B.C. worst for child poverty for sixth year

The good news is that fewer B.C. kids were living in poverty in 2007.
The bad news is that the “Best Place on Earth” has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, according to Statistics Canada.
Worse, perhaps, is the fact that despite six consecutive years of that dismal distinction, poor children — children generally — weren’t mentioned much in the provincial election campaign.
That bothered Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislature’s Representative for Children and Youth. Turpel-Lafond, the first representative appointed after Ted Hughes’ damning report called for an advocate and watchdog for children and families, was hoping for more.
“I was quite disappointed with the fact that the situation for children was not a central issue,” said Turpel-Lafond. It’s not just child poverty, she noted. There are also the grim stats for aboriginal children, on indicators from health to education to their over-representation in government care, and a list of other issues.
Instead, Turpel-Lafond said the campaign seemed to focus on the leaders’ personalities, with a nod to the economy and the environment as issues.
Based on her travels and contacts with British Columbians, Turpel-Lafond says the politicians are out of touch. The public cares about issues affecting children and expects non-partisan action.
That’s what she’s hoping for the new session. The representative reports to a legislative committee, which was supposed to be working for children and youth but too often bogged down in politics — “The government side was there to defend and the opposition side was there to attack.” She’s hoping all MLAs — especially the chair and vice-chair — will set aside past differences.
The need for effective action is greater now. Turpel-Lafond says the situation for children has deteriorated with the economy. Services like legal aid and family court are underfunded and demand is mounting.
But often, she says, the focus seems to be on managing the way the public views issues rather than actually tackling the problems.
There’s another risk as government looks at spending cuts to reduce a deficit soaring far beyond the budgeted $495 million. The Ministry of Children and Families was to get a 1.8 per cent budget increase to cover this year and the next two. Not 1.8 per cent a year; that’s the total increase over three years to cope with increasing caseloads and rising costs.
“The bottom line is when you cut services and programs there is one group affected more than anybody — poor people,” Turpel-Lafond says. “Poor kids get hurt.”
Which leads back to child poverty. If you want to predict children’s futures, don’t look at IQ, where they were born, age of parents, gender, race or any other factors.
Look at family income. Poor kids start in a deep hole.
You can have an interesting debate about how to define poor or low income. Statistics Canada uses the low-income cutoff (LICO). If a family spends more than 70 per cent of its pre-tax income on shelter, food and clothing, it is low income.
On average, an urban Canadian family of four with a total pre-tax income of less than $40,000 is considered low income. That’s two parents, working full-time at $10.25 an hour. Which sounds poor to me.
Across Canada, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children do. Since 2001, B.C. has had a higher proportion of children living in poverty than any other province.
That was through, for the most part, pretty good times. As the economy worsens, more and more children fall into poverty.
Yet the provincial government has no plan specifically aimed at reducing child poverty. There are no targets or timelines or accountability measures.
Turpel-Lafond says there is nothing mysterious or magical about improving life for children in B.C. “We know what to do, we just aren’t doing it.”
The needs are greater than ever before. We’ll know in the next few months how seriously the government takes its responsibility.
Footnote: The representative’s role, as recommended by Hughes, includes monitoring and reporting on the ministry’s progress. The next update is due soon.
The impression from outside is that the ministry continues to struggle; the report should provide a decent briefing paper for whoever succeeds the retired Tom Christensen as minister — the fifth person to hold the job since the Liberals were elected.

Welfare too low, Campbell says, but no action promised

Gordon Campbell has discovered that the province's low welfare rates are hurting people and communities.
A bit late, in terms of the poverty problem in the province, but still welcome.
Or it would be, if there was a clearer sense that the government is prepared to do something about it.
Campbell's epiphany has come as more and more British Columbians are being thrown out of work. They are either unable to access employment insurance benefits or have used up their benefits.
The next step, for those who qualify, is welfare.
Campbell is pressing the federal government for two main reforms to employment insurance. Most attention was paid to his call for a uniform standard across Canada. Right now, people in high unemployment areas can get benefits after fewer weeks of work and for longer periods than those who lose their jobs in low unemployment areas. A laid-off forestry worker on north Vancouver Island, for example, can collect benefits for up to 47 weeks. In Victoria, benefits last 43 weeks. In Cape Breton, 50 weeks. The number of weeks required to earn eligibility are also lower in areas where unemployment is greater.
That's wrong, says Campbell, especially now. There is no place in Canada where it's an easy matter to find new work. Treatment should be equal. Some regions would lose, and some gain, under a standardized system.
But Campbell went farther in his pitch for change.
It's important to head off a flood of out-of-work people falling on to welfare, he said. The federal government should reach a deal with B.C. The province will send chip in what it would have spent on welfare on each person; the federal government should add money to that and keep them on employment insurance for up to two years.
Why? Campbell made the case in an op-ed column in The Globe and Mail.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
He's right. An employable single mom with two school-age children on welfare receives about $650 a month, plus up to $660 for accommodation. (Where can a family of three live in this region for $660 in rent?) That's $150 a week for food, clothes, transportation, birthdays, everything for three people.
But Campbell's government has maintained this is adequate and touted successful efforts to help some people find work.
Now, he's not sure.
"The reality is that as long as a worker is on EI, they tend to have more hope about their eventual job prospects and the temporary nature of their predicament," he wrote. "Many workers are now faced with the reality or prospect of exhausting their EI benefits - and they're scared."
And what they're scared of is a "bleak" financial future and the chance they will "wind up on welfare."
Campbell is right about the bleakness and hopelessness of life for many, or most, welfare recipients in B.C.
And his bid to try and get the federal government to top up welfare payments, at least for new recipients, is worth a try. The Harper Conservatives have proven willing to step up with taxpayers' dollars to meet regional deeds, as the automakers' bailouts have shown.
But, as Campbell points out, there is only one taxpayer, whether the money comes from the federal or provincial government.
The government has kept rates low because a "bleak" existence was an incentive for diligent job hunts.
Campbell acknowledges diligence isn't enough right now. It's hard to see a justification for deciding some unemployed people deserve additional income, while leaving others to suffer under income assistance rates the government acknowledges are destructive.
Footnote: It's a bold move for Campbell, who has followed a policy of playing nice with whoever is prime minister. Further EI changes have been rejected by Harper and supported by the federal Liberals. The B.C. government's bid for reform and additional benefits is bound to strain relationships at least a little.

