methane is found in smaller pockets within the coal seams, so companies need to drill a lot more wells.
And the methane gas is usually trapped beneath underground water. That has to be pumped out before the gas will flow.
Sometimes, the water is of good quality. But often it's contaminated with salt or other pollutants. It has to be pumped back underground to avoid environmental damage.
It's all doable. But the industry's 20-year history has been marked by some environmentally damaging episodes. The government believes those days are behind it - about five per cent of U.S. gas production comes from coalbed methane deposits.
With some estimates putting the coalbed methane reserves at the equivalent of 100 years of current natural gas production, the government sees a lot of jobs and big royalty cheques.
It will still be a tough sell. But picking one project as a test might be the best way to establish whether the coalbed methane industry should have any place in the province.
Footnote: The exclusion of the Flathead Valley from the Kootenay lease makes sense. Why get into a fight with the U.S. as a new administration takes over. But expect B.C. gas opponents to ask why the risks are too great for a watershed that flows into Montana, but acceptable within B.C.

The real greatest

Gretzy was great, Rocket Richard ferocious and I've always had a great fondness for Frank Mahovlich.
But no one I've seen came close to changing games all by himself like Mr. Orr.

No gambling donations, says Campbell – you decide

The B.C. Liberals don't accept donations from gambling companies, Gordon Campbell said last week.
You decide if the premier is being straight.
Because it looks like some $270,000 went into Liberal coffers between 2002 and 2007 from people and companies linked to the growing gambling business in B.C.
This column rests entirely on the fine work of Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
Holman was curious about gambling companies and political donations. They didn't show up in the financial reports the parties filed with Elections B.C.
But he decided to dig deeper and checked out the people behind the numbered companies and businesses or individuals with unfamiliar names that contributed to the Liberals.
He found some $265,000 in contributions had come from people connected with the industry - current or former gambling facilities owners or operators. But the donations had not come through the gambling businesses, but indirectly as individual donations or through other companies controlled by the same people.
For example, there was $23,000 in contributions from B-11 Holdings Ltd. and 7779 Ventures Inc. The companies' presidents were Patricia and Gary Hart; Patricia Hart is also president of the service provider to Chances Kamloops, one of the mini-casinos being rolled out in smaller communities.
There was $6,500 from Kings North Development Corp. Its president Mark Ekraut, is also president of the service provider for Bingo Bingo Esquimalt.
The list went on.
Holman called the donors to ask why the contributions were made in that way.
No reason, most said. They just happened to have a chequebook handy from the other company when they contributed, or there was more money in its account or they just couldn't remember.
But then Holman talked to John Becher, who owns the Lucky Dollar Bingo Palace in Terrace.
He said members of the Registered Gaming Management Companies of B.C. - which represents a majority of B.C.'s bingo halls and community gaming centres - were told not to make their donations through their gaming service provider company.
Otherwise, the public might have concerns, he added. "People will say, 'Gee, what's going on here. We can see why the government wants all these slots put in because they're being supported by the gaming association,'" Becher said.
Becher said the request for donations, and the suggested method of donation, came from Tom Nellis, president of the association.
No way, says Nellis. He never suggested members donate to the Liberals in any fashion.
Holman found another interesting fact in the Elections B.C. documents.
Almost one-quarter of the donations came into the Liberal party on the same day, three months before the last provincial election.
Seven different donations on the same day, from people and businesses linked to gambling.
And not one through a company readily identifiable as a gambling interest.
Now that is a coincidence. The odds against all those people in one industry independently deciding to write a cheque to the Liberals on the same day have to be up there with winning a lottery.
Yet Campbell says the party won't accept money from "gaming" companies. (In opposition, the Liberals called it gambling.)
That suggests he believes taking the money would be improper. So if it's happening. . .
The other thing Holman revealed was the emptiness of Campbell's defence of unrestricted political donations. In B.C., unions, businesses, individuals and interest groups can give any amount. Federally, only individual donations are allowed and they're limited to $1,100.
As long as donations are disclosed, Campbell argues, the public can tell if big contributors are getting special treatment from government.
But how are most people to go through hundreds of pages of forms, note a donation from 7779 Ventures Inc., check the officers and directors and cross-reference them against gambling companies or people who get government contracts?
B.C. is an anything goes province. Rich special interests can give what they want. And the public has to wonder how badly political parties come to depend on that support.
Footnote: The backdrop for all this is the Liberals' abandonment of their campaign promise to halt the expansion of gambling because of the damage it does to individuals, families and communities. Campbell has never explained why the principled pledge was forgotten in a massive expansion of slots and casinos and the introduction of online betting.

