On election day, will you be a happy sheep?

Barely back from a 2,800-mile road trip, and I was greeted by the first election signs.
And my heart sank.
That’s bad. We should look forward to a chance to choose our representatives. Journalists should be eager to write about the campaign.
But I was discouraged. Partly, it was because of my travels down to California, mostly through small towns. Things are bad in most of those communities — homes lost, industries and stores closing and social infrastructure crumbling. And I was struck again by the friendly, helpful, open nature of most Americans, and how they seem unable to elect governments that reflect those qualities.
Partly because this election already looks to be fearful, rather than hopeful. Many undecided voters seem focused on deciding which party is less likely to make big mistakes in government. There’s not a lot of interest in big ideas for a better B.C.
But you can, and should, rise above all that. Elections matter. There are differences between the parties that will affect your life over the next four years, and your children’s lives for decades. You can’t claim to care about community or family or the future and not vote.
In 2005, slightly more than three million British Columbians were eligible to vote. Yet 1.3 million didn’t. For most, there was no good reason.
Extreme ideologues of the right, left or whatever will claim the parties are all the same. That’s simply false.
Some people claim their votes don’t matter. But at least seven races were decided in 2005 by margins narrow enough that even a modestly increased turnout might have changed the outcome — and perhaps resulted in a different government.
And some non-voters don’t feel well-enough informed and are willing to leave the choice up to others. But the best decisions are made by diverse groups. (James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds is brilliant on the subject.) If one group is not represented at the polls, neither is their judgment based on experience and lessons learned.
Becoming informed isn’t difficult. The media will report on local and provincial campaigns.
There are other great resources. The party websites — bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca — let you review their positions.
Most media organizations, including online publications such as thetyee.ca, have election areas within their websites with more information, columns and blogs.
And sites like the Election Prediction Project, at electionprediction.org, offer online discussions of the issues and outlook for each riding.
That’s important. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the candidates, not the parties. A great person, committed to a community, can be a valuable addition to the legislature on either side of the house.
The task of deciding how to vote can be simplified. Many people don’t need to analyze the entire platforms. If you’re an unemployed coastal forest worker, look at policies on the industry, economic development and retraining. If you are aging, consider voting based on policies on health care and support for seniors.
And get a sense of whether the promises are credible and affordable.
All parties work to identify supporters and mount a big election day effort to ensure they actually vote. Often, that effort determines the outcome in ridings.
That effort is also a reminder of how much your vote could matter.
It’s often a messy and uncertain, this democracy business. Each election day remains a test. Are we a people who take our best shot at electing a government that will serve our interests?
Or are we sheep, willing to be led wherever others decide?
Footnote: The other big reason to vote this time is the referendum on fixing our broken electoral system. British Columbians have a chance to say yes to a single-transferable-vote system that will be more representative and encourage MLAs to pay attention their constituents, not the party.

Camped in a casino RV lot...

And one day from home after a great road trip to Yosemite and Death Valley and many great points along the way. Struck, as always, by the consistent kindness, openness and generosity of individual Americans despite their political inability to develop policies that deal with real problems or elect governments that reflect their own values.
And also struck by how huge the unfolding economic/political crisis is down here and how the bottom does not seem to be in sight. The slowdown in Canada - so far - is insignificant compared to the crisis in the U.S. Every local paper had stories about layoffs and big numbers of ads for foreclosed homes. School districts are slashing spending and municipalities are on the edge of bankruptcy. In California City, a high desert town, a guy tinkering outside the RV he lived in predicted the Depression would mean the people living in $700,000 homes would be moving out to $7,000 desert lots and see how the poor people live.
It's not the Thirties, but it's worse than I expected watching from Victoria.
Plunging into paying attention to the B.C. election campaign, and hoping the parties will have something to say about how all this will affect the province.

Thanks, I'm fine

Better than fine, as this is a fun break. But thanks for fretting a little. It's much appreciated.

Taking a break

Posts to resume, really.