Oppal’s defeat, independent MLA a chance for progress

It’s good news that Wally Oppal was defeated in Delta South, at least barring a new result from a judicial recount. That sounds harsh, I suppose. Oppal is pleasant. His reputation as a judge and in the community is good.
But he was an ineffective cabinet minister. After four years as attorney general, accomplishments are scant to non-existent. The list of unaddressed issues - gang violence, lobbyist legislation, FOI reform, court delays and costs - is long. Oppal often seemed out of touch, as if he hadn’t even read the summaries of reports that other ministers would pore over.
So, objectively, his departure from the scene isn’t really a bad thing. And the election of an independent MLA, that’s a great thing. Oppal lost to Vicki Huntington, the first independent elected in 60 years. The voters in Delta South - or 43 per cent of them - decided they didn’t want a representative tied to a party. They thought Huntington could represent them in the legislature, using her own good judgment.
It was a big slap at Gordon Campbell and the Liberals. In a 1999 byelection, at the NDP’s nadir, only 433 voters - one in 40 - supported the New Democrats. This should be a Liberal riding. But it wasn’t, despite a supposed star candidate. The election of Huntington is encouraging. No party leader or communications staffers will tell her what to do or say or how to vote. She only has to think about her constituents and her conscience. After a decade watching the legislature from the press gallery, that strikes me as a very fine thing.
MLAs are good people. That’s why they get elected, because the voters back in their ridings respect them and think they will do a good job representing them in the legislature.
And then they lose their minds. Not all of them, but most. They shout and heckle, like schoolyard goons, in question period. They reduce complex issues in the lives of the people who elected them to talking points. Huntington doesn’t have to do that. She can speak for the people in Delta South, not a political party.
The result is an aberration, admittedly. The people in Delta South feel profoundly betrayed by the Campbell Liberals. They’ve seen farmland lost, hospital problems, new highways and unwanted power lines. And their Liberal MLA, Val Roddick, has been perceived - in the classic description - as the party’s representative in the riding, not the community’s voice in Victoria.
It would be wonderful to have the most of the 85 MLAs in the legislature thinking about the people back in their ridings, not the other MLAs or the leaders’ offices or the communications staff and strategists.
That’s the chance Huntington has.
It will be challenging. The New Democrats and Liberals have caucus budgets. Huntington can expect to be shut out. It will be lonely, but liberating, to be outside the clubs.
And the main parties should respect the voters’ choice and ensure Huntington is called on in question period, gets committee assignments and has a full chance to do the job.
The results are a good wake-up call for the political parties. Delta South was supposed to be safe Liberal seat, especially with Oppal as the candidate. The voters disagreed. That’s good. The voters pay MLAs $100,000 a year. They are entitled to strong representation. If Roddick had been allowed to fill that role and represent constituents’ interests, especially on local issues, then Oppal would likely be preparing for a second term as attorney general today. Our system is based on parties and adherence to a set of share broad principles is required.
But that doesn’t need to mean that MLAs must shuffle along like zombies behind the party leaders.
It won’t be easy. But British Columbians should be rooting for Huntington. She has the chance to change politics for the better. F
ootnote: The pundits are predicting a tough time for Huntington as an independent and questioning her effectiveness outside a party. But there are many advantages in her position.

How many nuclear-armed countries are too many?

It is alarming to think about North Korea armed with nuclear weapons. Or Pakistan or Israel or Russia.
But I read The Atomic Bazaar on the weekend. William Langewiesche makes the argument that it's inevitable that many countries will get nuclear weapons. The technology isn't all that challenging. The fuel can be found. There are people and companies willing to sell the components.
And there's great pride in a country like Pakistan or North Korea over building a nuclear bomb.
There is also a legitimate grievance. The five original nuclear powers - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - aren't giving up their nuclear weapons. But they don't want other countries to have the same capabilities.
Langewiesche says proliferation is inevitable. The emphasis should be, he argues, on slowing it and - more importantly - on keeping the weapons out of the hands of terror groups. People willing to sacrifice everything for a cause are immune to all the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. If they can steal or buy a bomb or two, everything could change. Consider the changes since 9/11. Consider the changes after a nuclear blast in Mumbai or New York or Tokyo, with 50,000 dead.
It's sad though. I grew up with nuclear war as a real threat. Calculated whether Clarkson was worth a Soviet bomb - there was an oil refinery nearby. And what if they aimed at Buffalo and missed? Froze when the sirens went. Had a nightmare about being separated from my family when the night sky turned into day as the bomb fell.
It was a great thing when those fears faded. It would be a great step backward if a new generation, perhaps far away, had to live with them again.

Why it's a good thing that Wally Oppal lost

Wally Oppal is an affable person, with a good pre-politics reputation.
But he's been an ineffectual minister, often appearing poorly informed and out of touch on issues that were his responsibility.
Over at publiceyeonline.com, Sean Holman offers a small, but telling example, based on an FOI request.
And the biggest train wreck of a scrum I've seen in years came during the controversy over the death of Sherry Charlie. Oppal was responsible for the Children and Youth Officer at that point. On a hugely critical issue - the death of a toddler for whom the government had a responsibility - he was slapdash, uninformed about his responsibilities and hadn't read the basic report. It was dismal.
More positively, the result - if it stands up after a judicial recount - means that the voters in Delta South decided they wanted an independent candidate they respected and believed would represent them well.
It's a solidly Liberal riding, or should be. The result indicates how badly the people there feel abused by the government, over health care, a treaty settlement they believe ignored their concerns, unwanted roads and controversial power line forced in the community.
And it shows the price that can be paid if MLAs - like Liberal Val Roddick - are seen as more loyal to the party than the community.
Independent Vicki Huntington will be wooed by the Liberals. It would be better for democracy - or more interesting - if seven Liberal MLAs joined her as independents. That would mean that in any vote, the MLAs voting the party line as ordered wouldn't decide the issue. The independents would.

Be scared, very scared, about the coming cuts

Dave Obee of the Times Colonist says that unless there is an immediate change of direction in the Liberal government, the province is facing program and service cuts that will affect everything from schools to hospitals to community service agencies.
Read it here.

Mulroney and the privileges of princes

I wasn't going to write about Brian Mulroney. But the TV coverage of his testimony at the Oliphant inquiry was weirdly compelling.
Mulroney, in his pompous, self-aggrandizing, self-pitying way, revealed more than his own character flaws. His performance showed much of what is wrong with politics.
Mulroney was mostly asked about why he spent a great deal of time with Karlheinz Schreiber, a fixer for arms manufacturers. Mulroney took, on three occasions, envelopes full of $1,000 bills - $225,000 in total. (Or maybe $250,000, or $300,000.)
He said he was supposed to help, in some undefined way, sell military vehicles from a Canadian plant internationally. Schreiber was trying to promote the project on behalf of a German corporation. The plant didn't exist. He never had a contract, or even any written directions or reports. The cash was stashed in safes and a safety deposit box. The money never showed up on his books.
Mulroney didn't declare the income when he got it, or when he says he did the work.
When he did, six years later, his lawyer negotiated a deal with Revenue Canada so he paid tax on half the actual amount he had received as income. (The deal was common, apparently, for Quebec resident who didn't pay tax when they were supposed to and came forward letter. Better half than none, Revenue Canada thought. The rest of us paid proper taxes.)
It was all sordid.
What was also striking was the disconnect between Mulroney's world and the place where almost all other Canadians live.
I met Mulroney a couple of times, and was creeped out. When I was in Saint John, in perhaps 1989, he did an editorial board at the newspaper. There was an advance visit - the security guys wanted the conference room drapes closed, in case of snipers. We'll call when the motorcade is close, the said, and you can wait to greet the prime minister in the entrance.
No worries, I said sincerely. The front desk person was great. She would call me as soon as he arrived.
They explained it didn't work that way. People waited for the prime minister; he didn't wait for them. (I should note that Mulroney charmed everyone as he made his way through the building once he did arrive.) People carry their bags and clean up their messes and tell them how smart they are.
So Mulroney thought it OK, once he had left office, to take envelopes of cash for ill-defined assignments. He should have asked for cheques, he allowed, or deposited the money - even if only to get the interest.
But, Mulroney testified sadly, he had no support staff when he took the first envelope of cash. What could he do? Most Canadians manage their finances without support staff. Not big-time politicians.
In 1996, Mulroney was suing the federal government for $50 million. He was called to given sworn evidence about his relationship with Schreiber.
When lawyers asked about their dealings, Mulroney said they had coffee a few times. Schreiber talked about hiring Liberal lobbyists, he said.
But Mulroney didn't say he had taken envelopes of cash to work for Schreiber. The lawyers didn't ask the right questions, he explained.
As for his tax deal, that wasn't his doing either. Mulroney said he didn't think he had to declare the income until he judged the assignment was over. And when he told his tax lawyer to sort it out, the lawyer negotiated a deal to declare just half the actual income. I didn't know about that, said Mulroney.
Most Canadians know those things. They tell the truth and pay their taxes. They don't have support staff or tax lawyers. They don't get envelopes full of cash. No one tells them how smart they are or carries their briefcase.
Increasingly, too many of our politicians live a life apart. How can they govern for Canadians, when they have forgotten how we live?
Footnote: Whatever Schreiber paid, he didn't get much value for the money. Mulroney says he chatted about the idea of the United Nations buying military vehicles of its own with a few world leaders, but nothing came of it.