Harper, Dion need to go now

Stephen Harper has to go.
That's the biggest message I'd take from the one-week political crisis that was eased Thursday when Gov. Gen Michaelle Jean agreed to Stephen Harper's proposal to shut down the Commons until Jan. 26.
If she had required him to face the House, the government would have fallen. That would have meant a Liberal-NDP coalition or an election, depending upon Jean's judgment about the next step.
Harper and the Conservatives won a seven-week reprieve and some manoevuring room.
But at considerable cost.
Harper provoked this whole crisis stupidly and unnecessarily. Elected with a minority, he promised an end to partisanship. And then at the first opportunity, he launched attacks on the financial supports critical to the other parties, while leaving intact the subsidies that benefit the Conservatives. He moved to take away federal employees' to strike and to limit pay equity provisions. (And tabled a budget surplus forecast that no economists believed credible and offered no actions to address the economic crisis.)
The measures were so important, Harper said, that the government would include them in a confidence vote. If they were defeated, there would be an election.
The moves were so outrageous, even the disheartened Liberals were roused. Harper actually united the centre left way more quickly than he was able to unite the centre right.
Harper defended the measures, then retreated, first saying it wouldn't be a confidence vote, then dumping them.
But the damage had been done; the coalition train was rolling. The Liberals and New Democrats agreed on an economic plan. The Bloc Quebecois didn't join, but agreed not to vote against the next two budgets. As long as those passed, the coalition could survive until early 2011.
A smart leader wouldn't have created this mess. Once in it, he would recognize the need to admit error and move on.
Harper, perhaps because of all those years on the outside fighting governments, went on the attack. He was dishonest about the Bloc's role and seemed to suggest the 38 per cent of Quebec voters who supported the party were somehow second-class citizens. He re-opened the separatism debate, for short-term political gain, a shamefully reckless act.
When the smart - and right - thing would have been to reach out, Harper started punching. Even Thursday, after Jean allowed the government to survive, he wouldn't acknowledge any error.
What should happen between now and Jan. 26 is a new start. The Conservatives should be talking with the opposition, and offering a real chance to be involved in budget preparation. It's a minority government; compromise is needed. Harper seems unable to do that. And at this point, he wouldn't be trusted anyway.
If the Conservatives want a chance to govern for a couple of years and then win a majority, they need a new leader, someone like Environment Minister Jim Prentice. (While Harper was picking fights, Prentice had invited the opposition environment critics to come with him next week to a climate change meeting in Poland on the successor to the Kyoto accord.)
There's a lesson here for the Liberals too. What is Stephane Dion doing as party leader until May?
He resigned Oct. 20. Taking seven months to pick a new leader suggests you don't just care. Canadians were supposed to embrace the idea that he would be prime minister for a few months and then whoever the Liberal party delegates choose would take over.
That's irresponsible. The party should have a leader by Jan. 26. Let MPs and riding associations choose, or move to one vote for every party member, instead of the tainted delegate system. Webcast candidates' debates and provide central locations if members want to watch them together. Allow online voting. Choose.
It's been a destructive, ugly episode. Without real change, it will be replayed at the end of January, to the detriment of Canadians.
Footnote: This might mark a turning point. If neither party can address its immediate leadership problems, that will suggest MPs and party members have lost any influence and power is firmly held by whoever can win the leader's job. The leader was supposed to serve at the pleasure of the party's MPs. No more.

So, are the Liberals ready to do their jobs too?

In the post below I write about the responsibility of Conservative MPs to take control of the party away from Stephen Harper.
Liberals, MPs and party members, have their own test.
Stephane Dion resigned in October. The leadership convention is set for May.
That's simply goofy. If you had a business, and had decided to get rid of a manager for poor performance, would you leave him on the job for seven months - knowing he was going - while you looked for a replacement?
The Liberals should have had a leadership convention at the end of November.
Now they need to find a way to have a new leader before Jan. 26, when Parliament resumes.
That shouldn't be hard. Allow online voting and perhaps move to one vote for every party member, instead of the tainted delegate system. Webcast candidates' debates and provide central locations if members want to watch them together. The failure to treat this with urgency is bizarre.
How can the coalition claim to be credible when Dion - rejected by Canadians - would be prime minister for a few months before a mystery PM would be selected in a process open to abuse?

