Time to become a reporter

The New Democrats have posted most of the 8,000-odd pages of material released to the defence in the B.C. Rail sale corruption case here . It's your chance to be a reporter. Spend some time, find something interesting and post it as a comment, or somewhere else. Wikijournalism, you could call it.

Can the RCMP survive with its credibility gone?

I covered court in Alberta for a little while. RCMP officers often testified. Sometimes, they were a little evasive or obviously coached.
But almost invariably, I assumed you could trust their version of events.
More importantly, so did judges and juries.
Now the Dziekanski inquiry evidence shows that is no longer true.
The inquiry into Robert Dziekanski’s death is on a two-week break. But the evidence so far has been devastating for the RCMP’s credibility.
Three of the four officers involved have testified. Their actions seemed to me reckless and unnecessary; their response to the dying man unprofessional. But those are judgment calls the inquiry will make.
Two other things have been much more alarming.
The first is the conflict between what really happened, captured on a video that has been played over and over, second by second, and what the officers - and the RCMP said - happened.
Officers will make mistakes given the quick judgments and stresses of police work.
But we expect them to be reliable, competent, honest witnesses, even in stressful times. We believe their notes, “made in their own handwriting, at the time,” as they say in court, reflect what really happened.
The three officers who have testified at the inquiry failed that test. And the false information they provided, in their notes and in interviews that night and the next day with RCMP investigators, was self-serving. It would probably by the accepted record, if a Victoria traveller hadn’t kept his video camera rolling throughout the deadly encounter.
Const. Gerry Rundel was the first to testify at the inquiry. He told the RCMP homicide officers investigating the death that Dzienkanski had waved a stapler above his head in a threatening way.
But the video showed that never happened. Dzienkanski picked up the stapler, but never brandished it as a weapon or held it above waist height.
Const. Bill Bentley wrote in his notes that night that “subject grabbed stapler and came at officers screaming.” He told the investigators that Dziekanski “came at the police screaming.”
Bentley said that as soon as they arrived, Dziekanski started backing away, looking for something to grab. He had picked up something and “kind of swung it at us.”
The video, he conceded at the inquiry, showed that none of those things actually happened.
Bentley also told the homicide investigators Dziekanski was “fighting through” the Taser so the officers had to wrestle him to the ground. That didn’t happen either. The video shows Dziekanski being hit and falling on his back instantly. Police jumped on top of after that.
Const. Kwesi Millington told investigators Dziekanski had raised the stapler in the air and stepped toward the police in a “threatening manner.” The video showed that didn’t happen.
Millington, who fired the Taser, told investigators Dziekanski didn’t go down when he was hit. He had to be shot again and wrestled to the ground by the three officers.
The video showed Dziekanski fell immediately. The second Taser shot came literally one second later as he lay on his back, legs in the air. The officers didn’t wrestle him to the ground.
It could be understood if there were small errors in their notes and evidence. It was a stressful night.
But police are trained observers. How could they recall three officers wrestling a man to the ground, or someone charging at them screaming, when those things just didn’t happen?
Either the officers are terribly incompetent, or they were dishonest. And without the video - which the RCMP tried to suppress - their stories would not likely have been questioned.
The other troubling aspect of their testimony was the statements by all three that they had followed policy and their training. They would do nothing different if confronted with the same situation, they testified.
The RCMP’s credibility is essential to its effectiveness. It is now in tatters.
Footnote: The inquiry is on a two-week break. The fourth RCMP officer will testify on March 23, when it resumes. Crown prosecutors decided against charging the officers with any offences after receiving the report from RCMP investigators. It’s not known how significant the officers’ inaccurate statements were in that process.

Not all sex trade workers are on the street

It's easy to fall into cliche and stereotype when it comes to sex workers. And false assumptions usually work to push many of them farther into the margins. Jody Paterson highlights a good example here .

