Another question for Elections BC

This is troubling.
Elections BC refused to approve the recall petition in Ida Chong's riding based on rules it created after the petition was submitted. It appears incompetent to have failed to have the rules in place, as the Times Colonist noted in an editorial here.
The legislation sets a 200-word limit on the petition. Elections BC ruled MLA counts as five words; HST as three. So the petition was over the limit under the new rules.
An Elections BC official defended the retroactive decision to create the rules.
"The methodology used for word counts had never been an issue in the past because all previous recall applications had come in at well below 200 words," she said.
It's not a compelling defence.
Worse, it's also untrue, as The Gazetteer, establishes here. There haven't been that many recall campaigns; voters should expect better from Elections BC than false statements to defend its decisions.

Government fumbled drinking-driving changes

First the solicitor general, in charge of road safety, tries to convince the public that a little drinking and driving isn't so bad.
Then police reveal that roadside breathalyzer devices in the province - already used to impose licence suspensions on several hundred thousand British Columbians - were badly calibrated. Innocent people likely suffered roadside suspensions and further penalties.
The Liberals' changes to drinking and driving laws have turned into a mess.
Blame two factors.
First, a lack of honesty about the real goals of the changes, which give police power to impose much tougher penalties on drivers without laying impaired driving charges.
Even if a driver hasn't downed enough to blow over .08, the legal definition for impaired driving, police can now impose serious penalties. Blow over .05 and, for a first offence, you lose your licence for three days, have your car impounded and face about $600 in fines and fees.
The government pitched the changes, which took effect Sept. 20, as an effort to improve road safety.
That was partly true. The tougher penalties for people who blew between .05 and .08 make the consequences of being a little impaired much more serious. (That used to bring a 24-hour suspension.)
But the government was also looking for a way to penalize people without laying impaired driving charges under the Criminal Code.
Drivers could and did plead not guilty to those charges and fight them in court. About one-quarter of provincial court time is taken up with impaired charges. The government wanted to save money by taking that option away.
The measures worked. Bars and restaurants reported a 15 to 30 per cent drop in business once the new rules were in place.
That prompted Solicitor General Rich Coleman to encourage a little light drinking and driving. People had got it wrong, he said. "They can go in and have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and still leave and be OK."
Coleman's advice is simply wrong. A couple of Calgary Herald journalists tested the B.C. limits with the help of the Calgary police department. The woman, who was small, had two glasses of wine and a meal over a couple of hours and blew .062.
Following Coleman's bad advice could be disastrous, in so many ways.
The other big concern was with justice. The new penalties could be imposed by a single police officer. Any appeals were not through the courts and came after the penalty was served.
Given that. you would think the government would accept a responsibility to ensure citizens' rights were protected.
It didn't. The standard for impaired under the Criminal Code is .08 blood alcohol content. But the machines are calibrated to signal fail at 0.1, to allow for a margin of error, which the manufacturers' acknowledge.
But the devices had been set to signal warning - bringing the licence suspension, vehicle impoundment and fines - at .05, with no margin for error.
Until the traffic safety committee of the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs said "recent" RCMP tests showed the roadside devices weren't accurate. Drivers might have been wrongly penalized. The 2,200 devices would be reset to .06 to allow a margin of error.
But about 170 people have a week have faced sanctions based on the faulty breathalyzer tests since Sept. 20. And about 35,000 people a year have been hit with 24-hour suspensions - based on defective machines.
What's most alarming is that the injustice wasn't identified by the solicitor general or the attorney general. Only a subcommittee of the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs protected the rights of citizens.
So we have a government in favour of a little drinking and driving, while bringing in tough penalties for drivers who haven't actually broken the law.
Drinking drivers have been kept off the road. But what a big mess has been made in stumbling toward that goal.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government has reduced the penalties for driving without a licence or while suspended. Those offences use to result in vehicle impoundments of 30 to 90 days, but too many people just abandoned their cars. A first offence now brings a seven-day vehicle impoundment.

Editorial: Liberals cave to Big Pharma

Today's Times Colonist editorial:


"The last act in a nasty vendetta has finally played out. Premier Gordon Campbell's government has decided to kill B.C.'s only independent drug review agency. And not just kill it, but bury it in an unmarked grave.

The agency involved is called the Therapeutics Initiative. Based at the University of British Columbia, it evaluates new drugs that come on the market.

The Therapeutics Initiative saves taxpayers $50 million annually by finding cheaper alternatives. Largely thanks to its efforts, B.C. has the lowest drug costs in the country, despite offering some of the best coverage.

Moreover, the Therapeutics Initiative runs on a shoestring budget. The agency gets $1 million a year. That means it generates a 50 to one return on investment.

Finally, its researchers have been credited with saving 500 lives by issuing timely warnings about suspect medications..."

Read the rest here.

The breathalyzer scandal

Useful editorial from the Times Colonist:

"The news that poorly calibrated breathalyzer devices could have resulted in licence suspensions and fines for innocent drivers is alarming.

Answers are needed from Solicitor General Rich Coleman, not an unelected police spokesman.

Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham, acting as chairman of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police traffic safety committee, announced Friday that the 2,200 roadside testing devices in the province will be recalibrated.

"Recent" RCMP lab tests found a margin of error in the machines. The devices could indicate a driver's blood-alcohol level was over .05 -- the level at which provincial penalties can be imposed -- when he was under the limit.

The solution is to recalibrate the breathalyzers so a "warn" signal is obtained if the driver blows .06, recognizing the potential machine error.

The implications are huge. Since the new drinking and driving rules were introduced, about 170 British Columbians a week have faced three-day licence suspensions, vehicle impoundment and some $600 in fines and fees. That's more than 1,500 people, at least some of whom were potentially innocent.

But the impact is much greater. Since 1977, police have been issuing 24-hour suspensions based on the same roadside test. Some 150,000 people have been penalized in the past five years alone. Again, some apparently should not have been.

The latest effort to curb drinking and driving is welcome and appears to be working.

But concerns about the arbitrary nature of enforcement and the lack of an effective appeal process were raised well in advance of the new laws. Yet the government did not ensure enforcement was fair and reliable.

Police and government have known of the machines' margin of error for years. The "fail" signal, which indicates a driver is over .08, is actually triggered when a person blows 0.1 for that very reason. But they did not ensure accurate testing for the tens of thousands of drivers facing roadside justice.

Police have put the three-day suspensions on hold until the machines are fixed. But what of the drivers who have lost their licences, paid their fines and now have the offences on their records -- and who might have been innocent?

Government sloppiness has created injustice for some drivers and undermined confidence in a controversial measure."

Big Pharma wins, B.C. taxpayers lose

The government's pandering to Big Pharma by killing a world-acclaimed initiative that ensured only effective drugs were covered by Pharmacare is truly appalling. The Therapeutics Initiative saved the health system hundreds of millions of dollars while ensuring good medical outcomes.
There is no public policy reason to eliminate it. But it also hurt pharmaceutical company profits — B.C. spends much less on prescription drugs than the national average — and they have lobbied for more than a decade to kill it.
Finally, they've won, as this piece reports.
Pharmaceutical companies have a great economic incentive to sell more drugs, at higher prices. That's their job. And it's worth a lot to them to win this kind of victory, so they can spend a great deal on the campaign - political donations and PR campaigns and support for groups that will support them. (Most illness advocacy groups - heart, stroke, cancer - received significant support from drug companies. Some likely couldn't survive without the money.)
Health consumers and taxpayers have to rely on government to look after their interests. It's not working.

_____________

One small step that could help is a government-funded Consumers' Health Forum, which I wrote about in the Sun in 2004.


Health care consumers need a voice

VICTORIA - The only people who haven't got a say in the way health care works in Canada are the patients.

Doctors have the BCMA. Nurses, the BCNU. Drug companies have their lobbyists and funded health groups.

But you and I, the people who rely on the system to keep us healthy and fix us when things go wrong? We have no voice.

The government, you might argue. But you'd be wrong. The government doesn't represent health care consumers. It balances a broad range of pressures.

When Health Minister Colin Hansen is locked in a struggle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors, for example, his government represents not just parents who might need to bring a sick baby into emergency at 2 a.m., but businesses that want lower taxes and people pushing for other spending priorities. He's mindful of patients' interests; he's also mindful of the commitment to a balanced budget.

Nothing wrong with that. Just don't interpret it as government representing consumers.

There's a knee-jerk reaction against talking about consumers in the context of government services. But that's what we are -- we pay an average $2,700 a year each for health care, and we consume the service. And we're especially powerless because we're dealing with a monopoly supplier and can't shop elsewhere if we're dissatisfied.

The absence of any real consumer voice has created a vacuum, allowing special interest groups to claim to speak for us. It's obligatory for everyone in a health care debate to talk about putting patients first, while pursuing their own interests.

The Cancer Advocacy Coalition weighed in last week with its annual report linking higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. The title, Your Money or Your Life, summarizes the message. B.C. has the highest per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and the lowest mortality rates and shortest waiting times for treatment. More money equals lives saved.

Perhaps. But perhaps B.C. has a lower cancer death rate because people are generally more active and healthier here, or because of tougher anti-smoking rules, or because of a large immigrant population less predisposed to cancer. A true consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.

