A dangerous, needless war that should make us sick at heart
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - By the time you read this bombs may be falling on Iraq. They'll bring death, to Iraqis, to American soldiers, and to some of our hopes for a lawful world.
I'm not some tie-dyed Pollyanna. War is sometimes necessary; even pre-emptive use of force can be justified.
But before one country decides to attack another, while the world watches, some tests need to be met. International agreement on the need is a starting requirement.
And that should depend on a clear, imminent threat, either to the world or a country's own citizens.
That's not happening. There is no real international agreement. The United Nations has considered the justification, and for now found it wanting. Most countries in the world -- including Canada -- have rejected the case for an attack on Iraq. (The U.S. claims a 30-country "coalition of the willing," but its ranks are filled out with Eritrea, Colombia and other countries lending nothing more than their names to the effort.)
And there is no imminent danger. Saddam Hussein's regime may be nasty and dangerous, and it may have chemical weapons. But UN weapons inspectors say there is no immediate danger and ample time to allow more work on a solution that doesn't involve war.
Any decision on force also needs to consider the balanced between the benefits and the inevitable damage done.
U.S. President George Bush made much of the plight of the Iraqi people in his unofficial declaration of war, and their suffering under Saddam. It is a view supported by many Iraqis in Canada.
But what suffering will they face in the next days and weeks and months. U.S. forces plan a "shock and awe" attack to overwhelm the Iraqis. More than a thousand aircraft are expected to drop bombs on Iraq in an overwhelming show of force and destruction. The goal is to break the spirit of Iraqi troops and citizens, allowing a quick ground victory.
In the meantime, thousands will die. (The Iraqi death toll from the 1991 war was never conclusively established -- estimates range from a few hundred to 160,000, with the higher number including 32,000 children.)
The risk isn't just from the bombs and bullets and shells.
The world became more dangerous this week.
Powerful countries have always been prepared to intervene in the affairs of other nations to protect their interests. But American leaders have always acknowledged, officially, the importance of the rule of international law. (Excuses for intervention were sometimes contrived, or action was taken surreptitiously. But even that indicates that U.S. politicians believed the American people would not have accepted illegal intervention.)
Now the last superpower, seen by many countries as the most likely enforcer of the rule of law, has opted instead for force.
With that one unnecessary move, Bush has squandered a great deal.
Other countries that decide a neighbour poses a potential threat and decide to cobble together some allies and launch an attack can now point to the U.S. precedent. Countries such as North Korea can justify their arms buildup by pointing to the threat of U.S. attack. And the UN's already relevance has been further damaged.
Bush has also wasted a wonderful opportunity. After Sept. 11, the U.S. had both sympathy and broad international support for a campaign against terror. U.S. efforts to push for war have shattered that unity, and introduced new and dangerous instability.
The war on Iraq has taken
And he has taken a world community united against terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks -- and deeply sympathetic to the U.S. position -- and created lasting divisions. It was a rare opportunity for leadership, and it has been wasted.
I remember when children went to sleep at night wondering if nuclear war would come in the night. It seemed a lasting achievement to have ended those nightmares.
Now we've moved toward a new kind of nightmare, carelessly, prematurely and dangerously.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Time to end perception big money calls political shots
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's been some silly claims- from all sides - about the Liberals' policy making 10-per-cent of ministers' salaries payable only if they meet their budget targets.
Bad, say opponents. Ministers will take decisions that hurt the province, just to get the cash.
Good, says Finance Minister Gary Collins. Ministers are much more focused on spending because of the incentive.
Largely irrelevant, I say, and an insult to cabinet members to claim the policy is anything more than a symbolic gesture.
We're taking about 10 per cent of the $39,000 MLAs get for being in cabinet. That's $3,900, or something like $2,200 after taxes. And the notion that ministers would abandon the public interest for $2,200 is foolish, just as it's foolish to say they would be spendthrifts if not for the small threat to their own income.
But the Liberals' emphasis on the motivating power of money does add urgency to another issue - the reform of political funding practices.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien has unveiled his plan for reform, which is fundamentally flawed. But at least he's acknowledged the problem and the need to reduce the influence of corporate and union donations. Chretien's plan would end the fund-raising free-for-all that's now allowed for federal nominations, leadership races and political slush funds.
Unions and corporations would be barred from giving money to parties - although they will be able to give up to a $1,000 to a candidate - and individual donations will be limited to $10,000.
All good moves. But instead of choosing to force all parties to spend less, the Chretien plan replaces almost all the lost donation revenue with direct transfers from taxpayers. Parties would get $1.50 per vote garnered in the previous election. That would mean the Liberals would get $7.9 million a year from taxpayers, Alliance $4.9 million, Conservatives $2.4 million, Bloc Quebecoise $2.1 million and the NDP $1.6-million. Taxpayers would also double the amount they contributed to parties' election campaigns, covering half the cost.
What the federal plan fails to consider is whether politics should be a big money business, what ever the source of the bundles of cash. Why not a system that encouraged parties to cut back on spending, building their success on ideas and volunteers instead of ad campaigns, paid organizers and political careerists?
Premier Gordon Campbell, like NDP premiers before him, says the current system works pretty well. That's a normal response from the party in power, which has a huge fund-raising advantage. But if the federal rules had been in place, Sustainable Resources Minister Stan Hagen could have taken over the fisheries file without questions being raised about campaign donations he received from aquaculture companies.
Certainly Canadians disagree with the premier. A study done in 2000 found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government." (Heritage Minister Sheila Copps recently confirmed that influence, blaming the influence of big donors for the Liberals' hesitation on the Kyoto Accord.)
That's not surprising. When a corporation donates a huge amount to a party, or a union loans a dozen paid staffers for a campaign, the perception of expected reward is unavoidable.
It's tough for any governing party to implement these kind of reforms; Chretien faced tough opposition within the Liberals even for his changes. This kind of change needs to come from the people.
Campbell has the tool he needs to deal with the issue. Sometime in the coming weeks he will announce plans for a citizen's assembly to look at electoral reform, an extremely worthwhile venture. The same kind of assembly of ordinary British Columbians could prepare a new model for political party funding.
The status quo, as Campbell likes to say, is not sustainable. When 90 per cent of the public think that money, not the common good, drives the political system then change is overdue.
Footnote: There's been some criticism that the Liberals are paying bonuses even though some ministries are over budget, arguing that the over-runs are because of extraordinary circumstances. It's not unreasonable, but if they want the bonus plan to be seen as effective they need to introduce clear criteria and independent review of special payments.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Still providing the footnote at the bottom for people with a little extra room.
Cheers
Paul