Heeding threats and playing nice with government not best course

Today, a lesson for everyone who deals with government, courtesy of John Les and the rural stores that sell alcohol.
The stores' owners believed they were being treated unfairly a few years ago.
The government had cut wholesale prices for private liquor stores, boosting their profits (at taxpayers' expense). But the rural agents hadn't got the same break.
Keep quiet, Les warned them in 2007, and I might get you a better deal.
But if the issue hit the media or was raised in the legislature, they could forget about getting anything done.
"One more question in QP [question period] or an article in the paper and it's over," said Les, then the solicitor general.
So the stores' owners stayed quiet, for two years. Until finally, this year, the owners decided they had been played for saps. Staying quiet for two years got them nothing.
It's a dilemma, for businesses and social service agencies and municipalities and anyone else who think they're getting a bad deal from government.
Play nice with the party in power, work quietly and hope things turn out OK.
Or raise the problems publicly, so the government feels political pressure to deal with the issue.
It's a scary decision. Government's have immense power. A school district or social service agency or business worries about reprisals if it makes waves. What if funding disappears?
Most reporters have talked with people representing organizations who feel they're being hurt by poor government policies, but are afraid to air their concerns.
Better to work within the system, most decide
The rural liquor agents said they took Les's 2007 comments as a threat. It wasn't right, some said, but they decided to keep things quiet.
It does sound much like that.
"All this talk and e-mails flying around is not helpful," Les wrote. "It will get out to those who are not helpful and a huge fuss will break out and I won't be able to help you."
If the store owners let anyone know they felt they were being treated unfairly, that would be it, Les said. They would be shut out, their concerns ignored.
Which is interesting, in that another group - an association of home inspectors - had earlier claimed Les threatened them, not because they went public, but because the premier with their concerns.
Les, the home inspectors said in a subsequent letter to the premier, had responded by calling them stupid. He warned that if they "ever wrote to the premier again, he would drop the issue of consumer protection for B.C. homebuyers." Les denied the claims.
Here's where the lesson gets meaningful. The home inspectors went public, made their case and, after almost three years, won their goal - licensing and government regulation.
The liquor agents played along with Les and the Liberals. They got nothing. While the private liquor stores - much better politically connected - have received financial help from the government, the liquor agents have been left out of the generosity. (That's probably the right decision. The businesses signed on to sell liquor based on the existing price structure. If they don't like the deal, they can give up the business.)
It's an example that others should consider, especially as we head into what looks like a year of cuts to services and supports. The politicians from the party in power always urge silence and patience. Just work with us, they say. And behind the vague promises, lies the implied threat that making waves will kill any hopes of progress on the issue.
But it didn't work out that way in these examples.
Which seems understandable. Governments are moved by public pressure. And as long as problems are hushed up, they're more apt to ignore them and concentrate on other priorities.
Working to persuade government is useful. But the threat of a little public heat can help make things happen as well.
Footnote: Meanwhile, Les remains under investigation by a special prosecutor in relations to land deals when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the 1990s. A special prosecutor has been on the case for 20 months. It is unfair to the public - and especially to Les - that the investigation is taken so long to come up with any conclusions.

Taxpayers supporting Liberal attack campaign

Here's what the NDP transportation critic said about the Port Mann bridge project in question period yesterday.

M. Karagianis: Well, the minister cannot be serious about that. But listen. The reality is the project is late, it's massively over budget, and the financing scheme has collapsed. This isn't just a failure, but it's an embarrassment for the minister and it's also a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. My question to the minister is simply: will he reveal to British Columbians the cost of this embarrassing failure? How much are we paying because he ignored the warnings, blindly pursued a privatization scheme, wasted time on his failed financing deal and pushed the costs through the roof?

And here's the resulting news release from the Liberal caucus, produced by government employees.

BC Liberal Government Caucus
NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
March 2, 2009

NDP CALL PORT MANN 'A COLOSSAL WASTE'

VICTORIA -NDP transportation critic Maurine Karagianis continues to reject the new Port Mann Bridge and the 8,000 jobs that will be created during construction.
The NDP's opposition to the bridge was reconfirmed in today's Question Period at the B.C. Legislature, when Karagianis called the Port Mann Bridge project: "...a colossal waste of taxpayers' money."

It seems dishonest, the kind of activity that brings politics and politicians into disrepute.
And it raises the question of why, when the government is citing a desperate need to cut spending, taxpayers' money is being used for this kind of activity instead of for health care or commun ity safety.

Now you can be in the scrums

The NDP has started mining the 8,000 pages of FOI material that defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption trial obtained from the government. The first revelations dealt with the public affairs bureau tactics in controlling the news agenda when the legislature is sitting and allegations government employees are working on Liberal party fundraising. You can check Hansard for today's question period to get the highlights, or go here .
But I wanted to draw your attention publiceyeonline.com's video of Attorney General Wally Opall's response to the issue. Sean Holman has begun posting video from scrums. It's a great service. People can now see exactly what their elected representatives are saying about the issues, no matter where they are in the province. And instead of half-a-dozen reporters assessing the answers, experts and those on the front lines can respond to the politicians' claims.
It is a great step forward in political reporting.

