Why it's good that you're backing fight against gay porn ban

VICTORIA - You're going to be picking up the legal costs for a Vancouver book store's fight to bring banned gay porn into Canada.
And, on balance, you should be pleased.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled this week that taxpayers should pay Little Sisters Book Emporium's legal costs for the latest round in its battle with Canada Customs. The store wants to challenge the seizure of two "Meatman" comic books and two books on male bondage by Canada Customs.
But the trial would take 12 weeks, and the store has no money. In the past that would have been the end of the matter. The book ban would stand, untested.
But the rules changed last year, That's when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ground-breaking B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that government should pick up the legal bills for four Interior native bands battling over forest issues.
The Supreme Court - in an six-three decision - said the First Nations couldn't afford the hugely expensive litigation; they had a reasonable chance of success; and the title rights' issue was of broad importance. Justice demanded that they have their day - or months - in court, and that couldn't happen without public funding.
It was a huge leap beyond any previous ruling on costs, opening the door for other similar funding bids.
And Joe Arvay, acting for Little Sisters, was the first to seize the opportunity.
Little Sisters has no money to pay for the long trial, he said. And the case raises broad issues of public importance that should be heard, Arvay added. Canada Customs' power to ban books has significant implications for Canadians' basic rights to information. When the state has the power to decide what citizens can and can't read, there has to be a right to external review to ensure decisions aren't arbitrary, unreasonable or unlawful.
The only recourse isa court challenge to the government's decision. And without funding, that right is an illusion.
Justice Elizabeth Bennett agreed. "There is a strong public interest at stake, and that is ensuring that government does not interfere with the rights of citizens." (Canada Customs have barred some 65,000 books and other items over the past five years.)
It's a decision that should be applauded.
The courts have always offered a way of addressing issues of public interest, with that role increasing since the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But common law practise on costs hasn't reflected either the increasing importance of these cases or the rising costs of pursuing them.
University of Victoria law professor Chris Toleffson is co-author of a paper on the issue to be published in the Canadian Bar Review. He notes that the nature of public interest cases means that one side often has limited resources and no prospect of any material benefit even if they do win. And they face a huge risk if they lose, and are ordered to pay costs.
The result is that unless some provisions around costs are made by the courts, then cases involving the public interest - but not financial self-interest - will not be heard. The courts will be for those who can afford them.
Critics shouldn't fear a flood of cases. The test for public funding is still tough. Mrs. Justice Bennett said advance costs should only be awarded in "rare and exceptional circumstances."
And she said she wasn't providing a blank cheque, ordering another hearing on the level of costs. (Although they will likely be more than $150,000.)
There are still concerns. It's always risky when neither side in a legal dispute is spending their own money. And it's fair to worry about the constant trend to longer, more costly court cases - why, for example, a 12-week trial is necessary in this case.
But those concerns aside, this ruling is a step forward.
It's recognizes that the courts have an important role in protecting our rights. And it acknowledges that access to justice - especially on issues of broad public importance - shouldn't be reserved for governments and others with big bank accounts.
- From the Vancouver Sun

Luna campaign a weird waste of money

VICTORIA - I'm getting increasingly peeved at the way the federal government is churning through money on the great Luna relocation project.
Basically, I don't buy any of it. I don't buy that Luna is such a serious threat. I don't buy that there's a way to assess the chances of successfully hooking him up with his pod again. And I don't buy the idea that it it makes sense to spend more than $500,000 on moving one whale.
Luna is an Orca that left its pod and has spent the last three years hanging around Gold River. Note that fact - three years.
Sure, he's been a nuisance to boaters from time to time. Luna is social, and when an 1,800-kg whale decides to nuzzle up to your boat, things can get a little complicated. And the federal department of fisheries and oceans says he's surfaced near landing float planes.
So everybody needs to be careful; there's a whale in the water.
But that's hardly a justification to spend a whack of money on a plan to catch the whale, put him on a truck and drive 300 kilometres down Vancouver Island, put him in another pen for a week and then hopes he reunites with his pod. (And if i doesn't, and becomes a nuisance down here, he'll be caught again and sold to an aquarium.)
For the amount being spent on this exercise, the government could hire a full-time minder for the next decade to keep Luna out of harm's way.
Heck, if I was the town of Gold River I'd be contributing to any plan to keep Luna around. The town is in a beautiful setting, and still struggling to cope with the closure of the Bowater mill that provided most of its jobs. A well-regulated whale-watching business could fuel tourism and help keep Luna out of harm's way.
Instead of an opportunity, the whole exercise is turning into a big PR mess.
People around the world have seen First Nations paddlers leading Luna away from the government officials who want to capture him. He's swimming along side them in the shots, as they scratch his back with their paddles. It's like a Beautiful BC commercial and Free Willie rolled into one, with the DFO stepping into the role of the bad guys.
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation want Luna - or Tsuxiit as they call him - to stick around. Chief Mike Maquinna says his people believe Luna carries the spirit of his father, who died around the same time Luna showed up. Maquinna said his father made a deathbed wish for his spirit to inhabit a killer whale.
I don't question others' beliefs. My seriously ill greatgrandmother died happily after a dream in which she met Jesus and was told everything would be fine.
Anyway the whole effort is starting to look ridiculous. The plan to move Luna is plowing through some $500,000 in donations, and being funded heavily by the DFO on top of that. The amount you're paying is mounting every day.
All that to move a whale that's swimming around, as whales were meant to do.
Doesn't this strike you as patently crazy? It would be a huge feat to raise this amount of money to change the lives of 500 little kids in B.C., giving a bunch of preschoolers a fair chance to make their way in this world. But for a whale, it's a piece of cake.
Maybe, at base, that's the question here. Can one whale be worth this much? Are people really convinced that Luna - likable as he seems - is worth more than scared and lonely kids? (Sorry, you do have to choose. People aren't willing - or perhaps able - to give enough to meet all the needs.)
I'm thinking not. So if Luna is really a genuine threat, then sell it off, or drive it away.
If it's not, leave the creature alone.
Footnote: An interesting bit of irony. The Mowachaht/Muchalaht, championing Luna, are also part of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council that is seeking the right to hunt grey whales in its treaty talks. It's not an unreasonable position - there are lots of the whales these days. But it won't play all that well.