Liberals' tax beaks working mainly for the rich
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals have proved their critics right. Their tax policies have worked a lot better for the rich than they have for most people in the province.
Finance Minister Gary Collins disagreed when that proposition was put to him in the budget lock-up. But the numbers tell the story.
The Liberals pitched their 25-per-cent income tax cut - delivered on their first day in office - as a benefit to all taxpayers. That was true, although the benefit was a lot greater for people being paid lots of money. A single person with a $125,000 income got a $4,260 tax cut; a person being paid $40,000 got a $670 break.
Nothing particularly wrong with that. A progressive tax system means the more you earn the more you pay. When it comes for a reduction, the same principle works in reverse.
But since then the Liberals have introduced a string of new taxes, fees and increases, which have hit all taxpayers with the same weight.
Medical Service Premiums jumped 50 per cent, taking $219 a year from both taxpayers' pockets. The new gas tax will take another $120. Driver's licence renewal, $7. A week in a provincial campground and a few walks in a popular park another $46. Education property tax increase, maybe $20. Sales tax increases vary because rich people spend more, so figure $40 more for the middle-income earner and $85 for the $125,000 man.
It's not an exhaustive list, and doesn't include costs imposed because of cuts to medical insurance coverage and other fees.
But add it up, and you find out that $450 of the middle-income earners' tax cut has been clawed back. His net benefit is now $220, about $4 a week.
For the $125,000 man the new taxes and charges will cost $500, leaving him with $3,760 in tax savings.
What's it mean? Actual tax cut for the middle-income earner, about eight per cent. For the big earner, 22 per cent.
And do the same math, and you'll find that for anyone earning less than $35,000, the tax cut benefits have been wiped out and they're paying more now than they did when the Liberals took power.
That wasn't what the Liberals promised. In the election campaign they never talked about a big tax break for the rich, or an immediate across-the-board 25-per-cent tax cut. The only commitment was that within four years people in the bottom two tax brackets would benefit from the lowest tax rates in Canada.
They do. But they've also seen much of that clawed back. The Liberals cut personal income taxes by $1.5 billion and business taxes by about $700 million. Since then, they've taken back about $1 billion in new taxes and fees, with more to come.
And in the process, they've cut services and shifted the cost of government off the income tax system - which is progressive - and on to fees and flat taxes. The cost of government has been shifted from the highest-earning British Columbians to the middle-income groups.
The odd thing is that economists can make a good argument that the only cuts the Liberals should have made were reductions for high-income earners and businesses. If the goal is to encourage investment and business group, the tax system has to be competitive for the people who are most mobile, and the most important to attract.
Someone who is earning $40,000 a year isn't going to decide to move to Alberta for the tax benefits; someone being paid $200,000 - or looking to recruit people to run a business - may consider the tax system in deciding where to live or invest.
UBC economist Jon Kesselman notes Saskatchewan, faced with the same issues, only cut top tax rates, telling the public that was the best way to ensure a competitive business environment while protecting services.
It's an approach that looks fairer - and more open - than B.C.'s vanishing tax breaks for low and middle-income earners.
Footnote: Are the tax cuts paying for themselves? Income tax produced $6 billion for government services before the cuts. This year they will be about $4.2 billion. At the curent rate it will be 2008 before they have recovered. Not necessarily bad; but not what the Liberals promised.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Tina Thorpe's pain is raw and visible. So is her determination.
Ms. Thorpe is working to ensure that street racers face punishment that reflects the seriousness of the crime.
She's angry at the conditional sentences imposed on two men found guilty of criminal negligence causing her mother's death. She wants the law changed so conditional sentences are no longer an option in such cases.
For all her courage, I don't hold out much hope that she'll succeed.
The plea for guidelines to ensure conditional sentences aren't used in cases of violent crimes isn't new. Provincial governments, including B.C., other provinces, opposition parties and the victims have all lobbied the federal government for change.
But Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon and his predecessors have brushed off those concerns.
Perhaps Tina Thorpe can have more success here in B.C.
Conditional sentences make excellent sense as an alternative to prison. People usually come out of jail more damaged and dangerous, or at best about the same. (About one in three of the people locked up in a provincial jail re-offend within two years.) Pragmatically, the only ones who should be in jail are people who are dangerous, or people whose actions are so bad that we want to demonstrate our outrage.
Not only does jail not work in preventing future crimes, it's expensive. It costs about $55,000 a year to keep someone in provincial jail in B.C.
Conditional sentences are an alternative.The offenders' freedoms are limited. Society gets some measure of protection and imposes a sanction that should - theoretically - deter both the offender and the others. And we save a lot of money.
They are still supposed to be punitive, viewed legally as the equivalent of a jail term, simply served in another setting. Offenders may be allowed to leave their home to work, or attend school, but the rest of the time they are supposed to be serving something much like a jail term, albeit a comfortable one.
And that's where Ms. Thorpe might successfully focus her campaign on the province.
A string of studies and reports, not just in B.C., have found supervision of conditional sentences is weak to non-existent. Most offenders are on the honour system, with little or no monitoring to ensure they aren't ignoring the terms of their sentence.
Two years ago Victoria provincial court Judge Robert Higinbotham sent government a message about his concerns about the lack of supervision.
`The supervision that now takes place under conditional sentences is minimal at best and perhaps nonexistent,'' he said, opting to jail an offender instead of a conditional sentence.
The number of conditional sentences has been rising steadily since they were introduced by Ottawa in 1996. The number of provincial probation officers available to supervise them has not kept pace. When Judge Higinbotham expressed his concern, about 1,600 people were on conditional sentences in B.C. That's climbed by 20 per cent since then, with no increase in staffing.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman acknowledges the problem, and says the province needs to do better. Electronic monitoring is one solution, but B.C. use the devices unless the court makes the order. Only about 100 offenders are under that kind of supervision.
But the budget still shows that the ministry plans to cut the number of supervision workers and increase the number of offenders each one supervises by 10 per cent.
Other provinces have faced the same issues. Quebec studied its problems in 2001 and introduced a protocol that requires at least five telephone checks on offenders each week and at least one or two home visits each month, made randomly at any time of the day or night. And it supported the program by hiring more than 100 additional probation officers.
Conditional sentences make sense.
But an Alberta court of appeal panel that reviewed their use expressed the same concern that British Columbians should have about the province's current commitment to adequate supervision.
"Virtually all the conditional sentences which we have so far seen do little to restrict the convicted person's freedom and leisure," the panel wrote.
"Properly used and carefully crafted, a conditional sentence will serve its intended purpose. Improperly used or skimpily drafted, it will undermine respect for the law."
willcocks@ultranet.ca

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There is quite a lot of bunk being talked about recall, starting with the claim that campaigns to oust Liberal MLAs are some sort of an abuse of the legislation.
Says who, exactly?
More than 80 per cent of voters in a 1991 referendum backed recall. The questions was simple: "Should voters be given the right, by legislation, to vote between elections for the removal of their member of the Legislative Assembly?"
It doesn't say that right should be limited, with recall only allowed if an MLA knocks over a convenience store or gets caught drunk driving. If people had thought those kind of limitations were important, they could have voted against the recall proposal. They didn't. Voters thought that they should have the right to oust their MLA if they were disatisfied with his job performance.
Gordon Campbell used to think so too. Back in 1998, when the B.C. Civil Liberties Association challenged the recall legislation, Mr. Campbell was scornful. Recall is about accountability, he said then, for promises and performance.
And who better to decide if an elected representative is doing her job than the voters?
But the recall forces are just trying to refight the last election, complain some Liberals.
They have short memories. Within months of losing the 1996 election, Mr. Campbell was urging recall campaigns against NDP MLAs. Voters should recall MLAs immediately, he said, because they were breaking campaign promises and had misled voters about the province's finances before the election.
In fact Mr. Campbell has consistently argued that it should be easier to recall MLAs and promised again in the last campaign to ease the rules. When the current law was proclaimed in 1996 Mr. Campbell dismissed it as a sham.``Any MLA that has ever been in this House could survive this particular process,'' he said. The recall requirement - signatures from 40 per cent of the people eligible to vote in the last election - was "virtually unattainable," he argued. (Which should make the premier wonder why Liberal MLAs are now so nervous.)
Liberals concerned about recall being misused under some imaginary set of rules should also see Deregulation Minister Kevin Falcon for some background. Before he received Mr. Campbell's backing support as a candidate, Mr. Falcon helped run Total Recall, a campaign aimed at recalling enough NDP MLAs to bring down the last government.``This is a referendum against the government," he said then. "Desperate times call for desperate measures." Falcon's plan called for campaigners to argue that even if voters had nothing against their MLA's performance, they should help oust him to help defeat the government.
Recall campaigns can be messy, costly and sometimes mean-spirited. (Like many other elements of our political system.)
But 80 per cent of British Columbians said voters should have the right to recall their MLAs between elections. They didn't say that only politicians should be able to decide when recall campaigns are justified, and it's now insulting to hear suggestions voters are unable to decide for themselves when it is appropriate to recall an MLA.
The claim by some Liberals that the NDP is using recall to refight the election isn't supported by evidence or common sense. Recall campaigns are costly and consume volunteers' time and energy, and the NDP can't afford the financial or human cost. (Especially when the result might be a byelection that would see a demoralizing defeat for the party. That's certainly what would have happened in Val Roddick's riding.)
The practical arguments against recall aren't any more compelling. Verifying the signatures can be costly, but so are elections. And the risk of wasted time can be reduced if proponents are reminded of the penalties for collecting signatures from ineligible voters.
Voters wanted recall, and they supported a system that leaves the decision on when it is justified - when an MLA is breaking a promise, or not performing - up to their collective judgment.
As Mr. Campbell observed in 1998, it's not that strange a concept. "There are very few jobs where you do not have the right to fire someone who is not doing their job," he said then. And surely the voters are the best ones to decide when that's justified.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

By Paul Willcocksxxx
VICTORIA - Jean Chretien's political financing reforms has major flaws, but it at least recognizes a problem that B.C. should also be taking seriously.xxx
Mr. Chretien's reforms miss the point. They attempt to reduce the influence of corporate and union donations in politics, when what really needs to be reduced is the influence of money, period.xxx
And his effort ignores the obvious: any plan drafted by a government in power will be tainted with the perception of self-interest. xxx
The people need to deal with this problem, not the party in power. And he if Mr. Chretien needed a model, he could have looked to the province's planned citizens' assembly on electoral reform.xxx
There's much to applaud in the federal proposal, especially provisions that would end the secretive fund-raising free-for-all that's now allowed for nominations, leadership races and political slush funds. Spending would now be subject to limits, and donors would have to be disclosed.xxx
Unions and corporations will be barred from giving money to parties - although they will be able to give up to a $1,000 to a candidate - and individual donations will be limited to $10,000.xxx
Most Canadians would welcome an end to corporate and union donations. A study done in 2000 found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government." Heritiage Minister Sheila Copps recently confirmed the reality behind the suspicion, blaming the influence of big donors for the Liberals' hesitation on the Kyoto Accord.xxx
Anyway, suspicion is logical . Corporate directors have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of shareholders. So if a company chose to donate $250,000 to the federal Liberals, through a web of subsidiairies, there would have to be some expected benefit. xxx
Corporations could argue that they have a legitimate interest in government policy, and chose to contribute to the Liberals to prevent an NDP victory. But the Liberals had the last election won. The company didn't need to spend a cent to ensure that result.
Which leaves the average citizen to wonder if the corporation had to be hoping for some future benefits from a greatful government. xxx
Mr. Chretien's plan makes a reasonable stab at reducing the influence of corporations and unions.xxx
But then he misses the next step. Instead of chosing to force all parties to spend less, the Chretien plan turns around and replaces almost all the lost donation revenue with direct transfers from taxpayers. Parties would get $1.50 per vote garnered in the previous election. That would mean the Liberals would get $7.9 million a year from taxpayers, Alliance $4.9 million, Conservatives $2.4 million, Bloc Quebecoise $2.1 million and the NDP $1.6-million. Taxpayers would also double the amount they contributed to parties' election campaigns, covering half the cost.xxx
The reforms fail to question the underlying assumption that politics should be a big money business. Mr. Chretien missed the chance to consider whether the public would be better served by a political system that wasn't fuelled by money, that encouraged the participation of ordinary Canadians instead of scores of paid staffers and dealt more with ideas and less with the obsessions of political careerists.xxx
Premier Gordon Campbell says he's not interested in looking at political financing reform. The system works pretty well, he says. That's a normal response from the party in power, which has a huge fund-raising advantage, able to hold high-priced lunches with cabinet ministers or seek momney from companies - or unions - interested in being in the government's good books. But if the federal rules had been in place, Sustainable Resources Minister Stan Hagen could have taken over the fisheries file without questions being raised about campaign donations he received from aquaculture companies. xxx
But Mr. Campbell already has the tool he needs to deal with the issue. The assembly of ordinary citizens being asked to prepare a plan for electoral reform, based on Gordon Gibson's report, will be at work this year. The same assembly could tackle the issue of money in politics.xxx
When 90 per cent of the public think that money, not the common good, drives the political system, it's time for action that goes much farther than Mr. Chretien's plan.xxx
willcocks@ultranet.caxxx