Falcon wrong; taxpayers will pay for Port Mann

No to appear smug, but when the government announced a few weeks ago that the Port Mann bridge cost had doubled to $3.3 billion and that taxpayers would loan more than $1 billion to the public-private partnership because no private lender would take the risk, I raised some concerns. One was that the numbers no longer made sense - that the $3 tolls, rising with inflation, would not be enough to cover construction and operating costs and taxpayers would end up subsidizing the private partners.
No way, said the enthusiastic Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. Full speed ahead.
Now the public-private partnership has fallen apart, because - in large measure - the companies didn't think the future tolls would cover their cost. (Which raises the question of how I could do the numbers and Falcon couldn't.) Either tolls wil be higher, or taxpayers will be paying for the bridge, contrary to Falcon's repeated commitments.
Public-private partnerships can be a sound choice. The costs are potentially higher, but the risks of overruns and delays - the norm in megaprojects - can be largely transferred to the private partners.
But if the private sector walks away from the projects with too much risk, questions can be asked about whether government should be looking harder at traditional approaches for projects - even large ones - where risks are manageable.
One area of debate about public-private partnerships has been the extra cost of corporate borrowing compared to the government's low rate. Jeff Nagel nailed down the premium in this case and learned interest costs will be reduced by $200 million now that the Port Mann is not a P3. Again, that could be a worthwhile investment in risk reduction in some cases, but not for every project.

Child care "system in crisis" starved in budget

Let us begin with four realities.
It's bad to be a kid in the government's care - in foster care or group homes. No matter how well it goes - and statistically, it likely won't - the care of the state is not the same as a family home.
It's challenging to give kids in care a real chance. When parents can't care for a child, things have usually already gone wrong. Children born into neglect, abuse, poverty, illness, disability - or simply unlucky - wear some scars.
It's certain that things will go wrong, sometimes with terrible consequences. Child protection workers, for example, make huge decisions based on their best professional judgments. Leave a child with a struggling family or send her off, with a little suitcase, to a home of strangers? Either way, the outcome can be bad.
And how we do in helping these children is one of those fundamental tests of whether we are a successful society, or a collection of self-interested individuals. There is no moral difference between walking past a lost toddler in the street and failing to pay attention to the life of a four-year-old in care.
The NDP had a leaked government report this week that suggested that, in some form, that's what we're doing.
The ministry of children and families had noticed that residential costs for the some 9,000 children in care were rising, even though the number of children being raised was stable and they weren't doing any better.
So it set up a group to look at why costs were going up.
They did good work, although the recommendations focus heavily on process and more study.
The report, completed last summer, found costs were rising for a lot of reasons.
The level of support required for children in care has risen. They are more likely to have serious health and behavioural problems. That could be seen as a positive, of course, because it might mean children with fewer problems are being supported with their homes.
Compensation, for foster parents and care home workers, has fallen behind. The ministry report noted that the pays is the same for hosting an international student, with few responsibilities, or a troubled 14-year-old foster child with attitude to burn.
Foster parents were either aging, or inexperienced. (About 12 per cent per cent were over 60.) Either way, they really weren't able to foster the more challenging children.
And schools, facing their own pressures, have become more inclined to expel or suspend students, the report found. That's obviously bad for the children and also increases the costs of providing care.
The results of all this compound the problems. The report found social workers were scrambling to deal with the lack of resources. That means less attention to the needs of the children - barely one in four children in care have the required plans for their development. And it means more foster parents give up in frustration.
The number of foster homes fell by eight per cent across B.C. in the 18 months prior to the report. In the North and on Vancouver Island about 15 per cent fewer homes were available; in the Interior, about 11 per cent.
As a result, foster homes often had more children than ministry guidelines called for and costly alternative placements became more common.
The report, done by the ministry's own staff, highlights real problems. It concludes that the review "revealed a system in crisis and in need of innovation."
You would expect some specific actions in response, starting with the most obvious - additional funding to deal with the problems.
But the provincial budget for child and family development is effectively frozen for the coming year - it will increase less than one-quarter of one per cent. The budget increases for the following two years are about the same.
It's no response to a "system in crisis."
Footnote: Child and Youth Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislative officer tasked with monitoring the ministry as a result of the Hughes report, said she had asked for any reports dealing with financial pressures. This report had not been provided by the ministry. Christensen could not say why.