Gambling, the NHL and the B.C. government

Bob Ritchie is a frequent e-mail correspondent and always interesting. He shared this thought.

"Paul, it is a taboo for sports stars in the U.S. to advertise on behalf of liquor or gambling organizations. President Obama is even calling for tougher regulations with teeth.
Our Canucks' sports hero Roberto Luongo placed his smiling face on a Pokerstars TV ad. Integrity at the lowest level. If his common sense and caring is at such a low point, get rid of the money crabbing bum.
Doesn't he realize that gambling addictions are tearing our society apart bit by bit?
The Vancouver sports writers seem to work within a circle of fear."

There's more on the NHL's ties with the online gambling industry here.

And, speaking of online gambling (and a certain sleazy dishonesty), B.C. Lotteries has been advertising the big 6/49 jackpot heavily this week. The ads have also promised a $5 credit for new gamblers who sign up for online betting through the lotteries' PlayNow Internet gambling portal.
There is something profoundly wrong when a government sets out to recruit new gamblers, especially in the most dangerous forms of betting - like online gambling, available to the desperate or drunk or ill around the clock. And especially when, in opposition, the Liberals were fierce about the need to halt gambling expansion because of the misery it caused. Instead, they introduced online betting, mini-casinos with VLTs in communities large and small and aggressive targets to recruit more gamblers and increase the average amount lost.
The PlayNow FAQ give a good sense of the government's real concern for problem gambling and addiction.

"Self-Exclusion
If I choose to exclude myself from PlayNow play, will I still be able to buy lottery products from a lottery store, enter a bingo hall or casino?
When you register, you must agree that BCLC may share your information amongst its various other business units, such as bingo halls or casinos. At this time, if you elect to self-exclude from PlayNow, BCLC is not yet able to automatically exclude you from its other gaming venues."

So, if you've lost way more than you can afford, can't control your compulsion and have decided to have yourself barred from Internet betting with the government, golly, they just can't figure out a way to let you also put your name on casino exclusion lists at the same time.
For a government that claims to be on the tech cutting edge, that is simply not credible.

Government job cuts and services

Some public sector workers are going to be taking one day a week off this summer to help the government cut spending.
And the change is the first of what looks to be a big series of cuts in the government workforce.
So far, it's unclear where or how the cuts will be made, how they will affect services - and their impact on the economy.
The government, after a couple of employee surveys and talks with unions, has announced a 10-week pilot program of voluntary workweek reductions. Eligible employees will be able to apply for approval to work a four-day week, with a 20-per-cent pay reduction. Benefits and pension contributions won't be affected.
The plan makes sense. About half the 32,200 government employees are eligible to apply. The decision, the government says, will be based on the ability to keep up with the work. (That aspect worries the B.C. Government Employees Union, which fears work will pile up when employees are off.)
But it's a small step. The savings would be about $2,500 per person who takes the reduced workweek - if 2,000 people sign on, the savings would be about $5 million.
The government plans much deeper cuts.
Information on the plans, or goals, so far has been unavailable.
The budget projects no major job cuts over this year and the next two. The Attorney General's ministry is to lose 168 people by 2011/12; children and families will lose 267; housing and social development 128.
In total, though the government is projecting 31,872 full-time equivalents by 2011/12, compared with 32,214 this year. That's about a one-per-cent cut.
But other indications suggest a much more dramatic reduction.
On budget day, Jessica McDonald, the deputy minister to the premier and top public sector manager, wrote to government employees.
The memo, quickly reprinted in publiceyeonline.com, said "overall staffing costs will go down substantially in the next few years." McDonald pointed first to "increasing attrition and recruitment lag."
That's consistent with the government's analysis over the last few years. It has projected that a large number of government employees will retire or quit over the next 10 years. At the same time, there will be competition for a smaller number of young people entering the workforce. It could be tough, in that environment, to keep jobs filled.
But McDonald went on to write that "direct staff impacts" - a euphemism for layoffs - could occur as "a last resort."
The memo also the need to "adjust to delivering services as a smaller organization."
And then it suggests that even after retirements, other attrition and a hiring chill, layoffs were possible.
McDonald said the government would work hard to lessen the impact and layoffs would definitely not affect more than five per cent of the workforce.
That's still 1,600 people. And those cuts would be on top of reductions as people retired or quit and their positions went unfilled.
There is slack in any organization, of course. And effective operations are always looking for ways to be more efficient or eliminate tasks that provide little benefit.
But after eight years under the Liberals, you might expect that process to be well advanced.
So what will be sacrificed if, as McDonald suggests in another e-mail obtained by publiceyeonline.com, the public sector sheds 10,000 positions in the next 10 years?
Even with clever efficiencies and new ways of doing things, that represents an enormous reduction in the number of people doing the work of protecting children or the environment or healthy care quality.
And what will be the impact of job losses on communities, particularly during the current recession? Government doesn't exist as a giant make-work program. But it seems puzzling to look for ways to create jobs with stimulus measures while cutting services and employment.
Government workers are already twitchy about what lies ahead. Given the extent of the job cuts, the public should be just as concerned.
Footnote: It's impossible to say when the way ahead will be clearer. Some indication could come when Gordon Campbell appoints the new cabinet, likely in mid-June.