Campbell's 'province of losers' warning comes true

Should a responsible government really be trying to entice people into casinos to chase their lottery losses on slot machines?
Especially when the "special offer" is running at the same time as the B.C. Medical Association is warning about the impact of gambling addiction on thousands of British Columbians - almost the identitcal number, in fact, addicted to drugs?
You might have seen the ads. B.C. Lotteries is encouraging people to take their losing lottery tickets into a casino or mini-casino. You can exchange to $20 worth of losing tickets a day.
It's remarkably irresponsible and destructive. Especially from a government that has acknowledged the damage done by gambling, even while breaking its promise not to ramp up betting in the province.
B.C. Lotteries has always had the objective of recruiting additional gamblers every year. The more people who buy lottery tickets or bet online with the corporation or go to casinos, the more the government takes from their pockets. (And the more people whose lives will be damaged addiction.)
But this is a new, nasty twist. Lottery tickets are a less harmful form of gambling. Even with scratch and lose tickets, it's a dull, slow experience. People are less likely to lose control.
Slot machines are designed and developed, at great expense, to be addictive, to keep people gambling for longer periods and to make them want to come back for more. The companies hire psychologists and watch people in casinos to see how different patterns of flashing and ringing bells keep them betting. They test different patterns and symbols on the spinning wheels.
And the companies are very good at their work. Today's slot machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling.
It's a dangerous idea to encourage people to switch from a few lottery tickets to the much more dangerous form of gambling.
The casinos would like the idea. The lottery corporation - and the government - would make more money. But more lives will be wrecked. That is a simple fact. People who might never have taken that first step into the local bingo hall to play a VLT - that's what slots are today - will fall into addiction or problem gambling.
But that's part of the government's plan for the lottery corporation. Its business plan, released last month along with the budget documents, has a number of objectives. The corporation wants to increase the percentage of the adult population who gamble steadily over the next several years.
And it hopes the average gambler will lose more - rising from about $725 last year to about $810 each by 2011.
It's business.
But it's a damaging business. The B.C. Medical Association report is worth a read at bcma.org. It has important, practical recommendations on ways to reduce the toll all forms of addiction are taking, starting with the need to treat addiction as a health issue, not a police problem or moral failing.
Gambling is part of the problem. The BCMA found research indicates 33,000 British Columbians have a severe gambling problem. That number more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, as the government rapidly gambling in the province, particularly the number of slot machines in large and small communities.
Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem.
By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.
None of this is surprising. Premier Gordon Campbell, in the 2001 election campaign, vowed to halt the expansion of gambling. The government made gambling money by turning its citizens into a province of losers, he said.
Kevin Krueger, now a cabinet minister, was even direct and passionate. Alllowing gambling to expand meant divorce, crime and even deaths, he said. It was immoral and destructive.
But then the Liberals were elected. The lottery corporation looked like a good way to boost government revenues. The casino companies were lobbying hard to be allowed to go bigger and move into smaller communities. They wanted people to drink while they gambled, so they would lose more.
The government decided the principle wasn't worth the price and launched a massive gambling spree. Those people whose lives fell apart because of gambling were acceptable collateral damage. They should have called the help line or decided to bar themselves from casinos.
Today, it is encouraging people to make the jump from lotteries to slots with a special offer to losers. The principles have really been tossed aside.

B.C. Rail Kinsella memo to be revealed Thursday in court, NDP predicts

MEDIA ADVISORY

March 25, 2009

KEY DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION TRIAL EXPECTED TOMORROW

VANCOUVER - The contents of a 2004 e-mail exchange between B.C. Rail
executives asking about payments made to Patrick Kinsella and his
company Progressive Group are expected to be revealed in open court
tomorrow as part of the ongoing B.C. Rail Corruption Trial.
Attorney General Critic Leonard Krog will be available for comment at
the Vancouver Supreme Courthouse tomorrow following proceedings.

WHEN: Thursday, March 26
WHERE: Vancouver Supreme Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver

The time and courtroom number will not be posted until 8:30 a.m.
tomorrow morning at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme%5Fcourt/hearing%5Flist/index.aspx
under Vancouver, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Basi/Virk. Please note you
must turn off your pop-up blocker to view the site.

And for those losing track of all the angles involving Kinsella, Sean Holman - who has been far out in front in reporting on the story - offers a useful chronology here .

Running a wire on the police

The Times Colonist has been following an interesting case. Victoria police stopped a driver, in case, they said, his car was stolen.
He was difficult. They arrested him and searched his van. He had the audio record function running on his Palm Pilot during the arrest and while they searched the vehicles as he sat, handcuffed, in the back seat of the police car.
But police didn't know that until after the arresting officer had testified at the man's trial for obstructing justice.
The recording was played by defence lawyer Doug Christie (yeh, that guy). The Crown dropped the charges.
The report is here .
Click on the link to transcript of trial on the right to see what happened.
It suggests, sadly, real grounds for concerns about court cases decided on the basis of police testimony.