Balancing the budget at the expense of kids in care

The budget for child and family services is neffectively frozen in the budget, with token increases averaging less tahn 0ne-half per cent per year.
Yet a ministry working group reported last year that children are already being hurt - and social workers swamped - because of inadequate residential care for many of the more than 9,000 children in care. A Times Colonist editorial looks at the betrayal.

Bleak moments in the legislature

A video from Hansard of so-called debate in the legislature that is worth viewing. The dispute came as Kevn Krueger, always a loyal foot soldier, refused to answer even the most simple questions about spending in his ministry, looking increasing a person who had lost all contact with reality. It ends with a spectator getting kicked out for an outburst about Krueher's bizarre performance. The only wonder is that people aren't moved to shouted protests more often.

Games security secrecy, overruns and taxpayer abuse

One of the surreal moments in last week's budget lock-up came when Finance Minister Colin Hansen was asked about Olympic security costs.
Yes, there was extra money in the budget for Games security, he said.
But the amount was secret.
So was where it had been hidden in the hundreds of pages of budget documents. The federal government wanted the costs to be kept from the public for now, Hansen said.
Two days later - on the day Barack Obama visited Ottawa and grabbed all the media attention - the federal government came clean.
Games security, which was to cost $175 million, is now forecast at $900 million. The cost might go higher and the figure doesn't cover all the Games-related security costs.
It's the kind of trick governments play when they hope to get away with something. If there's bad news - and a 500-per-cent increase in security costs is bad news - they try and release it on a day when there's a bigger story, or late on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.
Hansen then came clean on the province's contribution. It's the kind of deal that would make most corporate CFOs nervous.
This gets a little hard to follow - always a bad sign when it comes to organizations' financial wheeling and dealing.
The original agreement was that the federal and provincial governments would each pay half of the $175 million.
As the real costs rose higher and higher, the governments secretly wrangled about how much the province should pay. B.C. feared being stuck with paying for new equipment or training exercises that weren't really needed for the Games.
Everyone played nice and B.C. agreed to pay about 22 per cent of the excess costs, instead of half - about $163 million on top of the already committed $87.5 million.
That was still bad news, since both Hansen and Premier Gordon Campbell had insisted the security budget was adequate.
The promised cap of $600 million on provincial Olympic spending - a total misrepresentation itself - had also been broken.
The Games are now, even by Campbell's accounting, more than 25 per cent over budget.
But here it gets weirder. The deal won't see the province actually write a cheque to Ottawa for the extra costs.
Instead, it cut a side deal. The federal government and B.C. have about $2 billion worth of cost-shared infrastructure projects in the works. The province will increase its contribution to those by $163 million; the federal share will be reduced.
On the plus side, it lets the province spread the spending over the next three years.
But the deal also distorts the province's budgets. You're supposed to record expenses as they occur. The Games security costs would have been included in the budget that Hansen just introduced. That would have pushed the projected deficit from $495 million to $650 million.
The whole Games security costs should be a significant scandal.
The $175-million security budget was part of the package used to sell the Games to British Columbians. The IOC said it was inadequate almost from the outset of the process. The auditor general warned six years ago that more money would likely be needed. The RCMP sounded the alarm.
But Hansen and Campbell continued to insist the funding was adequate. Even last year Hansen told the legislature he didn't expect the province to contribute more than $87.5 million for security.
So either the costs increased 500 per cent in the last few months, the government wasn't paying adequate attention or it wasn't being open and straightforward with the public. Or perhaps some combination of the three.
The big political problem is the secrecy and evasions. The Games' costs have actually been well-managed, particularly venue construction.
An early admission of problems with the security budget, along with a straightforward willingness to acknowledge all the real Games costs, would have headed off the scandal.
Footnote: How ridiculous was it to keep defending the original $175-million security budget? Consider that security in Salt Lake City for the 2002 Games cost twice that amount. By the Turin Games four years ago, the security budget had reached $1.4 billion. Yet B.C. still claimed that protecting the scattered sites in Vancouver and Whistler would cost far less.

Truth in budgeting

I did not think the Liberals would stumble like this . The government has earned good marks for financial transparency and - except for the excessive conservatism that produced excessive surpluses - reasonable projections.
But last week's budget underestimates expenses and, according to at least one respected economist, inflates revenues.
What's particularly strange is that this is all unnecessary. As Stephen Harper showed, deficits are considered OK in the face of the economic slide. (As they should be.)