The cancer coalition is doing important work. But it doesn't speak for consumers. Its stated goal is to make cancer the No. 1 health care priority in Canada, not to advocate for better health care.

And like virtually all major health advocacy groups, the cancer coalition depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies.

Alan Cassels, a drug policy expert at the University of Victoria, says the drug company funding inevitably creates conflicts. "You can almost see the influence of the money."

The problem is compounded because when Health Canada sets out to hold high-level consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us.

It's not a uniquely Canadian problem. But fixing it need not be costly or difficult, as Australia has shown.

The Consumers' Health Forum of Australia is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a health care voice.

It's a coalition of health and community groups. Only organizations that represent consumers -- not providers or care workers or corporations -- are eligible.

The forum represents the public, takes complaints, publishes articles and newsletters, and, most importantly, speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.

All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members -- no drug company donations -- and with a staff of eight.

It's a small price to give consumers a long overdue voice.

NDP gives the Liberals something to smile about

I should be writing about the faulty breathalyzers that have been used to impose penalties on hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.
Or Children’s Minister Mary Polak’s bizarre claim that a 15-year-old girl with Down syndrome, found emaciated and raw with diaper rash after spending nine days alone with her mother’s corpse, might not have suffered any harm.
Or a lot of other issues that matter to people right now.
Instead, one more column about politics, thanks to the strange goings-on in the NDP.
That’s an indication the party has got lost. The Liberals are leaderless and wedded to unpopular policies. New Democrats should be focusing attention on problem areas and showing they could do a better job.
Instead, some sort of weird, secret internal rebellion is gripping the party, at the worst possible time.
And it’s being badly mishandled.
NDP leader Carole James faced a leadership test on the weekend when the party’s governing council met in Victoria. A few NDP riding associations had called for a leadership contest next year.
Some New Democrat MLAs were unhappy as well. Last Friday, caucus whip Katrine Conroy gave up that position, apparently in protest. She was supported by MLAs Jenny Kwan, Lana Popham and Claire Trevena.
But none would say what they were actually unhappy about.
Partly, it was about James’s decision to kick Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson out of the caucus after he offered mild criticism of a speech she made. Or, in some cases, about the arbitrary way the decision was made.
That was a blunder. Simpson’s comments were mild. Leaders have lots of ways to communicate displeasure. And it was wrong and foolish for James to leave MLAs - especially one like Conroy, as whip, and Norm Macdonald as caucus chair – out of the decision.
But you have to think the dissatisfaction runs deeper. One bad call about a difficult member of caucus shouldn’t be such a grand offence.
James took on the dissatisfaction head-on. On Friday, the day before the meeting, she said she was “drawing a line in the sand.” Support her leadership and work together, or not. Get in or get out.
It worked with the council. The call for a leadership contest failed, with about 84 per cent voting to keep James.
But in a dumb move, someone in the James camp decided to put pressure on dissidents by handing out yellow scarves and buttons to signal support for her.
The result was that about a dozen MLAs were immediately identified as refusing to support James’s leadership - hardly a great result.
Why don’t they support James? The MLAs won’t say.
They could argue that such discussions should remain behind closed doors, except their discontent is highly public. (And if one-third of the caucus has doubts about a potential future premier, perhaps discussion of their views is in the public interest.)
From outside, James looks to have a good record. From two seats to 35, a significant lead in the polls and no big negatives. Her approval rating - 33 per cent - is lousy, but that might say more about the way we see politicians than her performance. Certainly it wasn’t helped by the Simpson affair and revelations that a handful of big unions have been chipping in to pay Moe Sihota a salary as party. The money isn’t a general donation to the party; it’s to pay Sihota. “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” the saying goes, which leaves the party playing second fiddle.
But you would hardly think those enough to persuade New Democrat MLAs to attack their own party when the chance of forming the next government looks so good.
MLAs have a balancing act - their own judgment, their commitment to constituents who voted for both a party and a candidate and to a shared vision.
The New Democrats attacking James should be candid about their concerns.
Footnote: Meanwhile. Moira Stilwell became the first Liberal leadership candidate. She stepped down as minister of regional economic and skills development. Stilwell’s a doctor who specializes in nuclear medicine and a political rooke elected last year. That’s likely a plus, given public antipathy to Gordon Campbell and those around him.

The New Democrats, and shadow tolls on the Sea to Sky

Two pieces worth your attention.

Ian Reid writes thoughtfully on the NDP's prospects in the aftermath of the odd weekend party meeting that saw Carole James win the support of voting members of the party's governing council - while 11 New Democrat MLAs are still apparently dissatisfied with her leadership. Read him here.
Their next moves will be critical. The MLas can find a way to work with the party, which is what voters likely expected when they elected them. They can quit. Or they can snipe from within. The Liberals are certainly cheering for the latter two options.

And Laila Yuile has been establishing, without a doubt, that the deal for the private companies who did the Sea to Sky Highway improvements and maintain the road includes payments based on "shadow tolls." Part of their annual payment depends on road use, but instead of collecting from drivers the province pays a toll on users' behalf.
That's consistent with the government's policy that there will be no direct tolls on roads for which there is no non-toll alternative. (Though the skyrocketing ferry fares violate that principle.)
What makes this fascinating is the Transportation Ministry's bizarre insistence that there are no shadow tolls, when as Yuile sets out, the companies are absolutely clear that their payment does include the tolls.

Children's ministry stumbles again

From today's Times Colonist:

"She was 15, with severe developmental disabilities due to Down syndrome. Her mother, with her own issues, died in the home they shared in a Cultus Lake mobile home park.

And for nine days, the girl lived beside her mother's corpse. She had been told not to go out alone.

When rescued, she was emaciated and filthy -- she was unable to use the toilet and had been wearing the same diaper for a week. Her legs and abdomen were raw with diaper rash. Pills and boxes of macaroni were on the floor, apparently left as the girl tried to bring her mother back to life.

The Minister of Children and Family Development had been involved with the family; in fact, the girl's brothers had asked that their sister be taken into care because of their mother's alcoholism and drug abuse and the filth in the house.

The law calls for deaths or such events that cause "serious or long-term impairment" of a child's health to be reported to the Representative for Children and Youth as soon as officials become aware of them.

But the ministry didn't do that. Nine weeks after the girl was discovered, Minister Mary Polak says it's still not clear to her that the girl suffered an injury that required reporting.

That's at once insulting and stupid. . ."

Read the rest here.

Bill Bennett has it right

Cut Bill Bennett’s claims about life inside the Liberal government in half and it’s still ugly.
Reject them entirely and you still face the reality that Bennett is right when he says that each day Gordon Campbell stays as leader is one more blow to the Liberals’ chances for recovery.
The East Kootenay MLA was fired as energy minister Wednesday for saying Campbell should step down now for the good of the party. Next step is expulsion from caucus.
The firing wasn’t unexpected. Bennett noted he had broken the “no surprises” rule by not warning the premier¹s office.
But what happened next was surprising.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen maintained the cabinet had fired Bennett. They might have approved, but only the premier can hire and fire cabinet ministers.
And Hansen and others said Bennett had broken his cabinet oath. That’s not true. Ministers promise to maintain confidentiality about cabinet discussions, not to shut up about everything.
Bennett left the meeting and came to Victoria to face the media.
The scrum was about 35 minutes and, by the end, Bennett had carpet-bombed Campbell. The premier was a bully and autocrat who ignored cabinet, caucus and stakeholders. He had reduced MLAs to tears in meetings. One shouting incident had left Bennett wiping the premier¹s spit from his face, he said.
“He¹s lost the public entirely,” Bennett said. “He should just leave. Every day that Premier Campbell stays around is one less day we have to start a renewal.”
A lineup of ministers denied Bennett’s charges, as did Campbell. Health Minister Kevin Falcon said he had been in shouting matches with the premier, but that was just the way things were done in cabinet.
So who should you believe?
MLAs and ex-MLAs have complained, usually quietly, about Campbell’s bullying. The HST introduction, dropped on a surprised caucus with no discussion or consultation, confirms the tendency to one-man rule.
And Bennett, in my experience, has been a straight shooter.
Maybe he exaggerated or his perceptions were skewed. But if he sees the problems, they exist.
Certainly he’s right that Campbell’s long goodbye is doing great damage to the Liberals.
Campbell acknowledged the public doesn’t trust him. That’s why he’s leaving.
But by staying on until a new leader is in place, likely in March, he’s condemning the party to months of growing unpopularity and tainting the leadership selection process. Cabinet ministers considering a leadership run should be focused on demonstrating they offer a new vision and direction for the party and the government.
Instead, Falcon and George Abbott, both possible candidates, responded to Bennett’s comments by defending Campbell’s leadership and achievements. They stepped forward as apologists for a terribly unpopular premier, as ministers and MLAs have since the HST was introduced to such anger.
Bennett’s concerns about political life need to be addressed, no matter what people think about his criticism of Campbell.
Power has increasingly been concentrated in the leader’s office. MLAs have had little role in shaping policy; if they had, the HST debacle might have been avoided.
And cabinet ministers are often out of the loop. Bennett noted that the sweeping reorganization of resource ministries announced by Campbell was done without the involvement of the ministers responsible for those areas. The deputy ministers working on it were told not to let their ministers know what was going on.
Bennett spoke highly of most of his cabinet colleagues and the people working in government.
But his frustration came through in almost every sentence. And it was based, I’d argue, not on anger at being fired from cabinet but on years of disappointment. MLAs start their time in Victoria with great hopes of making a difference. Those hopes are often replaced by bitterness and disappointment.
“I¹m tired of the bullshit going on in politics,” Bennett said.
He speaks for many British Columbians.
Footnote: Bennett recounted his first-term interest in starting an outdoor caucus - MLAs from both parties interested in hunting, fishing, hiking and snowmobiling issues that are often neglected. Campbell tried to bully him out of the idea, Bennett said, especially rejecting the idea that New Democrat MLAs could be involved. Bennett went ahead anyway.