Seven steps to deciding who to vote for

VICTORIA -It's been a grim election campaign.
The issues have been small, and negative. No party has come close to offering an inspiring vision for Canada, or raising a defining issue that it is prepared to stake its future on.
But the parties are different. You should vote. So here's seven things to consider if you're having trouble deciding how to vote on Monday.
First, forget most of the issues the parties raise in an attempt to make the other guy look bad. Paul Martin is not any softer on child porn than Stephen Harper, despite the stupid press releases from the Conservative party. Harper is not going to take away women's right to abortion. These are bogus issues.
Second, take a hard look at the details of the Conservative platform, particularly the assumption that taxes can be cut while health and military spending are increased, without any reductions in other areas. Most economists are dubious. Many British Columbians recall that the provincial Liberals made similar claims, and a majority of them are dissatisfied with the results. Conservatives say they won't have to cut other programs, just keep the rate of spending increases down. It's a claim that demands a very hard look. (That's especially true because of the vagueness of the Conservative platform.)
Third, take a similar look at Martin's plans. How credible can it be that a leader who chopped health care spending has now suddenly discovered that wait lists are the most important issue facing Canadians? How can a leader who promises to restore democracy blow off Liberal party members in key ridings and appoint his own candidates? And why isn't Martin running on the record of his government - isn't that what we expect from competent political parties seeking re-election?
Fourth, consider your local candidates. An effective MP handling constituent's concerns and working for them in Ottawa is valuable no matter what the party. If you have a candidate you like and respect, then why not pick the person, not the party?
Fifth, get specific. It's a brute to try and sort through the parties' positions on every issue. So pick one that matters to you, and check it out. Base your vote on their ability to reflect your priorities in that critical area. (Party web sites are useful, as are media sites that include overviews of the major issues.)
Sixth, get strategic. Voters have different options in different ridings. In Kelowna the Conservatives are going to win; if you're not in their camp, you can vote for any other party safely. But in Victoria, for example, Liberal David Anderson faces a tighter race according to most observers. Given the closeness of this race nationally, that means that a single Victoria voter could decide the future of Canada. Conservative or Liberal? Minority or majority? It could all be decided by one voter who stays home on Monday, too busy or bored to vote. You can assess the likely outcome in your riding - check out www.electionprediction.org and www.bcelection.ca for insight - and make your vote count.
Seventh, recognize that your vote means money for a party for the next several years. Corporate and union donations have been banned; instead parties that meet a minimum threshold will get $1.75 per vote per year. (Reasonable concept, but too costly - $1 per vote would have been reasonable.) Even if the outcome in your riding is not in doubt, your vote matters. The Green Party, for example, raised about $140,000 in 2002. If they can hold their current level of support, they will get about $1.4 million a year. That's a lot of organizing money.
You should vote. It's a cliche, but people did die - and are dying today - over the right. Practically, our collective decisions are better than choices made by just a few of us.
And surely, following the seven-step program, you can find a reason to head out to vote on Monday.
Footnote: B.C. - and your vote - matter this time. Nationally, the Liberals and Conservatives are each on the brink of forming a minority government. The Election Prediction Project reports that with days left 16 B.C. ridings ae too close to call. The rest of Canada could be watching B.C. to see who will govern

Harper win means tougher times for BC treaty talks

VICTORIA - A perfect storm is about to slam into First Nations treaty talks.
Things were already getting bumpier in B.C. Add a Conservative election win and the dramatic treaty policy changes likely to follow, and the skies grow decidedly darker. Successful talks look less likely, and the chance of blockades and lawsuits increases.
The prospect of a Conservative government has cranked up fears. The party doesn't mention B.C. treaties in its platform, but expect at least tougher negotiating line.
Or perhaps much more. Tony Penikett is a former Yukon premier, and a senior fellow on First Nations treaty issues at Simon Fraser University. "If there's a Harper government after June 28, that may effectively end treaty negotiations in B.C.," he says.
Mr. Penikett points to the influence of Tom Flanagan, probably Conservative leader Stephen Harper's closest policy advisor. Mr. Flanagan, an academic, is national campaign manager and certain of a senior role in a Harper government.
Mr. Flanagan has strong views on the treaty process and relations with Canada's aboriginal communities. (Mr. Flanagan rejects the First Nations term, arguing Canada's native groups don't qualify as nations.)
Back in 2001 Mr. Flanagan attacked the basic principles of treaty making in B.C. It's impractical to settle treaties by providing land, he said, because the land is already being used by others.
And he said Ottawa should give the treaty process another three years, and then hand the issue to a federal commission to resolve. Parliament - and the B.C. legislature - would approve the settlements, title would be extinguished and everything would be resolved.
It's an appealing but unworkable solution. The legal issue of title is not so easily swept away. And damaging First Nations' protests and pressure campaigns would be inevitable.
Mr. Flanagan has also argued that collective ownership of land by First Nations should be replaced by private ownership to encourage economic growth. Again, it's an interesting idea. But it is considered poisonous by First Nations, who see shared ownership as fundamental to their identity as a people. Give that up, they believe, and it is the end of their culture. (Mr. Flanagan argues for assimilation.)
Conservatives' aboriginal affairs critic John Duncan says he leads the policy development. But the Vancouver Island MP is vague about the party's plans for treaty talks, promising "productive" changes. But Mr. Duncan was a leading critic of the Nisga'a Treaty, objecting to the amount of land and money provided and the self-government provisions. Future agreements should "compensate aboriginals for what the courts recognize as their modest aboriginal entitlement," he says.
Policy debates are fine.
But this is a dangerous time for the Ottawa to lurch in a whole new treaty making direction.
After two years of apparent progress, relations between First Nations and the provincial government are souring. First Nations have found common cause in the Title and Rights Alliance, which is borrowing the proven tactics of the environmental campaigners.
The alliance is already out warning institutional investors about the risks of operating in B.C. until land claims are resolved.Its first "information blockades" on roads and highways will go up as early as the end of this month.
Tthe First Nations' Summit has just voted to support the alliance. And Dave Porter of the Kaska Dene has just been elected to its leadership group. Mr. Porter was a deputy premier in the Yukon NDP government, an aboriginal affairs assistant deputy minister under the B.C. New Democrats and the province's first oil and gas commissioner. He will be a formidable foe, or friend, for government.
All this comes as the BC Treaty Commission operates without a chief commissioner. Miles Richardson resigned to run as a Liberal candidate in Skeena-Bulkely Valley. First Nations and federal and provincial government have to agree on a candidate. It's unlikely the job will be filled before the fall, leaving a critical vacancy, at a difficult time.
B.C. needs treaties. But the process - already shaky - is facing a flood of changes and challenges that will make progress much tougher.
- From the Vancouver Sun

New Democrat on FN Summit; a mine plan dies; and lessons from polls

VICTORIA - Random notes: A long-time New Democrat and former deputy premier takes a leading First Nations' role, a mining company stock skids after a B.C. government decision and a RAV poll highlights a big Liberal problem.

The newest leader of the First Nations Summit is coming into the job with a lot of political and bureaucratic experience - mostly on the opposite side from the BC Liberals.
Dave Porter is one of two new people elected to the summit's leadership, joining Chief Ed John.
Porter is chief treaty negotiator for the Kaska Dene Council, in the province's far northwest.
But he's also a former deputy premier and cabinet minister in the Yukon NDP government of the late '80s, and was an assistant deputy minister for aboriginal affairs under the B.C. New Democrats. Porter was also tapped by then energy minister Dan Miller to become the province's first oil and gas commissioner when the NDP wanted to make it easier for energy companies to do business in the province.
Porter's arrival comes at an interesting time. After what looked like a significant improvement in relations over the last two years, things have gone wrong. A new group, the Title and Rights Alliance, has created unusual unity among First Nations and promises to adopt more effective pressure tactics.
And the Treaty Commission, which manages the process, has pledged to become more aggressive in publicly pressuring any parties - First Nations or federal or provincial governments - that are blocking progress.
What's it mean? Porter knows the government and bureaucracy, and that could help get agreements - or it could make him a more effective opponent. (The federal government has bailed from the treaty table with the Kaska Dene, saying legal disputes have to be resolved before talks can resume.)

Things were looking up for Cline Mining Corp. The company, listed on the TSE Venture Exchange, had seen its lightly traded stock climb from 15 cents to 50 cents in April, before settling into the 40-cent range. The price was rising on plans for an open pit mine near Fernie, which the company said would produce $5 billion worth of coal during its lifetime and 1.500 jobs.
That changed May 28, when Energy Minister Richard Neufeld killed the project, citing environmental concerns and a desire to avoid conflict with U.S. opponents.
Within a few days the stock had lost half its value, and the company canceled plans to raise another $300,000 to work on planning for the mine.
The move surprised most people in the area, including mine opponents who were getting ready for a big fight.
But the odds were heavily stacked against it. Liberal MLA Bill Bennett said he had taken local opposition to Neufeld and Premier Gordon Campbell. And the anti-mine lobby across the border in Montana was organized and efficient. They had already persuaded Secretary of State Colin Powell to write Ottawa with concerns, and scored wide publicity, including a sympathetic New York Times story. (The mine would have been near Montana's Glacier National Park.)
Cline is considering its next move. But the enviros have already launched theirs, arguing that the same principles mean that plans for coal bed methane development in the south Kootenays should also be shelved.