Nurses find way around coming wage freeze

It looks like the B.C. Nurses Union has retired Solidarity Forever in favour of Take the Money and Run as a rallying song.
The nurses' contract, like collective agreements for pretty much the whole public sector, was set to expire at the end of March in 2010.
That's also when the government has said it will introduce a two-year public sector wage freeze in response to the economic downturn.
The union wasn't keen on a wage freeze, naturally enough. So it approached the government last month to propose a contract extension now, more than a year before it expires, in return for salary increases.
The government liked the idea. It agreed to extend the contract for two years, until April 2012, with a three-per-cent raise in each year. The union and government call it a "labour market adjustment," but it's a wage hike.
Like all collective bargaining, the deal is a trade-off. The nurses' union gets a good guaranteed raise for members at a time of huge economic uncertainty.
The government, which is working on a similar deal with doctors, avoids the threat of disruptions to the health care system in the summer of 2010 and, perhaps, attracts some needed new nurses and doctors.
It's an interesting calculation on the part of both sides. For the union, there's a wage increase above the rate of inflation. And there's no worry about a newly elected government getting fierce about a wage freeze.
For the government, there's a fixed increase for one of the unions that tends to enter contract disputes with public sympathy. And by grabbing the chance to settle with doctors and nurses, it has isolated the other health-sector unions, especially the Hospital Employees Union.
The HEU represents some skilled technical employees and licensed practical nurses, who have similar cases for a "labour market adjustment."
But many members work in areas calling for few specialized skills. In a slow economy, it's not hard to find people to do the work. And those employees are also less likely to win public support than the heirs to Florence Nightingale.
A common front, or at least a co-ordinated bargaining strategy, might have produced larger overall gains. Even if that was unlikely - after all, the HEU signed first in 2006 - the union fears that the raises for nurses and doctors will preclude similar adjustments for its 43,000 members.
But the nurses' union has a legal responsibility to represent its members' interests, not the needs of other health-care workers.
The deal is a reminder that contracts covering almost every public sector worker, from teachers to direct government employees to hospital workers expire a little more than a year from now.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's budget is based on a wage freeze in the new deals and there is no allowance for any extra expenses. The nurses' deal will cost $120 million in year two, I estimate, money the government doesn't have in its budget plan.
The government goes into these talks with some goodwill. The last round of settlements, which included bonuses of about $4,000 per employee, were well received.
But goodwill has a short shelf life when it comes to labour relations in this province. And the government has hinted at big staff cuts and, possibly, significant layoffs. If those happen, talks will be tougher.
The case for a wage freeze should be strong by next year. But unions - the B.C. Teachers Federation comes to mine - will still be looking for gains.
Taxpayers, though, might not be seeing raises in their workplaces - if they have workplaces. And they might be crabby if their taxes go up to pay for public sector workers' raises.
And on top of all this, add the political question of which party would best represent the public interest in negotiating the next round of contacts.
Footnote: The agreement includes provisions for a nurses' union-government-health authority committee to work on workload, management, job scope and other issues that affect nurses and the system. The government hopes the co-operative approach will result in savings and efficiencies.