The Bennett tapes

I have always had time for Bill Bennett.

When he made it back into cabinet in a 2008 shuffle, I had this prescient comment:

"Back to good news, I'm glad of the return of Kootenays MLA Bill Bennett to cabinet, this time as tourism, culture and arts minister, and the addition of Peace River MLA Blair Lekstrom as community development minister (although that's not much of a job, except for the pine beetle responsibilities that are cobbled on).
Both are smart, will speak their minds and stand up for their constituents and are from outside the Lower Mainland. They will be valuable around the cabinet table."

Bennett was bounced from cabinet Wednesday for saying Gordon Campbell should step down as premier now to let the party begin rebuilding.

He did not go quietly, accusing Campbell of being a bully and one-man government. The Times Colonist has offered an audio file of his comments in a scrum here.

Recall ups destructive political uncertainty

Things are turning into a mess in B.C.
Recall, leadership squabbling, a lame duck premier who won’t go away, a referendum that might axe the HST – it’s a formula for political chaos.
And political chaos is a formula for government paralysis on issues that matter to British Columbians.
First, recall. The Fight HST forces announced their recall targets Monday. Universities Minister Ida Chong is first on the hit list.
She won her Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding by a skinny margin - 561 votes - in 2009. Lots of recall canvassers have signed up in her riding and nearby Saanich North. And Chong has not been effective in representing the riding on key local issues.
She is thus vulnerable, even given the tough threshold for a successful recall effort. Proponents will need to get signatures from 40 per cent of the people registered to vote in the last election - about 18,000 names. (Chong won with 11,877 votes.)
The recall campaign starts Monday. Proponents have 60 days to get enough signatures to oust the MLA and force a byelection.
The Fight HST crew plans campaigns against Terry Lake in Kamloop North and Don McRae in Comox starting in early January, with more efforts launched every month until the HST is gone or the Liberals bumped from power.
Chong’s recall has become the trial run for both sides.
Her first-day response made no mention of the HST. She said she had done a good job, the NDP was playing a big behind-the-scenes recall role (likely true) and the effort was an abuse of the recall legislation. Recall was supposed to be used against MLAs who acted unethically, Chong said.
That’s just untrue. The successful referendum on recall, which led to the legislation, asked if British Columbians should have the right to remove their MLA between elections. Voters would decide what constituted grounds for dismissal.
And the claim will be a tough sell, given the Liberals’ history. Gordon Campbell was calling for recall campaigns against New Democrat MLAs within months of losing the 1996 election. Kevin Falcon’s Total Recall targeted all 40 NDP MLAs in 1999; he said it had nothing to do with the individuals, but was attempt to oust the government. (The effort flopped, but created big headaches for the New Democrats.)
The justifiable claim that the NDP is playing a political role in the campaigns might deter some people from signing.
Campbell is a big problem for Chong. He has announced he’ll leave after a new leader is selected Feb. 26.
But that’s three months away, And he’s still insisting that he - and Chong - did everything right in bringing in the HST. The only failure was not explaining the decision more effectively after it was a done deal, he says.
In fact, Campbell is a big problem for the party. Lame duck leaders always are. When they are unpopular and don’t recognize that they’re lame, things get really messy.
Campbell says he’s still the premier and in charge of the budget and throne speech. Nothing will change until the new Liberal leader is selected.
For the Liberal party, that’s terrible. Campbell is leaving because the public thinks he’s doing a bad job and doesn’t trust him. Yet he’ll be the face of the party for another three months and defend the budget and throne speech.
Chong and the Liberal party would be helped if Campbell stepped down as premier now. MLAs could select someone - ideally not running for the leadership - to be premier until the leadership was decided. Campbell could cart away some baggage and avoid some unpleasant months.
And the interim premier could announce the HST referendum would be held in February, before a new leader was selected. An earlier departure by Campbell might help the party and calm things down a bit.
But the months ahead - and perhaps until the next election - are going to bring uncertainty that slows investment and progress in B.C.
Footnote: The New Democrats are adding to the uncertainty as some party members continue to take aim at the leadership of Carole James. The issues are likely to be addressed at an NDP provincial council meeting this weekend.

What's wrong with New Democrats?

I almost choked on my coffee when I read that Dale Lovick was calling for Carole James to be dumped as NDP leader.
What is wrong with this party?
Lovick is on the NDP riding association executive in Nanaimo-North Cowichan. He told Michael Smyth of The Province that the executive recently passed a motion calling on James to step down while a leadership contest takes place.
This from a cabinet minister who stayed loyal, at least publicly, to Glen Clark until the bitter end.
Lovick never called for Clark’s resignation or expressed doubts about the NDP government’s direction.
Now he thinks James should go.
His credentials aren’t great. Lovick was part of an NDP team - a cabinet minister - who ran the party into the ground. People saw the government as dishonest and incompetent and loathed the New Democrats. Lovick and company’s legacy was the NDP’s 2001 election performance - 22 per cent of the vote and two seats.
Today, a recent poll puts the New Democrats at 47 per cent, enough to win a big majority. James doesn’t great approval ratings, but she’s by far people’s first choice.
And Lovick and others are calling for a leadership change.
It’s good NDP riding associations feel free to express their opinions. It’s bad that they seem so foolish.

Come on, folks, let's drink and drive more: Coleman

The weirdness of things in this province continue to amaze.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman — in charge of public safety and increasing alcohol consumption — has to be the first mainstream politician to urge a little more drinking and driving as a good thing.
And his advice that people should feel free to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and drive home because they would be under the .05 limit is just flat-out wrong. (Coleman has a problem with stating things as fact that are simply not.) The reality is that people who take his advice could end up facing a lost licence, fines and an impounded car.
The Times Colonist looks at this in an editorial today.

Campbell's $2 billion doomed bet on keeping his job (with your money)

I thought the budget consultation process hit bottom in 2004.
But Gordon Campbell took things to a new low with his TV announcement of an arbitrary 15 per cent tax cut, a desperate, doomed move to hang on to his job at the expense of the Liberal party and the democratic process.
The legislature finance committee - six Liberal MLAs, four New Democrats - travels the province each fall to hear suggestions for the February budget.
It’s a big deal for many people. Business groups propose tax shifts, advocates make the case for spending on schools or health care. People send e-mails or briefs on what they think should be priorities. Many presentations are thoughtful and well-researched.
And the committee writes a report that, theoretically - though rarely practically - shapes the budget.
This year, the government noted that an improving economy offered opportunities. There was an extra $2 billion over the next three years available for initiatives.
"What would you do with additional resources?,” it asked. “Would you fund new programs and services, would you reduce the debt, or would you cut personal income taxes?"
So chambers of commerce and arts groups and non-profits and individuals prepared their submissions. People already working 10 hours a day worked longer to offer their ideas.
Then Campbell went on TV and announced a 15-per-cent tax cut that wiped out that $2 billion, before the committee even started preparing its report.
It was a grand insult. The committee had travelled to 14 communities and done videoconferences with people and organizations in another nine. A lot of effort had gone into hundreds of submissions.
And Campbell gave the finger to them. He decided on a tax cut before he even heard from all those people across the province. The consultation was a sham.
There was no reason for haste. The tax cut doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1. The committee was to report by Nov. 15.
If Campbell had delayed his TV address three weeks, he could have read the committee report and learned what British Columbians believed the budget priorities should be. That would have been polite.
He didn’t, which speaks of a certain contempt for all those people and groups working on their budget submissions.
The New Democrat MLAs withdrew from the committee in protest.
The loyal Liberals defended the premier’s tax cut announcement. You would think, after listening to all those presentations and reading all the submissions, they would have urged the premier to wait a few weeks for the report.
If, as Campbell maintains, all decisions are backed by caucus, surely the Liberal committee members - John Les, Norm Letnick, Don MacRae, John Rustad, Jane Thornthwaite and John van Dongen - would have suggested the tax cut announcement could wait until the public was heard.
But either they weren’t consulted, they were silent or they were ignored. I’m keen to know which.
The previous low point in budget consultation came in 2004, when the government sent out a pre-election campaign flyer/budget consultation document to every household in the province. About 26,000 people responded with budget suggestions. But the flyer went out late, time was tight and the government threw 23,500 of the responses in the garbage and looked at 2,550 - one in 10.
Campbell, seeking political salvation, went farther and ignored every single submission.
Liberal supporters should be the angriest.
If Campbell hadn’t bet $2 billion on a doomed effort to rebuild his personal popularity, the new Liberal leader would have had the chance to announce tax cuts or measures to reduce surgical waits or investments in economic growth.
This isn’t a partisan, or left-right issue, whatever that means.
It’s about bad behaviour, contempt for citizens, docile elected representatives, abuse of power and the reckless spending of $650 million a year.
And it brings shame on the government, and all those who went along with the abuse.
Footnote: First Call, an advocacy group for children and youth, probably speaks for a lot of the organizations - business groups, non-profits, community organizations - who presented to the committee. First Call encourages members to engage in the democratic process, the group noted. But it asked why people should spend time preparing recommendations if the government is going to do whatever it wants anyway. Campbell’s answer should be interesting.