Time for the Green party to call it a day

If the Green party hadn't been so boneheaded four years ago, it might have several MLAs waiting to be sworn in today.
The party's failure to support the single transferable vote in the 2005 referendum is one of the great all-time political bumbles.
Greens would have been the big winners if STV had passed. It has enough support to be sure of winning seats under the system.
Bizarrely, then leader Adriane Carr first fought against STV and then said the party would be neutral.
STV received 58 per cent support in that referendum, just below the 60 per cent needed. An extra 500 yes votes in each riding could have changed the outcome. And a strong Green effort could have delivered those votes.
The Green referendum position reinforces the perception that most parties on the outside, on some level, are happy to be there. The hardcore base equates popular support with ideological weakness. It took Stephen Harper, after all, to drag the Reform/Alliance base into the mainstream from its comfy, crabby outsider den.
Carr, now one of two deputy leaders in the federal Green party, wanted a different form of electoral reform - a mixed member proportional system. That would see two kinds of MLAs. Some would be elected from constituencies and then others would be appointed, from lists proposed by the parties, to ensure the legislature reflected the popular vote.
The system is widely used in other countries and has its own strengths and weaknesses.
But the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform didn't recommend it. The members, after months of study, thought STV was a better choice for B.C. That's what was on the ballot.
Carr initially threatened to throw the party into the battle against STV. After some internal wrangling, the Greens decided to remain neutral.
No one can know whether Green support could have tipped the balance. I think it would have.
This time, the Greens took eight per cent of the vote. That could have produced three seats under STV.
Earlier this year, polls had the party as high as 16 per cent. Many of those people abandoned the party because they judged a Green vote would be wasted. They decided that it was better to back a Liberal or NDP candidate. Or to stay home.
With STV, they would have stayed with the party, which could have meant more Green MLAs.
And then, of course, there are the other impacts. What high-profile candidates might have come forward to run for the Greens if they had a real chance of being elected?
But that chance was thrown away. STV fell just short in 2005 and was soundly rejected this time.
Which leads to a question. Is it time for the Green party to dissolve, at least as a party running candidates?
Leader Jane Sterk got 17 per cent of the vote in her riding, the best Green showing. She finished third. The party's overall support fell again, as it did in the last election.
It's hard to see the point of running for office if there is no hope of being elected. And equally hard to see the point of voting Green, particularly when that costs you a chance to have a say in the battle between the two main parties.
British Columbians, in rejecting STV, have opted for a two-party system. Greens could have influence by joining the Liberals or New Democrats and pushing their issues. They could become a voting bloc and support a party or candidates that back their goals.
Otherwise, they're going to a lot of trouble for an opportunity to be in candidates' forums.
And they are choosing not to have a voice in deciding who represents them and which party governs.
Certainly, the Green party can keep raising issues. But by failing to fight for STV in 2005, they lost any hope of electing MLAs. The party seems, if not pointless, at least an ineffective way to bring change.
Footnote: If Green voters had shifted to the Liberals or New Democrats, the outcome could have been much different - from an NDP majority government to a more dominant Liberal one. There were 18 races close enough that Green votes, redistributed, could have changed the outcome.

Old media, new media and the election

Over at my favorite blog, the Gazeteer posted last night on the impact of non-traditional media in this election.
Would the gap between the Liberals and NDP have been much greater without the role played by The Tyee and bloggers and other non-traditional media, he asks.
To which I commented:
"There was some excellent coverage from non-traditional media, for want of a better term, during the campaign - Holman, Tyee, here.
But would the gap have been much different without it? The results are close to identical to 2005, in terms of popular vote. The most significant change might be the emergence of a Conservative vote in some regions.
The mass news media has suffered audience declines in the last four years; non-traditional coverage has expanded. But I'm not sure of the influence of either at this point.
One factor, I'd argue, is a tendency to be non-inclusive in many non-traditional news/commentary sources. The argument starts based on shared assumptions. But often those assumptions are shared by a minority.
Not that they are necessarily wrong. But the majority are left out of the discussion. It's like forming a hiking club and announcing that the first walk will start at the 7,000-foot mark on Mt Robson."

It's an important discussion. Mainstream media or whatever you want to call them have great benefits. They provide a shared starting point for community discussion on an inclusive basis. People in Lillooet might not all love the Lillooet-Bridge River News. But when there's a controversy - like the one right now about proposed water meters - most people have read its coverage. They can develop opinions based on it and can do their own research and advance the discussion. (Today, more than ever.) Blogs don't offer that universal starting point that sees 80 per cent of the people in a community literally on the same page on Wednesday when the paper comes out.
That reach also imposes a discipline on writers or journalists or whatever you call them. When I wrote editorials long ago for the Red Deer Advocate - a fine newspaper - I knew that probably two-thirds of the people in that Central Alberta would at least glance at them. Retired farmers, rig workers, store owners, college instructors, car salesman. So if the editorial was to be persuasive, it had to start at a place where all of them could be comfortable and make an argument they could all consider seriously. Otherwise, what would be the point?

That, I think, is missing in the role non-traditional media play. They are mostly starting at a place that shuts a majority of the population out of the argument.
I'm not sure how that can change. One critical question is how you create a community that is broader than people who share beliefs about policy or politics, whether its geographic or occupation-based or.....

The battle of the pollsters

There was some pundit sniffing at the credibility of an Angus Reid Strategies poll showing a narrower gap between the Liberals and the NDP, in part because the company uses an online panel rather than telephone sampling.
But Angus Reid claims victory today as the most acccurate forecaster. (As the company was in the last federal election.
For the dedicated, there's a rundown of the polls here.

Now we find out what the Liberals will really do

After four weeks of official campaigning - and months of unofficial efforts - we're back where we started.
As I write this, with ballots still being counted, the legislature will look much as it did before the election, with a comfortable Liberal majority.
That is a significant achievement for Gordon Campbell, who is only the third B.C. premier to win three consecutive majority terms.
But we're not really back where we started. We allowed the politicians to pull the wool over our eyes and almost down to our ankles.
The biggest issue, especially, was never acknowledged by either of the two main parties.
So now we have a sort-of new government with no real mandate - and thus no base of public support for some very tough decisions ahead.
The Liberals and the NDP both campaigned as if the budget tabled in February was credible. It is not. The deficit, forecast at $495 million, will be substantially over $1 billion.
Just two areas - slower than forecast economic growth and low natural gas prices - means a revenue shortfall of almost $1 billion. The lower GDP, based on the budget documents, will mean $320 million revenue than forecast. The gas prices are far below forecast levels and a $600-million budget shortfall is a likely result.
That's huge, and it should have been at the centre of the campaign. The big issue, for most British Columbians, will be how the government deals with that reality.
The impact is enormous. Finding new revenue to make up the shortfalls - at last in this fiscal year - would be impossible. There is at least the potential for tax increases to address the continuing problems next year and the year after.
And cutting spending to balance the revenue gap would be horrendous. The budget already called for cuts in eight of 19 ministries, just to meet the deficit target of $495 million. A significant chunk of those savings hadn't even been identified at budget time, but cuts to park wardens and campgrounds show the kind of changes that were coming.
Finding another $900 million in cuts - especially if health and education are protected - would mean an eight-per-cent across the board cut in other ministries. (Actually, quite a bit more, since the fiscal year is already well under way.)
Or Campbell could just claim things had changed dramatically since the budget - even though he has denied that up until now - and announce bigger deficits, perhaps lasting more than the forecast two years.
So far, Campbell has insisted that the budget numbers are set. That means deep cuts to services and significant government job cuts.
It's an agenda that will sit well with some Liberals, the ones who really aren't keen on government and would like to see it smaller, even at a considerable cost to services and programs.
But not all Liberal MLAs are going to share that view.
Especially ones who look ahead to their chances of getting re-elected in 2013 if the next two or three years are spent making life more difficult for a lot of people.
Much will depend on what message the Liberals, and Campbell, take from the results.
The Liberal campaign stressed the need for continuity and stability and the risks of an NDP government.
A lurch to the hard right, with major cuts to services, would betray that expectation. The Liberals face a tough challenge to avoid facing their own fudge-it budget accusations when the next budget rolls around.
But alternately, the Liberals have a great chance to work toward a fourth term. A competent, moderate government through a few difficult years will likely continue to have a solid base of support.
The outcome of the 2013 election will be greatly affected by the Liberals'decisions over the next few months.
The party promised stability; Campbell's challenge now is to deliver that at a challenging time.
Footnote: The STV system, sadly, appears to be falling well short of the threshold for approval. British Columbians have lost the chance to reform politics, probably for decades. It is a great blow to chances for a better, more representative system.