The effectiveness of Patrick Kinsella

The client list of adviser Patrick Kinsella - former provincial Liberal election campign co-chair - is impressive. So was his dismissal of B.C.'s lobbyist registry as, ultimately, a failure.
Sean Holman has identified another interesting client .
Once you've read the piece, search Holman's site on Patrick Kinsella and read the other posts.

Budget looks more hopeful than credible

The more time I spend with the government's numbers, the more improbable the budget looks.
The plan - especially in years two and three - looks to rely heavily on optimism. The claim that budgets will be balanced by the 2011 fiscal year, after small two deficits, is shaky at best.
Unless, that is, the government is prepared to do some heavy slashing and burning in programs and services.
It's a touchy subject for both main parties. In 1996, the NDP tabled a budget that claimed two successive surpluses - in the fiscal year just about to end and the new budget year.
The claims were false, based largely on unrealistic revenue forecasts. A lot of Liberals believe the NDP stole that election. It still rankles.
Now, on the eve of another election, the Liberals are projecting a skinny surplus this year and two years of small deficits before a legislated return to balanced budgets.
The surplus this year should be attainable. There are less than two months until the March 31 fiscal year-end and a big contingency fund.
And the government might be able to hit its projected $495-million deficit in the coming year.
But there are questions even about that.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen has abandoned one of the symbols of Liberal prudence. Budgets have included "forecast allowances" of about $800 million - a cushion against surprises.
There is no forecast allowance for the next three years. If something goes wrong, spending must be cut or deficits will rise.
And spending cuts would be difficult.
The three-year-plan sees overall expenses rising by about two per cent on average.
But that's mostly health spending. Strip away health and education, and government spending is to be cut almost four per cent this year, three per cent next and then frozen at the lower level in the third year, resulting in a barely balanced budget.
Which, as you run options through a spreadsheet, might seem perfectly possible.
But the Environment Ministry, for example, faces a five-per-cent budget cut this year, and then another one per cent cut in each of the next two years. By 2011, the ministry responsible for environmental protection and climate change action, will have seven per cent less resources than it does today.
Attorney General Wally Oppal has been batted around in the legislature in the days since the budget.
With good reason. His budget calls for cuts to prosecutors and court services, at a time when gangs are doing their best to act out Scarface on Vancouver streets. The 767 people working on prosecution services are to be cut to 661 over the next three years.
Pressed in a scrum, the lightly prepared Oppal said the budget numbers for the last two years of the three-year plan were flexible. If the ministry needed more money, it would spend it.
But that means either cuts somewhere else or a deficit instead of the promised balanced budget in 2011.
And there really isn't anywhere else to cut. The Ministry of Children and Families gets increase of one per cent, one per cent and zero. It plans to cut almost 200 positions in child and family development work.
There's less money for housing, forests, tourism, at a time when needs are acute.
The budget documents even highlight the problems.
The finance deputy minister notes that the budget includes $250 million more in spending cuts by 2011/12 that have yet to be identified.
It's weird, really. Instead of deficits of $495 million and $245 million, big risks and harsh cuts, the government could have gone with $1.2-billion deficits each year and put off a balanced budget for an extra year.
The debt increase wouldn't have been significant, especially if the government's prediction of a quick return to growth is accurate.
And services and the Liberals' credibility would have both been protected.
Footnote: Politically, the budget makes no sense. If Stephen Harper has embraced five years of deficits, surely three years in B.C. would be acceptable. And why raise the spectre of a hidden agenda of cuts to programs and services?

Budget, third thoughts

Attorney General Wally Oppal has a tougher time staying on message than most politicians. His candour, or lack of preparation can lead to blurts and admissions in the public interest. Of course, that means political staffers cringe in terror whenever he stands up to speak.
This week, Oppal raised questions about how real the numbers are in years two and three of the budget plan — the ones that show the path to a return to balanced bnudgets.
Confronted with the fact that the budget calls for staff cuts in the justice system just as the public is concerned about gang crime, Oppal said there is nothing to worry about. The numbers are just projections anyway. If they need to spend more, they will.
But that's not what the budget is supposed to be. It's supposed to be prudent and an accurate forecast of government plans. Unless, of course, that got lost in the rush to paint a picture that showed only two, small deficits.