Campbell dragging party down with him

Gordon Campbell's decision to stick around as a lame duck party leader is terrible news for the Liberals.
Campbell took questions from reporters on the day after he announced he would step down.
It was an odd performance. Campbell talked like a popular premier leaving at the top of his game, rather than a liability for his party.
He said he wouldn't step aside for an interim leader. Instead, he'll stay on as leader and premier until a leadership convention is held - within the next six months or so, according to the party's shaky constitution.
That wouldn't be awkward, he said. It's not as if any of the leadership candidates would be questioning the Liberals' past choices on the HST or other issues.
"The new leader, certainly if they're from inside government, will have been part of those decisions," Campbell said.
Bad news for Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon or anyone else in the current government looking to run for leader on the promise of a new direction.
Even if outside candidates came forward, Campbell said, they surely would accept his priorities.
"They believe in strengthening the private sector economy," he said. "They'll believe in leaving more money in people's pockets. That's what the party has always stood for, and frankly, it's a continuation of that."
Leadership campaigns can be a chance for unpopular parties - like the Liberals - to make a fresh start. They can distance themselves from an unpopular leader - like Campbell - and offer a new vision and style.
Unless the old leader sabotages that opportunity by insisting that it will be business as usual no matter who emerges as Liberal leader.
So Campbell will be peering over the shoulders of leadership candidates, frowning at challenges to the status quo or any concerns about the party's past efforts.
Meanwhile, the Liberal party has apparently been caught off guard by the first leadership contest in 17 years.
The Liberal constitution sets out a leadership vote process. Anyone who joins the party at least seven weeks before the leadership contest gets a vote. Low-polling candidates are dropped until someone gets majority support. And the constitution seems to contemplate a series of mail ballots - kind of a slow motion leadership process.
The Liberals are now considering new rules, according to Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com.
The one-member, one-vote model has appeal. But it also encourages the mass sign-up of instant party members by candidates - religious and ethnic communities are often targeted - and places candidates outside the Lower Mainland at a huge disadvantage.
Holman reports some Liberals are advocating a leadership selection process like the Ontario Conservatives used last year. Each riding had 100 votes; those were allocated based on the party members' choice in a constituency ballot.
That makes it worthwhile to sign up new members, but doesn't let the leadership choice rest on instant Liberals gathered in bulk. (Though it does give the same weight to a riding with 40 members and no hope of electing a Liberal MLA as it does to a powerhouse of party support.)
Meanwhile, the leadership race has begun. Rich Coleman has promised to look at the new drinking-driving laws to see if they're too effective in keeping drivers who have had a glass or two of wine off the roads. George Abbott says he'd step down from cabinet if he runs, to avoid conflict. Coleman says he won't. Kevin Falcon says he hopes Carole Taylor runs. And that's just the early jockeying.
Campbell's decision to hang around, the ghost of Olympics past, does the Liberal party no favours.
And a slow-motion leadership campaign would do the province no favours. Business and consumers hate uncertainty; a long campaign - along with the wait for the HST referendum - create months of political and economic uncertainty.
Footnote: Meanwhile, some New Democrats continue to grumble about Carole James. That seems bizarre - the NDP has a two-to-one lead in the polls and a good chance of forming government no matter who the Liberals select. Plunging the party into a potentially divisive leadership fight makes little sense.

The leadership race begins...

B.C.'s solicitor-general mulls changes to tough drinking and driving laws

BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN
VICTORIA - Solicitor-general Rich Coleman said Monday his government is planning to review B.C.'s tough new drinking and driving laws, suggesting any changes could be introduced as early as this coming spring.

"This [the drinking and driving law] has certainly got some issues with it and quite frankly we're going to look at those," Coleman, who has been solicitor-general for just two weeks, said Monday.

Interesting that Coleman says he believes he'll stay in cabinet if he enters the Liberal leadership race, while George Abbott says he won't.

The Liberal leadership campaign rules

Leadership campaign rules and their application can help or hurt candidates.
The Liberal constitution - supplied helpfully by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com - gives the party executive four weeks to set a date for a leadership vote after they get a resignation letter.
They have to set a date for the vote within the next six months. Assuming Gordon Campbell wrote a resignation letter today, the leadership vote would have to be held no later than June 1.
All paid-up party members get a mail-in vote if they have joined at least 41 days - say six weeks - before the date of the leadership convention.
So, if the executive set a Dec. 12 leadership vote, only the people who were already party members could vote.
But parties like leadership races because the candidates rush around signing up new party members who will support them, theoretically building the membership base. (Though instant party members tend not to stick around after the leadership vote.) A later date would give leadership candidates a chance to persuade more people to buy memberships and support them.
This is all uncharted territory. The last leadership contest, which Campbell, of course, won, was 17 years ago and used a telephone voting system the party has abandoned.
To win, a candidate needs a majority. It's not clear, to me anyway, whether that must mean a succession of mail ballots or some form of voting that lets members rank all the candidates.

Resignation brings a new set of problems

Gordon Campbell's resignation was inevitable. He lost the confidence of British Columbians and, finally, of at least some within the Liberal ranks.
But the timing was a surprise and leaves the party, government and province in a tough spot.
I expected Campbell to stick around and defend the HST in the run up to next September's referendum. Then he could leave and a new Liberal leader could declare the tax battle in the past, say lessons had been learned and pledge a fresh start.
That didn't work. Campbell faced increasing internal discontent - note Energy Minister Bill Bennett's criticism of the premier's autocratic decision-making on resource minstry restructuring - that increased when his televised address last week was a failure.
The early departure creates big problems. The Liberal party executive has six months to call a leadership convention. The latest date would be in May.
The HST referendum is set for Sept. 24. That means a new Liberal leader faces months either campaigning in favour of the HST or dodging questions about the tax. Either way, public anger about the tax and the incompetent way it was introduced would fix immediately on the new leader.
The leadership race will also be run with the tax still a live issue. That's bad news for potential candidates from within the current cabinet, like Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon, George Abbott or Mike de Jong.
They have all defended the HST and backed the government's position that it was not possible or necessary to consult the public. They have all supported the claim the tax "wasn't on the radar" during the election campaign, even though talks on implementing it started days after the vote. They have supported, they insisted, Campbell's actions.
The same actions that so angered the public that he had to resign.
Those are problems for the Liberal party. (Although they could be eased by moving the referendum date up to the spring.)
But months of uncertainty are also bad news for the government and the province.
The government had big, if vague, plans for changes to the education system, for example. Those are stalled. The major shuffle of resource industries to speed project approvals announced last week will slow as all involved wait to see what the new leader thinks.
And work on next year's budget, to be presented in February, will move into high gear in coming months. Absent a leader, decisions on everything from health spending to tax policy will be put off.
This is all coming as the province emerges from a recession and businesses and consumer wait to see if the HST will survive the referendum (or, for that matter, whether the Liberal government will survive recall attempts).
The uncertainty will be damaging.
It's a sad end for Campbell, no matter what people think of his time in government. He rode into office with considerable goodwill in 2001 (in part because the former NDP government was so loathed). And he was re-elected twice. No one has ever challenged his work ethic or commitment to the job. His enthusiasms - for First Nations treaties, health reform, action on climate change and all those other great goals - were compelling.
But they were also short-lived. And as time went on they were overshadowed by broken promises and a sense that this was a one-man government not much interested in the views of anyone outside a like-minded inner circle. It was not just the public's views that were discounted; Liberal MLAs weren't consulted about the HST or a host of other policy directions either.
That was too bad. Leaders, unless they are careful, ended up surrounded by people who think like they do and are far more likely to say "great idea, chief" than they are to raise concerns - either their own or their constituents.
So premiers come to believe, for example, that the reason people oppose the HST is that they are just too dim to recognize the premier's wisdom.
And eventually, they stand in front of the TV cameras offering their resignations.
Footnote: The Liberals should be looking ruefully at that 15 per cent tax cut. It reduced revenue by $1.2 billion over the next two years without saving Campbell's job. That's money a new leader could have used to build quick public support, either through tax cuts or an expansion of needed services.