Uranium a glowing problem for government

The province's handling of uranium mining brings to mind Homer Simpson's approach to operating a nuclear power plant.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court.
Uranium mining brings a classic clash of B.C. values - the resource sector, used to wresting wealth from the ground, versus the urbanites and retirees, who have never forgotten Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. And who don't much like mining near them in any form.
This month the cabinet had a Homer Simpson moment.
"B.C. strengthens position against uranium mining," a news release was headlined. It said cabinet had an issued an order-in-council - a regulation - "to prevent permits from being issued for uranium and thorium exploration and development in B.C."
But 10 months ago, the government issued a news release headlined "Government confirms position on uranium development."
Uranium mining wasn't on, said junior minister Kevin Krueger. "By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry."
He sure got that wrong. It was the uncertainty about the government's position that prompted the latest cabinet regulation. Krueger's announcement last year said that future mining claims would be barred from rights to uranium.
But that suggested existing claims weren't be affected. "Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped," the 2008 news release did add.
The second try at getting it right appears to be more definitive. The new order says no uranium mining permits will be issued.
And it's retroactive, even though governments often get in trouble when they backdate laws and regulations.
A large part of the whole problem is where the uranium lies. The most promising deposit, the Blizzard claim, is about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. People did not move to the Okanagan to be near a uranium mine.
Canada is already one of the top two uranium-producing countries, along with Australia, and the world's largest mine is in Saskatchewan. But that site is so remote it might as well be in Mars. The Okanagan deposits are close to wine country.
The efforts to deal with the issue are sparked by the activity around the Blizzard claim.
Boss Power Corp., which owns the claim, sued last year after Krueger's announcement.
We've got rights here, and potentially valuable uranium deposits, the company said. You can't just take them away because uranium mining is politically unpopular.
And, the company complained, Krueger's fiat came just days "following a series of meeting between Boss Power management and senior provincial officials up to the assistant deputy minister level in which we were assured that our permit applications would be processed in a fair and transparent manner."
The company's share price fell by 50 per cent in the days after the ban.
In October, Boss sued. The ban was imposed "without any meaningful consultation with the mineral exploration industry, First Nations or the general public and has not only harmed the interests of Boss Power Corp. but may discourage other exploration companies who value the ability to work in a consultative environment."
Then things got stranger. The province filed a statement of defence that, according to the company, said the ban didn't apply to the Blizzard claim because the mines were already registered before it was introduced.
The latest changes to the regulations, made by cabinet last week, were an apparent to target the Blizzard claim.
Which means that the company's lawsuit seeking compensation is likely to go ahead.
It's a tricky issue. Nuclear power is seen by many as a green form of energy, though it's banned in B.C. And you can't have power without fuel.
And the government doesn't want to irk the mining industry.
But residents won't stand for a mine in the Okanagan. The questions now will be whether compensation is due - and whether the ban should have been in place all along.
Footnote: Interest in the deposits goes back a long way. When development seemed likely, in 1980, then premier Bill Bennett brought in a seven-year moratorium on uranium development. The Vander Zalm government let it lapse. Neither the New Democrat or Liberal governments addressed the issue since 1987, when the ban ended.

Questions unanswered about BC Rail payments to Liberal insider

Sure, a lot was happening in the Liberals' first term. But it's hard to see why a Crown corporation had to pay $297,000 to a Liberal insider for help understanding the new government.
Surely picking up the phone and calling Premier Gordon Campbell could have worked just as well.
The New Democrats has been asking a lot of questions about why B.C. Rail paid almost $300,000 to the consulting companies of Patrick Kinsella between 2002 and 2005. They haven't been getting answers.
Kinsella is as well-connected as they come. He's been involved in politics, mostly behind the scenes, for three decades. He has run successful provincial election campaigns for the Socreds and was co-chair of the 2001 and 2005 Liberal campaigns. One of the company's executives managed Gordon Campbell's own campaign.
And his companies have done very well for - and presumably by - companies seeking to have government see things their way.
Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com used an FOI request to obtain documents from Washington state, where the Progressive Group, one of Kinsella's firms, was seeking a contract.
The company identified successes in winning government decisions worth more than $2 billion to its clients. Progressive helped Accenture "promote and educate the B.C. government of the value of outsourcing a number of the government services," the firm said. That resulted in a 10-year, $1.45-billion deal to take over most of B.C. Hydro's administrative functions.
It helped Alcan persuade the government of the value of a Kitimat smelter expansion; that deal included a new power agreement worth some $1 billion to the corporation. The deal was so rich for Alcan - and so unfair to B.C. Hydro's customers - that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned it.
Progressive helped the film industry get additional tax breaks worth $65 million a year and persuaded the provincial government - through the Forest Ministry - to contribute $15 million toward a new public-private arena in Langley.
Corporations or individuals are free to hire consultants to help them figure out how best to align their goals with the aims of government. And it could be argued that the best advice might come from those with the closest ties to the politicians and party in power.
Certainly Kinsella's companies have advised an impressive roster of corporations and industries in the province. Plutonic Power, which has a controversial megaproject planned for Bute Inlet rivers, has used him as an adviser. A major payday loan company, gambling companies, ING Canada - it's an impressive list. (Credit to Holman for the diligent research.)
And, of course, B.C. Rail.
The difference in this case is that the Crown corporation was paying Kinsella's company with taxpayers' money.
The NDP raised the issue repeatedly in the legislature last week. There was the usual partisan posturing, but the fundamental questions were legitimate.
What did the companies do for the money? Was there an open tender process? Were the Kinsella companies' ties to the Liberals a factor in the decision?
Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal refused to answer. Oppal said the contract might be relevant to the B.C. Rail corruption trial inching its way through the courts and he wouldn't comment.
That seemed implausible; the consulting payments weren't released as part of evidence in the case. They were in public B.C. Rail documents.
But on Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the revelations during a pre-trial hearing. Defence lawyer Kevin McCulloch, representing Bob Virk, one of three government aides charged in the case, reminded her of an e-mail that appears to refer to the payments. "It's the backroom Liberal e-mail," he said.
And Kinsella's company than responded with a news release saying it had been hired to help B.C. Rail understand the Liberals "core review" of government activities.
But the questions remain, including the basic one - why would a Crown corporation need to pay a consultant to help it understand the government of the day?
Footnote: Kinsella embarrassed the government last fall when Information Commissioner David Loukidelis launched an investigation into allegations he had acted as a lobbyist without registering, as required by the lobbying laws. Kinsella's lawyers told Loukidelis the law didn't give him authority to investigate and their client wouldn't co-operate voluntarily.