If you want to understand the problem facing the Campbell Liberals, take a look at a poll commissioned by business types to show support for Vancouver's RAV line.
The poll found 69 per cent of those surveyed supported the line, with 46 per cent strongly supporting it.
But when the pollster asked about the Liberal offer to take on all the risk of cost over-runs - and come up with $170 million for another line - support fell. Only 65 per cent of supported going ahead with the line, and only 39 per cent offered strong support.
It's a better deal for Lower Mainland residents, but the association with the provincial government was apparently enough to drive support away.

Footnote: More poll news. StatsCan reported this week B.C. residents have the lowest satisfaction with health care services among the provinces. The province is also one of only three where satisfaction has fallen over the last three years (along with Newfoundland and P.E.I.).

Harper has a good TV night, Martin falls short

VICTORIA - Stephen Harper should sleep more soundly after the big debate.
And for Paul Martin, more restless nights.
The whole winner-loser commentary on debates is a bit of a mug's game.
But if you look at what the leaders needed to achieve in this week's TV debate, Harper had the best showing. (Except perhaps for Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, but he's irrelevant in an English-language debate.)
Martin, who needed to rescue a faltering campaign, couldn't shake off the big liabilities he's dragging along behind him.
Debates are mainly chance to take a quick measure of the person, and to contrast the media image with a somewhat twisted form of reality. (The leaders are wearing make-up, and have spent hours rehearsing. Bright lights are shining in their eyes and they're talking to a camera lens. It's not a normal setting.)
That makes it an advantage to enter the debate as the underdog. The lower the initial expectations, the easier it is to surprise people with your insight or warmth.
Stephen Harper is still an unknown quantity for many Canadians. All he really needed to do was show up, avoid big mistakes and reassure people that he isn't a maniac anxious to arm Canadians, gut the health care system and make heterosexual marriage a legal obligation.
Harper succeeded, especially with the people who matter. By now each party has a firm base, people who won't be swayed by the debate. The leaders' target audience is the 30 per cent of voters who are uncommitted or wavering.
Harper didn't seem crazy. (It is a great advantage to start a debate knowing that you win if you don't seem nuts.) He didn't hide from his views, and acknowledged Canada's diversity. He didn't shout. He didn't seem the obvious bogeyman the Liberals had claimed in their attack ads. Mission accomplished.
Martin had a much bigger challenge, and he couldn't meet it. The sponsorship scandal was like a yoke on his rounded shoulders. His commitment to health care waiting list reduction was mocked, as the other leaders pointed out that inadequate federal funding under the Liberals had helped create those waiting lists.
Martin had the huge task of convincing voters that he would be a strong and decisive prime minister, delivering a clear - and different - type of government. But ultimately he appeared to offer more of the same, and that is not what many voters want.
Jack Layton had a tough job as well. He tried to convince people that the Conservatives would be very bad for Canada, while dissuading them from the obvious conclusion that they should thus vote Liberal to block Harper. That would have required a huge leap in the perceived credibility of the NDP. It didn't happen.
What now?
The Conservatives just have to keep doing what they they are doing, targeting their efforts more and more specifically to close ridings.
The Liberals need to rethink a campaign gone wrong.
The attacks on Harper as a social conservative have not worked, and the debate should confirm that they won't. He's to the right of many Canadians, to use that somewhat arbitrary characterization. But he's no more extreme than lots of the people most voters know and work with.
Harper looked weakest on fiscal policy - what governments take in and how they spend it.
The Conservative plan calls for tax cuts and more money for the military and health care. Harper says he won't cut spending in other areas, just slow the growth.
But Martin argued that the plans will leave a $50-billion shortfall over the next five years, and the Conservatives will be forced to make significant cuts. It's a good issue for the Liberals to push in the coming days. And it will find the most receptive audience in critical B.C. and Ontario ridings, where provincial government tax cuts have raised awareness of the risks.
But for now, Harper has become the favorite.
Footnote: Not much for B.C. in the debate. A passing reference to the softwood lumber dispute, but nothing on treaties, or First Nations generally, or energy policy. Not even a token reference to the broader issue of Western alienation, which Martin had said was a major concern before the campaign began.

End wait chaos with guarantees

VICTORIA - Sure it's dangerous that the courts are being asked to define Canadians' right to health care - and perhaps approve a two-tier system.
But it's also inevitable given governments' failures.
Montrealer George Zeliotis waited - in pain - more than seven months for hip replacement surgery in 1999. This week his lawyers argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that his charter rights were violated. Governments must either provide timely treatment, or allow people to go to pay for surgery at private clinics, they claimed.
The federal government and several provinces - not including B.C. - intervened, rightly arguing that allowing people to pay for speedier treatment would violate the basic medicare principle of equality.
Governments must be allowed to decide how much should be spent on health care, they said. Sometimes people just have to wait.
That's a profoundly unsatisfactory position, one that suggests Canadians have no right to treatment. If a government makes health care a priority, wait lists drop. If it decides tax cuts or education are more important, you wait longer.
It's a bizarre model. I pay about $900 for car insurance, and have a clear understanding what ICBC will and won't provide in return. We pay an average $2,800 each for health care, and have a right to the same kind of clarity.
The governments' legal position would have been stronger if they had been able to tell the court the maximum times patients must wait for different procedures, and how they had decided that those waits were reasonable.
But it doesn't work that way. If budgets are tight, health authorities reduce the number of operations being done, and people wait longer. There's no medical rationale for the delay, or study of the economic costs of making people wait. Government sets the budget, and that drives the quality of care.
It's as if you crashed your car and ICBC told you that unfortunately it wasn't fixing any more front ends this fiscal year because the budget for that had been spent.
Basically the governments are saying trust us.
But people don't. An ipsos-Reid poll done for the BC Medical Association last month asked people who they believe when talk turns to managing health care. Three out of four people said the doctors' organization was believable. Only half as many were willing to believe Premier Gordon Campbell. Almost 40 per cent said he was not at all believable on health care. (That's not overly surprising. The Liberals' platform noted patients' anger that the treatment they had paid for wasn't available when they needed it, and promised better. Instead waiting times have increased. The anger remains.)
But it's not a Liberal issue, or a B.C. one. All Canadian governments take a similar approach.
There are alternatives. The BCMA is pushing for guaranteed maximum wait times, a commitment already in place in some countries and being introduced in a rudimentary form in Saskatchewan. If the government can't fulfill its guarantees, the doctors say, it should have to pay for a procedure in a private clinic or another jurisdiction
Governments could provide the guarantees. The health ministry knows, for example, that about 2,500 hip replacements will be done this year, not enough to keep up with new diagnoses, let alone reduce the 2,900-person wait list. It could calculate a reasonable guaranteed maximum wait.
Government has the right to decide that the $25 million needed to clear the backlog would be better spent elsewhere. But patients have a right to some guarantee of service. Perhaps an urgent case is promised treatment in seven days; moderate no more than five months; the rest no more than 18 months. You're assessed, and you know what the future holds. (Today many surgical patients are convinced the wait is endless.)
Governments have paid attention to their need for flexibility.
But they've ignored the need for commitments and accountability in return. That's hurt patients, and undermined an honest debate about what we can expect from our health care system.
- From The Vancouver Sun