An interesting voice for STV

Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com does a superb job of covering politics and government.
And he has decided that STV is a needed change. Read it here.

STV offers the chance for a better political future

I spent almost 10 years in the press gallery, watching B.C. politics from a front-row seat.
That's largely why I'm so convinced that you should vote yes in the STV referendum on Tuesday.
The current system doesn't work. Results are routinely unfair. In 1996, the Liberals got more votes than the NDP, but the New Democrats formed a majority government. In 2001, the Liberals got 58 per cent of the vote and 98 per cent of the seats. In 2005, 162,000 British Columbians - nine per cent of voters - backed the Greens, but were not represented in the legislature.
And that's not the only issue.
The current system encourages MLAs to keep their faces fixed on the leader and, as a result, to turn their backsides to their communities.
The challenge in most ridings is to get the nomination, not to win people over in the election campaign.
Voters are considering the party they want in power - or want to block. That drives their decisions on election day.
Candidates and MLAs need to keep in the party leaders' good books, to get a cabinet job or gain influence or even to keep the nomination. That effort is rewarded more than paying attention to constituents.
That leads to one the most common complaints about politicians - that instead of representing the riding in Victoria, they soon start representing the party in the riding.
STV won't fix all the system's ills. But it will be a significant step forward.
Here's how the system works. There would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on population. The total number of MLAs wouldn't change.
On election day, you would no longer mark an "X" beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference.
When the votes were counted, the election results would reflect the overall rankings. The method is explained well at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. It's used around the world - Australia has used STV in national elections for 60 years - and considered fair and representative.
So the capital region, for example, would be a seven-MLA riding. They would come from more than one party - perhaps three New Democrats, three Liberals and a Green, based on the 2005 results.
Liberal supporters would not just mark an "X" beside the party's candidate, but rank them against the others - including their fellow Liberals. The ranking would help determine who is elected.
It would no longer be enough to carry the banner of a party. Voters would be judging how well each candidate would represent their interests.
So an incumbent who had been willing to stand up for a community - even if it made the party uncomfortable - would be rewarded with votes.
A Liberal who New Democrat or Green supporters considered effective would also be rewarded with a higher ranking. That is a considerable incentive for working with all members of the community and the legislature, rather than throwing up partisan walls.
While ridings would be larger, there would also be an incentive for parties to ensure that all constituents were well-served. If the NDP decided to run four candidates from Kamloops in the Columbia-Kootenay riding, while the Liberals nominated at least one candiate from Williams Lake, the New Democrats would pay a price.
Similarly, parties would be wise to have candidates with varied backgrounds and positions to appeal to diverse voters.
Minority governments are more likely, though far from certain. But that would mean parties must learn to work together - a process that would be aided by the increased focus on constituents.
It would also mean more centrist government, rather than the peculiar right-left lurches that have been the hallmark of B.C. politics.
This is a chance to take a leap forward and shed a system that simply doesn't deliver representative, effective government for one that offers the promise of at least some positive change. We shouldn't let it slip away.
Footnote: The measure will require 60 per cent approval and majority support in 60 per cent of the ridings. In 2005, 58 per cent of British Columbians voted yes, with majority support in 77 of 79 ridings. The STV system was chosen by a citizens' assembly of British Columbians.
For more, just search on STV on this blog. Lord knows I've written enough.

The FOI problem defined

BC Ministry responsible for FOI claims they have no record of how many employees work in FOI

Vancouver – - The ministry responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act across the BC government claims it has no documents stating how many people in the government work on FOI requests.
In March 2008, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association filed an FOI request with the Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services asking for “the number of staff employed in managing and responding to FOI requests in the information and privacy offices of each ministry, for each year from the year 2000 to the present day.”
The Ministry responded to the FOI request by supplying 10 pages of near-unintelligible emails sent between ministries on a single day in November 2007, containing staff figures for two ministries. There are 19 ministries in the BC government.
The response included a statement that these were the only records responsive to the request.
The Ministry’s Service Plan for 2008-09 describes its role as follows:
“Citizens’ Services provides corporate leadership and strategic direction for information management and information technology across government. It is responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection Act, the Document Disposal Act, and the Electronic Transactions Act and all policy, standards and directives that flow from them.”
“It is inconceivable to us that the lead department responsible for FOI across the government has no idea how many people actually handle FOI requests,” said FIPA Executive Director Darrell Evans. “You would naturally suspect they were hiding something – but maybe they really don’t know what is going on with FOI, despite what their own Service Plan says.
This does not bode well for the government’s plan, just announced, to centralize the processing of all FOI requests in a single agency within the Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services (MLCS).
The centralization of FOI was part of government’s response to a critical report from Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis. MLCS was identified as having the second worst performance in the entire BC government. (Only the Premier’s office was slower to respons to access requests.)
The Commissioner’s full report is available here.

James comes out ahead in the leaders' debate

The wise Norman Ruff says it takes several days to declare a winner in a leaders' debate.
For starters, not that many people are actually watching. Especially at 5 p.m. on a spring Sunday, sunny here in Victoria.
About 37 per cent of the people in the Lower Mainland who were watching TV watched the debate in 2005. That was in primetime, on a Tuesday.
At most, one in six British Columbians watched even part of this year's debate.
Yet over a few days, based on media coverage and what people are saying at work or the playground, a sense will emerge of how did well, and who stumbled.
A few minutes after the debate, I'm thinking the Liberals should be nervous about how that consensus will shake out.
Gordon Campbell sounded a little defensive and, I have to say, looked a little crazy.
That's only partly his fault. The set, out of a high school TV station, had a black backdrop that left his head and white shirt floating like a low-budget special effect.
The format was tough for the party in power. The debate was structured around videos of questions from people around the province. They were pointed.
And Carole James was focused in her response and skillful in posing questions that Campbell had a hard time answering.
Green Leader Jane Sterk didn't really seem that relevant - sort of a polite heckler, offering occasional insights that would appeal to most rational voters, except for the reality that no Green candidate had a chance of being elected.
Campbell's pitch seemed to be that we face scary times ahead and he's the best person to have in charge. "I know British Columbians are worried," he said. "But we can get through this."
James doesn't have enough experience - especially business experience - to lead the province through a tough patch, Campbell suggested.
It's a little iffy as an argument, not least because Campbell has been a politician for the last 25 years. His business experience is dated.
James' pitch had two elements. The Liberals had a chance and had not delivered, she said, failing to invest in communities in the good time.
And she had a better sense of the problems faced by most British Columbians, James claimed. Her answers referred to people or groups she had met with and their struggles.
It was well done and fit nicely with poll results that indicated James is seen as more in touch with the priorities of average British Columbians.
The Liberals should have been in good shape heading toward the May 12 election. They have avoided big mistakes.
But it hasn't turned out that way. The latest poll suggests a close race.
And Campbell didn't win over undecided voters during the debate. He was stiff, defensive - a politician.
James was a politician, too, of course. But she appeared to understand the problems of ordinary people, whoever they are.
None of this matters for the committed Liberal or NDP voters.
But for a lot of people - those who are undecided, or the million-plus British Columbians who aren't likely to vote - the debate becomes part of the decision-making process.
That's not good for Campbell. James batted him around on several issues, from corruption to seniors care.
The leaders each got a chance to close out the debate.
Campbell talked about the economy and leadership. Jobs are at stake, he said. He looked worried.
James offered a plan for addressing five public policy issues, from taxes to education. She seemed positive.
Mostly, it seemed sad that this was the only debate of this long campaign.
Just 60 minutes, in a four-week campaign, to hear from the party leaders.
It's a strange way to choose a government and set the course for the province for the next four years.
Footnote: The most interesting point in the debate might have been about crime. Campbell and James talked about more police. Sterk talked about legalization of some drugs to talk the profits away from criminal gangs. She sounded sensible; they sounded delusional.