Tough to see economic case for tax cut

Gordon Campbell's TV speech bombed, according to the one public poll done in its aftermath. Even the 15 per cent income tax cut wasn't a runaway success.
The Ipsos Reid poll, done for Global TV, found one-third of British Columbians disapproved of the tax reduction.
That still leaves a majority - 62 per cent - in favour of the tax cut.
But the fact that one in three British Columbians didn't think the tax cut was a good idea is interesting.
The Liberals have spent a decade arguing taxes are bad. "We think you make better choices about how to spend those dollars than the government can," Campbell said last week, sticking with a familiar theme. "You all want to have critical services but you know the individual issues that you face as a family, it's better for you to choose where you want your dollars to go."
It's just political talk, crafted to play well on TV. But Campbell did appear to suggest that if you want "critical services" you should pay for them yourself, rather than expect the government to collect taxes and ensure that health and education, for example, are available for everyone.
It's tough to draw too many conclusions from the poll. It could be that the one-third of British Columbians who think the tax cut is a bad idea just dislike Campbell so much that anything he proposed would be tainted.
Or they could be the people who won't benefit from the tax cut. About 40 per cent of British Columbians don't earn tp pay provincial income tax. For someone with $20,000 income, the tax cut is worth a little over $1 a week. (They will benefit from the low-income HST rebate of up to $230 a year.)
But it could also be that man people don't think a tax cut is a good idea when the government is running a deficit. Paying for the tax reduction means borrowing money our kids will have to pay back or cutting more services.
It is a puzzling bit of public policy. Campbell has said deficits are an abomination, but he plunged the province deeper in debt - the tax cut will reduce revenues by $568 million next year, more the year after.
And he once again justified the snap imposition of the HST by saying B.C. desperately needed the $1.6 billion the federal government was offering as an inducement.
But the government is booking $580 million of that payment next year - almost exactly the revenue lost because of the tax cut. The HST incentive payment doesn't look quite so essential as a result.
The tax cut also opens the door to an unending litany of what-ifs. The government is moving people with developmental disabilities out of group homes and programs that have been part of their lives for years to save $22 million. That wouldn't be necessary with the tax cut.
In September, Health Minister Kevin Falcon announced an extra $23 million in health funding that would help 33,000 patients get speedier treatment. On that basis, the money the government gave up could have helped hundreds of thousands of people to get better access to needed health care.
Campbell made a brief reference to the economic benefits. The theory is that people will spend the money they get as a result of the tax cuts (and that government won't cut its spending because of the reduced revenue).
Some of that spending will result in jobs and economic growth in the province. The cuts will pay for themselves
But the business case is weak. A Central 1 Credit Union "preliminary impact assessment" estimated the 15 per cemt cut would increase economic growth from 2.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent next year.
That, according to the budget documents, translates into about $20 million in additional government revenue, compared to the $568 million given up as a result of the tax cut.
Even the 62 per cent who welcome the tax cut must wonder about the decision-making process.
Footnote: The poll found 11 per cent of British Columbians had an improved opinion of Campbell after the speech; 43 per cent thought worse of him. Thirteen per cent said they were more likely to vote Liberal; almost half - 46 per cent - said they were less likely to vote for the Liberals.
So who thought it would be a good idea to deliver that speech on television?

About those tankers.....

"Drunken captain of ship seized in Strait gets short prison term

By Chris Tucker/Peninsula Daily News

TACOMA -- Skippering a 590-foot freighter in the Strait of Juan de Fuca while legally drunk gets you 14 days in prison, six months of supervised release and a six-month ban from U.S. waters.... (full story below)."


I note this is not some tramp freighter. The ship is almost two football fields long and STX, the owner, is a giant shipbuilding and transportation corporation which operates oil tankers. (And note the Coho in the background in this image of the ship in Port Angeles.)

The statement from the U.S. Attorney's officer is here.

It says:

"In asking for a significant sentence, the government noted the potential for disaster with a drunk captain aboard a 20,763 gross tons freighter. 'The consequences of an accident that may have occurred due to the defendants intoxication could have been catastrophic. The defendant’s intended journey through the Straits of Juan de Fuca and down the Puget Sound to Olympia covered over 205 miles through areas characterized by narrow channels and strong currents. More importantly, the defendant’s intended track crossed no less than six Washington State Ferry routes, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and many areas of high commercial shipping and recreational boating activity. The defendant’s ship, carrying large quantities of fuel oil posed further risk to the marine environment.'"

Which does not mean tankers can't be safe; but it is a reminder that industry claims that nothing could go wrong are false.

Drunken captain of ship seized in Strait gets short prison term

By Chris Tucker/Peninsula Daily News

TACOMA -- Skippering a 590-foot freighter in the Strait of Juan de Fuca while legally drunk gets you 14 days in prison, six months of supervised release and a six-month ban from U.S. waters.

That essentially was the sentence handed down Monday in U.S. District Court in Tacoma to Korean national Seong Ug Sin, who was arrested by a Coast Guard inspection team in the Strait last April 14.

U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura, who imposed the sentence, heard evidence earlier this month that Sin, who resisted the inspection team's boarding of the STX Daisy he was commanding, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.108 percent, more than twice the legal limit.

No matter who is at the ship's helm, U.S. law requires captains to have a blood-alcohol level of less than 0.04 percent when traversing U.S. waters.

Once the boarding team took charge of the ship, it was ordered to Port Angeles Harbor, where it anchored for several days until another captain arrived to take it to Olympia.

According to trial testimony, the Coast Guard inspection team had difficulty boarding the STX Daisy from a small inflatable boat because Sin refused to follow their instructions.

"Once on board, Capt. Sin continued to have difficulty providing the records required, and a review determined he had no usable charts of Puget Sound," according to a statement Monday from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle.

"A search of the ship determined that significant quantities of Korean whisky had been consumed by SIN and one other officer."

Prosecutors noted during the trial that the STX Daisy's intended route of 205 miles was through Admiralty Inlet and south on Puget Sound to Olympia to pick up a cargo of logs.

"More importantly, the defendant's intended track crossed no less than six Washington State Ferry routes, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and many areas of high commercial shipping and recreational boating activity," Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew Thomas and David Reese Jennings wrote in their sentencing memo to Creatura.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard and was prosecuted by Thomas and Jennings along with Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Zlomek, a Coast Guard lieutenant commander.

Sin faced a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

If Campbell's Grade 4 pledge is serious...

If Premier Gordon Campbell is serious about his TV pledge to have every Grade 4 student meeting expectations for reading, writing and numeracy within five years and is willing to fund a serious plan, he'll be creating a real legacy.
The Times Colonist looks at the pledge in an editorial today
And even the discussion confirms the usefulness of the FSA tests, as I argued here.

Assembly of First Nations rejects Oppal inquiry

Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and Grand Chief Doug Kelly, chairman of the First Nations Health Council, set out the reasons they have decided that Wally Oppal is the wrong person to head the missing women inquiry and why the inquiry itself is inadequate in a piece in the Times Colonist today.

"We must turn these horrific serial murders into a full exploration of how to protect and support women, especially indigenous women," they write.
"We will be left with the most important question - why were the lives of these and so many other indigenous women in Canada not adequately supported, and how could our systems treat them, and others, as something to be thrown away, then put to the bottom of the heap in pursuing their murderers and abusers? Probably because we didn't care enough to make it different.
"We can't let that happen again. Join us in calling for a real inquiry that puts the lives of those victims at the forefront."

This is, I believe, the first time the AFN has presented its position on the inquiry.

A terrible TV night for Campbell

That was a dismal effort on TV by Premier Gordon Campbell. Especially for an address that was crucial to rebuilding Liberal support and slowing the recall movement.
Campbell announced a surprise big income tax cut - 15 per cent on the first $72,000 of income - effective Jan. 1. Someone earning $50,000 a year will save about $7 a week.
The tax cut will knock about $600 million off government revenues.
Two points are relevant about that number.
First, it’s less than one-third of the $1.9 billion in additional taxes imposed on individuals and families by the new HST.
And second, it comes as the government is running deficits and cutting services because revenues are down. People with developmental disabilities are being forced out of group homes they have lived in for years. Seniors are waiting for health care. Schools are closing.
It hardly seems time for a tax cut.
Campbell announced a couple of education initiatives. The government will continue establishing StrongStart early learning centres. They help families prepare infants and young children for school.
It will begin assessing every child entering school for learning issues that can be addressed.
And Campbell made a goofy commitment. Within five years, he guaranteed, every Grade 4 student will meet expectations for reading, writing and math skills. Today, about 20 per cent of students fall short.
That’s a laudable goal. But it’s a ridiculous, empty political promise.
The children who will be in Grade 4 five years from now are about to enter kindergarten. Almost one-third of them, according to the province’s statistics, aren’t ready to succeed. About 20 per cent have spent their childhood in poverty.
Some 40 per cent of aboriginal children aren’t meeting basic skills expectations in Grade 4. How is that to be entirely changed in five years.
It would be wonderful, if Campbell had a plan to deliver on this promise.
But the education budget is set to rise 1.5 per cent next year and is effectively frozen the following year. With no money, how are schools going to improve the skills of thousands of children, many facing big challenges?
A tax cut and empty education promises. Not inspirational.
The largest block of time - and the first part of the speech - was devoted to defending the HST.
But there was nothing new. The Liberals had opposed harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST because of fears the freedom to set tax policy would be limited, Campbell said.
Then Ontario negotiated a deal with more flexibility and the federal government offered $1.6 billion if B.C. signed on.
And, said Campbell, the federal government demanded an instant commitment or B.C. would have to wait two years. (No one in the federal government has confirmed that ultimatum.)
“Should we have consulted more - I sure would have liked to,” Campbell said.
But he felt comfortable signing a deal that permanently shifted $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals without talking to MLAs or the public or doing financial analysis of the impact.
What’s extraordinary is that Campbell, again, didn’t take the chance to say he was sorry. Sorry that he had put Liberal MLAs in a tough spot. Sorry that so many people felt abused by the government.
Instead he suggested the problem was that British Columbians are just too dim.
Campbell said he talked to a businessman who had some trucks as part of the operation. He was “really upset” because the HST added seven per cent to the cost of his haircut
“But I pointed to the truck in his lot and I said ‘You see that truck over there?’‟
“And he says, ‘Yep’ and I said, “you‟re saving about $5,000 on that truck.‟
“And he said, “I never thought of that.‟
That’s Campbell’s world. Any day, British Columbians will slap themselves on the forehead and say, “Yep, I never thought of that.”
Footnote: It’s hard to say why taxpayers should pay for this TV address. Campbell’s first televised speech to the province as premier, back in 2002, was paid for by the Liberal party. There was nothing in this message that could not have been delivered by press release Or, in the case of the tax cut, in the legislature.