Liberals blowing opportunity on Harper's Iraq stance

VICTORIA - The Liberals' attack ads are a big mistake.
They're bound to alienate many voters, who associate them with ugly American political campaigns.
And they'll wreck the Liberals' credibility on those issues where Harper should be held to account, like his support for sending Canadian troops to fight alongside the Americans in Iraq.
The attack ads say Harper wanted to send Canadian forces into Iraq - true - and wants to limit abortion rights (false), wants to ally with the Bloc Québécois (irrelevant, since the Bloc won't work with any federalist party) and wants to spend heavily on military hardware (true). All this in front of scenes suggesting health care disaster and a dissolving Canadian flag and .
Scare tactics make the attacking party look both desperate and devoid of their own ideas. And their hysteria means that legitimate criticisms are written off as more of the same political smears.
In fact, there are legitimate issues the Liberals could be raising.
Harper's support for the war in Iraq, for one. He accepted claims of weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat - claims now proved false. His statements at the time suggest that if he had been prime minister, Canadians would be fighting and dying in Iraq, and our role in the world permanently altered.
That issue leads to an examination of Harper's pledge for a massive increase in military spending. The Conservative platform calls for an immediate 10-per-cent jump, an extra $1.2 billion a year. Over time he wants to see spending increased by $8 billion a year - a 67-per-cent jump. The number of troops would increase by one-third, to 80,000.
None of the other parties propose such a massive increase.
My guess is Harper is out-of-step with most Canadians. Voters do believe that the military should be properly equipped, and that soldiers should not be sent on dangerous missions with inadequate support.
But Canada spends $12 billion a year on its armed forces - about $400 per person. Most polls suggest that health care or other quality-of-life issues rank as higher priorities with Canadians.
Both sides on defence spending find statistics to back their views. Most comparable countries do spend a significantly larger share of their GDP on their militaries. And Liberal governments did cut military spending to help balance the budget.
But Canada is still 11th out of 19 NATO countries in military spending, and in the top 10 per cent of countries around the world.
So why the need for so much more money?
The military's current mission includes three tasks - protecting Canada, defending North America in co-operation with the U.S. and contributing to peace and international security.
But the conventional military threat against Canada and North America seems remote. And there is little evidence that the best way to deal with any threats that do emerge is by adding thousands of permanent troops, or committing to more costly initiatives like the $10-billion frigate program.
And while it is fine that the military has a goal of contributing to peace and international security, it's much less clear that the best way of accomplishing that is with more soldiers and more new weapons. We have only 3,800 troops overseas now - 2,200 in Afghanistan, 200 in the Mideast, 500 in Haiti, 655 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's difficult, important work. But it is a small part of what Canada's military does, and one that could be handled without a massive spending increase.
In fact, Harper needs to explain why the extra $8 billion a year he wants to spend on the military couldn't be used to build peace and security more effectively in other ways. About 7,000 people a day are dying of AIDs in Africa, for example; their security could be helped more by medical and economic aid than more soldiers.
There are some real questions to be answered. Too bad the Liberals are choosing ineffective attack ads instead of asking them.
Footnote: The Liberals' attack ads have an inherent flaw. The party is in trouble in part because voters don't trust Paul Martin and company. But the attack ads will only work if voters believe them - if they trust the source. The only significant effect will be to make the Liberals looked panicky.

Harper does well in the sun, but campaign still just starting

VICTORIA - Quite a sharp contrast between the campaign visits here by Stephen Harper and Paul Martin.
Both men picked seniors' facilities. But, appropriately given the way the campaign is going, Martin came and went under a grey skies and rain while Harper hit town on one of the best days this year.
Martin took only half-a-dozen questions from reporters before climbing back on the bus, while Harper stood around for 40 minutes, long after handlers started looking edgily at their watches. Martin didn't have a whole lot specific to say, while Harper was willing - mostly - to respond directly to questions.
None of it matters that much right now. This is a strangely unformed election campaign. Talking to campaigners for all the parties, it seems the only consistent theme is that voters in B.C. feel more than usually abused by Ottawa. But they haven't yet decided what to do about it, which explains the close results in the polls and the large chunk of undecided voters.
One nice thing about that is that it means B.C. matters. The best seat projections put the Liberals slightly ahead of the Conservatives, 37 seats short of a majority. B.C.'s 34 ridings could make the difference on June 28.
The Liberals made a big push to reach out to the province this week, with the 'Dream Team' - or Parachute Club - candidates unveiling a 'made-in-B.C.' platform. it didn't really say much, waffling on offshore oil and gas, promising some unspecified action on grow ops, better roads between smaller communities and an overhaul of the DFO.
But the platform did raise some obvious questions. If these things are important, why aren't they in the main Liberal platform? And why do we have to send Ujjal Dosanjh, David Emerson and Dave Haggard to Ottawa to fight for the things that Stephen Owen and David Anderson were supposed to be looking after for the past four years?
The whole thing also created the odd sense ot the B.C. wing of the party running against their own party.
So what's your B.C. agenda, Harper was asked? British Columbians, like other Canadians, were mainly angry at an unresponsive federal government, he said. "We run on the same platform everywhere," he said.
Harper wanted to talk about programs for seniors at the Victoria stop. But much of his time was spent defending the Conservatives against Liberal claims that the party had a hidden side, one that ran contrary to Canadian traditions of respect for individual rights.
I'm not sure how successful he was. Several questioners asked him to respond to the comments of Calgary Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant, who had claimed that Canadians who exercised their right to choose an abortion and doctors who performed them were the same as the Iraqi terrorists who chopped off the head of Nicholas Berg.
I have a standing rule not to write about abortion. It does not lend itself to discussion in a 650-word column. But that was a remarkably stupid, hateful and destructive remark.
Harper only said pro-lifers tend to talk that way, and he doesn't think it's very effective. He promised not to introduce legislation changing abortion laws if the Conservatives the government. But if a private members' bill made it on to the floor of the House, he'd allow a free vote, he said.
That's highly unlikely, and it's also highly unlikely that any changes would pass even with a free vote. But Harper's easy tolerance of extreme views on what most Canadians accept as a complex, difficult matter of personal choice will scare many voters.
Not a bad start for the Conservatives. But the real tests will come over the next two weeks as voters try to figure out just what to do when they hunch over their ballots in some school gym, and all the parties try to avoid the kind of major mistakes that can change the campaign in an instant.
Footnote: Harper did come out in favour of offshore oil and gas development, noting the benefits it brought to Atlantic Canada and the provincial government's position. The Liberals are blocking economic growth in B.C., he said, singling out senior minister David Anderson. "A Liberal government, a Mr. Anderson Liberal government, would be disastrous for the economic development of this province."