Budget, second thoughts

I've been having second thoughts about the budget column. Mostly, I'm looking at ministry service plans and thinking that cuts will be deeper than it first appeared. Sean Holman has some interesting reports on the budget and a memo from public sector head Jessica McDonald to employees suggesting significant layoffs are possible.

Budget '09: Timidity trumps vision

We got a timid provincial budget Tuesday, when boldness would have been welcome.
The good news, for most British Columbians, is that health care spending has been protected. It will increase by about six per cent a year through the budget period.
That's not enough to allow improvements, given population growth and inflation, but things shouldn't get worse.
But except for health, the Liberal government worried too much about keeping deficits small and brief and too little about economic stimulus and the needs of British Columbians.
Across the rest of ministries, taken as a whole, spending will be pretty much frozen in the coming year, rising by about one-half of one per cent.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen hopes that administrative savings - travelling less, or using fewer consultants - can be found to avoid program cuts.
The big guys always say that. The reality is usually different.
The budget for children and families, for example, is effectively frozen, despite increasing demand, rising costs and frustrations about inadequate services now. B.C. Housing spending will be cut by $92 million - about 15 per cent.
Funding for police will rise 5.1 per cent this year, mainly to cover RCMP contract costs, and then be frozen for the following two years. Aboriginal Affairs will lose 18 per cent of its funding this year; Community Services about 17 per cent.
The focus on "belt-tightening," as Hansen described it, is misplaced.
The Liberals' commitment to balanced budgets was laudable in normal times. In this kind of slowdown, it risks further damage to the economy, individuals and communities.
The budget projects a deficit of $495 million and $245 million in the following year before being exactly balanced in 2011/12.
Those projections - for the first time in years - include no forecast allowance. Typically, the government has included at least $750 million as a cushion against the unexpected.
Hansen points to infrastructure spending as the province's preferred form of economic stimulus. But the budget basically included already scheduled projects, plus about $2 billion in new spending as a result of the federal stimulus package.
But at the same time, the government appears to have turned its back on other forms of stimulus that doesn't involve paving or building bridges.
Arts and culture spending, for example, will be cut in half by the 2010 budget year. That means lost jobs, but also lost economic opportunities as festivals and community events fold.
The budget also comes up short on measures specifically aimed at B.C. communities outside the Lower Mainland. (Although that might change, if the infrastructure funding details include money for throne speech commitments in the north, like the Cariboo Connector and new power transmission lines.'
It's also unclear how much this budget will ultimately matter. The government will shut down the legislature before it is voted on. A new version, possibly quite different, will be introduced in September.
The budget is also based on a quick economic recovery for B.C., something that is far from assured.
It was also striking how little this looked like a pre-election budget. There's no theme, no grand vision, just a commitment to health care and caution. It suggests a Liberal election campaign built upon the argument that they are more prudent and trustworthy than the NDP in tough times.
The Liberals, despite Premier Gordon Campbell's frequent policy enthusiasms, have sometimes appeared focused on cutting government rather than in exploiting its potential to make life better for citizens.
And there is a sense in this budget of a government that is somewhat adrift. Past priorities, like the Heartland and children and even climate change, are scarcely mentioned. It portrays a model of governing as a series of administrative functions, with little vision.
Of course, that vision thing can create big problems, as the former NDP government demonstrated with the fast ferries and grand, unmanaged initiatives like the Jobs for Timber Accord. (And the current government demonstrated with the Vancouver convention centre.)
But this was a time for leadership. The government's cautious budget falls short.
Footnote: The government plans to impose a two-year wage freeze when the current public sector contracts expire in a little more than a year. It does not, however, appear to plan significant staff reductions or layoffs.

Just be quiet, and everything will be fine

Interesting Times Colonist story on former solicitor general John Les and liquor agents - small-town stores that sell gin along with groceries and hardware.
Worth a column, but two points now. First, many groups are silenced by a cabinet minister who says, 'play nice, and I might be able to help you. Raise a fuss, and you're toast.' They buy it, even though, like the liquor agencies, they get nothing in return foir silence.
Second, it is interesting that private liquor stores, with much tighter ties to the Liberals - former minister Gary Collins is a director of one major player - have succeeded in winning big cash windfalls from the government.
The gifts to private liquor stores have added up to about $50 million a year in extra profits. And, of course, that is $50 million less in revenue for government, that taxpayers have to come up with.