So, are Conservative MPs ready to do their jobs?

Conservative MPs face the biggest test between now and the end of January. Go along and keep repeating the talking points supplied by the prime minister's office — which will play well with supporters — or bring their own judgment to bear on what needs to be done to govern effectively for the next couple of years, and win a majority in the next election.
The party has a lot of gratitude, rightly, to Stephen Harper for getting it into power.
But he's failed to win majorities in two elections waged under highly favourable circumstances, messed up terribly in the early days of this government and increasingly appears unable to change.
Will Conservative MPs recognize their responsibility and power to share a decision on Harper's future.
It's also a test of our system, I suppose. Have prime ministers and premiers become so powerful that they, barring disastrous defeats or years of plotting, they are unchecked by their supposed peers?

Conservatives' choice: Harper, or a chance to govern effectively

Blame Stephen Harper for the mess in Ottawa.
Faced with a minority government and an economic crisis, his first acts acknowledged neither.
When the Conservatives delivered their economic update last week, they didn't announce plans to help people worried about their pensions or losing their jobs.
Instead, Harper launched a sneak attacks on his "enemies." In the name of spending restraint, he said, federal government employees would lose the right to strike.
And the government would end the five-year-old public financing of political parties. That arrangement, introduced when union and corporate donations were banned, provides parties that get at least two per cent support nationally get $1.95 per year per vote they received in the preceding election.
The move had little to do with saving money. The goal was to weaken the opposition parties to the point that they could not function and consolidate the Conservatives' grasp on power. The Conservatives raise more donations. The change would have left them with about $19 million a year in revenue - four times as much as any other party.
Vote for the measures, he said, or he'd call an election, likely figuring the bully tactics would work.
It was a stunning blunder. The Liberals, who had been dispirited and content to drift along until next May's leadership convention, were fuelled with moral outrage. The New Democrats reacted in the same way.
Harper did the almost impossible in re-energizing the parties, driving them together and giving them a legitimate pretext for action by failing to respond to the economic crisis with a stimulus package. Dumb, vindictive and arrogant - a disastrous combination.
Within 48 hours, the Liberals and NDP had cobbled together an agreement for a coalition government to rule for 18 months, with the support of the Bloc Québécois. Stéphane Dion would be prime minister until May, when the new Liberal leader would take over. The NDP would get about one-third of cabinet seats.
The opposition parties would defeat the government and advise Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean that they had the support of a majority of MPs and should get a chance to govern.
It's a legitimate legal claim, according to most experts, and Jean has considerable discretion.
But a rickety coalition of parties with little in common but a loathing of Harper is not the government Canada needs at this time.
A critical element in dealing with the economic crisis is stability. Investors, already skittish and cash-poor, are going to shun jurisdictions where policy is unpredictable.
And despite the coalition's manifesto, the situation remains inherently unpredictable. The new government, if it emerges, will only survive if all three parties stay onside.
That includes, of course, the Bloc Québécois, a party with no commitment to the national interest.
The coalition government would also result in a profound sense of betrayal by many voters who were elated by the Conservatives' win, particularly in the West, where the party won almost 80 per cent of the seats. There are lots of references to coups on the letters' pages. They're wrong, but the sentiment is still real.
Harper's response has been to fight. He's expected to ask Jean to shut down Parliament before there can be a confidence vote, which she might or might not do. It will reconvene in January and the Conservatives will use the time to attack the coalition proposal.
Harper is showing bad judgment, again. The campaign probably won't succeed.
And it removes any chance for what's really needed - a Parliament that works, where the Conservatives govern like a party that received a minority of seats and the popular vote.
It's hard to see a ready solution. The Conservatives need to persuade the opposition parties - and Canadians - that the bullying and arrogance will end.
Which means, realistically, that Harper needs to go, to give the party a fresh start.
Now that's a test of leadership.
Footnote: What does it mean for B.C.? The bad news would be the focus on Quebec and Ontario and the overall risk of instability. The good news would be some strong cabinet ministers, aid for forest communities and a government that has to work hard to keep MPs and supporters onside.

Conservatives have to fix Harper's bungling

Stephen Harper has managed, through incompetence, arrogance and hopeless judgment, to create a crisis for the country and his party. Hard to see how long he can stick around.
But a coalition government, based largely on loathing of Harper, is not a useful solution. It will be destabilizing and leave 40 per cent of voters - especially those concentrated in the west - feeling screwed once again.
The Times Colonist offers a useful view of what should happen next here.