Harper's big defence plans a reminder of his Iraq war eagerness

VICTORIA - I'm guessing Conservative leader Stephen Harper is badly out of step with most Canadians on defence spending - just as he was when he wanted to join the war on Iraq.
Harper wants to increase military spending by 10 per cent immediately, an extra $1.2 billion a year.
Over time a Conservative government would increase military spending by $8 billion a year, he says, a 67-per-cent jump. We'd hire more soldiers, pushing the ranks from the current 52,000 to 80,000, and sink money into new equipment.
Canadians should ensure that the military has the resources to do the work that we ask them to do. That has not always been true, and it's wrong to send people off on potentially dangerous missions with outdated equipment.
But Canada spends $12 billion a year on its armed forces - about $400 per capita. And despite the efforts of a strong defence lobby, most polls show that Canadians think the spending priority should be health care or other programs to improve our quality of life.
It's easy to pluck statistics from the air to prove that Canada spends too little, or too much, on the military. Most comparable countries spend a significantly larger share of their GDP on their military. And Liberal governments did sharply reduce military spending through the '90s to elminate the deficit.
But Canada still ranks 16th on a list of 160 countries around the world in defence spending. We're 11th out of 19 in spending among NATO countries. The number of troops puts us in the top third of European and North American countries.
For an alleged fiscal conservative, Mr. Harper's posiiton is surprising.
Because surely before we introduce massive military spending increase, we need to decide what we want our military to do.
The current mission includes three tasks - protecting Canada, defending North America in co-operation with the U.S. and contributing to peace and international security.
Protecting Canada - and North America - against who, exactly? There's no evidence of any conventional military threats (and despite the fears, there's also little evidence of any real terrorist threats).
And there is even less evidence that the best way to deal with the threats of the new century is by increasing the number of conventional troops, or spending billions on arms programs - like the Navy's $10-billion frigates - that appear firmly aimed at the issues of the past.
It's laudable that the military has a goal of contributing to peace and international security.
But what is the best way of accomplishing that goal? Today we have fewer than 4,000 troops overseas - 2,200 in Afghanistan, 200 in the Mideast, 500 in Haiti, 655 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's difficult, dangerous work. It is also a small component of what Canada's military does, and one that could be handled within the current budget. (Or certainly without a 67-per-cent increase.)
And perhaps an extra $8 billion a year could be used much more effectively to build peace and security. Supporting health care in struggling countries, or providing assistance in developing an economic infrastructure and effective market economy might be much more effective. (Accepting the reality that sometimes people with guns are the only thing standing between chaos and security.)
It all seems very risky political ground for Mr. Harper, who is the only leader proposing major military spending increases.
For he is also the only leader who - based on his statements at the time - would have sent Canadian troops to join the war on Iraq. Mr. Harper placed a priority on standing with the U.S., even without UN support for an invasion, and believed the claims of imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction.
If he had been prime minister, Canadian troops would now be in Iraq. Some would already have died.
In a campign where the parties have much in common, that's a defining difference.
And it is likely one that many Canadians will remember as they assess the parties' position on the role - and cost - of the military.
- From the Vancouver Sun, June 5

The Ramsey horror: inquiry needed into whole affair

VICTORIA - There's no way former judge David Ramsey's jail sentence for sexually assaulting and beating girls and young women girls should end this case.
Ramsey's actions were inhuman. He preyed on young aboriginal sex trade workers and then sat in judgment on them in his Prince George courtroom.
One girl was 12 when Ramsey picked her up and paid her for sex. Three months later, he sat on the bench as the girl was brought before him to face minor charges.
And weeks after that hearing - when he had learned of her age, her past sexual abuse, her hard life, her vulnerability - Ramsey recognized her and picked her up again. That time, he paid for rough sex that ended when she fled.
"Go ahead, tell someone," Ramsey told the child. "No one will believe you - once a whore, always a whore."
He was very nearly right. The abuse started in 1992. The RCMP heard rumours of a bad judge in 1999 - although it's hard to see how the information wouldn't have been floating around in a town of 80,000 much earlier.
But even with the specific and persistent rumours, it took three years for the police to identify the judge and lay charges. The officer in charge said they just had rumours to work with, and other cases to investigate.
In fact the case didn't really move forward until another of the victims, appearing before Ramsey in a hearing that would decide whether she could have custody of her child, collapsed outside court and agreed to testify against him.
Attorney General Geoff Plant said the government will review Ramsey's decisions. That's appropriate. Ramsey made decisions affecting these young women. He sentenced other people for sexually abusing young girls, and for pimping - and then went out and preyed on other women.
But it is not nearly enough.
First Nations want a full inquiry, and they are absolutely right.
The RCMP need to explain exactly what they heard, when and what they did about it. The public needs to know how this could continue for at least eight years. Where were the social agencies who worked with the girls? Why were children able to sell themselves on the streets of a small city? Are there more victims? (Native health workers have said they have heard from another 16 girls with similar stories.)
And how did the fact that the girls were aboriginal and sex trade workers affect the handling of this case?
It's not an isolated incident.
Similar concerns have been expressed about the Vancouver missing women's case, including complaints that police were given warnings that should have raised alarms much earlier.
But sex trade workers don't count as much as the rest of us. No reasonable person could believe that if 50 women from Vancouver's suburbs had gone missing over the same period much more would have been done by police. (And much more attention would have been paid by the media.).
It's tempting to call for a much broader inquiry. First Nations' leaders have complained of a two-tier standard of justice which treats crimes against aboriginals less seriously. Sex trade workers - and remember, prostitution is not illegal - have raised similar concerns.
But looking at those broad issues through a formal inquiry would likely be long, costly and inconclusive.
Instead, et's get answers to how this happened in Prince George, through a public inquiry with the power to call witnesses and compel them to testify. Let's give everyone in the community a chance to come forward and tell what they know.
Ramsey counted on the powerlessness of his victims, which is in turn a product of our willingness to pretend they just don't exist as people, as someone's lost children.
If there is no inquiry, we are saying that he was right. We don't care.

What's wrong with B.C's economy - maybe it's you

Whatever you do, my partner says to me, don’t call us lazy. Okay. British Columbians are not lazy. We just don’t work as hard at our jobs as other people, that’s all. We come up a bit short in the drive department, you might say. We care about quality of life, not crass success. We lead balanced lives, not like those workaholics in Toronto. Which is all very nice. But if you really want to know why B.C. under-performed for two decades, then put down this magazine and go look in the mirror.
- A look at the kind of people who end up in B.C., and why we doom the province to be an economic also-ran.
Pick up this month's BC Business magazine for the complete article.

BCMA wait-list campaign a sure winner with public

VICTORIA - Give the Liberals full marks for avoiding a pre-election battle with the BC Nurses Union.
But don't bet any money on them being quite so successful with the doctors.
The deal with the nurses works for both sides. The union and government have agreed on no changes to wages and benefits. If they can't reach agreement on other issues, the old contract will roll over for another two years.
It's not going to be so easy with the BC Medical Association, which has already launched its PR campaign.
The doctors' agreement expired March 31. A conciliation panel will recommend a settlement. If government says no, doctors are free to launch job action.
From the outside, a deal looks possible. Doctors say they'll accept no fee increases for the first two years of a deal. But while the amount a doctor is paid for fixing a hip wouldn't go up, they do want more money budgeted so the same doctor could fix more hips (and make more money).
It's a pretty good pitch, because it puts doctors and the public on the same side. More new hips means shorter waiting lists.
So far, the government isn't buying. Health Minister Colin Hansen says the doctors are the highest paid in Canada and their funding went up 21-per-cent over three years in the last deal. They should do more surgeries without extra pay. The budget stays frozen.
It's going to be a tough line to hold. Money is available - from Ottawa, and from health sector wage cuts. And the public is likely to accept the idea that someone doing more work should get more money.
The BCMA is certainly off to a fast start in trying for that support. The doctors have been running newspaper ads noting that waiting times for surgery have increased under the Liberals. They commissioned a poll by Ipsos-Reid that confirmed that people feel they are waiting too long and are worried. (It also revealed the Liberals' fatal weakness in this dispute, as we'll see.)
The poll found 91 per cent of British Columbians are concerned about the waiting time for surgery, with 66 per cent "very concerned." Only 40 per cent say they're very concerned about health care costs, the priority the Liberals will be forced to defend.
The BCMA has also launched a campaign for wait list guarantees. Doctors note that the median wait for knee replacement has increased from 21 weeks to 30 weeks since the election; for cardiac surgery the median wait has climbed from 13 to 18 weeks. The wait is longer for almost every procedure.
The BCMA says government should establish a maximum wait time for each procedure. If the system can't deliver, the government commits to paying for an operation outside the province or coming up with some other solution to honour the guarantee
Saskatchewan has already started such a program, and other countries have made them work. Patients at least know where they stand (or lie in pain) and we can have an honest public debate about how long we are prepared to make people wait in the name of cost control.
It's going to be tough for the government to explain why that kind of commitment can't be made in B.C. - especially when 88 per cent of those polled supported the idea.
In fact, it will be tough for the government period. This dispute will come down to a question of who the public supports, doctors or politicians. And doctors almost always win.
The poll asked who should be believed when making pronouncements on how to manage health care. Almost 90 per cent of respondents found their family doctor believable; 77 per cent believed the BCMA. But only 44 per cent found Health Minister Colin Hansen believable. Only 37 per cent said they would believe Gordon Campbell.
If this turns into a battle for public support, the government has already lost.
Footnote:The poll highlighted Campbell's credibility problem. It found 38 per cent of those surveyed found him "not at all believable" as a source of information on managing health care. Hansen fared much better - only 21 per cent found him to be completely lacking in credibility.