Meet the new cabinet, much like the old cabinet

Cabinet shuffles are mostly political. It's not about the ministers or the government structure. It's the equivalent of designing a new detergent package with big blue letters saying "New, Improved."
Even if the detergent is not much changed. There is only one new minister, Stephanie Cadieux, in community, sport and cultural development. No one was fired. Mostly it's the same crew in slightly modified roles.
There are a couple of significant changes.
George Abbott moves from aboriginal relations to education. Abbott has been in health too, so he's handled tough assignments. They haven't gone wrong, but it's hard to point to big accomplishments.
Premier Gordon Campbell wants to make education and the economy defining issues. So Abbott is going to face big challenges in managing change to the school system while facing well-organized interest groups, from the B.C. Teachers Federation to school trustees.
The other big changes come in the resource ministries. Those are tough to understand.
Basically, Pat Bell is responsible for forests, mining and lands. That adds mining to his former responsibilities, which could make sense. It provides a ministry focused on maximizing forestry and mining opportunities, which should be good for resource-based communities.
But there is also a minister of natural resource operations, Steve Thomson, and a junior minister for mining, Randy Hawes. (Plus Bill Bennett as the energy minister.)
So if you have a great mining opportunity, who do you call - Bell, Thomson, Hawes? Or all three? And how do government employees figure out who does what (especially over the next six months as this all gets sorted out)?
There are other interesting appointments. Rich Coleman is back as solicitor general, but keeps housing because he likes it.
Coleman's former responsibility for income assistance and cuts to services for developmentally disabled adults moves to Kevin Krueger, new minister for social development. Krueger's record in arts and tourism suggest that will end in tears.
The biggest change comes in the premier's office. Martyn Brown, Campbell's chief of staff for more than a dozen years, is out. Paul Taylor is in.
You won't find a more powerful job in most governments. Premiers have a deputy minister, charged with managing the public service and a chief of staff to direct the political agenda, manage the message and make sure the party gets re-elected.
Brown was Campbell's guy through three election wins. But part of the job is taken the fall when things go wrong. So Brown is off to a nice job as deputy minister of tourism, trade and investment. (A softer landing, at public expense, than most of his counterparts experience.)
You can't fault the decision. The Liberals have had an awful go wrong. Their communication strategy has been dreadful. They can't keep doing the same things.
So Taylor takes over his job.
It's interesting that Campbell turned back to a familiar figure. Taylor has been one of the most influential managers in Alberta and B.C for almost two decades. After Ralph Klein took power in 1992, Taylor came up with the plan to cut spending.
Campbell recruited him to do the same thing in this province. Taylor did the work for seven years, then Campbell appointed him to run ICBC in 2004. He left that job in April 2008, to run NaiKun Wind Energy Group, which hoped to score big green energy deals with B.C. Hydro.
That didn't work out. Taylor left NaiKun in June. The company was worth about $100 million when he arrived, and less than $8 million when he left, as B.C. Hydro shunned the wind-power proposals. (Which should be reassuring - Taylor's connections didn't help.)
Same people, yet another round of tinkering with ministry responsibilities, even more odd positions - Naomi Yamamoto is minister for building code renewal and John Les gets an extra $15,000 as parliamentary secretary in charge of selling the HST.
That's the other thing with shuffles. They never do bring the benefits the leaders hope for.
Footnote: Hours after the shuffle, Bill Bennett offered a rare internal critique. The overhaul of resource ministries was made without any consultation with caucus or the ministers, he said. When the government is so unpopular it's time to start involving people in decisions, Bennett said.

A resource perspective on the cabinet shuffle

I'll do a column on the changes announced by the premier, but there's some interesting initial reaction here.
Bernard Von Schulmann's work as a consultant is mostly about resource development in B.C. He's one of a small number of knowledgeable commentators.
If he's puzzled by the cabinet changes, especially around the "dirt industries," the government has to explain quickly how this will work and result in more economic activity outside B.C.'s urban centres.

Changing story on B.C. Rail plea deal

The government now says David Loukidelis, deputy in the Attorney General's Ministry, and Graham Whitmarsh, finance deputy made the decision to cover David Basi and Bob Virk's legal bills:

From Thursday's Vancouver Sun:

"Loukidelis said in the statement that he and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh decided to relieve the two men of responsibility for their legal fees because of their inability to pay...

Loukidelis said the special prosecutor in the case and Attorney-General Mike de Jong did not have "any knowledge of the matter or any involvement in this." He added that he informed de Jong of the decision after it was made, on Oct. 8."

But on Wednesday in the Sun de Jong appears to be saying he made the decision.

"De Jong said he made the recommendation last week not to recoup outstanding legal costs.

"As attorney-general, I am presented with a set of facts and a set of recommendations and in this case have proceeded on the strength of that and people will have to come to their own conclusions," he said.

De Jong also pointed out the plea bargain means that no more public money needs to be spent in the case."


And that's certainly what he seemed to say in Tuesday's Sun story:

"Attorney-General Mike de Jong said earlier that Basi and Virk will not be asked to repay the estimated $6 million the government has paid to cover their legal costs.

De Jong said he agreed to the deal because the two men had contributed what they could to their defence and "there's nothing left to pursue."

It might be that de Jong was misquited or just careless. But given the seriousness of the case and the size of the payout, why wouldn't he say on Tuesday that the two deputy ministers had made the decision and he had no role, if that was the case?

Things get worse in the B.C. Rail scandal

The Times Colonist reports that defence lawyers for Dave Basi and Bob Virk negotiated the forgiveness of $6 million in legal fees with deputy attorney general David Loukidelis and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh.
That raises the perception the plea bargain had less to do with justice and more to do with closed door talks about money.
Most alarming though, is this sentence.

"But when special prosecutor Bill Berardino made the B.C. government aware on Oct. 5 that he had proposed to let the two men plead guilty, it fell to the deputy minister of finance, Graham Whitmarsh, and Loukidelis to figure out whether they would actually have to come up with the money, Loukidelis's statement read."

Why would the special prosecutor "make the government aware" of his plea offer? Special prosecutors are appointed in sensitive cases to ensure independence and avoid even the appearance that political influence was affecting the courts.
But if the special prosecutor is briefing the government of his plans, he is no longer independent. Telling the government of plans to seek a plea bargain, for example, invites interference. Either by proposing a different strategy or, as in this case, offering financial inducements to encourage a guilty plea.
This seems an extraordinary interference in what is supposed to be an independent justice system.

Trial ends, B.C. Rail scandal smell lingers on

The B.C. Rail scandal has cost taxpayers some thing above $15 million.
And without more answers, that looks like a very poor bargain.
The trial ended with a whimper Monday.
Dave Basi and Bob Virk, former Liberal political aides, pleaded guilty to accepting benefits in return for leaking confidential information about the B.C. Rail sale to lobbyists for one of the bidders, Omnitrax.
Virk, the ministerial assistant to former transport minister Judith Reid, took a trip to Denver to an NFL game worth about $1,500.
Basi, aide to former finance minister Gary Collins, went on the trip and received another $25,695.
They also admitted leaking information to Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal fundraiser and a lobbyist (and brother of former deputy premier Christy Clark).
In a plea bargain, they were sentenced to two years of relaxed house arrest and Basi will have to pay a fine equal to the benefits they received.
Case closed, says Premier Gordon Campbell. Two rogue political staffers caught. Justice done. No questions to answer.
That's not true though.
For starters, people are wondering why Basi and Virk decided to cut a plea bargain after years of protesting their innocence.
Or, for that matter, why the special prosecutor Bill Berardino accepted sentences that look much like slaps on the wrist for a serious violation of the public trust.
For Basi and Virk, there are about six million reasons to take the fall.
That's the incredible amount - $6 million - spent so far on their legal defence.
Standard procedure calls for the government to pick up the tab for employees' legal bills - unless they're ultimately found guilty, in which case they have to pay their own legal costs.
But the plea bargain included an agreement that government - that is, you - will cover their costs. They also got out of what looked increasingly like an endless legal process.
Berardino says he accepted the plea bargain because the trial would have dragged on for months and the duo acknowledged their guilt. The decision - made just before Collins was to testify - was his alone.
But that's not really true either. The special prosecutor can't agree to cover legal fees; that decision has to be made by the government.
And that raises at least the perception that the Liberals were interested in heading off more evidence in this trial.
I would have liked to hear from Collins. The statement of facts agreed on by both sides says Basi arranged a dinner at an Italian restaurant with two representatives of Omnitrax, the unsuccessful bidder the lobbyists were working for, and Collins and told them he would offer a "consolation prize." Collins never made such an offer, the statement adds. (Police had the meeting under surveillance.)
But it would be useful to hear him explain whether there was any reason for Basi to believe that was true.
I'd like to hear from Erik Bornman and Brian Kieran, the lobbyists who bribed Basi and Virk, on whether this was standard business practice and how they managed to avoid charges.
I'd like to hear from Clark about why he got inside information from the two men.
I would very much like to hear From Basi and Virk about what they were doing and why they were doing it.
And I would like to hear how the justice system has become so broken that a case can take seven years and bills for prosecution and defence lawyers can top $10 million.
The B.C. Rail deal smells. The Liberals promised not to sell the railway in 2001 and then turned around and did just that. (No reasonable person would believe that a 990-year lease isn't a sale.)
CP Rail, one of the bidders, pulled out, alleging the bid process was unfairly rigged to make sure CN ended up owning the railway.
And Omnitrax was being fed inside information.
Campbell says British Columbians shouldn't worry about any of this, or about the fact that senior political aides have been convicted on criminal charges.
But a lot of people are likely to find all this very troubling unless an inquiry of some kind is eventually called.
Footnote: Basi also pleaded guilty to accepting $50,000 to help get land out of the agricultural land reserve in the capital region. The land was released and developed. The government says Basi's efforts made no difference.