Liberals heading for education disaster
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals are blowing the education file, politically and practically.
All across the province, from Prince George to Kamloops to Terrace to the Lower Mainland, school districts are chopping millions from their budgets - on top of the millions they cut last year. Schools will be closing, classes will be getting larger, programs will be cut and costs will be shifted on to parents, whether they can afford them or not.
That's not what the Liberals promised. The New Era campaign pledged that the Liberals would maintain education funding and increase it as a stronger economy boosted government revenues. It said nothing about tax cuts that would knock $2 billion off government revenue.
It's a big political mistake to make voters feel like saps for believing you. (Just ask the NDP.)
And it's a big mistake to pick a fight with parents, who tend to care strongly about their children's future, know how to organize and vote.
But this isn't just a political issue.
No matter how they may dance around the reality, the Liberals are putting educational quality in B.C. at risk. And by doing that, they are threatening the province's future economic progress.
There's nothing wrong with closing schools. Declining enrolments make that a certainty. There's nothing wrong with larger class sizes, for the right students in the right subjects. And there's certainly nothing wrong with looking for ways to deliver better education for less money.
But what's happening in B.C. right now isn't about better education. The government didn't start by deciding how much money is required to provide the education that children need to have a chance in the world.
It started with an arbitrary spending freeze.
The NDP hadn't been crazy spendthrifts in education. The budget increased around 2.5 per cent in each of the last few years, enough to cover wage increases and other costs.
But the Liberals' three-year freeze changed the game, especially because they decided to give teachers a 2.5-per-cent a year raise without giving the school districts any money to cover the costs last year or this year.
School districts scraped by last year, closing more than 40 schools and making the least painful cuts - even going to a four-day week in one case.
But after more than $100 million in cuts last year to cover wage increases, MSP increases and other cost pressures, they face the same thing again this year - and again next year. The cuts are drawing blood.
And none of the changes are being made in the interests of children. They are being made to meet the arbitrary spending freeze and pay for the tax cuts.
Maybe parents are just another special interest group to the government, but they're a large one already being heard by Liberal MLAs.
The finance committee seeking comments on this year's budget - 10 Liberals and one New Democrat - came back convinced the cuts were too deep.
Premier Gordon Campbell has tried to downplay their report, saying it reflected what MLAs heard, not their views.
But he's mistaken. Here's a comment from the committee's report. "We think the shortage of funds is reaching a critical stage for rural schools and schools-based programs in urban areas." That's the Liberal MLAs' analysis, not a replay of public comments.
The Liberals should have learned from Ontario. A government review last fall found the education spending freeze there was a mistake. School boards have had to cut services to students each year and educational quality has fallen. The government has vowed to increase funding.
A good public school system gives kids a chance. Home may not be so great, maybe they never got taken to the library, but in school children should have the chance to achieve.
And it gives the province a chance, providing the people who can make their way in a world where knowledge and the ability to learn are increasingly valuable resources.
The Liberals aren't delivering for kids, or the province.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Plant betrayed public, judge and Roddick in smoking judge case
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If I was Val Roddick or one of the other MLAs facing credible recall campaigns, I'd be steamed at Geoff Plant and some of his cabinet colleagues.
It's tough defending school closures, or threats to health care services, but at least those are part of the Liberal plan. Taking the heat for them is part of the job. Roddick was even surviving a recall effort focused on those issues. The campaign had stalled halfway to its goal and was running out of time.
But then the recall troops got a late boost.
Premier Gordon Campbell weaved drunkenly down the highway in Maui.
The government revealed that it was prepared to reserve parts of the commercial fishery for First Nations as part of treaty settlements. That's reasonable, especially because the province and Ottawa had already made the commitment at the table. But for the voters who thought the treaty referendum actually meant something, it looked like betrayal.
And then came the news about the $19,000 smoking room built for Justice Mary Southin.
Those three factors gave new life to the recall campaign, says Roddick. Volunteers were energized and angry voters rushed to sign the recall petition. Roddick is now waiting to find out whether she'll become the first Canadian politician to be fired by voters between elections.
There's not much more to say about the premier's drunk driving. As for the aboriginal fishery decision, it's defensible.
But Roddick should be asking what the heck is going on with Plant and the smoking judge.
When the news broke about two weeks ago Plant offered a simple defence. The 71-year-old judge either wanted to keep smoking or retire, he said, and it would cost much more to pay her pension than to improve ventilation in her office.
(Plant also said judicial independence was involved and warned the province could be dragged into costly legal battles if it had to argue that WCB rules applied to judges. But no one except Plant had talked about a legal battle; Southin said she would retire if she couldn't smoke.)
He stuck to those explanations while an angry public wondered about the government's priorities and double standards.
But surprising news leaked out this week. It turns out that the judge had offered to share the cost back in December. Plant's deputy wrote her a cheerful note saying taxpayers would be "pleased" to provide the $19,000 ventilation system.
Except they weren't.
Plant learned that the judge had offered to pay on Jan. 17, the day the story hit the headlines. But for two weeks it was his secret. Only when public anger kept mounting did he reveal the offer, and say he was accepting it. Southin will now pay $12,000.
All the while Roddick dangled, and the judge took unjustified abuse.
Why didn't Plant tell the public about the offer?
No reporters asked specifically if Southin had offered to pay, he said. And it wasn't his job to provide information to the public voluntarily.
It's a strange position for an open government, that there's no duty to provide important information to the public about a major controversy unless a specific question is asked.
Consider the context. Public money, public interest, the fate of a colleague - Roddick - and the reputation of the justice system, all on the line. And no disclosure.
If I were an MLA facing a recall, I'd be wondering why Plant left me hanging when all he had to do was say 'I just learned the judge offered to pay, and we're accepting the offer.' (And I'd feel mighty betrayed if Plant had kept the caucus in the dark along with all the other British Columbians.)
It's going to be a tough slog for the MLAs facing recall efforts. They don't need people within their own government making it even tougher.
And the public doesn't need politicians who aren't prepared to tell them the whole story.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