Cabinet follies; James risky business; and the Liberals go green

VICTORIA - Random notes from the somewhat quieter halls of power.

The Liberals need to either abandon the great open cabinet meeting experiment, or decide to do it right.
This week's televised meeting was useful enough, an extended public service announcement warning about that only you can prevent forest fires and drought. A succession of cabinet minister stressed the serious risk of both this year, even greater than during last year's disastrous summer. They made good points about the need to be careful in the woods, and use less water.
But it sure wasn't - I hope - a cabinet meeting. The ministers read long speeches. Environment Minister Bill Barisoff had some 700 bottles of water lugged in to show how much water an average British Columbians uses each day. No decisions were actually made. If that's how cabinet meetings work, we're in trouble.
The Liberals promised a monthly open, televised meeting to show how government works.
It was a good idea, even accepting that there would be stage management. No one should expect spirited public battles (although it would do a great deal to reassure voters if they did see cabinet ministers challenging each other and asking hard questions).
But the reality has been show-and-tell sessions, with this week's the most obvious example. It's time for the government to start doing it right, or abandon the idea.

The biggest winner out of the meetings so far has been Pro Show, the company that provided stage management - sound systems, lights, slide shows - for the Liberals' election campaign. The company was also hired to stage the open cabinet meetings, a contract worth about $25,000 a pop. There was a competition this year for the contract, but it was tilted heavily to ensure the Liberals' campaign technical team got the job.

NDP leader Carole James hit the campaign trail with federal leader Jack Layton this week, a risky decision.
Provincial and federal politics mix badly in B.C. (Just ask federal Environment Minister David Anderson, who has been slagging the Campbell Liberals in order to establish the difference.)
James is running to form a government, which means she needs policies that will attract broad support. Layton is running to win a couple of dozen seats at best, which means he needs to appeal to a much tinier group and motivate them to get out and vote.
The risk for James is that her endorsement of Layton's policies - like an inheritance tax, which most economists agree is a bad way to raise money - will move her to the margins in B.C.
It's a risk the Liberals hope to exploit, with one press release already accusing James of guilt by association on the inheritance tax idea.

Bad news for fading federal Liberal star candidate Dave Haggard, the IWA head, as the campaign unfolds. Haggard and the IWA have been helping the provincial Liberals privatize health care jobs by signing favorable contracts with the new private companies taking over the work, and forcing employees to accept them - and agree to pay IWA dues - before they are hired.
The Labor Relations Board has just ruled the union certifications are bogus, because employees had no right to decide if they wanted a union, or which one, and no chance to vote on the contracts (which slashed wages and benefits).

The Liberals were getting grudging credit from enviros this week for killing a plan for an open-pit coal mine close to the U.S. border in the Fernie area. Mines Minister Richard Neufeld made the announcement last week, finishing off a project that would have provided 1,500 direct and indirect jobs.
U.S. opposition was a big factor. Montana environmental groups were gearing up for a fight, and state politicians had even got U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to write Ottawa.
But MLA Bill Bennett had also raised concerns from people in his riding that the mine would be risky in an environmentally sensitive area that's needed for grizzly habitat.
Footnote: Best line at the open cabinet meeting came from Gordon Campbell. When Finance Minister Gary Collins asked how much rain would be needed to ease the drought, Campbell jumped in to say probably 40 days and 40 nights, a wry reference to the series of Biblical type plagues and catastrophes that have beset the Liberals.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Politicians' decisions - and ours - do bring death

VICTORIA - Paul Martin rolled into Victoria this week, planning to talk about health care but ending up defending himself from Jack Layton's charge that he'd caused 100 people to die in Toronto.
A low blow, Martin called it, and the kind of politics that discourages young voters.
And inaccurate, he added.
The accuracy takes some sorting out. Layton, the NDP leader, said Martin had cut social housing spending when he was finance minister in order to balance the budget. In the aftermath, more people were forced on to the streets and 100 more people died in Toronto.
Martin says the Liberal government spent lots of money on housing. It was the Mulroney government that made cuts, the Liberals added.
The bottom line is that it's tough to prove or disprove Layton's charge. Since it's such a serious - and specific - accusation, that makes it reckless.
But the notion that somehow we shouldn't raise such issues, or use such language, is wrong.
There are real consequences to many political decisions, and we need to be able to acknowledge them.
When governments decide against spending enough money to bring down surgical wait lists, some people will die while they are waiting. Even if urgent cases are dealt with quickly, it's a statistical certainty that misjudgments will be made or unexpected complications will strike. People will die because of the decision not to pay for needed surgery.
That's why government is important, and difficult. In some ministries - health, children and families, human resources - many choices involve life and death decisions, with no easy answers.
Take child protection. Place a priority on keeping children with their families and you will likely have greater overall success than if you take children into government care at the first sign of problems. But some children will suffer, even die, as a result. The choice is difficult because some of the children taken into government care will also suffer and die - their death rate is much higher than the norm.
These are all tough choices. Fund a first-rate counselling team for every high school in the province and you'll save lives, keeping at least some youths from drug abuse or suicide. Triple the number of addiction treatment beds and fewer people will die of drug overdoses and health problems related to a dangerous life. Upgrade military equipment and you'll avoid deadly accidents.
The challenge for government is to reflect our views about how far we're prepared to go and how much we're prepared to spend in saving lives, and where the most effective efforts can be made.
It's unrealistic to argue there should be no limit to our efforts. People don't want to hand all their money over to government so that every possible measure to save lives can be taken.
But it's dangerous to claim that even a discussion of the reality - as Martin suggests - is somehow off limits.
Of course if we're going to impose this kind of disciplined honesty on politicians, we need to hold ourselves up to the same kind of scrutiny. You could go out to a movie this weekend with the family and drop $50, or you could send a cheque for the same amount to one of a number of effective charities and aid organizations - and save lives. Your individual choice is no different than the politicians' choice on your behalf.
It's a favorite rhetorical question - "How many more must die before. . . ."
But we'd have a better public debate, and better public policy, if we made more of an effort to answer the question in some specific way.
It shouldn't be off limits to suggest that politicians' decisions carry consequences, and those consequences include death.
It's simply an acknowledgment of reality. And an election campaign based on reality will produce much better results than one based on a fantasy world where everything is possible, and no decision carries negative consequences.