Finance ministry records included faked B.C. Rail sale e-mails

A few days ago, I posted e-mails from finance ministry files that indicated former New Democrat MLAs Paul Ramsey, Gordon Wilson, Helmut Geisbrecht and others plotting to attack Gordon Campbell's B.C. Rail sale.
They were fake, as Paul Ramsey has already said.
Wilson has added his notice that the e-mails were bogus.

"I can assure you that I did not author any email to Ramsey on the sale of BC Rail. During my time in politics I was a vocal critic of Campbell's desire to sell off the Railway, and predicted that he would do so despite his constant denials to the contrary.
I am not sure who wrote those emails or why anyone would go to such lengths to try to engage those named. It is quite bizarre, but then so is the whole episode even to the extent to which it has been kept out of the public spotlight.
Gordon Wilson"

So, who was behind the e-mails?

Binder 5: E-mails fake says, ex-Liberal MLA

Paul Nettleton also says the finance ministry e-mail files allegedly showing a campaign against the BC Rail are fakes.

"Your recent blog on BCR was brought to my attention with specific reference to my "letter to former Transportation Minister Reid" on the BCR sale. At no time did I correspond with Minister Reid at the direction of Lois Boone (former NDP Transportation Minister) and/or anyone else in the NDP. Furthermore at no time did anyone in the NDP request that I do so!
Paul Nettleton"

BC Rail paid firms of Liberal campaign co-chair for services

The New Democrats asked about questions yersterday about $297,000 in payments from B.C. Rail to the consulting firms of Patrick Kinsella, the Liberals' campaign co-chair in 2001 and 2005. Sean Holman sets out the details here. It's worth searching on Kinsella on publiceyeonline.com for background.
An alert reader posted an interesting Hansard exchange from May 28, 2003, on my site. The exchange came during debate on the budget for the premier's office.

J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.

J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.

Binder 5: Paul Ramsey says he's never seen the e-mails referred to in the post below

Former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey says he's never seen, and certainly didn't write, any of the e-mails in Finance Ministry files that supposedly include comments from him on the B.C. Rail deal.

"Very strange, Mr. Willcocks, very strange," he said in an e-mail today.
"I did not write the July 10, 2003 e-mail that appears in Binder 5 with my name on it. I never saw any secret "documents" that discussed the BC Rail sale. I was not part of any co-ordinated NDP attack on the sale--though I certainly thought it was a dumb idea (for both policy and political reasons) and said so in print and on the air. I never discussed the sale of BC Rail with Joy (MacPhail, I assume). And I don't know who Ron Cannan is."

I have no doubt that's Ramsey being candid and straightforward.
And I have no idea what's going on here.

Binder 5: New Democrats plot against the B.C. Rail sale, and the government gets the e-mails

Note: See post above. Paul Ramsey says he's never seen and didn't write any of these e-mails. Which raises a whole lot of questions about how bogus e-mails ended up in Finance Ministry files.

But how did e-mails supposedly between former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey, ex-Liberal leader and later New Democrat Gordon Wilson and defeated NDP backbencher Helmut Giesbrecht end up in finance ministry files? Wilson was replaced as Liberal leader by Gordon Campbell; Ramsey represented a Prince George riding until 2001, and Giesbrecht represented Skeena until 2001.
Assuming the trio were not keen on telegraphing their plans to attack the sale of B.C. Rail, how did the Liberals get their hands on the 2003 e-mail exchange?
A mole in their midst? Carelessness? Or are the e-mails faked?
The e-mails are among some 8,000 pages of material — much of it blanked out — released to defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption case under FOI requests. The NDP has posted them here .