With B.C.'s 20,000 grow ops, the pot war is lost

B.C. Hydro is getting ready to tell the utilities commission that it's losing $100 million worth of stolen electricity to grow ops every year.
The Crown corporation is including the estimate as part of its justification for spending spend $930 million on smart power meters for customers. The meters should make it easier to detect theft, it says.
That $100 million figure should tell us something about the foolishness of our current drug policies.
It's big money, equivalent to the electricity used by 77,000 homes, B.C. Hydro told delegates at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention this month.
The corporation also says grow ops use three to 10 times as much electricity as an average house.
Take the midpoint for grow op power use and the $100 million means some 17,000 grow ops are stealing electricity right now in the province.
All these numbers are a little overwhelming. But consider that there are 1,300 liquor stores, public and private, in the province. For every store, there are 13 grow ops stealing electricity.
But that's far from the total number. Many operators use generators or take the risk of running up big B.C. Hydro bills and hope they don't get caught.
And there are big outdoor marijuana crops across the province.
The RCMP does annual fall patrols, often using planes and helicopters. Last year, officers chopped down 29,000 plants on Vancouver Island, likely a fraction of the total outdoor plantations.
So, if B.C. Hydro's submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission is accurate, there are certainly more than 20,000 grow ops in the province at any time and could be up to 30,000.
Which suggests that the idea that police are actually going to make any real dent in the marijuana industry is pure fantasy.
It's physically impossible - without thousands more police officers on the assignment - to deal with that number of offenders.
The number isn't the only issue. Estimates of the value of the marijuana industry to B.C. are all over the map, with Forbes magazine putting it at $7 billion a few years ago.
Conservative estimates have the industry contributing $3 billion to $4 billion a year to the economy.
That virtually ensures that as fast as police detect one grow op and seize the plants and equipment, another one will open.
So on one hand, there's an expensive and largely pointless effort that makes no real impact on marijuana production and sales in the province.
And on the other, there are the negative impacts.
The most significant is the enormous boost handed to criminal gangs. Because marijuana is illegal, the grow ops are hugely profitable. The money enriches the gangs. It also fuels the rivalries and gang wars that bring violence to communities.
That's understandable. Practically, growing marijuana and growing tomatoes involves similar input costs. Tomatoes sell for about $1 a pound. Marijuana brings more than $3,000 a pound at the retail level. The profit motive ensures the grow ops aren't going away.
And police have pointed out that gangs often trade B.C. marijuana to their U.S. counterparts for cocaine that is then imported into this province.
It would simply be foolish to continue this costly, futile charade.
So why not legalize and regulate marijuana?
That doesn't mean ignoring the risks of pot use, which are real, despite the denials of the more enthusiastic supporters.
But alcohol and tobacco both have much more serious risks. We have accepted that regulation is the best way to manage them.
And it will not eliminate illegal grow ops. There is still a good export market.
But it would cut into the criminal profits. Police would have a slightly more manageable task. And crime would be reduced.
Californians will vote next month on legalization.
It is long past time for Canada to acknowledge that the current drug efforts waste money and increase the reach of crime and that it is time to try something new.
Footnote: California's government estimates taxes on legal marijuana sales could produce $1.4 billion a year in revenue, while providing significant savings in policing and prison costs. The initiative - to be voted on Nov. 2 - is opposed by some police, politician and religious groups and by the states beer and liquor distributors who fear lost profits.

B.C. Hydro stats support legal, regulated maraijuana

The Baltimore Sun has noticed B.C. Hydro's estimated that $100 million worth of electricity is being stolen each year for grow ops. Reporter Jay Hancock helpfully reminds readers that British Columbia "is to pot what Texas is to oil" in a post here.
The Times Colonist also noticed. An editorial today looks at the numbers and concludes, based on B.C. Hydro data, that $100 million of stolen electricity would power about 17,000 grow ops. Add in outdoor grows and indoor operations using generators or legal power and on any given day there are some 20,000 to 25,000, the editorial concludes.
Isn't it time to legalize and regulate marijuana, the editorial asks.

Useful update on the BC Rail corruption trial

Ian Reid was in court and has an interesting post on the reasons for yet another delay in the trial at his blog The Real Story.

"Outside the courtroom, Special Prosecutor Bill Barardino went off the record with the three reporters in court to try and explain why he’s delaying the trial again. Seems he’s not been able to reorganize his trial strategy and shorten the trial. He also wasn’t able to confirm that his next witness will be former finance minister Gary Collins, despite the fact that he’s sent a letter to the defense informing them that Collins is the next witness."

See more here.

Scientists building a whole new salmon species to farm

I'm keen on building a better world through science.
But the idea of creating a new species of salmon in the lab, patenting it, raising the new creature in fish farms and selling it to consumers freaks me out, as the young people used to say.
That's what AquaBounty, a U.S.-based aquaculture company, is proposing. The company has applied for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for its genetically modified Atlantic salmon. It even has a name for the new fish - AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon.
AquaBounty likes the fish because it reaches market size in 18 months; normal farmed Atlantic salmon take three years.
The new fish was engineered that way. The company took Atlantic salmon DNA and added a gene from Chinook salmon, which are bigger eaters.
Then it added a gene from the ocean pout, a big eel-like fish. The pout has remarkable tolerance for cold water; its gene triggers the Chinook eating gene to help the new fish pack on weight quickly.
The plan is to produce eggs for the new AquaAdvantage fish at the company's Prince Edward Island plant. They would be flown to Panama where the salmon would be raised in land-based tanks. Then they would make their way back to our tables.
We eat genetically modified foods every day. Most people's cupboards are full of food products - corn, soy, rice - that rely on genetically modified seeds.
Not everyone agrees, but the benefits in increased food production have widely been seen to outweigh the drawbacks.
But the AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon is the first effort to create a new animal, bird or fish as a food source.
As they say in the movies, what could possibly go wrong?
The FDA has given the fish preliminary approval for human consumption. The meat isn't chemically or nutritionally different from Atlantic salmon. But the U.S. agency hasn't yet given approval for the plan.
Critics aren't convinced. Some research, they say, suggests more allergies could be created by genetically modified food.
But the bigger issues are around the impact of the fish on the environment. What if the AquaAdvantage salmon escaped from the fish farms. It's genetically programmed to grow twice as fast as real Atlantic salmon. That could mean it would be twice as effective in gobbling up food sources, leaving the wild fish struggling to compete.
No worries, says AquaBounty. The P.E.I. lab will only create eggs that produce sterile females. The Panama fish farms mean that even if there is an escape, the salmon will die in the warm rivers in that country.
And if, through some bizarre series of circumstances, the ubersalmon ended up in the oceans off Canada, they are not likely to do well, the corporation says
And the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance says it's not interested in using the lab-created salmon.
The problem is that the salmon aquaculture industry has some credibility issues. It insisted, for example, that escaped Atlantic salmon could not possibly spawn in B.C. rivers.
Until researchers found the offspring of escaped fish swimming in Island streams.
This is about much more than salmon farms. Researchers have lots of ideas about building new, improved animals.
Scientists at the University of Guelph, for example, hope to get approval for a genetically modified pig. Hogs need phosphorus but are lousy at digesting it. That means farmers pay for supplements and the manure is an environmental problem as the undigested phosphorus is a fertilizer that can promote algae growth in water systems.
The Enviropig, as they call it, cam digest phosphorus more efficiently, solving both problems.
What's striking about the bid to win approval for the AquaAdvantage salmon is the inadequate process. The U.S. FDA has a limited mandate. The broader issues of creating new species need not be addressed.
Trust us, the food companies' scientists say. Everything will be fine.
What could possibly go wrong?
Footnote: The FDA is also undecided on whether the genetically modified salmon would have to be labelled so consumers would know what they were - or weren't buying. The industry opposes labeling as unnecessary.
In the near term, the fish would be identifiable - there aren't many Atlantic salmon that would be labeled 'Product of Panama. But that would be little use if more new species are approved for sale to consumers.