Beer and elections: Creating sorrows to drown

The campaign hoohaw about the price of beer should make you despair.
Private liquor stores are miffed at the NDP plan to roll back price breaks the Liberals have handed them in the last few years.
The bigger discounts cost taxpayers and enriched the well-connected private companies, who convinced the Liberals their profits weren't high enough. (You might try that - ask the store if it will cut prices for you because times a little tough.)
You can debate the largesse as a policy measure, but it's small potatoes in terms of election issues, unless you own a private liquor store.
Here's a primer. When the Liberals decided to allow private liquor stores in 2002, they said the operators could buy their stock at 10 per cent below the retail price in the province's liquor stores.
If a six-pack of beer sold for $10 in the government store, the private operator could buy it for $9 and mark it up to cover operating costs and leave a profit.
But the Liberals messed up the whole privatization effort. They told private operators the public stores would be closing.
Then - a little late, really - the government looked at the numbers. Closing the public stores would mean a big drop in government revenues, and thus higher taxes. There was no public advantage, just a big cost.
So the government reneged. That wasn't fair to the private operators, changing the rules after they had invested.
So to sweeten the deal, the government gave them a bigger discount - 12 per cent. For a store doing $2 million in sales, that meant an extra $40,000 a year in profits.
Not enough, said the stores. They kept lobbying and the next year got the discount raised to 13 per cent.
And, naturally enough, they kept lobbying - insider Patrick Kinsella was involved with one of the largest companies - and in 2007 John Les quietly gave the private stores another windfall. The discount jumped to 16 per cent.
There was no public benefit. Quite the opposite - every time the government increased the price break for private stores, it reduced its own revenues. And that means taxes had to go up.
And there was no economic case for the change. Stores weren't closing. In fact, in the year before the last gift, the number of private stores increased by 10 per cent and the leading company said it planned more expansion.
The government just offered a series of gifts to the private companies, at your expense. The discounts will mean more than $50 million a year transferred from government to a select group of private businesses.
The NDP, looking for revenue to support spending increases, said in its platform it would rescind the changes and take the discounts back to their original, 10-per-cent level. That would produce $155 million over three years, the party says.
Horrors, says the industry. The change would mean the companies would pay an extra 80 cents wholesale for a six pack of beer, which they would pass on to their customers. People seeking convenience would pay; the frugal would likely go to a government store.
The industry's bigger concern is the NDP plank to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. Most jobs in the private liquor business are minimum wage; the industry believes having to pay staff $10 an hour would add 15 to 20 per cent to its operating costs.
Wiping out the whole discount is probably unfair. The initial increase, in 2003, was reasonable compensation for the way the Liberals changed the rules of the game after some private companies had entered the industry.
But the following two price breaks were simply gifts from the government to a group of well-connected private companies (and political donors). At taxpayers' expense.
Footnote: Private liquor store expansion has increased the number of alcohol outlets from 786 in 2002 to 1,294 in 2008. A report last year from the province's chief health officer noted that the expansion of private outlets had identified as a factor in increasing addiction and problem and youth drinking.

Where, and how much, will NDP, Liberals cut

We're sliding toward a fraudulent provincial election. And both the main political parties and their candidates are playing along.
Their plan appears to seek election with a bogus mandate and then do whatever they want.
Here's the nub. The Liberal budget in February called for two years of deficits. The New Democrats built their platform based on the budget projections. They project three years of deficits, due to some additional spending.
But the budget was way off and neither of the two main parties wants to admit it. So you're being asked to choose based on misinformation.
This is a big deal. The budget calls for a $495 million deficit this year and $245 million shortall next year before a return to balanced budgets.
It's a fantasy.
The budget is based on projections of 0.9 per cent reduction in the GDP in 2009 and 2.4 per cent growth in 2010. It assumed growth of one per cent last year.
But StatsCan just reported the B.C. economy shrank last year.
And two leading economists, both on the province's forecast council, said they now expect a sharper decline this year - perhaps 2.7 per cent.
The Finance Ministry reports on risks to the budget. Each one-point drop in economic growth chops $150 million to $250 million off the bottom line. So the new GDP forecast alone suggests the deficit will be some $320 million more than the budget projects.
That's conservative; the slowing economy hurts revenues in other areas and increases demand for services like welfare. Natural gas prices, for example, are far below the level the government projected in the budget, meaning a shortfall of of some $600 million.
Gordon Campbell says he won't allow the deficit to rise above the projected level. Meeting that target already required spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries. Most cuts are still being identified, though park and campground closures have already been announced.
The worsening economic results mean another $320 million in cuts from a new Liberal government.
Campbell hasn't specified how or where the cuts will come. Voters need to hear that, so they can make an informed choice. The Liberal plan already calls for 10 of 19 ministries to spend less in 2011 than they did in 2008, despite inflation and population increases.
If you believe that's realistic and won't hurt services you or family members rely on, no worries.
But it has been eight years since the Liberals promised to root out waste and unnecessary programs. You would think the services that have survived make a difference in peoples' lives.
Still, you know where Campbell stands.
That's not yet true for Carole James and the New Democrats. The NDP platform includes a fiscal plan and costs for its promises, though some numbers are questionable.
But it's still based on the Liberals' February budget and three-year-plan.
Since those numbers are wrong, James has three choices. Like Campbell, she could pledge to make whatever cuts are necessary to meet her budget targets - to manage by the numbers. She could raise taxes to come up with more revenue. Or the NDP could decide a couple of extra years of bigger deficits would be reasonable. The Harper Conservatives have, after all, decided that four years of deficits are needed.
With barely a week left in the campaign, voters aren't getting straight talk on what should be one of the must fundamental issues in the election campaign.
The deficit is certainly going to be much greater than the budget projected. The way in which the new government deals with it will have an impact on the lives of almost everyone.
Campbell has said he would cut, but not where.
James hasn't offered any clear idea how an NDP government would deal with a projected deficit greater than the one forecast in its platform.
Voters need answers, fast.
Footnote: The fiscal plan also abandoned the Liberals' past practice of including a healthy "forecast allowance" as a cushion against the unexpected. A post-election budget crisis is almost certain. The unknown is how the parties would respond.