First Nations learn from enviro campaigns, target Olympics

VICTORIA - So I was driving down to the legislature, radio a little too loud, when the call came. Forest Minister Mike de Jong would be available in 15 minutes to talk about agreements with First Nations.
I'm always glad of an easy story. And once I arrived, I got an email about a First Nations' protest outside the legislature at noon. That meant there should be a hook for the story. So down to de Jong's office I went, along with a fair crush of the media pack.
it was a pre-emptive strike. De Jong announced a forestry deal with the Bonaparte Band that should be worth $1.8 million, the forty-eighth such agreement. The government and First Nations have been working together well, he said.
Not a bad message. But then - and this is a character trait of this government - de Jong went too far.
But what about the Title and Rights Alliance protest, asked a reporter? "It's sad that there are people who seem more content to continue to engage in inflammatory statements than actually getting down to the tough work involved in moving forward," the minister said. "A group has always found it more attractive to yell and scream and shout rather than sitting down and negotiating difficult deals." First Nations leaders who didn't sign these deals were betraying their people, de Jong suggested.
It seemed, even at the time, to be foolishly provocative. Why pick a needless fight if things are going so well with most First Nations?
But I bought it. First Nations' politics are complicated (like all politics). And there are some leaders - Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, for example -who can be counted on to be usually irate.
Then noon came around, and I made it out a little late through the front door of the legislature. I was trapped in a crowd of people in red t-shirts on the steps of the legislature, but climbed over a small wall and made it down to the bottom of the steps, where the TV guys were clustered around the speakers.
And there was Phillip. But beside him, among other leaders, was Ed John of the First Nations Summit. Up on the steps was the chief of the Bonaparte Band - the people de Jong had pointed to evidence that everything was working. Judging by the way he was drumming, the chief was not as convinced.
It's a singular achievement, to bring together B.C.'s often divided First Nations. And de Jong's comments looked both provocative and wrong.
The Liberals had appeared to be making good progress with First Nations. Four treaty agreements in principle, several hundred deals offering economic benefits, generally a stable relationship.
But the protest, part of a caravan to Victoria organized by the fledgling Title and Rights Alliance, indicated that could all be unraveling. The First Nations claimed the governments have been refusing to negotiate, presenting take-it-or-leave-it proposals.
The governments should be, as the young people say, freaked.
United First Nations will be a huge problem in the next year for the Liberals.
Especially united First Nations that are prepared to take lessons from the various enviro groups that have figured out how to steer B.C. policy The alliance is taking advice from veteran environmental campaigners who have experience in cranking up the pressure on a wide range of fronts.
Speakers talked about showing up at forest company annual meetings to raise concern about harvesting on land that's part of treaty talks. They threatened consumer boycotts and international campaigns.
And they pointed to the Olympics as a rare opportunity to take their case to the world (and put a considerable squeeze on the federal and provincial governments). The enviros have shown that it's easy to get Americans and Europeans all riled up about issues they don't really understand with the right symbols. The protest could be highly effective.
The governments need to find a way to head off this protest, or risk serious damage.
Footnote The alliance is getting technical support from the Dogwood Initiative's WIll Horter, a long-time forestry campaigner formerly of Forest Futures and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, and advice from other veterans of environmental campaigns. It's a support group with a track record of effectiveness in getting issues before the public.

Sorry, but you need to pay attention to this election

VICTORIA - OK, so you never really wanted to start the summer with a federal election.
Especially a summer election with such a difficult set of choices spread before you. Except for the hard-core partisans, the people who treat politics like some sort of game, there's a broad sense that we're left with an uninspiring set of options. Paul Martin has dithered about when the election would be held, and what's it about. Stephen Harper and the new Conservatives - sounds a bit like a British New Wave band - spook many voters, who wonder if Canadian soldiers would be mired in Iraq today if Harper had been prime minister. And Jack Layton and the New Democrats remain out-of-focus.
But it's your job to figure out who would best represent you and cast a vote June 28. And despite the challenges, it's pathetically lame to decide to ignore the whole thing and let other people decide what kind of country you're going to live in. (Certainly, the choices may be limited; that doesn't change the reality that this is your best opportunity.)
It's especially important because this time your vote may matter on a national scale. We're used to everything being decided on the basis of the big chunk of seats in Ontario and Quebec. But this time the polls indicate the outcome of the election is in doubt, and a minority government - at least - is a real possibility
That means B.C.'s 36 seats could decide the kind of government Canada will have for the next several years (or several months, I suppose, if we get a particularly unworkable minority government).
And within B.C., the race is extremely close. The most recent Ipsos-Reid voter survey found Liberal support at 33 per cent, the Conservatives at 31 per cent and the New Democratic Party at 27 per cent.
That's a big swing from the actual B.C. vote in the 2000 election, which was 49 per cent Alliance, seven per cent Conservative, 28 per cent Liberal and 11 per cent New Democrat. That translated into 27 seats for the Alliance-Conservatives, five for the Liberals and two for the NDP.
This time, about half the seats in the province are too close to call today. and those seats could decide what the next government of Canada will look like.
So it's up to you.
It's a big challenge. A remarkable amount of rubbish will be spoken by the candidates over the next five weeks, covered with great seriousness and even commented on by people like me.
Your best hope is to pick a couple of issues you think are most important - perhaps a rational plan for health care, or integrity in government, or a voice for the West and B.C. in Ottawa. That doesn't mean you'll be blind to the rest of the issues; but it will give you a fighting chance of coming up with an informed vote on the subjects that are most important to you.
If that doesn't lead you to a decision on which party to support, you can also look closely at your local candidates and see if that tips the balance. On many issues the three main parties offer little to differentiate themselves. Your vote could come down to which person would do the best job of taking your views to Ottawa.
These are discouraging days for a voter, who have to penetrate the carefully crafted party statements that say as little as possible and then try and judge whether the leaders actually have any intent of doing what they say. (Martin was big on fixing the democratic deficit, for example, but then walked all over democracy to appoint his hand-picked candidates in B.C. ridings.)
But it still matters. It's still your job to sort through the information and make the best choice for your community, and your country.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
Footnote: Your vote also has a cash value this time around. New political funding rules means parties that meet a minimum threshold will get $1.75 per vote each year in funding. Even if your candidate is destined to be a hopeless also-ran, the simple act of voting will give the party extra cash to make an impact over the next four years.

Liberals' arrogance could cost them next vote

VICTORIA - If the Liberals take such pride in a business-like approach, how come they haven't learned one of the most basic business lessons?
The Ipsos-Reid poll this week didn't just show the NDP ahead. It found that more than one-third of the people who voted Liberal in 2001 have quit supporting the party.
The Liberals seemed genuinely unperturbed. It's normal for support for a governing party between elections, they said — forgetting that in B.C. it's also normal for the governing party to be defeated when the election comes round. People just haven't recognized that things are better, they say. And anyway, once voters take a harder look at the New Democrats and Carole James they will come back to the Liberals. (Which suggests a campaign slogan along the lines of 'Vote Liberal - The Lesser of Two Evils.')
What's missing is any acknowledgment that the one-third of supporters who have repudiated the party may have some real concerns that need to be addressed. Maybe those 340,000 people have something important to say.
I used to run newspapers. And if one-third of our regular readers had quit buying, I'd have wanted to know why. And how to win them back.
British Columbians are both the customers and shareholders of government. But there's no acknowledgment from the Liberals that their dissatisfaction matters, that anything needs to change, or that mistakes have been made. No one apologizes for broken promises, or acknowledges that many people have not seen the promised improvements in their lives.
Premier Gordon Campbell speaks of a rising optimism, of people beginning to see real benefits.
But one-third of the people who voted Liberal disagree. And even if they're expert in nothing else, you have to concede that they likely know more about their own lives than government.
Their perception is reinforced by the recent BC Progress Board report. The board is an extremely useful Liberal creation that uses objective indicators to rate B.C.'s performance in a number of areas against other provinces.
While there are encouraging signs, progress is slow. B.C.'s economic growth in 2003 was fourth strongest in Canada, up from eighth in 2002. We moved up one place to sixth in employment. Both are positive changes, but not likely to produce the kind of sweeping optimism Mr. Campbell hopes for in the runup to next May's election.
The most critical measurement of Liberal effectiveness is likely business investment. The tax cuts and deregulation efforts were all intended to produce badly needed investment, creating jobs and a stronger, more diversified economy. Again, there are signs of progress. Per capita business investment increased 5.9 per cent last year, the third strongest growth among the provinces. But that wasn't enough to move B.C. out of its sixth place standing.
And the province slid backwards, relative to other provinces, in both productivity and research and development spending.
There are lots of legitimate explanations for the slow progress, from the many external factors buffeting B.C. to the simple reality that economies are difficult to change. And there are some hopeful signs, like the RBC Economic forecast this week that the province would have the best growth in Canada in 2005, at 3.5 per cent.
But the statistics make the Liberals' claim that people across the province are seeing significant change in their lives look delusional. The employment rate, according to the Progress Board, is pretty much the same as it has been for the past decade. That's the reality that people see, despite Liberal news releases touting monthly job growth.
The Liberals are refusing to acknowledge that, just as they are refusing to accept that the huge number of people who no longer support the government may have legitimate reasons. They are unable to admit error, apologize for mistakes, or learn from missteps.
And as a result they raise the spectre of a government defeating itself by refusing to listen to and respect the views of the electorate.