Global crisis, but B.C.'s got some breathing room

So what does the big financial crisis mean for the B.C. government - tax increases, spending cuts, deficits?
None of the above, at least for this year and next.
But the budget that will come down in 2010 - the first for the new government to be elected in May - might pose some problems.
It's a mark of the ludicrous conservatism of the Liberals' budgeting that despite the worst economic woes in almost 80 years - and unplanned tax cuts - the surplus this year will still be larger than the government projected.
Tax revenues will be below budget by some $423 million, Finance Minister Colin Hansen said as he released the latest quarterly report. But $350 million of that is because of the cuts Premier Gordon Campbell announced last month in response to the slowdown.
And despite all the turmoil, all other revenue is expected to be up four per cent over the budget forecast. A manager in the private sector would get into trouble for that sort of sandbagging.
Next year is also probably OK. The Liberals, to their considerable credit, provide three-year financial plans. The budgeted revenue figure for 2009/10 is $39.9 billion. There are certainly some risks, but revenue for this year is now expected to be $38.9; a 2.6-per-cent increase next year is within reach
And the plans provide for an overall 2.5 per cent spending increase - and a 5.9 per cent increase in health spending the health budget for this year. There was also a $1.1-billion cushion built into the budget forecast.
All in, the Liberals should be able to table a pre-election budget without significant spending cuts, tax increases or a deficit. By the 2010 budget, things look tighter. Next year, remember, the projection is for a 2.6-per-cent revenue increase. But the budget calls for a four-per-cent revenue jump in the following year. That might be a stretch.
On the spending side, there is a four-per-cent increase for health, education and advanced education. That's tight, given the pressures for more spending. Still, the budget includes $1.1 billion in contingencies and cushions.
There's room for the government to shuffle things around and stay in the black, but it could be tight.
Of course, it's questionable whether we should be quite so fixed on deficits. B.C. has a law that bars deficit budgets (though doesn't have any effect if a government budgets for a surplus, but ends up with a deficit). The rationale is understandable. Spending more than you take in can become a bad habit; the NDP governments through the 1990s showed that. But Stephen Harper is prepared to run federal deficits for a year or two because of the current economic crisis, and he's hardly an ideological bedmate of Glen Clark's.
If things spiral downward, by 2010 or 2011 the provincial government might face some tough choices.
Without tax increases - never a great idea in a recession - serious spending cuts might be needed to avoid a deficit. Who really wants to tell a senior she can't get a hip replacement, or parents of a disabled child that therapy has to wait, because of an ideological opposition of deficits?
There is nothing wrong with borrowing some money in tough times, as long as you pay it back as quickly as possible. The alternative could be a longer recession and more losses for B.C families.
Deficits might not be necessary. But it will be interesting to see if either the Liberals or the New Democrats will acknowledge the possibility. The backdrop for all this is the economy as an issue in the coming election. A Mustel Group poll released this week found the Liberals and NDP effectively tied. It also showed the economy was named as the main issue facing the province by 40 per cent of respondents - a huge jump.
Footnote: A month after Gordon Campbell's pledge to curb any avoidable spending in response to the economic crunch, nothing has happened. Most noticeably, taxpayers are still paying for a massive ad blitz aimed largely at bolstering the Liberal's re-election hopes. British Columbians asked for the ads, Finance Minister Colin Hansen said this week.

Hidden donations from gambling industry to Liberals?

Is there a link between political donations and the Liberals' decision to break their promise to halt gambling expansion in the province?
After all, Gordon Campbell was clear - gambling created "losers" and destroyed families. Kevin Krueger said government gambling was immoral, fuelling crime, violence, suicides and family disintegration.
But once elected, the government went on a gambling spree, including mini-casinos with VLTs in smaller communities across the province, online betting and plans to recruit new gamblers each year and increase the average losses per person.
San Holman reveals some fascinating information about the industry's hidden donations to the Liberals here.