One poll, and things different and a little strange

It's time to start paying attention to the election campaign.
The Angus Reid Strategies poll released this week raised a bunch of interesting issues beyond the headline news of a tie between the Liberals and the NDP.
That's significant, of course. The poll found the Liberals have the support of 42 per cent of decided voters; the New Democrats 39 per cent; and the Greens 13 per cent.
Given the margin of error, that's pretty much a dead heat, with the May 12 vote coming fast.
People will spin the results. But Angus Reid has a good track record; the company's predictions in last year's federal election, for example, were extremely accurate.
So it's likely the parties are a lot closer than an earlier Mustel. It showed the Liberals 17 points ahead.
Good news for Carole James, obviously. The media perception was that the NDP campaign had been slow to launch and challenged by environmentalists' attacks over the party's opposition to the carbon tax.
But the poll results tell a different story. When the pollster asked about the tax, 30 per cent of respondents said it had moderately or severely affected their household finances; 62 per cent said it had made them less likely to vote Liberal.
The responses don't make much sense. The tax impact so far is minor and offset by other cuts. And the tax makes policy sense. But people don't like it.
Which leads to one of the interesting issues raised by the poll. Green support is at 13 per cent of decided voters, up four points from its actual support in 2005. But the poll found less than one-third of the Green support this time was definitely committed to the party. Angus Reid Strategies analysis predicts a shift of Green support to the NDP, but the carbon tax issue could be a barrier. The Liberals' problem is that attacking the NDP over the carbon tax might win Green support, but alienate other voters.
The poll has some encouraging news for the Liberals too.
Voters don't like or respect the performance of either Campbell or James. But 40 per cent of British Columbians think the Liberal leader would be the best premier, compared with 23 per cent who prefer James.
The findings on the most important issue facing B.C. are also good news for the Liberals. Some 34 per cent of respondents picked the economy. And Campbell got much higher ratings for being able to deal with that issue. (He also did somewhat better on crime.)
Both leaders should be chastened by the polls. Only 29 per cent of those surveyed thought Campbell inspired confidence; 19 per cent said James inspired confidence.
Campbell scored the biggest lead in the areas of strength and decisiveness and the worst ratings for honesty and trustworthiness. James' best relative grades were for understanding the problems of B.C. residents and being in sync with them on the issues.
Assuming the parties' private polls are producing similar results, the strategists should be having conniptions.
Should James try and emphasize competent management of the economy? Or play to her existing strength as someone who relates to average people?
Does Campbell keep attacking the NDP on economic issues, or show more concern for the needs of British Columbians?
It's interesting that what you could call government responsibility issues - health, poverty, homelessness, education and the like - rival the economy issue if taken together.
The poll also suggests a regional divide. Liberal support is softening in the North and Interior and fading on Vancouver Island (Pat Bell and Shirley Bond both might be in trouble, the pollster suggests).
But the Campbell party still has a 43 to 37 lead in Vancouver and its suburbs.
What it all means is that you should pay attention for the next 10 days and vote - unless you truly don't care which party governs for the next four years.
Footnote: You can review the results at here.
You should; it's both fascinating and an interesting chance to compare the data and the media coverage and make your own guesses at what it all means.

Speeding, parks and post-election deep cuts

In one sense, the John van Dongen speeding scandal is a sideshow, a distraction from bigger issues.
But it was also telling, especially in light of two other campaign developments breaking at the time.
Van Dongen, who has never struck me as a wild man, turns out to be the kind of driver who makes highways more dangerous. His record was so bad that the superintendent of motor vehicles issued a four-month licence suspension.
That's bad for any politician, but especially for the solicitor general, responsible for both ICBC and road safety.
Van Dongen had promised to get tough on unsafe driving. "There is no excuse for racing or speeding." He said. "People who engage in behaviours like these can expect to face some of the most severe penalties and fines in Canada."
But when he got caught, van Dongen did offer excuses - he was busy and sometimes drove too fast, he said.
Gordon Campbell offered excuses too. The important thing, he said, was that van Dongen had acknowledged his mistake publicly.
Sort of. Van Dongen lost his licence a week before he told the premier. Only then was responsibility for road safety and ICBC taken from him. He initially would not say how many tickets he had received.
And Campbell said he wouldn't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet. (He obviously has a problem in all this. If the premier doesn't have to step down for drunk driving, why should cabinet ministers who lose their licences for speeding?)
After a weekend of criticism - especially from the families of people killed by drunk driving - van Dongen did the right thing and resigned from cabinet.
It was wrong, by his standards, to stay, he said. (He also acknowledged nine speeding tickets in five years, including two for being way over the limit.)
Campbell apparently has lower standards.
Carole James, after two weeks of sputtering campaigning, seized on the premier's position as an example of arrogance, lack of transparency and hypocrisy. (Campbell had called for an NDP candidate to drop out of the race after he posted some stupid pictures on his Facebook page; the man did.)
Which leads to the two other developments. The news that the government is planning to close provincial campgrounds this summer and lay off park wardens to cut spending.
And a Statistics Canada report that, rather than growing as the government expected, B.C.'s GDP actually declined last year by 0.3 per cent, the first decline in 25 years. Only Ontario fared worse in 2008.
The campground closures and job cuts, according to Environment Minister Barry Penner, are to reduce spending. The Environment Ministry is among eight of 20 ministries to face budget cuts next year,
By 2011, the last year in the three-year plan, the Liberals are projecting that half the ministries - 10 - will have budgets lower than they had last year, despite inflation and population increases.
That reflects the Liberals' pledge to run small deficits for two years before returning to balanced budgets. Campbell has also pledged during the campaign to stick to the deficits forecast in the budget.
That leads to the StatsCan growth figures. The budget is based on growth of one per cent last year and a decline of 0.9 per cent in 2009.
The 2008 number is apparently wrong, off by 1.3 per cent. The 2009 number is suspect.
And lower growth means lower government revenues - about $150 million to $250 million for each percentage point.
Which would leave a returning government, given Campbell's commitment, with no alternative but even more cuts.
If the government is willing to cut family camping opportunities and lay off park wardens at a time when employment is an issue, what lies ahead?
And if accountability on issues like speeding cabinet ministers is a low priority for Campbell, then the public might worry about accountability on bigger issues after the election.
Footnote: The New Democrats also need to come up with answers. Their fiscal plan is based on the Liberal budget. If the budget has inflated revenues, the party needs to say how it will address the issue - spending cuts, more taxes or bigger deficits. The NDP now proposes three deficit years as opposed to the Liberals' two.

Cuts are coming - how deep, and where?

Columnist Dave Obee has an interesting- and accurate - piece in the Times Colonist warning that given the wild optimism of the February fiscal plan big cuts are coming in government after the election. Worth reading here.

Van Dongen's bad driving

Four thoughts.
1) Why did John van Dongen wait a week before revealing his licence suspension to the premier and what does that say about his understanding of the seriousness of the suspension? (Though based on the many times he has condemned speeders - see Vaughn Palmer's column - van Dongen should be aware.)
2) Gordon Campbell's record continues to have an impact. He can't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet for speeding when he kept the top job after driving drunk.
3) But, back in 1993 when Moe Sihota was racking up speeding tickets, the Liberals saw things differently. Gary Collins said Sihota should be out of cabinet (though the driving record was just one of the reasons he offered).
4) The Liberals also pressed Sihota to release his full driving record, which - after some misleading answers - he did. Van Dongen is refusing, a mistake which should give the issue a few extra days attention.
4) The suspension puts van Dongen in a small group of bad drivers. Out of 3.1 million drivers in B.C., only 25,000 a year lose their licences for speeding and other offences.