BC Rail and the MLAs' secrets

Bill Tieleman continues to serve the public well by following and reporting on the B.C. Rail corruption case's slow progress through the courts.
In the latest update Tieleman reports the Liberal caucus had a lawyer in court this week to ensure documents relating to communication between MLAs wouldn't be disclosed to the defence under a Freedom of Information request.
Which seems odd. If the defence believes the documents are relevant, the court can order their production.
But then an awful lot is odd in this case. Pretty much everything, really.

Games and guns make for rough legislature week

Ah, the legislature is a wondrous and often appalling place.
MLAs have been back four days, in a special sitting to change the balanced law so deficits are OK for the next two years.
No one has really paid attention to that debate, because the outcome is guaranteed. The Liberal majority now supports deficits now; so does the NDP.
Question period, the daily half-hour in which opposition MLAs attempt to catch out cabinet ministers, has been the main attraction.
That's because the press gallery crew watch each day for stories, ready to scrum both sides in the hall once the "Bell ends question period," as the Speaker says every sitting day. (Blessedly, I add quietly on many of them.)
On Thursday, they saw Finance Minister Colin Hansen, usually more sensible and effective, ignore eight questions about Olympic costs completely.
Each time, he stood up and talked about how great the Games would be and how the New Democrats were just gloomy worrywarts. It was the start of the one-year countdown to the Games, he said. Lighten up.
Carole James and company were, of course, trying to embarrass the government.
But the questions seemed legitimate. B.C. Hydro told the utilities commission Games-related security could cost an extra $7 million next year. It asked for a rate increase to cover the cost.
Natural gas suppliers are seeking increases. TransLink is spending millions. How much is all this costing British Columbians?
Should B.C. Hydro, for example, be collecting the security costs from low-income seniors through higher power rates, or should the government be paying it as an Olympic cost? That would mean a more equitable sharing of the burden.
And why did B.C. Hydro and ICBC - both effectively monopolies - become Games sponsors and buy 3,800 tickets to events? How much will customers pay?
The amounts are small. Perhaps the average household will pay $3.50 extra in electricity costs. But the questions deserved some response.
The other big theme for the week was the out-of-control gang shootings in the Lower Mainland. A lot of muscled, tattooed guys who watched Scarface too many times are shooting each other and spraying bullets around.
Gordon Campbell had a rare stumble on the issue. As the latest shell casings were being picked up, he said the government had done a lot on gangs. The effort would be stepped up, but only by shifting officers and prosecutors from other priorities. There would be no increased spending to deal with gangs.
But people in the Lower Mainland - from Abbotsford in - are worried about the daytime shootouts in supermarket parking lots. The answer seemed dismissive.
Inside the legislature, Attorney General Wally Oppal answered questions by saying the New Democrats did a worse job of dealing with gang crime in the 1990s.
Apparently no one had told him that's probably one of the many reasons the voters booted the NDP government.
Politically, it's interesting. The Liberals are trying to be the real Olympic boosters while portraying James as anti-Games; the NDP want to be boosters, but with a worried eye on the costs.
Practically, the focus is wrong. The Games are coming and the money is spent. The goal should be to get the maximum benefit. There will be a significant economic contribution in 2010, a needed boost.
But the challenge is to attract tourists, investors and creative people. Then auditor general Wayne Strelioff, in a 2006 report, said there could be big benefits. He added a warning, quoting consultants who worked on the assessment. "These benefits will not materialize automatically," they said. "They must be earned by a focused, adequately funded and skillfully executed marketing program."
The challenge is now much greater because of the recession.
The Games are coming; it's time to focus on benefits. Or end up like Turin, the forgotten host of the 2006 Winter Games.
Footnote: Campbell addressed the gang issue Friday, promising 131 officers would be transferred to the organized crime squad and 10 additional prosecutors dedicated to the work. The government also plans to ban body armour and seek tougher sentences and bail conditions for gun crimes.

A campaign without embedded journalists

It's a tradition that news media send reporters and camera operators out on the road with the leaders' buses during election campaigns, paying the parties for the transport and picking up all the other costs.
But times are tough in the media world and the buses might be empty during the provincial campaign leading up to the May 12 election, according to Sean Holman and Vaughn Palmer.
That could be a good thing. The rolling photo ops tended to focus on the trivial and were awfully easy for the parties to manage.
Then again, the parties could decide to run the whole campaign in the Lower Mainland as an alternative, which hardly seems a step forward.

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.)