“We should fine tune our strategy on rail,” Wilson allegedly wrote in a July 10 e-mail to Ramsey and Giesbrecht. “It will go to cabinet on July 23. Believe me gentlemen this is going to be more controversial than the Coq deal. We have the potential to really nail the coffin shut. Its clear the only thing Campbell cares about is the bottom line. We need to hit them fast and hard on this.” Wilson says cabinet will give the sale the “green light” at the meeting. “It is obvious from what I have seen from our friends, the tax advantages make it almost certain that CN will be the only suitor for B.C. Rail. Paul have you spoken to Joy or Lois? Even the stuff on raiding pension funds is good. Campbell won’t be able to find a place to hide. He will regret his promise not to sell bcr. Everywhere you look the word sale is mentioned.”

Giesbrecht's supposedly sent a response to Ramsey and Wilson within 15 minutes.
“I agree with you. Our good fortune is really hard to comprehend. I spoke to Lois the other day she is working hard with the unions. She spoke to nettleton yesterday and convinced him to write a strongly worded letter to reid. Once the negotiating team is given their obvious bottom line mandate, that will be the time to crank things up considerably. The order of the bids is not what I would have expected. Campbell will dread the word ‘sale’ every time it is mentioned!” (Reid likely refers to then transportation minister Judith Reid and Nettleton to Prince George MLA Paul Nettleton, who by then had been bounced from the Liberal caucus. Lois would be former Prince George NDP MLA Lois Boone.)

Ramsey allegedly responds to Wilson and Giesbrecht that evening.
“I spoke to Lois yesterday. She is beginning to ratchet up the pressure. I advised her to lay low until cabinet decides on july 23. The comments by cibc have been incredibly helpful. That just confirmed to me this was already a done deal. The job losses will be staggering… I can’t believe our stroke of luck. Please ensure you do not pass those documents to anybody else. Let’s keep them under wraps. I have put a call into Lois. I did speak to Joy. She called ron cannan to touch base and stir the pot some more. When I hear what transpired I will fill you in. It’s my understanding Campbell will be trying to sell this to his cabinet up in sechelt. Let’s hope they don’t develop a backbone overnight.”
(CIBC World Markets had been hired to organize the sale and a company analyst had caused a stir by suggesting CN was the logical buyer. Ron Cannan was then a Kelowna councilor who opposed the sale; now he’s a Conservative MP. The cabinet met in Sechelt on July 15; Reid did a telephone press call that day to try and ease fears about the sale and potential job losses.)

Finally, Giesbrecht is supposed to have e-mailed 10 former NDP MLAs on July 11 – Jom Doyle, Lois Boone, Corky Evans, David Zirnhelt, Erda Walsh, Steve Orcherton, Pietro Calendino, Glenn Robertson. Bill Goodacre and Moe Sihota.

“This is the latest. When we get a decision after July 23 I will follow up at that time.”

And there the record stops.

Who is paying lawyers for Basi and Virk?

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 .
I suggested it was a good chance to test citizen journalism; take a look and see if there's something you find noteworthy, and post it here - or anywhere else.
Having slogged through Binder 3, I note that Vaughn Palmer certainly makes people in government nervous.
And that taxpayers are, apparently, picking up the spectacular legal expenses for Dave Basi and Bob Virk. Documents in the binder say the deputy minister of finance and the deputy attorney general approved the indemnity in July 2005.
Taxpayers would pick up the tab for legal costs "in criminal procedures against them arising from conduct that was in the course of their employment as ministerial assistants." The reasons, offered in a briefing note, have been kept secret.
Another memo says, "Both of these individuals were told, as part of the correspondence related to the termination of their employment, that the province would consider giving them indemnity."
Which seems reasonable. If you're doing your job and end up in facing criminal charges related to your work, your employer should support unless clearly improper behaviour has taken place. That certainly hasn't been established.
And it's especially critical in this case. The prosecution appears to have a limitless budget, with a number of lawyers under special prosecutor Bill Beradino working on the case.
And, of course, remember that Glen Clark's legal costs were paid by the public, as they should have been.

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.