Forcing homeless people into shelter

Rich Coleman is musing about finding a way to force homeless people into shelters when the weather makes life on the street dangerous. The media interest was raised after a woman who had declined shelter burned to death in her shopping cart while trying to stay warm.
It's an issue worth considering, but as Coleman notes, there are big legal and ethical issues and nothing will happen soon.
Rather than mess about with complicated legal questions, Coleman could address the issue now. The woman who died chose to stay on the street in part because going to a shelter would have meant abandoning her shopping cart and all her worldly possessions. It would not be hard or costly to have secure outdoor space for carts at shelters, staffed by a minimum wage worker making the transition from the streets. Other homeless people chose a doorway because available shelters won't take their pet or allow couples to stay together, or because the available spaces are just too chaotic, noisy and theft-prone.
Making improvements to address those problems would be fairly cheap and easy.
Also, Coleman talks about forcing people into "beds," when in many cases the reality is a mat on a floor in a large room. That's better than nothing, but more accuracy in language would help in dealing with a complex issue.

From Russian assassins to the Basi-Virk trial

I've been reading about Vera Zasulich, who invented terrorism as we know it when she shot the governor of St. Petersburg in 1878.
And I'm amazed at the straight line between 19th century Russia under Tsar Alexander II, the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and B.C. Supreme Court.
My reading tends to books grabbed fairly randomly from the new arrivals at the library or the well-selected sale offerings at Munro's Book Store here. One advantage is the serendipitous discovery of connections. (The disadvantage is the lack of context that comes with random readings.)
The book is Angel of Vengeance by Ana Siljak. It's about Zasulich and Russia in a time of possibilities - socialism, serfdom, religion, the tsar, a big bureaucracy and youth, mostly well-off, dreaming of change.
Tsar Alexander had a liberal bent, in part because revolution seemed a threat. Legal reform was important, he decided.
"Let truth and mercy reign in the law courts," he proclaimed in 1864. Courts would treat all Russians equally, "from the person of the highest to that of the lowest rank." Juries would decide cases and the system would be open to all.
Then Vera Zasulich shot the governor. A great defence lawyer painted her as a person driven to try and stop state cruelty. (The governor had abused a political prisoner.)
The jury found her not guilty, followed by celebrations in the streets and much official anger, in part because there had been other legal setbacks in the effort to fight subversion.
The justice minister had a solution. No more trials for accused assassins or terrorists. New military tribunals would hear those cases, under new rules.
Alexander initially rejected the proposal as too extreme. But within months, he caved. The military tribunals took over these cases.
Which is exactly what George W. Bush and the U.S. government did after 9/11. A new class of criminals was created, with few rights. A parallel legal system was established. Suspects could be held for years without charges; evidence obtained by torture was accepted; rights were ignored.
Canadian Omar Khadr, captured by the U.S. as a 15-year-old in Afghanistan, is the last Guantanamo prisoner from a western country.
From the tsar's besieged Russia to America today. Who would think?
The line can be stretched a little farther. Alexander's goal wasn't fair treatment of political prisoners. He believed that an accessible, consistent and fair justice system would stabilize society. People might not always like the decisions, but if justice was more or less equitable, they could count on their rights being protected.
Which leads to British Columbia today.
Specifically, to the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, where Dave Basi, Bobby Virk and Aneal Basi and a clutch of lawyers are still arguing over the evidence in the B.C. Rail corruption case.
It has been almost five years since the police raided the legislature and seized evidence. The allegations are serious, for the three men, all former Liberal political appointees, and the government.
But more than five years after the publicly owned railway was sold, there are no answers.
It's obviously unfair to the three accused. (And there is no evidence they or their lawyers have delayed the trial; Justice Elizabeth Bennett has been critical of the special prosecutor for failing to follow disclosure rules. Now a last-minute RCMP legal intervention threatens more delays.)
And it's unfair to the public, heading toward next May's election with no answers about a scandal that began before the 2005 campaign.
The case is a symptom. The courts have become too expensive and too slow to be a realistic option for most Canadians looking for justice. They are left to fend for themselves, unable to count on the right a fair hearing and impartial judgment.
Tsar Alexander would have considered it a broken justice system.
Footnote: If money is no object or a case truly significant, the system delivers sound judgments.
But for most people, seeking redress when they are wronged or facing a minor criminal charge, the costs of presenting the case - say $8,000 a day for a lawyer's appearances in court - tilts the balance hugely to those with the money to wear down the other side.

Province cuts leaky school deal, but leaves leaky condo owners outside

The Globe and Mail reported the government has reached some sort of secret compensation deal over hundreds of leaky schools. But the government's willingness to accept a confidentiality clause leaves leaky condo owners wondering if they should be getting the same compensation. A Times Colonist editorial editorial looks at the issue.