Residential care for seniors should be big issue

Eight years in power, and the Liberals are still fumbling  the issue of residential care for seniors. The Liberal New Era campaign pledge in 2001 was clear - an additional  5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. It was an important promise. When the time comes that you, or your  parents, can't live independently, you want desperately to have  residential care available, close to friends and family. That was far from certain when the Liberals took over, because there  just weren't enough spaces.
In less than a year, the Liberals started backtracking on the promise.  The numbers shifted, but the promised 5,000 beds turned into some  1,000 intermediate and long-term care beds and some additional  supports for seniors.
Even that was fuzzy and the government couldn't say how many beds were  actually needed.
I went through a couple of months of work in late 2004 and 2005 to try  and find out how many beds had been added. (The government had already  rewritten its plan to allow an extra two years to deliver the 5,000  beds or spaces or whatever.)
After leaping through an array of bureaucratic obstacles I finally  established that across the whole province, by the health authorities  own count, had added 100 long-term care beds in about four years. The  seniors' population had increased by eight per cent in the same period. The Liberals now claim they have delivered on the promise. But Health  Minister George Abbott confirmed this week that there were in fact  only 800 more residential care beds than there were in 2001. The  increase has come in assisted living spaces, which are certainly needed. But by the Health Ministry's own definition, those are not residential  care beds, as promised. So if the Liberals were correct and there were  5,000 too few beds seven years ago, the problem has certainly worsened. One of the striking things in the whole eight years of confusion is  the lack of the most basic information - like how many beds are  actually needed. The promises have been plucked from the air. There are some useful measures. One is wait times, which continue to  be a problem.
The Liberal campaign claims waits have fallen from one year under the  former government to 15 to 90 days. But the one-year number was based  on a previous system, in which people put their names on waiting lists  long before they needed care. Waits of three months are too long. People waiting for residential care are often unable to remain in  their homes for a wait of two to 13 weeks. In many cases, they simply  cannot care for themselves.
Until that wait is over, they are likely to be sent to hospital bed. That's extremely expensive. It is bad for the seniors, confined in a  strange environment. And it means surgeries are cancelled and people  wait in emergency rooms because acute care beds aren't available. In 2001, some 15 per cent of acute care beds were tied up  inappropriately in this way. The problem remains at similar levels. The Liberal platform promises 1,000 new homes for "seniors and persons  with disabilities" in the next year. The health budget does not  provide for any significant increase in care beyond current levels. The NDP platform goes farther, promising to re-open 300 beds in closed  facilities and adding 3,000 beds to fill the gap. The New Democrats  are pledging $275 million over three years, plus $210 million in  capital spending - an amount the Liberals say is inadequate. The New Democrats are also promising appointment of a Representative  for Seniors to address their issues and report on progress. A similar  commitment from the Liberals would be welcome; it is too easy for  seniors and their issues to be forgotten. What's missing in all this is a clear, five-year plan for seniors' care. And that should make most British Columbians, whether they are older  themselves or thinking about family members, quite uncomfortable.

Comparing the Liberal and NDP platforms

Plow through the Liberal and NDP platforms and you will find a surprising amount in common.
For starters, both agree the other guys are incompetent.
And at least based on their platforms, both parties would be cautious and steady. But an issue for both Gordon Campbell and Carole James is whether they can be trusted to deliver.
There are differences. The campaign's opening days were dominated by the New Democrat's promise to abolish the Liberals' carbon tax. A lot of environmentalists, who might have considered themselves NDP voters, are troubled by the pledge.
Rightly. The tax isn't perfect, but it is sound policy. A tax on fossil fuels will reduce use and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both parties support that goal.
The New Democrats have also pledged to raise the minimum wage, from $8 - soon to be tied for the lowest in Canada - to $10. The increase is significant. But the Campbell government hasn't raised the minimum once in the last eight years (while raising MLAs' pay by 35 per cent). It comes across as at best indifference.
The Liberals' platform basically promises to keep on the same course.
That's as it should be. A governing party that pulls out a whole of whack of new initiatives for an election campaign is negligent. If they were good programs, they should have been introduced already.
So the Liberal platform talks about the importance of a stable, tested government. It promises to follow through with infrastructure spending and curb government spending - 11 of 20 ministries face budget cuts.
Health gets a significant increase, but that's about it.
The focus is on tailoring spending to fit the money coming into government. Two deficits and then back to a balanced budget - that's the law.
And it's a worry. The budget introduced last February is optimistic about government revenue.
That should make voters wonder about the Liberals' priorities. Are balanced budgets within two years more important than maintaining vital public services? (Even Stephen Harper thinks four years of deficits are needed federally.)
Put another way, will this be the Grinch-like Liberals of the first term, or the genial Campbell of the second?
The platform does offer some new measures. Proposals for kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds have been shelved, although the Liberals have committed to bring in optional full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. A school curriculum review and greater emphasis on personal health and financial planning are promised.
The Liberals promise more community courts and money to fly offenders back to other provinces to face outstanding warrants.
But largely, this is a platform based on tightening belts and shrinking government.
The New Democrats' platform offers more new initiatives. It promises four new specialized day surgery centres, 300 additional addiction and mental health treatment spaces and 3,000 new long-term care beds for seniors.
The NDP also commits to a five-year plan to end the homelessness crisis, with budgets and timelines and targets, including 2,400 new social housing units in the first year.
It pledges to sharply limit raw log exports, take a hard look at run-of-river power projects and force aquaculture operations to shift to closed containment systems. All the measures carry some economic risks.
And the party proposes fixing the lobbyist legislation, establishing a Community and Jobs Protection Commissioner and a Seniors Advocate.
The proposals are all costed; the result, says the platform, would be three years of deficits before returning to balanced budgets.
A problem for both parties is that the budget starting point is the three-year plan the Liberals presented in February. That was optimistic about revenues and stingy in spending projections.
Which leads back to the credibility question. If tough times continue, would the Liberals choose to slash services over of running deficits? Would the NDP stick with a moderate course, or spend freely despite an increasing debt.
The platforms are useful guides, but far frm binding.
Footnote: The platforms are available online - see bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca. The Green platform, in my view, is interesting but of little real relevance. The party's chances of electing an MLA are slim, especially under the current electoral system. Green supporters would best use their time supporting the STV campaign.

Test drive STV for your area

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't vote yes in the electoral reform referendum and try an alternative to the current system which has served us so dismally. Sure, the single transferable vote system isn't perfect, but look at the way we elect governments and our representatives now. It's an abomination.
I'll write about it, but meanwhile this site lets you vote under the system, based on the party's candidates and the proposed boundaries. It's a great way to explore the real impact.

A look at the NDP platform

A useful Victoria Times Colonist editorial today on the NDP platform.

A look at the Liberal platform

A useful Victoria Times Colonist editorial today on the Liberal platform.

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?