NDP’s expulsion of MLA bad deal for voters

Politically, it might make sense to kick MLA Bob Simpson out of the New Democrat caucus.
But it’s another step away from a functioning democratic system that voters can respect.
NDP leader Carole James gave Simpson the boot this week. His immediate offence was some mild observations about the lack of specifics in her speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
The Cariboo North MLA had also been raising questions internally about the party’s direction, lack of clear policies and failure to grab more voter support as the Liberals stumbled.
Simpson didn’t want to be part of the team, James said, as she showed him the door.
Parties need common policies and some internal discipline. Voters are reluctant to support a party that might lurch off in uncharted directions or implode in internal bickering.
But the current fashion calls for much more than that.
MLAs and MPs often seem to have lost the ability to form independent thoughts, ordered to recite the talking points handed out by the leader’s office or say nothing at all.
The people paid to manage such things believe that is the best way to win power. The messages are tightly scripted so politicians don’t say anything that the other side could attack. (And they don’t consider MLAs and MPs quite bright enough to use their own judgment.)
It might be the best way to win power. Just as it might be astute to avoid any serious talk about policies and spend a lot of time bashing the other side.
But while the parties are fighting perpetual campaigns aimed at victory in the next election, they’re losing a more important battle to rebuild public trust in a battered political system.
Simpson was kicked out of the caucus after his brief report on the UBCM convention speeches by provincial and federal politicians appeared on a couple of websites.
He was sharply critical of speeches by Stockwell Day and Premier Gordon Campbell and offered some praise for a speech by B.C. Green party leader Jane Sterk..
And he was not dazzled by James’s’ speech. "The leader of the opposition likewise had little concrete to offer the delegates other than a commitment to be more consultative than the current government and a promise to explore the possibility of revenue sharing with local governments," he wrote. "This is a timely concept which has the potential to address the resource needs of local governments, but the lack of specifics was a disappointment to delegates."
The municipal politicians had real problems grappling with the services they need to provide and the available revenue sources, but didn’t hear anything meaningful from federal and provincial politicians.
"They were simply politicking for the press, not serving the real and immediate needs of UBCM delegates and their constituents," Simpson wrote.
You could expect James would be displeased, even if the comments are accurate. Simpson acknowledged he anticipated a lecture.
Instead, he was given a chance to apologize, declined and was then then kicked out of the caucus. He will sit as an independent.
Simpson’s comments don’t seem that far out of line.
In fact, while that kind of candor might irritate the leader’s office and party brass, it’s useful.
Problems don’t get solved when people are prevented from talking about them. And the best decisions come from a free, informed discussion by all involved.
Maybe those discussions can take place behind closed doors. But there is little evidence they do.
And in any case, it’s also important that citizens see they are taking place. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents and raise their concerns - even if the party doesn’t like it.
Instead, the public perception is that they almost always do what they are told. The orders of the leader’s office come before the duty to represent their constituents.
Maybe that’s the way to win elections. But it’s also a sure way to convince voters the system is broken — and that they’re the losers.
Footnote: The issue was a relief to the Liberals, glad the attention was off the HST. It exposed some rifts in the NDP over James’s leadership, but they will likely be short-lived. For all the grumbling, the party’s poll standings have been the best in years. It hardly seems time to get into a leadership debate.

Bob Simpson's expulsion and group home closures

Two useful pieces from the Times Colonist today.
An editorial suggests it might be better for democracy if more MLAs and MPs emulated Bob Simpson and were more candid in their comments. It might make political sense to muzzle MLAs and encourage them to repeat scripted talking points rather than sharing their own views or raising the concerns of their constituents, just as it might make political sense for a party in opposition to avoid any clear policy positions.
But in pursuing tactics that lead to power, what if the parties steadily destroying public confidence in the political system.
And in a column, Jody Paterson looks at cuts to services and group home closures that are hammering the developmentally disabled and their families.

The special prosecutor, Oppal and the perception of bias

OK, there are differences in the two cases.
But Terry Robertson is in trouble with the law society because he accepted an appointment as special prosecutor to look into allegations of irregularities and election law violations in Kash Heed's campaign without revealing his law firm had donated to the campaign. (Story here.)
By not disclosing the potential conflict, Robertson "failed to meet the expected standard that requires a lawyer to disclose to his client any previous connection to the parties in a matter," the society found.
The failure to disclose is the issue. But the underlying concern is that the government would have decided that Robertson could be seen to be biased and wouldn't have been appointed.
Which leads, again, to the appointment of Wally Oppal to head the inquiry into the Pickton investigation and the missing women investigation.
If a law firm donation to a candidate is seen to raise a potential conflict of interest, how can four years as a Liberal cabinet minister and public comments supporting the police investigation and questioning the need for an inquiry not raise the perception of bias?
(The Vancouver Sun backed Oppal's appointment in an editorial today. The fact that it took 560 words to come up with a lukewarm endorsement - how else to consider the phrase "Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe Oppal has an untenable conflict of interest because of his foray into partisan politics" - suggests the appointment remains questionable.)

The media, Vander Zalm and the HST-cut rumours

What we're supposed to offer, those of us in Sarah Palin's "lamestream media," is quality assurance.
A wild-eyed blogger - as opposed to a steely-eyed one - might report an unsubstantiated claim the premier was about to announce a cut in the HST rate, for example.
But professional reporters would carefully check out the rumour. If the sources were shaky or non-existent, the story wouldn't make it - or at least it would make it clear that the information was one step above coffee-shop gossip. (Though really, why report something one step above gossip? Not reporting seems the best option.)
That quality assurance wobbled last week. A little before midnight last Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST forces issued a press released headlined "Rumours abound Campbell will reduce HST rate on Friday."
That's when the premier was to address the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The Vander Zalm release cited "reliable sources" who also confirmed Campbell would announce the HST referendum would be held earlier than next September.
The CBC and CTV bit with news stories Thursday. The CBC report noted the premier's office called the rumours "completely untrue." CTV reports had similar denials and a weird quote from Vander Zalm that "sometimes these very reliable sources may not be that reliable."
But the chance of an HST rate cut was reported seriously based solely on Vander Zalm's e-mailed news release.
Well, not solely. The Province's clever columnist Mike Smyth, in a piece written before Vander Zalm dropped his bomb, asked "could Gordon Campbell announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention this week?" And CBC reporters said the capital was buzzing with rumours Campbell would announce the provincial share of the HST would be reduced from seven to six per cent.
I'm sure rumours were buzzing. But that could mean one person was spreading the same rumour to anyone who would listen, who would then say, yeah, I heard that too.
Campbell didn't announce a reduction in the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said Vander Zalm must be hearing voices.
Over at pacificgazette.blogspot.com, perhaps the most consistently interesting B.C. blog, the Gazetter believes the evidence points to some successful media manipulation.
The Liberal government floated the rumour of a cut in the HST to draw attention to Campbell's speech, the theory goes, and Vander Zalm and company spread the rumour of an earlier vote on the HST to make mischief.
I expect he gives almost everyone involved too much credit. The reports of an HST rate cut didn't help the Liberals. Anything Campbell had to offer at UBCM - and he didn't have much - would seem anticlimactic after the rumours of big announcements.
And Vander Zalm ended up looking goofy - the man whose reliable sources were not.
Vander Zalm said it wasn't his problem if the media chose to report his claims.
Which does seem like the issue in all this. As a young reporter, in the last days of typewriters, I learned from Harold Evan's five-book series on newspapering and All the President's Men, the Woodward-Bernstein book on Watergate.
Two sources, was the rule. Two credible people, in a position to know, who could vouch for the accuracy of the information to be reported.
None of this is simple. Vander Zalm is a public figure right now; if he says a big tax change is coming, should the media refuse to report that?
If they do, they can be called irresponsible. If they don't, they're keeping information from the people.
What we should bring to the relationship with readers, viewers and listeners, are judgment, experience and intelligence.
I can't discern any guiding intelligence behind the HST rumours.
But I also don't think it was a great week for the paid media workers.
Footnote: Two other points. As the Gazetteer notes, the focus on the rumour came at the expense of other reporting, including on StatsCan numbers that showed the Canadian economy shrank in July in part because of the HST's impact.
And why the rush to report on speculation about the speech, when by the next day everyone would know exactly what Campbell said.

An important on-the-ground perspective from Afghanistan

"After nine years of effort in the country, and several years of intense effort in Kandahar City and the surrounding districts, there is no substantial progress that we can claim for the region. Violence and insecurity are at record levels. The Taliban move and strike throughout most of the country at will. Public confidence in the Karzai regime and NATO is near zero...

"Yes, we should be commended for taking on the part of Afghanistan known to be the toughest. But it must also be recognized that we have failed, and we need to examine whether the failure was in our approach, in the strategies and tactics applied to the mission -- or was success in Afghanistan never even possible? If the latter, then tough questions must be asked of our military and political leadership, about their ability to identify the point when it became apparent that this cause was lost."

Peter Dimitroff is a security advisor to NGOs in Kandahar and has worked in the country for years. His perspective is that we have spent billions and sacrificed lives while accomplishing little or nothing of lasting value.
And as government, media and society we've failed to even count the costs or assess whether this made sense.
It's an important piece in the Times Colonist today.