The Liberals' no-good, very bad day
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - That was one rotten day for the Liberals.
It was bad enough that the people trying to oust Val Roddick showed up with enough signatures to clear the first hurdle in the recall process.
But then reporters were called down to Agriculture Minister John van Dongen's office, where, grim-faced, he said he was resigning as a cabinet minister because the RCMP are investigating him.
It's too soon to drag out the "government in disarray" headlines. But this is starting to look familiar, not just from the bad old days in provincial politics but also from personal experience in organizations that have lost their way.
One day, you're the new guys, showing up each day looking for ways to push toward your goals. And then suddenly, you realize you're walking into work wondering what new things are going to go wrong in the next 10 hours.
In three weeks, the Liberals have faced a string of disasters that have left them tarnished and reeling, starting with Premier Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving arrest.
It's impossible to assess the long-term impact of van Dongen's troubles.
He's an unlikely candidate for the first cabinet resignation, widely regarded as a decent, ethical man. It's hard to imagine him jaywalking, let alone committing a more serious offence.
And no one is talking about the investigation.
Attorney General Geoff Plant says he learned of the issue some time ago -- he won't say how -- and sent the information to police and ministry officials.
Police told him about two weeks ago that van Dongen was a target. Plant was allowed to tell the premier, but not van Dongen, until the weekend.
But the short-term impact is obvious. The premier commits a criminal offence; a minister is under investigation; the public is alarmed.
It's easier to assess the impact of the Roddick recall effort, and it's bad news for the Liberals.
Roddick may not be recalled. Proponents need almost 12,000 valid signatures - that is signatures from people who were on the voters' list in Delta South at the time of the 2001 election. They have more than 13,000 signatures, but some may be duplicates, or signatures from people who weren't on the old voters' list.
But the damage is done. The recall forces got a huge number of signatures, in one of the safest Liberal seats in the province. (Even when the NDP was at rock bottom, recall proponents couldn't unseat any MLAs.)
Organizers had the threat to the community's hospital as a major issue, but lots of communities face similar threats.
And then there's the way they made it over the top. The campaign was barely halfway to its goal, and stalling, with two weeks to go.
Then Campbell's mug shots hit the news, and the recall campaign took off.
It's a bad sign when the premier starts dragging down his MLAs. And it's an even worse sign when an MLA starts publicly acknowledging that the premier is a problem, as Roddick did this week.
The premier's arrest gave a boost to the recall campaign, she said, along with the decision to build a $19,000 smoking room for a judge and include commercial fishing rights in treaties with First Nations.
It's noteworthy that the premier was part of the problem; it's equally noteworthy that Roddick went public with the observation.
The counting will be done in about three weeks; if the organizers have enough signatures, then a byelection will be called in 90 days.
Odds are a Liberal candidate, probably Roddick, would win.
But meanwhile, across the province -- from Nelson to Nanaimo -- other groups are looking at recall with new enthusiasm.
And other MLAs are looking at Roddick's predicament, and the premier's role, and considering what lessons they should draw from her unpleasant ordeal.
At least some of them are likely deciding that it's time for a little more independence from the premier and the party line.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Working forest shouldn't produce big cheers or fears
By Paul Willcocks
VANCOUVER - It's hard to get all worked up about the Liberals' working forest plans.
Sustainable Resource Minister Stan Hagen has floated a fairly vague discussion paper, and is seeking comments by March. He wants about half the province designated a working forest by the end of the year.
Industry likes the idea, in a quiet sort of way; environmental groups hate it, in a much noisier way.
Me, I left a briefing in Hagen's office slightly puzzled and convinced there's less here than meets the eye.
The working forest won't add one hectare to the land that's available for logging in B.C. All the land to be designated working forest is available for logging today. All the parks and protected areas remain the same. It won't change the environmental requirements imposed on logging companies. It won't make logging more affordable. There's not going to a stampede to start logging in new areas.
So what's the point?
Hagen talked a lot about certainty, the need to let companies know what the rules are when they start planning to cut trees on Crown land, and to give them the assurance that those rules won't be changed arbitrarily or based on public or political pressure.
He promised that it would be no more difficult to create parks or protected areas than it has been. A clearer process would just be in place.
Things got confusing when he denied that the plan would create any new "impediments" to establishing new parks or protected areas.
But wait a minute. That is, after all, part of the legislation's point from the industry's perspective. They feel that parks have been created without enough thought, and especially without enough consideration to lost economic value. They wanted an assurance that wouldn't happen. Logically, the working forest legislation will have to create new impediments, even if they take the form of mandatory assessments of the potential lost jobs and revenue.
And that seems reasonable enough.
There's room for concern, especially because the plan is so vague.
Hagen promised that other uses of the land - mining, or recreation - would continue to be considered in making plans for the working forest, although forestry demands would be given considerable priority.
But the discussion paper suggests the government might designate some areas for forestry only, ending recreational access or possible other industrial uses.
And while Hagen said it would be no more difficult to create parks, he also allowed that any timber lost to a park in the future might have to be made up from an existing park - a pretty serious barrier to protecting new areas of special interest. (Although with 12 per cent of the province protected, the Liberals will not be in a big rush to create new parks. Just look at the lack of action on their pledge to preserve Burns Bog in the Lower Mainland.)
It may be when details of the legislation are revealed things will look different. But right now, there's not much to fear - or to hope for - from the legislation.
The small step towards certainty is useful. But the reality is that as long as treaty talks with First Nations haven't resolved land ownership issues - or at least set out some long-term plans for shared management - then companies won't have the certainty they need in much of the province.
Forests Minister Mike de Jong also still has to reveal how he plans to claw back enough timber from existing tenures to create a market-based stumpage system, and what sort of tenure reform he plans.
And again, until he does the industry can't plan for the future.
The picture may change as the details come into focus. But so far, the working forest plan looks like a reasonable, modest gesture toward providing a little more certainty for the industry.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Time to start worrying about Olympic cost risks
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time to start getting nervous about what the Olympics could cost us.
Not panicky. The Bid Committee and the province get pretty good marks for the planning so far.
But nervous, because without a great deal of debate provincial taxpayers have now been committed to spend $1.3 billion on the Games.
And the province's auditor general says the Games' financial plan relies on extremely tight management and good luck. And a business plan based on good luck and fond hopes can be deadly.
In case you haven't been paying attention, here's the basics. The IOC will award the 2010 Games in July, choosing between Vancouver, Salzburg and Pyeongchang, South Korea.
If they come here, we're on the hook for the costs. The Games committee figures it can build the venues for about $620 million. Running the actual events - staff, computers, security and all - will be $1.5 billion. Improving the Sea to Sky Highway and a contingency fund add another $817 million.
So all in, the Games will cost $2.9 billion. (That doesn't include the convention centre expansion, or a transit line to the airport.)
You don't have to pay all that. The Games will get money from ticket sales, sponsorships and TV rights. They hope for $1.3 billion. Ottawa is in for $330 million.
But that still leaves $1.3 billion to come from you and me. And we've accepted all the risk if costs go up - as they usually do - or revenues go down
No need to panic. Auditor General Wayne Strelioff examined the bid, and concluded the committee and the province have put together a reasonable plan.
But not reasonable enough. The auditor general spotted some ski hill-size holes in the plans.
The committee hopes to raise $454 million through sponsorships - nine times as much as the Calgary committee attracted in '88, less than half what the Salt Lake committee lined up. Strelioff concludes that reaching the goal will require "favourable circumstances and effective marketing." Any plan that requires favourable circumstances to work is alarming. Life is short of favourable circumstances, especially when you're counting on them. (The committee's plan even includes $28 million in revenue that's to come from some source they haven't even figured out yet.)
The auditor general is also worried that costs have been under-estimated, and that the contingency budget - money set aside to cover problems - is too small. He notes that in most Games, costs skid upward, often for good reasons.
Auditors and accountants are skittish souls, given to picking at details and worrying. That's one of the things that makes them so useful when the rest of us get swept up in the excitement of our next great idea.
Is it going to be worth it? The mid-range forecast is that our $1.3 billion will produce about $376 million in provincial and municipal taxes, over six years. It will create an average 11,000 jobs a year, a significant employment boost.
But only if the province works to get the full benefit of the Games, notes Strelioff. He quotes one of the consultants who did the economic impact studies. "These benefits will not materialize automatically," they said. "They must be earned by a focused, adequately funded and skillfully executed marketing program."
And that could be a problem. It's unclear where the money will come from, especially because the province plans to take about $90 million in hotel room taxes now earmarked for tourism marketing and use the money to help pay for the convention centre.
The stakes are high, and the decision on whether Vancouver gets the Games only six months away. And the auditor general has pointed out some early warnings that taxpayers could be at risk.
It's time we all started paying more attention to the risks, and benefits, of this bid.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Campbell must change course to stay as premier
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - That Sunday afternoon press conference likely marked the beginning of the end for Gordon Campbell.
Campbell faced reporters to talk about his drunk driving arrest. He was obviously sad and shaken. He said he was quitting drinking, even though he didn't think he had a problem. He talked sincerely about the pain he had caused his family. And he referred to his father's suicide, victim of depression and an alcohol addiction. That history, he said, makes his actions in Maui disturbing and frightening.
Three martinis, wine, a dinner that lasted from 5:30 until 1 a.m. And then swerving, speeding, roadside sobriety tests, mug shots and a premier falling asleep in a cell. It is sad.
Self-righteous I am not. Could have been me in those mug shots - though not in years. Could have been many of you, I would say. That doesn't make it right, but it should temper the rush to judgment.
But then it started to go wrong for the premier. In little ways, like the admission that he hadn't told anyone in B.C. - not family, not political associates - what had happened. They learned from the media.
Like his inability to say what he had blown on the breathalyzer, although Maui police say he would have been told, could have seen the readout and could have phoned and asked at any time. Campbell should want to know the reading; British Columbians do.
Asked if he had committed a crime, Campbell bobbed and weaved like a politician, when British Columbians were hoping to see a human. A terrible mistake, was the most he would concede.
Asked if he had tarnished the office of the premier, he wouldn't answer, saying only he had tarnished himself. Asked if he would have allowed a cabinet minister convicted of drunk driving to stay in his portfolio, he again refused to answer.
If you're asking people to forgive you, to give you another chance, you need to start by levelling with them and show that you understand what you have done wrong.
And Campbell, despite his obvious sincerity and sadness, did not meet that test.
Campbell has a remote chance of rebuilding trust. The first polls taken after the drunk driving arrest show British Columbians are evenly split on whether he should resign.
What can Campbell do?
He needs to start by learning from this experience, and not just in the 14-hour alcohol counselling workshop that's part of his sentence.
I was amazed by how little sympathy there was for Campbell. He's seen as a man who has little sympathy for others - especially others who don't share his values and views. And he's seen as man quick to judge others and find them wanting, and to demand that they take responsibility for their actions.
And now people are ready to judge in return.
Campbell should take this opportunity to refocus his government. The Liberals have created two imperatives to drive their agenda - tax cuts, and the legislated requirement for a balanced budget by 2004/5, barely two years from today. People hurt along the way are incidental casualties.
The plan relies, fundamentally, on trust in Campbell and his promise that significant sacrifices now will bring future benefits.
And Campbell now should recognize that he has forfeited that trust.
That means he could and should push the balanced budget deadline back two years, a delay the province can afford. He should promise more consultation and fewer hasty cuts. He should pledge to recognize that people make mistakes, and need understanding and support.
He should show he has learned from this experience.
It still might not be enough. Drunk driving has scarred many British Columbians. They've been told - by their governments - that it is a serious crime.
And in coming weeks they will decide if a man who has committed a serious crime can serve credibly as their premier.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca



Canada marches sheeplike towards war
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It was heart-breaking to watch Defence Minister John McCallum down in Washington last week.
Canada had a rare chance to play a small role in heading off a reckless war on Iraq. But no. Bleating softly, Canada wandered sheep-like down the path chosen by the Americans, drifting off to war.
And at the same time, the Liberals once again insulted Canadians.
The Liberals' position on the coming war has been murky and constantly changing. But they had apparently been against unilateral action against Iraq, while willing to support any military attack backed by the UN Security Council.
Until last Thursday, when McCallum emerged from a meeting with U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield and rewrote the policy. Canada will certainly participate in an attack if the UN approves, he said. And we may well join in even if the UN doesn't believe an attack is necessary.
It's a huge change. And it's certainly one that the Canadian people should have heard before McCallum offered the encouraging word to a hawkish U.S. administration.
The timing of Canada's newfound enthusiasm for war was bizarre. On the same day UN weapons inspectors leader Hans Blix told the Security Council the teams had found no evidence of weapons of mass inspection. There are many questions to be answered, he said, but after two months of inspections "we haven't found any smoking guns."
That doesn't mean the inspectors won't find evidence. But so far, they haven't.
And British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the strongest supporter of U.S. action, started downplaying the risk of war, under pressure from within his cabinet. Britain has been the Americans only strong supporter in the rush to war.
McCallum's conversion to the cause also came on the same day North Korea said it was ripping up a treaty on nuclear non-proliferation and pushing ahead with its own nuclear bomb. Neither North Korea nor Iraq should have the bomb; but a nuclear North Korea is probably a scarier prospect.
So at a time when the justification for an attack on Iraq, the support and the urgency were all being reduced, Canada suddenly became more hawkish.
It seems such a stupid move for a country interested in genuine influence, the kind that can earns respect and makes the world a safer place.
The Americans will welcome Canadian support as a small political victory. If the UN Security Council is unconvinced that there is evidence justifying an attack on Iraq, the U.S. may chose to ignore the finding and attack anyway.
But President George Bush has made much of the need for a joint international effort. Only Britain has been an enthusiastic supporter so far. The Bush administration can now add Canada's name to the list of countries prepared to attack without a UN mandate.
McCallum could have withheld that support. That would have encouraged the U.S. to justify any attack in front of the UN. And it would have been a step towards ensuring that all other options had been exhausted before the killing started.
Canada shouldn't poke sharp sticks at the Americans. They buy our goods and support our tourism industry. And despite irritants like the softwood lumber dispute, Americans and Canadians have a great deal in common.
But neither should Canada be a lapdog.
Canadians don't want a war with Iraq, according to all the polls. They have seen no evidence that a war is needed, whether to protect Iraqis or head off an attack on some other country.
There may come a time when war is needed, when some clear threat emerges.
But that time isn't now. McCallum - Canada - had a choice between choosing a course that would allow Canada to make a small gesture toward preserving peace, or a path that would make war more likely.
He took the wrong one.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Coleman off base with "war on marijuana"
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Defence Minister John McCallum gives up drinking after Air Canada staff decide he's too drunk to board a flight.
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein cuts down after a nasty scene at a homeless shelter, where he argues abusively with residents, throws a handful of bills on the floor and stomps off.
And Ontario Premier Ernie Eves promises to crack down on MLAs drinking on the job after an evening sitting degenerates into vicious, drunken abuse. Drinking on the job has been a constant problem over at least two decades, he admits.
And we're worried about marijuana?
Solicitor General Rich Coleman has weighed in with his views on decriminalizing marijuana, a step backed by federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon.
A huge mistake, Mr. Coleman says. "I want us to go out and fight the war on drugs because it's hurting our kids, it's hurting our communities and it's time we stood up to it," he said. "We need to come to grips with the fact that this is a serious problem in our country, that we have to get tougher with regard to the penalties."
It's the kind of position that shreds a politician's credibility. First, it's impossible to make a credible claim that marijuana use should be treated as a high priority public menace. Alcohol was directly blamed for about 300 deaths in B.C. last year; hard drugs - and prescription drugs - were blamed for about the same number. For marijuana, pretty much none. Our courts are crowded with people who stole or hurt someone or acted stupidly while they were drunk.
That's not to say pot is harmless. The last thing an unmotivated 15-year-old needs is a drug that will make him more likely to sit around instead of going to class. The healthiest people likely don't use any intoxicants - but most of us do.
But ask any police officer or social worker what causes more problems, alcohol or marijuana, and you'll see the plausibility of the "marijuana menace" claim vanish. (A new RAND study also debunks the idea of marijuana as a gateway drug.)
Coleman did focus on the involvement of organized crime in grow ops, a legitimate concern. Big grow ops mean big, illegal money, and that will attract a range of bad guys. (Although an RCMP study of 12,000 grow op reports in B.C. revealed guns were found at six per cent. About 24 per cent of homes in the province have firearms; police are far more likely to encounter a gun in the average domestic call.)
Increased police pressure hasn't worked. B.C.'s Organized Crime Agency reported that police action on grow-ops was forcing organized crime to switch to methamphetamine labs. That hardly seems like progress.
Instead of a "get tough" stance, government should be tackling the crime problem effectively. Perhaps eliminating the risk of prosecution for people interested in growing a few plants would do the most to make life harder for gangs.
The saddest thing about Coleman's comments is that they undermine the basic foundation for an effective drug strategy.
People need credible information that will let them assess and avoid the risks of all drugs, from cognac to cocaine. Paint a false picture of the risks of marijuana, and you will no longer be believed when you deliver a vital warning about the effects of heroin. That's especially true for young people, lost in their own invulnerability and quick to dismiss any warnings.
They have been to parties with drinkers, and parties with people who have smoked pot. They know where the greatest stupidity and violence are found.
We don't need to wage war on marijuana; we need to get smart on drugs.
Education to avoid damaging addiction. Support for people who want to quit. Harm reduction for people who can't or won't quit.
Solutions that work, not words.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