Liberals ignoring message in falling poll standings

VICTORIA - The Liberals seem genuinely - and bafflingly - at ease in the face of the latest poll that shows they could lose the election next May.
And their reaction helps explain why voters are deserting the party.
The Ipsos-Reid poll is the first to show that the New Democrats have taken a clear lead over the Liberals. They have the support of 44 per cent of decided voters; Liberal support has fallen to 37 per cent.
The news is even bleaker across what the Liberals used to call the Heartland. Carole James and the New Democrats are at 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland, while the Liberals have fallen to 33 per cent. Unless those numbers change 20 to 25 Liberal MLAs outside the Lower Mainland will be gone after the election.
So what do the Liberals say?
First, they point out that governments traditionally lose popularity during their term. "Part of a normal cycle," said Economic Development John Les, a comment echoed by other ministers.
That's only partly true. A year before the last election the NDP was down to 16-per-cent support; they barely climbed to 22 per cent in the actual vote. And it ignores the reality that for B.C., that "normal cycle" ends in the defeat of the government after one term.
Second, they say that voters will return to them when the NDP has to come up with some specific policies and people remember just how bad the previous government was.
That may be. It's hard to believe that the voters could go from detesting the New Democrats to welcoming them back in just four years. (The emergence of many members of that bumbling government as potential NDP candidates is great news for the Liberals.)
But it's risky to base your election optimism on the idea that people will eventually decide they have to vote for you because they have no other choice. That kind of support can easily be lost.
And finally the Liberals say the public has got it wrong. We just haven't noticed yet how much better things are today than they were three years ago, and once we do Liberal support will surge.
That last response illustrates one reason the Liberals are doing so badly in the polls.
About 1.6 million people voted in the last election; about 930,000 of them voted Liberal, a huge show of support.
But based on the latest poll, more than one-third of those people have decided they no longer support the party.
Implicit in all the Liberal responses is that those people have got it wrong. They don't understand what the government is doing. They haven't recognized how much better their lives are.
It's a response that reinforces the impression that the government doesn't care what the public thinks, that is distant and arrogant and rigid. It adds to the perception that this is a government that is so certain that it is right that it no longer listens to people with a different view.
The fact is that some 340,000 people who supported the Liberals three years ago have decided the government has failed them.
None of the Liberals who responded to the poll suggested that it might be useful to figure out why these people have decided the government is doing a bad job. None of the MLAs or cabinet ministers suggested that maybe the government needs to listen to these people, and learn why they think the government has lost its way. None of them suggested that these people might have good reasons for withdrawing their support.
That doesn't mean government by poll; principles remain important.
I used to manage newspapers. And if one-third of the customers quit reading the newspaper, I'd want to find out why. And I would figure that we were doing something wrong, and better fix it.
The Liberals should want to know why the people they serve are giving them failing grades.
Footnote: The Green Party is down to 11 per cent support, from a high of 20 per cent. That's good news for the NDP. The Unity Party stood at five per cent provincially and eight per cent ourside the Lower Mainland. That in turn is bad news for the Liberals, who could lose support to Unity.

Anderson's offshore opposition plaguing Campbell

VICTORIA - The BC Liberals may officially be neutral in the coming federal election, but many of them will be rooting for Environment Minister David Anderson to lose his Victoria seat.
Anderson is waging a one-man campaign against offshore oil and gas development in B.C., at least according to Premier Gordon Campbell.
Anderson claims to be open-minded. We just don't know enough to consider lifting the 30-year-old ban on development, he says.
But the provincial Liberals - and a lot of people from all parts of the political spectrum in coastal B.C. - are convinced that Anderson's position is a scam. They believe, with considerable justification, that the career politician is dug in on the issue, and no matter how much information is brought forward he's going to call for more.
Anderson dove into the offshore waters again this week. He sent a memo to all the nominated Liberal candidates advising them that until the "knowledge gaps on the risks involved, the resources at stake, and the economic and social factors that might have a bearing" are filled the ban stays put.
The BC Liberals have been getting increasingly frustrated with Anderson's position. They want the moratorium lifted now, to allow work by 2010.
Partly, they just think he's wrong. The provincial Liberals point to a recent Royal Society of Canada report as the latest in a string of studies that have concluded that with proper controls the moratorium could be safely lifted. And the Liberals note that around the world - from the deep waters off Newfoundland to the shallow banks around Scandinavia - development has gone ahead successfully.
The Liberals are also convinced that no amount of information would change Anderson's mind or remove his obstructionism.
It's a reasonable conclusion, based on his statements and actions. If Anderson is concerned about the "knowledge gaps," it is well within his ability to address them. Instead of sniping at the province, he could commission the studies he believes are needed to determine if offshore development is possible.
The comments from BC Liberals like Energy Minister Richard Neufeld are getting increasingly cranky about Anderson.
Campbell says he's getting much more positive comments from other federal Liberals, including Prime Minister Paul Martin.
But there's no sign of their briefing notes to Liberal candidates offering an alternative to Anderson's negative comments on the possibility of offshore oil and gas development any time soon. They haven't rebuffed Anderson's attempts to downplay the significance of the federal panel now holding hearings on the issue. He's the one speaking for the federal government, and he's saying no.
Offshore oil and gas development is going to be an emotional, controversial issue. And federally and provincially, it involves lots of political risks.
But the evidence, based on independent studies on the B.C. issues and the industry's global track record, increasingly indicates that safe development, under appropriate regulations, is possible.
The potential is enormous. The reserves are estimated at 9.8 billion barrels of oil, a resource worth some $110 billion. That's 10 times the size of the Hibernia field that has brought an offshore boom to the East Coast.
Coastal communities need the help. The coastal forest industry continues to struggle, the fishery has been through a decade of decline and even tourism has failed to recover. Offshore oil is seen as one of the last best hopes for a number of desperate communities.
Campbell is going to get that message again next week, when he heads to the northwest for a joint cabinet meeting with Alberta Premier Ralph Klein in Prince Rupert. The premier's agenda will include some fundraisers and other activities in the region. He's going to hear a lot about the region's economic crisis.
Offshore energy isn't the only answer. And even with federal co-operation, the 2010 timeline is probably unrealistic.
But it does offer huge potential benefits. And as long as Anderson is speaking for Ottawa, any chance of progress seems remote.
Footnote: Opposing any offshore development makes sense politically for the federal Liberals. They have no realistic chance of winning seats in B.C.'s regions, but hope for success in Vancouver and Victoria. But the economic problems - and sense of alienation - in the rest of B.C. will be worsened if they have to live with policies shaped to please people who live in the big cities.