A plea for the New Year - pay attention
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I figure that I've directed some 70,000 words your way this year, spent more than 100 working days figuring out what I need to tell you.
It's a considerable privilege, and a good job, and I thank you all for reading.
Today I want more. Call it a proposal for a New Year's resolution.
Resolve, swear, that today, and every day this year, you will pay attention.
Not just when it's important, when your partner is angry, or the boss is warning you, or things have spun out of control..
But now, right now. Who is in the room, or the house, with you? Pay attention - what are they thinking? Are they worried, sad, delighted? What's the one thing you could say or do that would bring them peace or joy? What's the one thing you could say or do that would bring you peace or joy?
Pay attention, to your lover or friend or child's eyes when they speak to you, or don't speak to you. Pay attention to the way your eyes look in the mirror. What do those eyes say? Are they happy, or sad, or lost?
Pay attention to the way your child leans into you, when you read a story that will stop much too soon. Pay attention to the way you parents look, when they wonder how your story will end, and realize that they will never know.
Pay attention to the small yellow light from a candle warming your living room and the cold, bright light from a handful of stars in the night sky. Pay attention to what you have, and what you long for. Pay attention to the sound of rain on the roof, to the wind in the trees, to the music your daughter plays behind the closed door to her room.
Pay attention.
This isn't just about you, and the people around you. It's about the world.
My job is inherently interesting. I get to talk to a wide variety of people, and read everything from government reports to company financial statements and write about what they mean to you.
But it only makes sense, it only serves any real purpose, because I start with a fundamental belief in the common sense and decency of people. All those 70,000 words are based on the idea that people want a better community and a better world, and that given enough information they will figure out what needs to be done to make that happen, and act.
And if we do want a better world the first huge step is to pay attention to the one we live in now.
After all, if we were paying attention to the people addicted to cocaine or heroin in our community, would we really be content to watch them die in alleys, or see their lives waste away each day? Would we still allow nervous politicians to deny them a place to inject drugs safely? Anyone who thinks about it for a moment knows it's not in their interest or ours to have addicts injecting drugs in alleys or parking lots. But we're just not paying attention.
If we were paying attention, would we condemn thousands of children to a terrible start in life, simply because they are born to parents without the ability to provide a home that can give hope? Or would we find a way to ensure that every little child entered kindergarten well-fed and with an equal chance to make her way in this world?
So today, and the next day and the day after that, open your eyes.
Making this world better is within our individual grasps. We are fundamentally decent. When we finally see the problems of those around us, we will act.
This year, simply pay attention.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Balanced budget target looking dangerous
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time to get nervous about just how the Liberals are going to balance the budget by 2004/5.
They've still got a shot. But the latest economic news isn't encouraging, and the latest financial update from the government featured more bad news than good.
You may have missed that report, delivered by Finance Minister Gary Collins on the same day the Romanow report was released. That ensured the Liberals' quarterly financial report would be bumped off the front pages.
When the last quarterly report was released Collins was forecasting that the government would take in $220 million more revenue than it had budgeted, a gain that would reduce the deficit this year and make the job of getting to a balanced budget in two years easier.
Now he expects to fall short of budget by about $100 million, a $320-million swing. Tax revenue will be more than $600 million below the Liberals' expectations. (It will also, thanks to the tax cuts, be $2.4 billion less than when the Liberals took office.)
The news gets worse. The tax revenue problem reflects a $300-million shortfall last year, which meant this year's base was set too high.
And that means the Liberals already face a similar $300-million gap in their plan for next year, as government staff work towards a budget day that's less than two months away.
What's saved the government, strangely enough, is our status as a have-not province. Collins now expects B.C. to get $770 million from Ottawa in equalization payments, because our economic performance has been weak. The money wasn't included in the budget, so it's offsetting the unexpected tax shortfall.
The problem for future years is that the equalization payments aren't guaranteed just because isn't doing well. The complex formula weighs the relative economic performance of provinces, and divides the available money among the losers. If other provinces hit a slump, B.C. could lose its share even if the economy here hasn't improved much.
The Liberal budget predicted a record $4.4-billion deficit this year. Even with the bumps they'll beat that handily, thanks in part to a $750-million contingency allowance Collins included in this year's budget. But the deficit will still be over $3 billion.
And the time left to make that go away is very short.
The Liberals will introduce their next budget in February. and one year later, they have to come up with a balanced budget.
Their current plan calls for government revenues to jump 5.6 per cent next year and five per cent the year after.
Maybe. But the finance minister's economic forecast panel reported last week, and predicted general economic growth next year - including inflation - of only 4.6 per cent.
Sometimes the revenue problems can be offset by spending cuts. If your hours get cut at work, you find a way to reduce your grocery spending.
But that's not really an option for the Liberals. All the complaints about spending cuts you're hearing come in a year in which the government has actually increased spending slightly. The real cuts come in the next two years, when the Liberals are looking to chop $1.2 billion.
The Liberals really need some economic good news. Each one-per-cent increase in GDP, the measure of economic activity, brings in about $250 million to government. When the economy is growing, more people are working and investing and buying things, and the province takes in more taxes and fees and royalties.
And while the gap is closing, the government's own advisors are predicting growth will lag the Canadian average for next year and 2004.
It all leaves the government in a spot. The revenue targets are no longer conservative or comfortable; any cushion is gone. And the spending cuts ahead are already fierce.
Unless the economy surprise with its performance, the Liberals will face some very hard decisions if they keep to their promise to introduce a balanced budget 14 months from now.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Gun registry scandal shows waste, arrogance and dishonesty
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The federal gun registry scandal should make you sick to your stomach.
And the Liberal's defence of their incompetence, their refusal to take any responsibility for cheating you, should make you furiously angry.
Allan Rock was the justice minister when legislation was introduced back in 1995 requiring owners to register their guns. It would cost $117 million, the government promised, but fees would cover most of that cost.
Taxpayers would be on the hook for only $2 million.
Now Auditor General Sheila Fraser has exposed the government as incredibly incompetent, dishonest, or both - the explanation I favour.
She reviewed the program this year and found it will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion by 2004-5. She couldn't even do a full audit to find out where the money went, because "the financial information provided for audit by the department does not fairly present the cost of the program to the government." The government couldn't or wouldn't provide an honest, complete account of what it did, to the official auditor.
Fraser's sharpest criticism came over the government's failure to go back to Parliament - and the public - and get approval to turn a $2-million program into a $1-billion one.
"The issue here is not gun control," she reported. "And it's not even astronomical cost overruns, although those are serious. What's really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark." When costs were skyrocketing the ministry never told Parliament; never stopped to think if the whole exercise made sense.
The Liberal government's response is truly pathetic.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien tried to blame the provinces and gun owners, saying they didn't do enough to co-operate.
Rot. The challenges in bringing in such an unpopular program were completely clear in 1995. Any competent plan would have incorporated the costs of dealing with them.
Rock, now justice minister, now defends the program by saying "What value can you put on human life?"
It's a stupid response. The issue is what value do you put on responsible, competent spending of public money. What value do you put on honesty in government? What value do you put on the other programs that could have been funded with $1 billion?
Rock is saying wasteful spending of your money doesn't matter, and accountability doesn't matter. Lord help us if he stays in the Liberal leadership race.
Current Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says the program is working and no one - politician or bureaucrat - will be disciplined for blowing your money.
Gun registration makes sense, if it's affordable. If your neighbour starts making threats, it's valuable for police to be able to check if there are guns in the house and decide if they should stay there.
And Canadians don't, and shouldn't, have a right to own guns. It's a privilege, to be balanced against their record of responsibility.
But if the registration system made sense at $2 million, it's hard to see any results that are worth $1 billion, or about $500 per gun registered.
The percentage of homicides involving firearms has increased by 13 per cent since the registration plan was put in place. (Handguns are the real issue, and they have been subject to registration in Canada for almost 70 years.)
Undoubtedly the process has kept some people who shouldn't have guns from hanging on to them. And it has almost certainly saved lives, simply by ensuring that a violent person didn't have a deadly weapon at hand in a moment of anger.
But how many more lives would have been saved if $1 billion had been spent on more effective policing, or domestic violence prevention - or health care?
They wasted your money, abused Parliament and kept the truth hidden.
And as far as I can tell, they don't even care.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Campbell ignores warnings on education, rural woes
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Gordon Campbell is too quick to brush off concerns that he doesn't want to hear.
Even when they come from his own MLAs.
The legislative finance committee - 10 Liberals and New Democrat Joy MacPhail - toured the province and came back with what could have been useful warnings about education under-funding and a growing rural-urban gap.
But it took the premier only a few days to say, basically, forget about it.
The committee, chaired by Blair Lekstrom, heard from groups with comments on how the Liberals should approach the next budget.
It reported there is still general support for staying the course and balancing the budget by 2004/5.
But at the same time its report pointed out a growing gap between life in rural and urban B.C., and placed some of the blame directly on the Liberals' policies.
"The situation is becoming critical for resource-dependent communities hit hard by the combined impact of the government's restraint program and the current economic uncertainly in the forestry and the mining sector," the report said.
The committee simply acknowledged reality. The government's spending cuts have struck hardest outside Vancouver and Victoria. The report rightly notes that the loss of even a few jobs in a smaller centre has a significant economic impact, and warns that threats to already limited services undermine community viability.
And while it said the support remains for achieving the balanced budget target, there are also immediate needs out there, and it proposed immediate solutions.
It proposed an aid program for rural communities. The Liberals keep talking about the importance of helping communities hurt by the softwood crisis, but says it's up to Ottawa to come up with the money. The committee says that's not good enough, and says the aid needs to be extended beyond forest-dependent communities.
The committee also came back with a valuable warning of growing problems in B.C.'s schools.
"The shortage of funds is reaching a critical stage for rural schools and schools-based programs in urban areas," says the report. Lift the three-year spending freeze, the committee said, or at least seriously consider lifting it.
The Liberals increased the education budget by less than one-half per cent this year, despite higher costs for everything from MSP premiums to salaries. They've frozen it for the next two years. That means that school districts have to cut something like $100 million from their real spending each year, just to absorb rising costs.
And the committee - of Liberal MLAs mind you - came back convinced that's going to do damage.
It's politically risky - and socially and economically foolish - to begin to put the quality of education children receive at risk. That's not to say that more spending equals better education. But forcing cuts on the fly, based on an arbitrary freeze, increases the risks of falling educational quality.
The issue is growing in importance. Lekstrom said education was a bigger issue than health care during the tour. And the last McIntyre and Mustel poll showed support for the Liberals among parents of school-age children falling from over 50 per cent to 35 per cent this fall.
But only a few days after the report was released, Campbell dumped cold water on any hopes that the government would look for ways to find the money for schools called for by Liberals MLAs.
Tax cuts and balancing the budget come first, he said. "When we have a healthy balance sheet and there are additional revenues, we certainly would look at education as one of the top priorities for expenditure," he said.
To be fair, it's important to remember that the committee reported support for staying the course on balancing the budget within two years.
But it also highlighted wide concerns about harm being done to children and communities. And it said those concerns were real, and should be heeded.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Funny how BC Ferries has never quite achieved the beloved status of BC Hydro.
Islanders value the service, sort of, but there aren't that many of us. And even Islanders spend more time grumbling about the ferries than singing their praises.
So the Liberals didn't have to worry much about political fallout when they set out to shake up the ferry corporation.
The plans for BC Ferries, unveiled by Transportation Minister Judith Reid, look like a reasonable stab at figuring out what to do with the corporation.
It's sort of semi-privatization. BC Ferries will no longer be a taxpayer-supported Crown corporation. But it won't be a real private company either.
Bear with me here.
First, BC Ferries gets a new name, BC Ferry Services. It won't be a Crown corporation; just another company out there trying to make a buck.
Sort of. The voting shares in the new company will be held by something called the BC Ferry Authority, run by a government-appointed board. That group will in turn name the board for BC Ferry Services.
It's a compromise. The new company isn't really private. If it angers people too much, they can still squeeze the politicians, who can fire the authority board.
But it does offer politicians some insulation. If people get mad at the ferry corporation - and I expect they will - the politicians can always initially blame the board, which can always blame the need to balance revenue and expense.
That's not such a bad principle really. Islanders like to talk about the ferry service as an extension of the highway system. But there aren't highways everywhere; some communities are served by cruddy gravel roads. And it's a bit much to expect people in those communities to dig deep to subsidize ferry service for people who have decided they want to live on an island.
The government has built in some protection for Islanders, at least for the first five years.
The average rate increases for the main routes between the Island and the Mainland will be 2.8 per cent; across all other routes the increases will average 4.4 per cent a year. Add that to a 3.8-per-cent rate increase that take effect Sunday, and fares will be 30 per cent higher on most routes five years from now, and 20-per-cent higher on the main routes.
But the real crunch will come in five years.
Reid says the new company is going to have to invest $2 billion in news ships and terminal improvements over the next 15 years. It can borrow the money, but only if lenders are confident that enough money will come in to pay the loans back. And it's not at all clear that these fare increases will provide enough profits to allow that.
Chair David Emerson hopes that the corporation will start pulling in a lot more money from other profit centres. Now the head of Canfor, Emerson previously ran the Vancouver Airport Authority, the model for this effort. He hopes restaurants and boutiques - and even bars - on boats and at terminals can produce a steady stream of cash for the new company. "It's my hope that people will actually celebrate going for a trip on BC Ferries," he says.
BC Ferries has done a poor job of trying to grab extra money from passengers, as anyone who has tried to eat in the terminal restaurants knows. But even doubling the revenue from food and retailing will only add about $20 million a year to the corporation's bottom line. The new company will need more than that to service those loans.
That means cost-cutting will be on the agenda.
And so, likely, will be more fare increases once the first five-year agreement expires, especially if the government tries to renege on the promised share of gas tax revenues for the ferry system.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Plans for Hydro a cautious compromise
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The world hasn't been turned upside down by the Liberals new energy policy.
Electricity is going to cost you more, probably four or five per cent a year based on extremely rough calculations. That's after a nine-year freeze on rates.
But one way or another, energy was going to cost more.
We're in a happy situation in B.C., with about two-thirds of Hydro's needs produced by dams. It's a clean energy source, and the dams have mostly been paid for long ago. Keeping them running is cheap, so they can produce energy at around two cents a kilowatt hour.
The dams can't produce enough energy. Thermal plants, that burn gas or oil, cost more to build and run, and are subject to spikes in energy prices. Power from them costs about five cents a kilowatt hour.
That means that as our energy needs increase, we'll need more of the expensive stuff and the average price will go up.
That's just reality, and it doesn't matter whether BC Hydro or Paul's Discount Power Company builds the new plants. Both will need to get paid enough for the electricity to cover the costs.
The Liberals have made a political decision. They want private companies, not BC Hydro, to build and operate all future power plants. It's also likely that they will press Hydro to sell off existing thermal plants, leaving the Crown corporation to run the Hydro plants, arrange the contracts to buy power from the private companies and deal with the end user - you and I.
The Liberals have also promised a separate Crown corporation will manage the 18,000 kilometres of transmission lines around the province. The new company will make money by charging power producers for access. Someone who builds a power plant can count on being able to transmit power, either to BC Hydro, or directly to a large industry, or to customers in the U.S.
And here is where things get interesting on the pricing front.
Opponents, like renegade MLA Paul Nettleton, argue that allowing open access to transmission guarantees both privatization and soaring prices.
The reasoning goes like this. Only private companies will be allowed to build new plants under the Liberals' policy. That means BC Hydro will have to pay a high enough rate for the power to attract them. And the companies will be looking for the kind of prices they can hope to capture in the hottest markets in North America.
And that will cost consumers more.
It is a problem, especially if we keep seeing wild swings in energy markets. Given time, and consistency, energy markets will likely stabilize. But consistency is in short supply. The Ontario government's decision to leap into market pricing, and then go back to fixed rates in a panic, sends investors a clear message that governments can't be trusted.
But in return for the risks, we get real competition. Clever people competing to figure out the best way to meet our needs. And without that, we won't really know if BC Hydro is operating as efficiently as possible.
Why not get the best of both worlds by allowing Hydro to compete with private companies, with the utilities commission picking the winning bid? Several reasons, but the biggest is likely the perception - among Liberals and independent power producers - that BC Hydro wouldn't play fair. Put the province's second largest corporation, with a captive market, up against a small independent at the utilities commission and see who wins.
What's really changed?
The Liberals have accepted the idea of market-based pricing for new power, while preserving the hydro system's cheap power for the public benefit. They've started down a path that will lead, in about 35 years, to more than half the province's power being produced by private companies.
And they've given consumers the first steps towards real competition.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca




Random notes from the halls of power
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Mostly what I felt, slogging through the 90 pages of the Glen Clark conflict of interest report, was embarrassment and relief.
H.A.D. Oliver's finding that Clark did violate the conflict of interest rules seems remarkably anticlimactic, the last tuneless note in an inept soundtrack. Clark, through his lawyer, said the findings exonerated him.
It didn't seem that clear. Consider the house renovations: "Clark must have been aware that Mr. Pilarinos' gift of free construction work was connected directly or indirectly with Mr. Clark's duties as premier and that he should not have accepted it," said conflict commissioner H.A.D. Oliver.
Or the role of Mike Farnworth, the gaming minister: "There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Clark should have refrained from engaging in any discussion with minister Farnworth relevant to the outcome of Mr. Pilarinos' proposal," Oliver found. "I am particularly troubled by his conduct in light of the evidence that Mr. Clark recognized at the outset the need for him to remain uninvolved."
Clark takes a lie detector test. Adrian Dix, his closest political advisor, fakes up a memo to file that would clear the boss, rolling the office date stamp back to hide when it was typed.
It's pathetic, but at least it's over.

George Abbott has always seemed a conscientious MLA. So it's painful to award him the prize for worst answer to a legitimate question this week. New Democrat Jenny Kwan asked about layoff notices at the Cridge Child Care Centre in Victoria, one of about 40 centres affected by funding cuts. It was a question that deserved a real answer. Instead, it was ranting about the fast ferries and a lot of rubbish and rhetoric, and not one word about the issue.
It's disappointing.

As it's disappointing to learn the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives took a $200,000 gift from the NDP government in the last days before the election. The CCPA is a leftish counterpart to the Fraser Institute.
The bias is clear for most such groups, and their financial supporters expect a certain perspective. But taking money from a political party - especially in such dubious circumstances - is a terrible mistake, one that fatally compromises the CCPA's independence. Gordon Campbell and the Fraser Institute would be pilloried for such a deal. The NDP and the centre deserve the same.

Is there anything more ludicrous than U.S. drug czar John Walters' visit to warn against the perils of marijuana and safe injection sites? The Americans have been waging a stupid, costly and ineffective war on drugs for decades. The result has been more addiction, deaths, crime and prisoners. Twenty years ago there were about 80,000 drug offenders in U.S. jails; now there are 400,000, at a cost of $16 billion a year.
U.S. policies have been a colossal failure. Having Walters come here to lecture Canada on drug policies makes as much sense as having Saddam Hussein give a seminar on effective international relations.

Paul, readers have cried out to me, in that over-familiar way they have, why do you not quote Premier Gordon Campbell more often?
It's not my fault. Past premiers submitted themselves to questions from people like me three times each day when the legislature is sitting. Scrums, they're called, with reporters getting a few minutes in the halls to question the premier.
But unlike past premiers, Campbell won't do scrums. So now, toward late afternoon, if he's available, there's what reporters call the secret scrum in his office reception area. The premier stands before two flags, under specially installed lights. You pay for a government sound guy to keep watch. Instead of looking engaged, and quick-thinking, Campbell looks stiff.
Sadly, I and several others are writing then, on tight deadlines. So I can't even tell you what he says.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Nettleton reflects lack of trust in Campbell team
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Even after talking to him, I'm not sure Paul Nettleton meant to poke such a sharp stick right in the eye of Premier Gordon Campbell.
Nettleton has always struck me as a thoughtful MLA, a good representative for his constituents in the stunning country north of Prince George. If you were betting on the Liberal MLA most likely to speak his mind - carefully - he'd be on your list.
So it wasn't a total shock when Nettleton weighed in with a critique of the Liberal approach to BC Hydro, sent to all his party's MLAs.
Lots of people share at least some of his concerns about the government's plans to hand one-third of the Crown corporation over to a private operator, break the rest into two pieces and invite private companies into the power business.
But Nettleton didn't just disagree with the policy direction. He placed himself firmly in the camp of the people who think the Liberal leadership has a secret agenda, and can't be trusted.
Lord knows we need more backbenchers who are prepared to say what they think, instead of biting their tongues, rolling their eyes and hoping for better days. For most of the NDP government's long, slow journey on to the rocks, MLAs stood loyally on deck, saluting the captain. Liberals MLAs have watched as the government shredded their communities or broken promises.
It's a bad system, for governments and for the public, and some straight talk would be welcome.
But Nettleton went much farther.
"I am firmly convinced that this legislation is only the opening move in a strategy whose ultimate goal is the wholesale privatization of the utility," he said in his letter. Going ahead in the face of public opposition betrays "the sort of arrogance I recall, now with some chagrin, denouncing from the Opposition bench."
"I think we have just become infected with the same sort of ideological blindness that once plagued the NDP," he continued.
And given an out - apologize for calling the premier a sneak, stand by the criticism of the policy and accept a suspension - Nettleton stood firm on all his charges.
And that meant he had to go.
What about Nettleton's actual critique, the substance of his concerns?
He goes too far. Nettleton argues that splitting Hydro into two companies, one to make and sell power and one to take over the transmission lines, will inevitably sound "the death knell for BC Hydro." Letting power companies sell to the highest bidder could mean British Columbians would pay soaring prices if California had another crisis.
But splitting the Crown corporation in two makes sense. Letting Hydro control the transmission lines and the power plants is like letting one car manufacturer decide who gets to use the roads. No one else could ever compete.
The change could work well - given a good regulatory framework and a strong commitment to maintaining the benefits of low-cost power for all British Columbians.
That's the Liberals' real problem. People do not trust them to deliver those controls. They do not believe that Campbell will keep his promise not to privatize Hydro.
That suspicion has been reinforced by the secretive approach taken by the Liberals. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld has had a major task force report on energy, including Hydro, for about eight months. He could have released it - we did pay for it - to allow public participation in the debate, while the government worked on the policy. He could have shared the briefing on splitting Hydro up that caucus got three months ago. The debate could have been public, and the Liberals could have made an effort that they do listen to concerns.
Instead, they kept the debate behind closed doors.
Now they're left with a hard question. If the Liberals can't even convince their own MLAs that they're playing this straight, how can they ever convince the public?
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca




By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - That was a dead bleak election day for Premier Gordon Campbell. School board and council votes across the province weren't really a referendum on the Liberals' policies. Voters are first looking for candidates who can make the best decisions on zoning issues or local school questions.
But from Vancouver to Prince Rupert to Nelson voters also sent a chilling message to the Liberals.
The left-wing sweep in Vancouver, where the COPE party captured the mayor's job, council, school board and parks board, grabbed most of the headlines.
Mayor-elect Larry Campbell has already promised a referendum on the Olympics and has major differences with the Liberals on health-care policies.
The new school board, facing a huge deficit because of the Liberals' funding freeze, will be much more vocal in fighting for more money.
And generally voters were sending the message that they are concerned with social and quality of life issues -- not just spending cuts.
Given the media attention they can command, the new slate in Vancouver can be a formidable problem for the Liberals.
But it wasn't just Vancouver. In Nelson, incumbent mayor Gary Exner fell. He was not seen as a strong enough defender of the community against Liberal cuts. In Prince Rupert, incumbent mayor Don Scott ---who tried for the Liberal nomination -- was also seen as too close to the provincial government. And down he went.
Even in defeat, candidates made their point about public opposition to the Liberals. In Victoria, a mayoral challenger ran largely on the importance of fighting the Liberal cuts, and pulled one-third of the votes. In Nanaimo Larry Whalley of RecallThemAll, a group advocating recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs, attracted the support of about 20 per cent of voters in the mayor's race.
Campbell -- the premier that is -- says he doesn't see the election results as a rebuke, or an expression of concern.
That's too bad. He's missing an important message from the public. No one should expect the Liberals to abandon the platform they were elected on.
But the growing discontent -- and the prospect of more organized opposition from councils and school boards -- should give them pause about the pace of change and the effects on real people.
Mayors, councillors, school trustees are going to expect to be listened to, not brushed off. And they are going to be emboldened by election results that show many British Columbians share their concerns.
Even the Liberal-dominated committee that toured the province to get advice on next year's budget came back convinced that a crisis has hit communities outside Vancouver and Victoria.
"The growing gap between rural British Columbia and the large urban centres has to be addressed now," their report said. "The situation is becoming critical for resource-dependent communities hit hard by the combined impact of the government's restraint program and the current economic uncertainty."
The committee also provided support for new school trustees, warning that funding shortages are already reaching "a critical stage."
And that's before the next two years of frozen budgets that will leave school districts with no money for rising salaries and other costs. The government should give up on the education spending freeze, the committee found.
Voters were looking first for the best people to direct their communities and schools.
But at the same time, they sent Campbell a clear message of growing dissatisfaction with the effects of Liberal cuts. He'd be wise to listen.
Footnote: Premier Campbell thinks an Olympic referendum, promised by Vancouver's new mayor, would be wrong, since the city has already indicated support for the Games.
"How can people decide to work up front and honestly with a city council that makes agreements and then breaks them?"
Unconvincing words from a premier who has ripped up more than his share of signed agreements in a very short time.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Let ICBC face real competition
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - You should be looking for a quick explanation for the government's apparent cold feet on allowing real competition for ICBC.
Because without real competition, you'll never know if you're paying too much for your car insurance.
The Liberals' campaign platform promised "greater competition in auto insurance, to create increased choice and reduce motor vehicle premiums." A reasonable person would expect that meant that ICBC's monopoly on basic insurance coverage would be ended. Private companies would have the chance to compete for your business, offering lower prices or better services or cleverer coverage. That's also completely consistent with the Liberals' stated belief in the effectiveness of competitive markets.
It looks like that won't happen. Finance Minister Gary Collins is responsible for ICBC. He says the "core review" of ICBC should be ready for presentation to the public before year-end.
But Collins isn't sounding like a man in a hurry to end ICBC's monopoly grip on the market. The timing isn't good, he says, because private insurers are having trouble and aren't eager to compete.
That's news to them. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says companies are eager to enter the game here. One company, Pembridge Insurance, has just closed its B.C. office, laying part of the blame on the government's foot-dragging.
They want to compete. The Liberals say they like competition. What's the problem?
Collins offers a clue. This would be a bad time to sell ICBC, he says. Tough times for the industry have depressed the Crown corporation's value.
The Liberals never said anything about selling ICBC during the campaign. But it could be that the core review has suggested a rewarding path to competition. Instead of opening the market, and letting ICBC compete, why not offer ICBC for sale first. It would be still be a competitive market, but the wining bidder - or bidders - would start with a customer base giving them 100 per cent of the market. What's it worth to know you have $2.5 billion in annual premium revenue the day you open your doors?
And if that's the plan, the desire to put things off for a few years makes more sense. A delay could mean a much bigger cash windfall for the government.
That leaves some questions, including whether that approach would really allow competition, or simply exchange a privately owned monopoly for a public one.
And in the meantime, what about us, the drivers who will still be waiting for real competition and choice by the time the next election rolls around?
It doesn't look good. ICBC sailed a 6.6-per-cent rate increase through cabinet one year ago. The corporation just released its third quarter financial results, and is talking about another rate increase this Jan. 1. Claims are costing more, investment income is down, the corporation's own operating costs are down 12 per cent so far this year, and more than 1,000 jobs have been chopped. So it wants more money from customers.
Sounds reasonable, although I've never really looked at ICBC's numbers with as much confidence since the corporation claimed it was on the brink of financial disaster when it wanted to force no-fault insurance on us, then miraculously recovered once the battle was lost.
But the Liberals haven't yet set up an independent rate review process. Instead, this proposal will head back to cabinet, a process that Forest Minister Mike de Jong complained last year "defies logic."
Twelve months on, and things aren't any more logical. And it's no clearer when - or if - British Columbians will get a free insurance market.
Footnote: One reason claims are up, says ICBC, is that crashes are happening at higher speeds. That raises interesting questions about the Liberals' decision to kill photo radar, the most likely explanation for the increased speeds and higher costs.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

New deal for tenants strikes a fine balance
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Despite the flap from both sides, the Liberals have done a pretty fair job of changing the rules for renters in B.C.
Tenants will run the risk of much larger rent increases, especially when apartments to rent get really scarce in a community. That's an immediate risk in Vancouver and Victoria, where the vacancy rate is already extremely low.
But the trade-off should be an improved supply of housing in future.
The Liberals have dumped the old rules, which allowed any tenant to appeal a rent increase to an arbitrator. The landlord then had to show why the hike was necessary.
It wasn't a terrible solution. Landlords knew not to push too hard; tenants theoretically knew they had options beyond moving if they faced a big increase.
And it was a potentially useful weapon for tenants in bad buildings. Landlords seeking increases knew they better be able to show at least some repair and maintenance costs.
But the reality was that most tenants, especially most tenants in bad housing, weren't likely to use the arbitration process.
And the prospect of a permanent and uncertain constraint on rent increases made investors unwilling to put up new buildings. They were left with the risks of building ownership - a recession which forced down rents or left them with vacant units. And they didn't have the chance to cash in when vacancies got tight.
Now the Liberals have allowed landlords to increase rents by four to six per cent a year without facing any challenge. They can even put off increases for three years and do them all at once, bad news for tenants who could face a 20-per-cent hike in one year.
No one on either side of the landlord/tenant divide seems delighted with the change.
Tenants fear they'll face increases beyond what they can afford.
Landlords - supported by many Liberal MLAs - wanted a true free market. If rents start to rise, they say, more apartments would be built. And then rents would stabilize or fall.
I'm keen on the effectiveness of free markets.
But the Liberals' change recognizes that markets aren't perfect and some controls are needed in an area as critical as housing. Markets work slowly. In a growth period, the lag between rent increases and the arrival of new buildings could leave families homeless or in desperate economic trouble.
Effective markets also require honest buyers and sellers. I offer my goods - say a car I've made - and people decide if they will buy them at my price. If they don't, I stop making the car or cut the prices. If they snap them up, I raise the prices. It's a good balance.
But that falls apart if I can't be trusted. If I rig the prices with other carmakers, or promise people new cars but deliver them junk.
The housing and development industry in B.C. has forfeited its right to a free market. Thousands of people spent their life savings on homes which the builders, and government, presented as adequate quality housing. Instead they got condos that leaked and fell apart.
The Liberals have also come up with a decent compromise on the question of pets in rental units, the other hot topic.
Pet owners wanted landlords to be forced to accept animals. Landlords wanted to retain the right to decide if dogs and cats could live in their buildings.
The Liberals' solution is to allow landlords to collect an extra half month's security deposit if they accept pets.
The change may provide people with pets more options; it may just bump up security deposits. It's worth a one-year trial.
There's lots of smaller puts and takes in the bill. Security despoits weren't increased; landlords may have gained too much power to enter apartments.
But on balance, give the Liberals good marks on this one.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca



Attacks on forest code changes unfair
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's far too early to be predicting disaster because of the changes to the Forest Practices Code.
Despite the eye-glazing details involved in the code, it's worth paying attention.
Make the rules governing logging in B.C. too tight, and companies aren't going to bother with any marginal operations. That means fewer jobs and damaged communities.
Make the rules too loose, and some companies will cut corners, damaging streambeds or cutting roads that end up as giant eroded slashes down the hillside.
The NDP - supported by the Liberals - dramatically increased regulation of the industry in 1995.
It wasn't just an act of concern for the environment. B.C. forest products were facing the threat of an international boycott over logging practices. Action was needed to head off a devastating international campaign.
Most British Columbians back moves that will make sure that logging doesn't do permanent harm.
But how far you go, and the way you choose to get there, are still up for debate.
The NDP code, which they later conceded was a tangle of red tape, attempted to regulate every aspect by setting out, in great detail, what companies could and couldn't do.
The Liberals are moving to a results-based approach. Instead of saying no logging within five metres of a stream bed, they will have a regulation that says you can't harm streams. If companies can find a way to log within two metres without doing harm - or if the stream is dry - they can go ahead. If they do harm the stream, then penalties will be imposed.
Sounds good. But there are a few big worries.
One is that the damage is done before anything is detected. Fines don't return a stream to health.
Another is that the Liberals have left a big loophole in the law. If a corporation can establish that it believed it was doing the right thing, it can avoid penalties even if there is damage.
And a third is that the systems depends on active enforcement and tough penalties. Unless inspectors are on the ground, checking, they won't know whether damage is being done.
That's a worry as the Liberals slash the forest ministry by one-third and close 24 regional offices. Forests Minister Mike de Jong says there will be 300 dedicated enforcement officers. But officials can't say how that compares to past enforcement efforts.
Those weaknesses should make British Columbians nervous.
And the Liberals' commitment won't be certain until the regulations setting out the detailed results expected of forest companies are released over the next few months. Again, that's a concern. Those standards should have been included in the legislation, rather than left up to the shifting standards of cabinet.
But all that said, it's a little galling to hear environmental groups already talking about a new international boycott.
Sure, there are concerns.
But nothing in the forest practice code changes announced so far justifies that kind of extreme, damaging response.
Companies will still have to prepare forest stewardship plans, approved by the government. And they will have to have site plans available for inspection by the public. If the government ensures an adequate level of detail is provided in those plans, the public interest will be protected.
I don't know how the new act will ultimately balance the competing interests of industry efficiency and environmental protection. No one can really say until the details of the regulations are released.
But there's nothing so far that justifies an alarmist attack on the B.C. industry, or an international boycott based on fear, not facts.
We need an efficient, sustainable forest industry in B.C. The previous forest practices code was an unnecessary barrier. And so change is justified.
Let's wait and see how well they work before we leap to man the old barricades.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca