High school testing up to government, not union

VICTORIA - You've got two different issues in the current spat between the B.C. government and the teachers' union over province-wide testing for Grade 10 students.
On one level the debate is about whether the tests makes sense and will help students leave school with a better education.
At the same time, it's about who runs the school system and sets standards - the BC Teachers' Federation or the government.
I have my own unpleasant memories of provincial exams. I moved from Ontario to Quebec for my last year of high school, happy product of a system in which you didn't have to write any final exam at all if you muddled through the school year with half-decent marks.
But in Quebec - as well as having to wear a jacket, shirt and tie in a public high school - I found that in every course, your mark was based entirely on a single provincial exam. Bad news for those people who panicked, or happened to have the flu that day.
B.C. isn't going nearly that far. The newest provincial exams, for Grade 10 students, cover math, sciences and English language skills. They only count for 20 per cent of a students' mark for the year, and it's not necessary to pass the test - or even write it, for that matter - to pass the year. When the tests were used on a pilot basis last year, the pass rate ranged from a high of 89 per cent in English to a low of 76 per cent in science.
The education ministry says the exams will help make sure all students are leaving high school with basic skills.
The test results will also continue to be available by school and district, like the FSA tests they have replaced, so parents - and districts - can see how they are doing at educating students.
It seems like a reasonable set of goals.
But the BC Teachers' Federation disagrees, and is urging its members not to mark the essay answers that are part of the English exams. (Everything else is marked by machines.) If ordered to mark the exams, teachers are supposed to "comply with the order under protest."
The union's objections is only partly to the exams themselves. They also oppose a change that requires students to pass Grade 10 courses in English, Science, Social Studies, Math, Planning and Phys Ed as part of the qualifications for a high school diploma.
The Grade 10 courses are tougher than some of the options available to students in Grade 11 and 12, the teachers' federation says. Now, students can be fail the Grade 10 courses and be enrolled in less demanding courses in Grade 11 and 12. They can still pass those, and get a high school diploma. Without that alternative, the struggling students may just drop out.
It's a legitimate debate, and one that teachers have an important role in. A high school diploma has to mean something in terms of basic skills; the issue is whether the bar being set in requiring all students to pass a half-dozen Grade 10 courses is reasonable and useful. (Does it really make sense, for example, to deny a student a high school diploma because she failed Grade 10 phys ed or the traditionally lame Planning course?)
But teachers are just one voice in the discussion, and their opinions are compromised by their consistent opposition to any sort of external testing or evaluation of students - and implicitly of the relative effectiveness of teachers and schools. Parents and the community have a right to independent assessment of just how well children are learning.
The dispute comes against a background of wretched relations between this government and the teachers' federation. Both sides share the blame for that state of affairs.
But ultimately, the decision on what testing is required to ensure educational success rests with the government, not the BC Teachers' Federation.
Footnote: The wider issue is the ridiculous emphasis put on highly unreliable high school marks as an indicator of future success. Universities and colleges rely almost entirely on Grade 12 marks to admit students, a process that leaves some of the brightest and best stranded on the sidelines.

Government is a pimp for desperate women from other countries

VICTORIA - Most Canadians would be dead ashamed to know that their government is playing pimp to desperate women from around the world.
But it is, helping to recruiting 665 women last year to come to Canada and work in sleazy strip clubs, doing lap dances and more for half-drunk men.
Federal Immigration Minister Judy Sgro is in trouble for allegedly giving preferential treatment to one of those women, a Romanian stripper who worked on her election campaign.
But that's not the real scandal.
For seven years now the Canadian government has been a partner in the global sex trade, offering special two-year immigration permits to women recruited to come here and work in strip clubs. Send a naked picture to immigration officials - that's demanded to prove that you're willing to do the work - and the usually tough immigration rules are relaxed.
The special visa program is supposed to cover jobs that Canadians can't or won't do.
But strip club owners have managed to convince the federal government that they should have the right to hunt the world for desperate women to work the floors of their bars. It is a national disgrace.
It's no coincidence that the program started seven years ago. University of Toronto la professor Audrey Macklin, who has studied the issue, says that's when strip clubs began demanding contact with customers and sex acts from dancers. They couldn't find Canadian women willing to enter this new branch of the sex trade, so they appealed to the Liberal government for help. And to their shame, the government said yes.
Anyone who spent even one moment thinking about the implications of this program for the women would know it's a disaster. Young women are recruited from Costa Rica or Mexico or Romania, either by local agents or brokers who travel from Canada to find them and recruit them to work in Canadian bars.
It's all legal. The government issues visas - once immigration officials see the nude photo and a job offer - and the women are brought here. They know no one, often speak little English and are completely dependent on the brokers, who arrange apartments - often over-priced - tell them where to work and generally control their lives. They are sent back home if they stop working, or complain about being forced into the sex trade.
It is a formula for exploitation.
The government can't plead ignorance. Almost from the time the program began, police and others have been warning that the women were being exploited and coerced into the sex trade.
Six years ago the RCMP, immigration officials and Toronto-area police launched a major investigation that found many of the women were sex slaves, exploited and abused with no way out. They were recruited to dance - or in some cases told they would be cleaning, or singing in clubs - and ended up working as prostitutes.
Other investigations have revealed the same pattern of abuse and exploitation. Once they are here, the women are controlled and pressured to perform sex acts with the bar's customers. Saying no means deportation, at best. Canadians could walk away from the demands; these women can't
Incredibly, Sgro still defends the program. Strip bars are "a strong industry," she says, and if they need help recruiting young women from poor countries as fresh meat, then the Canadian government will be there for them.
Imagine someone you love so desperate that she agrees to be treated this way, and how you would feel about the government that was a partner in her debasement.
Others claim the program offers the women an opportunity. But if Canada cared for one second about the women, it could offer visa programs that would allow them a chance to use other skills in in this country. Instead, it wants sex trade workers.
Canada mouth its opposition to the global sex trade, and trafficking in women.
But its actions show it for just another pimp.
Footnote: The sex bar business does have clout; Sgro's top aide went to a strip bar to meet with a disgruntled owner. But it's time politicians heard from Canadians who don't want their government sponsoring global trafficking in women for the sex trade. Sgro's email address is sgro.j@parl.gc.ca and Prime Minister Paul Martin's is martin.p@parl.gc.ca.

Surplus good news, but puts Liberals to test

VICTORIA - It should be unalloyed good news that the B.C. government is heading towards a $2.2 billion surplus this year.
Instead, the pot of cash holds some big headaches for the Liberals.
Finance Minister Gary Collins and a clutch of finance ministry officials presented the latest budget mid-year report Monday in the basement of the legislature.
It was good news. The surplus, which Collins predicted would be $200 million at the beginning of the fiscal year, looks to be $2.2 billion. Part of that is due to an $800-million one-time boost from Ottawa, but that still leaves a $1.4-billion surplus.
And the latest forecasts show B.C. with the second strongest provincial economy this year and next, trailing only Alberta.
"This is exactly where governments want to be," enthused Collins.
It is handy to be heading into an election with money to spend, but the surplus carries some political risks.
The Liberals are going to be defined by what they decide to do with the money, and it is hugely important to their prospects in the May election.
There are three options, and infinite variations on how they are weighted. Governments can spend surpluses on programs and services to make life better for citizens. They can cut taxes, reducing the revenue governments take in and shrinking future surpluses. Or they can pay down the debt.
What the public wants, based on consultations by the legislature's finance committee, is more spending on health, education, social services and other needs. The committee's responses showed British Columbians wanted 80 cents on any surplus dollars to go to services. Debt repayment should get 14 cents and tax cuts six cents, the said.
Though that's only one indicator, as Collins rightly noted Monday, it highlights the problem for the Campbell party
What the Liberals have said over the past three years is that they have not wanted to cut budgets for ministries like children and families. It has been a necessary evil, forced by a lack of money.
What their critics have suggested is that the Liberals simply don't like government, and would prefer a much smaller role for it on principle. (And that they in fact forced that outcome with their first day 25-per-cent tax cut.)
Now both theories will be put to the test. If the Liberals really didn't want to cut the children and families' budget, or funding to women's centres, they can now put the money back. If they never really thought the programs were worth much, they can pay down the debt or offer more tax cuts.
There's no magic formula or right answer. It's always sensible to pay down debt. But the government has already committed $350 million this year and B.C.'s debt is low compared with other provinces, and easily manageable. Some targeted tax cuts might encourage investment, but broadly B.C. is competitive.
That leaves spending increases.
Those are tricky too. A benefit - perhaps intended - of the Liberals' tax cuts is that they forced ministries to reduce spending. It is one rough way of cutting, forcing managers to find a way to get by with less money.
Now the government has a lot of room to spend money on making peoples' lives better.
The LIberals' plan already calls for a program spending increase of almost two per cent in the pre-election budget coming in February. But with the new financial forecasts, the government could easily add six per cent to its spending - enough to eliminate surgical wait lists for most procedures, or offer universal child care, or a huge literacy initiative.
It's a time for real choices, and those are never easy. There are those within the Liberal party who would put both tax cuts and paying down the debt ahead of improving services.
If they win the day then the party will suffer at the polls in May.
Footnote: Collins is now set to earn a place in the B.C. record books as the finance minister who delivered both the largest surplus and the largest deficit in the province's history, in one term. It's a remarkable indication of how extraordinarily volatile the province's economy can be.

Public smoking ban a simple way to save lives, MLAs say

VICTORIA - Pretty brave, those Liberal backbenchers on the health committee who took a stiff shot at their government's smoking policy.
It's been almost three years since the Liberals over-ruled the WCB and said people could go on smoking in bars and restaurants, despite the health risk
The result, based on the latest report from the legislature's health committee, has been more sickness, death and hundreds of millions in health costs.
The committee - 12 Liberal backbenchers and New Democrat Joy MacPhail - has just weighed in with its latest report, focusing on ways of preventing illness and injury.
And although the skittish Liberals stopped short of calling for smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places, they might as well have.
The committee said municipalities should ban smoking, since a provincial government ban might seem too intrusive to some people. (Never mind that other provinces seem to have found the will.)
"More communities should consider banning smoking in all public buildings, particularly in bars and restaurants," the committee recommended.
The most direct beneficiaries would be the people who work in those businesses.
"This move is most important to protect restaurant and bar workers, who must inhale secondhand smoke and risk harm by tobacco's hundreds of toxic elements," the committee warned.
Why do they have to risk harm from toxins? Because the Liberals gave in to a fierce lobby from the industry and - for the first time ever - over-ruled the Workers Compensation Board order that employees not have to work in smoke-filled rooms.
It's not just the employees who are at risk. The committee reports that legislation banning smoking may be the greatest help to smokers who have the most difficulty quitting. A public health study found that 36 per cent of ex-smokers cited legal bans as the prime motivation; smokers who tried to quit were three times more likely to succeed when a ban was in place.
It's not really a question of an individual's right to choose to risk illness. As the committee noted, the current policy puts the health of employees in bars and restaurants at risk.
And anything that encourages smoking, or makes it harder for people to quit, costs us all money. The committee report says that about 16 per cent of British Columbians now smoke; getting that down to 12 per cent would save $160 million a year in direct and indirect health costs, plus much more in lost productivity and social costs.
Sadly, the committee wimped out on advocating a province-wide ban. Instead individual communities should ban smoking, it suggested.
But they've had the chance to do that, and many of them haven't. (Sixteen municipalities across the province have ordered full or partial bans on smoking in enclosed public spaces.) Many of the holdouts complain that a municipal ban penalizes local businesses. If smokers can simply drive outside the city boundaries and smoke in a bar, then establishments in the city will be unfairly penalized.
The committee has delivered a useful report taking aim at our individual responsibility for our own health.
The public debate around health often centres on waiting lists and drug costs and what kind of care we can afford.
But it needs to shift to focus much more on obesity and exercise and healthy food choices, all things that can enhance our individual health and save the system a fortune. Even modest progress on preventing chronic diseases and avoidable injuries, increasing physical activity and reducing obesity and smoking could save close to $1 billion a year.
We spend almost $11 billion on health care in B.C., with more than 97 per cent of that going to treat people when they're already hurt or sick, often from preventable causes. "We have a sickness care system, not a health care system," the committee reported.
The committee wants spending on prevention doubled, to six per cent or $660 million a year.
The government should quickly promise to meet that goal.
Footnote: The committee found up to 40 per cent of chronic diseases could be prevented. Obesity is on track to replace tobacco as the number one preventable killer. More exercise and healthier food choices could do more for health that a dozen MRI machines.

Autism ruling sound; now the province should pay up

VICTORIA - OK, the province doesn't have to pay for treatment that could save autistic children from disastrous lives.
But it should.
The Supreme Court of Canada disappointed parents who hoped it would uphold B.C. court decisions requiring the provincial government to pay for intensive treatment for their autistic children.
The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't guarantee that Canadians will receive the health care they need, the court ruled, only that the provinces will provide core services - the things doctors do, and the care offered by hospitals. Other treatments are optional, and the province's right to say no will be increased if the treatment is new or controversial.
Painful for the families, who say that if their children had cancer they would get treatment without question.
But the ruling is realistic. Governments are elected to make decisions on how much money should be spent, and on what. The charter, and in this case the Canada Health Act, offer minimum guarantees and bar discrimination, but the politicians retain much of the power.
However their exercise of that power should reflect our will, and most British Columbians would support the parents' push for treatment on the grounds of both compassion and common sense.
The parents of four infants diagnosed with autism argued in this case that the government should pay for Lovaas therapy for autistic children, a program that requires intense one-on-one work and costs $45,000 to $60,000 a year. The government will now provide a maximum of $20,000 per year for treatment for children under six. Parents can either scrape up the rest of the money, or accept lesser care.
The therapy was controversial when the court case began under the NDP government, but B.C. courts found that in "some cases" it could produce "significant results."
For a parent, that's enough. Autism remains a baffling syndrome, one that too often locks its victims behind walls, unable to communicate with other people or form relationships, shunned because of odd behaviour. What we do know, the Supreme Court noted, is that 90 percent of untreated autistic children end up in group homes or other residential facilities.
That's not something you or I want for our children. And it is not something, that as a society, we wish upon other people's children.
It's also not something that makes any kind of business sense. The therapy costs about the same, per year, as residential care. A half-dozen years of treatment can head off decades of costly care. The right, and smart, thing to do is to help families help their children when it can make the most difference.
The Liberals used to think that too. About a year before the election Linda Reid - now the junior minister for early childhood development, then the children and families critic - said the province should be paying for the Lovaas therapy if families find it to be the most effective treatment.
"It doesn't work for every child," she said at an autism conference. "In the view of the opposition this has to be a choice for families.'' The NDP - which began the court fight against having to provide the care - was dithering while children and families suffered, Reid said.
None of this is simple. Governments have to choose among competing priorities all the time. Attorney General Geoff Plant says the therapy could cost $250 million a year, instead of the $30 million now spent on autism treatment for about 2,600 children. (Parents put the extra cost much lower, under $100 million.)
But if the treatment could save thousands of children from a difficult and costly life it seems a bargain - just as the Liberals used to argue.
The Supreme Court ruling does reinforce an important principle. We elect governments to make choices about what is important to us as a society, balancing our priorities and concerns.
That's their job, not the courts, and it's a reminder of why politics should matter to us all.
Footnote: The Supreme Court is still weighing an even more critical case about government's obligations. A Quebec man is challenging that province's failure to deliver basic medical care in a timely fashion. The ruling could tilt the health care debate in a whole new direction.

Offshore report weak, bad news for Liberal plans

VICTORIA - That was a disappointing report from the Priddle panel on offshore oil and gas development.
And it's going to pose a huge problem for the Liberals' hopes for offshore riches.
The federal panel was supposed to find out what British Columbians think about development off the B.C. coast, and come up with conclusions and recommendations.
The hearings went OK. But the panel members did a poor job of bringing their expertise to the task of analysing the information and coming up with useful recommendations.
Instead, the panel focused mainly on a count. How many presenters were for lifting the moratorium, and how many against.
Mostly people and organizations were against. Three out of four of the almost 4,000 people who presented to the panel opposed lifting the 30-year-old moratorium on offshore development.
But the panel didn't consider the size of the organizations being represented by presenters. Comments by one concerned person, perhaps with only a limited rationale, were given the same weight as major presentations by organizations like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee or the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.
The panel didn't attempt to analyze the issues, and decide which were critical. And it failed to come up with a clear recommendation on what should happen next. Instead, the panel outlined four options and threw the problem back to the governments.
The report is still useful. It notes, for example, just how deep the divisions are between people on the opposite sides of the issue and warns of the near impossibility of compromise right now. The panel also found that there hasn't been any sort of broad discussion of the issues involved, and said that needs to begin.
But the report is a lot less useful than it should have been. The panel had the expertise. Roland Priddle is a former National Energy Board chair; Diana Valiela practises environmental and natural resource law, and is expert in salmon management and habitat management; and Don Scott is a former Prince Rupert mayor, with a lot of experience in the economic issues of the north coast.
They didn't do enough.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld reacted crabbily to the report, which poses a big threat to Liberal hopes to have offshore development by 2010.
The federal Liberals are already split on the issue, and in no hurry to lift the ban. They now have more reason to delay, able to point to the lack of support within B.C. for any change. (They'll will also be mindful of the potential lost votes in the Lower Mainland when Paul Martin's minority government once again faces the voters.)
The report makes it extremely unlikely that the moratorium will be lifted without a lot more time and work.
That's also the view of former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford, who has been through the process of opening the offshore. Peckford, who lives on Vancouver Island now, says that without broader support governments won't be able to go ahead with offshore drilling. He proposes a two-year review, led by a three-person panel representing both governments and First Nations.
Their job would be to get more information out, encourage discussion, fill the scientific gaps and come up with a recommendation on next steps.
The provincial government wants to go quicker. It sees the potential of tapping offshore oil resources worth up to $110 billion - ten times the potential of the Hibernia field that brought a boom to Canada's East Coast. And it points to the energy industry's success in drilling safely on coastal waters around the world and generally positive scientific reviews on the risks in B.C.
But the moratorium is not going to be lifted anytime soon.
Even with its flaws, the panel's report showed that the B.C. government has to do a much more effective job of increasing public awareness of the issues, and building support, if it hopes to tap the wealth under the ocean floor.
Footnote: The panel came under heavy attack by environmental groups during the hearings, as they complained about Priddle's energy industry connections and Scott's past support for a review of the moratorium. The enviros ended up very happy with the final result.

Court First Nations' rulings set stage for progress

VICTORIA - It's no cure-all, but the Supreme Court of Canada has just made a big contribution to ending some of the uncertainty about land use and First Nations in B.C.
The court weighed in Thursday with two important decisions.
In one, the court rejected the provincial government's claim that it had no legal duty to consult with First Nations before handing over land that they were claiming for development.
The government has an obligation to act honourably, the court said. And it is dishonourable to ignore the rights of people who have lived on the land for centuries and never signed away or sold their rights. (The NDP and Liberals took the same position in this long-running case.)
Score one for the First Nations. It is now law that they have a right to serious consultation and accommodation when changes are planned for any land they are claiming. They have the right to expect proposals to be changed, or cancelled, based on their concerns.
But the court also ruled that First Nations have an obligation to participate in discussions and negotiations aimed at balancing their interests with other factors, including jobs and economic development. They can't just say no, or refuse to enter into talks. They have no veto, and ultimately the government has the right to make land use decisions.
Score one for the government.
The rulings still leave problem areas, which will likely be tested in future court cases.
What is a serious attempt at consultation, and when can government decide it's done all it can to accommodate and simply go ahead?
That depends, the Supreme Court ruled, on how strong the claim is to the land and how serious the long-term effects of development. If there's evidence to suggest that a First Nation has a strong claim to a piece of land, it has a greater right to a be involved in land use decisions. And a First Nation would get a greater say over a mine development than over a temporary road.
The standards aren't definitive, and the government would be wise to accept the court's recommendation that some form of dispute resolution be established. But at least the need for consultation has been established, and some broad guidelines set out.
The Supreme Court also ruled - usefully - that private companies don't have a legal duty to accommodate First Nations' interests. They have the right to rely on the government's efforts when they are granted the right to operate on Crown land.
All those principles were set out in a case involving a dispute between the Haida First Nation and the province and Weyerhaeuser over a timber licence on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
At the same time the court ruled on another similar issue, involving the Tlingit First Nation's opposition to a road needed to re-open a mine in the Taku River valley. The court ruled that the Tlingit had a reasonable claim to the land, and a right to consultation. But the court found that the government had made a reasonable effort to accommodate the band during a three-year environmental assessment review.
Business, First Nations and government all welcome the rulings, each praising a different aspect.
The bottom line is that the decisions remove uncertainty and force government and First Nations to face up to their obligation to deal with critical development issues.
The decisions could also help create pressure for more activity and faster progress at the treaty tables. First Nations can strengthen their right to consultation by showing the strength of their claim to traditional lands, effectively staking their claims.
And government has a powerful incentive to push forward with treaties now that it faces an increased obligation to deal with First Nations even before any agreements are in place.
Solutions are still going to be found through negotiation, not in the courts. But the Supreme Court rulings increase the chance that will happen.
Footnote: A BC Business Council report earlier this year called for the establishment of an "Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Panel" that would bring First Nations, the BC Treaty Commission, federal and provincial governments and the business council together to sort out development issues. The idea looks even more useful now..

MLAs' budget hearings a magical mystery tour

VICTORIA - That was a weird report from the legislative committee that toured the province getting ideas for the coming budget.
They were supposed to listen, and report on the results of the consultations.
But the committee - 14 Liberal backbenchers and New Democrat Joy MacPhail - seemed to get lost between the time they listened to people across the province and the time they wrote their report.
"During the public consultations, the finance committee heard another loud and clear message from rural British Columbia for the provincial government to invest more money in economic development," the MLAs dutifully reported. "Most of the public’s suggestions stressed the importance of enhancing opportunities for smaller, traditionally resource-based communities to diversify their local economies."
Since lots of the MLAs, including chair Bill Belsey of Prince Rupert, hail from those communities, you would think they would heed that "loud and clear" message.
Nope. Their 19 recommendations don't include coming up with economic development help for resource communities. Maybe, the committee suggests, the government could restore funding cut from a program that mapped geological formations. Oh, and it could keep building roads. But no proposal for an economic development plan targeting the needs of B.C.'s regions.
It's not just economic development.
"One message the committee heard in regards to K-to-12 education was the importance of having a class size that is optimal for both students and teachers. Parents and teachers from both rural and urban parts of the province, as well as local chambers of commerce, called for government to reduce the teacher/student ratio," the committee reported. Surely that message got through.
Nope. The committee recommended more money for special education, but offered nothing on class sizes.
How about health care? "Another plea heard by the finance committee was for funding to upgrade or, in some cases, utilize existing diagnostic and other equipment more effectively. The need for more magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment was mentioned repeatedly."
But alas, the committee didn't recommend more funding for needed equipment. Instead it called for the health ministry to "encourage the health authorities to utilize existing diagnostic equipment and surgical facilities more efficiently." (A prize awaits a reader who can explain what that means.)
The committee's task was to listen to British Columbians and "report on the results of those consultations." It heard from almost 2,000 people and organizations. While it is obviously not going to act on the demands of every presenter, you'd expect some reflection of what they heard in the recommendations.
Yet in each of these three critical examples there was a consensus about what needed to happen to improve life in B.C. And without explanation the committee blew those people off.
The committee did have concrete recommendations.
It called for a debt reduction plan, which is useful enough but didn't seem to be a big theme in public presentations. (B.C.'s debt is easily manageable, but it's just common sense to pay down your debts.)
The committee says the government needs to increase funding for intermediate and long-term care beds for seniors, and provide more care and respite help services for people who are staying in their own homes. (The Liberals have failed to deliver on their promise for 5,000 new beds in this sector.)
It called for an end to the cuts that have reduced community living services for people with disabilities and more support for people with multiple barriers to employment.
And - after cuts to women's centres across the province - the committee recommended more services for women and children leaving abusive relations.
I like and admire MLAs for their willingness to take on a tough job and serve.
But despite the usefulness of some of the recommendations, this is a lame report. British Columbians went to some effort to tell the committee what they wanted for the province's future. Their commitment and passion and hope aren't reflected in the committee's recommendations.
Footnote: Based on the committee's findings, the sales tax cut should be the last tax reduction. People who used an on-line form thought only six per cent of expected surpluses should be used to fund tax cuts. They said thought 28 per cent should to health care; 34 per cent to education; and 18 per cent to other spending priorities. They said 14 per cent should go to debt repayment.

Martens' case shows need for right-to-die law

VICTORIA - It strikes me as cruel and wrong that if I am sick and suffering, with no prospects of recovery, I can't take practical steps to end my own life.
It's not a choice I would make for anyone else. And I applaud the efforts to improve palliative care, so death comes with less violence to dignity, and less suffering.
But surely each individual capable of making an informed, rational decision, has the right to decide when it is time to end their own suffering.
We have not really accepted that right in Canada. And it is time people were given the freedom to decide how much suffering they wish to bear.
I stalled on writing about the trial of Evelyn Martens, the 73-year-old woman zealously prosecuted for aiding and abetting a suicide, a charge that can carry a 14-year jail term. It's an issue that inevitably raises issues of belief not readily dealt with in 700 words.
Martens was acquitted this month after a long and trial and longer investigation. She was accused of helping two women commit suicide. One was a 64-year-old nun suffering from chronic pain from a spinal condition; the other was a 57-year-old woman suffering from stomach cancer, who had planned her own farewell for friends
The law is the law, and if prosecutors believed there was enough evidence to ensure a conviction they have a duty to lay charges. But the energy that went into this investigation was extraordinary. An undercover RCMP officer even pretended to be the goddaughter of one of the dead women, sobbing as she told Martens that she felt guilty about not being more caring, while secretly taping the conversation.
Suicide isn't illegal. We have accepted the individual's right to choose, at least in theory.
But practically we've robbed people of that right. Sick and weakened, how is someone to figure out the means, and gather the necessary materials? It's illegal for your doctor to provide you with effective drugs. It's tough to buy heroin from your sickbed. It's hard to find a self-inflicted death that doesn't also inflict pain on others. By the time you recognize the need, it is too late to arrange the means. (I was struck by a magazine article this year on doctors' training. The author, a physician, noted that almost all of the surgeons he had spoken to had their own means of exit in place, in case.)
It's not simple. People must be protected from moments of irrationality, or outside pressure.
But doing nothing is much crueler.
If we do nothing people will suffer in their last days, against their wills and in violation of the way they had lived every day of their lives. Or they will seek out the help of someone like Martens, with no controls or guidelines or safety.
It's not a question of throwing open the doors to all forms of assisted suicide.
Oregon has had a Death with Dignity Act since 1998, and 171 people - 30 a year - have chosen to kill themselves with legally prescribed drugs. Most of them have been cancer patients.
The safeguards ensure informed choice. The law allows the prescription of lethal drugs, but only if two doctors confirm the person has less than six months and is mentally competent to make the request.
The law is a good cautious first step.
Encouragingly almost one-third of the people who received a prescription for the lethal drugs last year didn't feel the need to use them; death came in way they could accept.
There are no simple answers.
But what are doing now is wrong.
People can decide they have had enough - when the pain, and the indignities and the hopelessness and the terror are too much. Or they can decide that each second is to be counted.
It should be a right to make that choice. And we are taking that right away from them, with crude and cruel laws.
Footnote: The Oregon law faces a challenge as a result of the U.S. election. The Bush administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the law, arguing that assisted suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose” and that doctors take an oath to heal patients. Belgium and the Netherlands have different right-to-die laws.

Bipolar NDP candidates, that Liberal mailer and contracting out

VICTORIA - Random notes from the front.

Good news, bad news for NDP leader Carole James. The good news is the nomination of Gregor Robertson in Vancouver-Fairview, the kind of candidate the NDP needs to establish credibility. Robertson is a entrepreneur, with a successful whole earth juice business and 55 employees. He's running against Finance Minister Gary Collins, and is a distinct long shot. Collins took 55 per cent of the vote in 2001, but that's lower than the Liberal share in Surrey-Panorama Ridge. Look what happened there. (Bonus points for James because the New Democrats in the riding chose Robertson over Judy Darcy, the former national CUPE president. Voters are concerned the NDP is dominated by big public sector unions, and a Darcy candidacy would have added to the problem.)
The bad news is that Harry Lali will run for the party in Yale-Lillooet. Lali was a cabinet minister in the Glen Clark government, and made the most headlines when he claimed Clark was the victim of a media-RCMP-Liberal conspiracy (if there was such a thing, why wasn't I invited?). Lali didn't run in 2001, complaining that the party had been hijacked by the right when Ujjal Dosanjh won the leadership. James has to show that the party has changed; Lali would argue it never needed to in the first place. (For hardcore political types, the extremely useful www.publiceyeonline.com offers the only definitive list of NDP nomination competitors, a list long on union activists - not that there is anything wrong with that)

Say, didn't those Liberals promise to quit using taxpayers' money for political propaganda?
Hard to buy when you as you're recycling that four-page sales pitch that the Campbell party has just mailed to every household in the province on your dime. The ostensible purpose - to gather information about how you want to spend the surplus - is bogus. A legislative committee has just toured the province asking the same question. The Liberals didn't ask you what you thought last year, or the year before. And they spent a big chunk of this year's surplus on a tax reduction, before you even had a chance to offer your views. What did the mail out cost? It's a secret, says Gary Collins, even though it's your money.
The flyer is an obvious pitch for votes, touting the Liberal record and indirectly slagging the former NDP government. Leave aside the hypocrisy, won't this really do more harm than good with voters?

The Liberals' latest contracting out deal is a $133-million 10-year contract with a recently created Telus subsidiary to take over payroll services. Nothing wrong with the principle, the only question being whether the terms are fair for the taxpayers. (The government says the deal will save about $3 million a year compared with doing the work in-house.) The USA Patriot Act privacy risks seem less than in the MSP deal with U.S.-based Maximus. Telus' links to the U.S. are weaker, and the personal information is less sensitive.
You should hope the Liberals know what they are doing. They plan to chop more jobs and sign contracting out deals worth more than $800 million to private companies in the next six weeks, bringing the total value of work transferred to the private sector to more than $1.2 billion.

The BC Teachers' Federation is right. The government is moving far too slowly in investigating concerns about the treatment of women and children in a controversial religious community near Creston. Bountiful is the home to a polygamous splinter group from the Mormon Church.
It's complex issue, involving issues of religious freedom. The RCMP is investigating - slowly - allegations of sexual abuse and human trafficking, some linked to the practice having very young girls marry old men.
But the province could also take a role by ensuring that the publicly funded independent school on the commune is teaching the approved curriculum and operating within ministry guidelines, and that all children are being given a chance at an education. Critics point to a dismal graduation rate and charge that the school teaches racism. The school gets $460,000 in provincial funding; the province has a right to know how it is being spent.

Public health system walking into disaster

VICTORIA - The threat to our public health care system isn't from private clinics, or contracting out.
It's from within.
The people in charge - not just the politicians, but the professional managers in the system - have done a bad job, and their failure has undermined confidence.
The public has difficulty judging the system's performance. We don't know if the doctor makes the right decisions when it comes time to fix us up.
But there are some clear measures, like wait times. And they are enough to shatter our confidence.
It's not just the length of wait, though that is a concern. Median wait times for 10 of the 16 surgical procedures tracked by the government have increased in the last three years. Waits for two procedures have stayed the same, and the wait for four others is shorter.
That's a problem. But the greater problem, in terms of confidence, is the impossibility of getting a clear answer about why they are increasing, and what can be done.
Some answers are obvious. In many areas we're simply doing fewer operations than we were three years ago, despite a population that has grown by almost three per cent.
The case of a Vancouver woman who had waited eight weeks for surgery for a brain tumour, and been cancelled twice, sparked headlines and hand-wringing.
How could this be?
One obvious answer is that health care system is doing fewer neurosurgical procedures. Three years ago 4,369 people got the neurosurgery they needed; in the last fiscal year the number of procedures was six per cent lower. For five of the 13 procedures that can be tracked on the government's wait time web site the story is the same. Fewer operations were performed in the four months ending this March 31 than in a comparable period in 2001. Fewer surgeries means longer waits.
Not all areas of surgery have been cut back. The number of hip and knee replacements are up about 50 per cent over three years ago.
But why? Is it because baby boomers who want to get back to tennis are pushy and politically effective, or because there's a lot of good knee doctors right now eager to keep busy? There's certainly no evidence to suggest that the best professionals sat down and made an informed decision, system-wide, on what kinds of surgeries should be performed given limited money.
Health Minister Colin Hansen doesn't help build confidence. He responds to questions about wait times in part by saying he doesn't believe the data compiled by his government. He also dismisses other studies that show lengthening waits.
That raises a couple of questions. Why hasn't Hansen - after more than three years - able to come up with data he considers reliable on how long people are waiting?
And more critically, how can the government and health authorities manage wait times when say they don't even know what they are?
Health care costs each British Columbian an average $2,700 a year - $11,000 for a family of four. But the health care system can't say what people can expect for their money. We'll do what we can, they say. Maybe you'll get needed surgery this year, maybe you won't. Take what we give you, and don't ask questions because it's complicated and anyway we don't have answers.
It's not good enough.
Certainly, the system provides an extraordinary level of care. The problems are complex. And some excellent work is being done, like the Western Canada Waiting List Project.
But waits and access have been a concern for a dozen years, and there is still no accurate measurement of how long people wait, no definition of acceptable waits, no fair queue and no guarantee of treatment with a reasonable time.
The result is increasing frustration, and more demands for changes that undercut the important principle or universal, equitable access to health care for all Canadians.
Footnote: The system's inability to provide decent information means the public can't make an informed choice about spending priorities. Most British Columbians would have gladly foregone the sales tax reduction if there was a clear promise of reduced wait times for specific procedures. The health care authorities can't deliver.

Liberals test out new nice-guy image for Campbell

VICTORIA - It's like the Grinch headed off to the magical land of the $1-million starter home, and suddenly turned into a cross between Santa Claus and Mother Teresa.
Gordon Campbell and the Liberals have just wrapped up their pre-election convention in Whistler, a party and high-tech pep rally for about 1,000 of the faithful.
The big theme was the emergence of the new kinder, gentler Campbell, who after three years of cutting spending and attacking government is now ready to write some cheques and get a little activist.
It's easy to proclaim yourself changed, and hard to get people to believe you.
Campbell signaled the new focus with an announcement that British Columbians who qualify for disability benefits would get an extra $70 a month, the first increase in a decade.
It's a welcome and overdue change. The current disability benefit for a single person, unable to work, provides up to $325 a month for housing and $460 a month for everything else. It's a tough, often demeaning life. (By way of comparison, a minimum wage job provides a 40-per-cent higher income.)
Still, the Liberals have made the positive change. And during their three years the number of people on disability has increased by more than 20 per cent, in part because of willingness to acknowledge individual need.
But then there was the big disability review. The Liberals wasted more $4 million - and created a huge amount of fear and uncertainty - on a review that established that 98 per cent of disability claimants were fully entitled. (A review may have been a good idea, but could have been accomplished simply with a random audit of files.)
It wasn't just the disabled who got some good news. Campbell used the convention to promise free hearing, sight and dental tests for every B.C. child before Grade 1. It's a good measure, although only if help is available when problems are detected.
Schools will be made earthquake-safe within the next decade, and junk food banned within the next four years, the premier promised.
Along with the kinder stuff came a little emphasis on law and order, notably plans to seize peoples' stuff if they can't prove they didn't buy it with the proceeds of crime and to do something about grow ops.
And, naturally, the convention featured some NDP-big union bashing along the way.
The Liberals are in a position to spend some money. The economy in much of the province has improved significantly in the last year, and the government is expecting a surplus of more than $1 billion this year, increasing in the next two.
But there are a couple of question marks around the image remake.
The first is that the government has always been in a position to improve disability benefits, or ensure all children get a good start in school. A tax cut of 24 per cent, instead of 25 per cent, for example, would have fully funded the disability benefit increase.
The bigger problem is that Campbell is saying trust me, and he's already broken trust on some big issues. Halt the expansion of gambling, he said. Instead, they've tripled the number of slot machines. No sale of BC Rail. No ripping up of contracts. No taxpayer-paid political advertisements. All broken promises.
Which makes it hard for the premier to ask for trust.
Conventions are mostly about getting the troops pumped up, and the Liberals put a lot of effort into that, with seven giant video screens around the hall and slick production values.
That meant, unfortunately, that there's a lot of useful self-scrutiny. It was considered impolite to raise the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection defeat, for example. Campbell alluded to the loss briefly, blaming the loss on union-financed ads promoting the NDP. That's insulting to the voters in the riding, and shuts off legitimate discussion of how the Liberals could do a better job of delivering the government that voters expect.
Footnote: The Liberals - already unpopular with women voters - voted down a policy resolution that said that since the party believes in fairness and equity, it should encourage measures to get more women into senior positions in government. Delegates also slapped the northwest by refusing to offer token support for the Kermode bear as the Olympic mascot.

Where's the concern for the threatened wild salmon

VICTORIA - The salmon are scrabble their way up Goldstream Creek near here, a spectacle I find mostly sad. Half-blind, exhausted, they fight for a space to spawn, doing all they can to keep the species alive. The last fish make their way past greying, tattered bodies, eyes gone to the sharp beaks of seagulls.
It's surprising how easily British Columbians have come to accept that the wild salmon may soon be just a memory.
B.C.'s Auditor General Wayne Strelioff has just released an audit on the future of wild salmon, part of a joint project with his counterparts in Ottawa and New Brunswick.
The report is bleak reading, warning that after a consistent effort through the '90s to protect and rebuild wild salmon stocks B.C. has lost its way.
The future of wild salmon is at risk.
Species come and go, and I'm no extremist. It seems questionable to spend huge amounts of money to preserve the last few dozen Vancouver Island marmots, a species with few chances of survival.
But the fight to save the salmon seems worth the cost.
Practically, the salmon fishery is still a significant source of jobs and economic activity, worth some $600 million a year, mainly through sport fishing. The potential, with assured stocks and better marketing, is much greater.
The salmon is a spectacular creature, capable of amazing feats in making its way out into the ocean before returning and working its way sometimes hundreds of kilometres up-river to spawn. British Columbians have always valued the fish; it would seem wrong that we become the generation that just didn't care enough to protect the salmon.
It's also a useful indicator species, showing how committed - or cavalier - we are about the environment. Salmon need clean, unaltered rivers and creeks, and protection from pollution and over-fishing. If they vanish, it is because wild rivers are vanishing.
Strelioff is an auditor, a branch of the accouting world that makes the rest of the accountants world seem like wild and crazy guys. His reports tend to be measured and understated.
His warnings on salmon are blunt. The B.C. government isn't doing enough to protect habitat, has no clear vision for the future of wild salmon and has left too many unanswered questions about the risks from salmon farms. "Strong leadership is lacking and there is no central co-ordination body to oversee provincial activities," he found.
Between 1994 and 2001 the government was spending about $50 million a year on watershed protection and habitat restoration. That's been cut by 80 per cent, Strelioff found.
So far the Liberals have not delivered on their New Era campaign promises to introduce a Living Rivers Act and a 10-year fish habitat restoration program.
The failure has left a large gap, Strelioff said. "Existing provincial legislation and regulations do not provide adequate protection for salmon habitat, because some key provisions are either not in force or not being acted on."
And then there is fish farming.
Strelioff doesn't find any evidence that salmon aquaculture is necessarily a threat to wild stocks, and he praises the work governments have done over the last decade to set out appropriate regulations. It's a conclusion consistent with most of the research done.
But there are still questions hanging over the aquaculture industry, around disease transfer, sea lice and the risk of competition from escaped Atlantic salmon. "Ongoing research is needed in these areas to ensure that salmon aquaculture does not pose an unacceptable risk to wild salmon and the environment," he warns.
It's a worrying report. More worrying was the government's bland assurances that things are really OK, without addressing in any substantial way the problems and threats raised by the auditor general.
And even more worrying is the lack of public reaction.
The government is drifting on protection of wild salmon, and failing to tackle key issues that threaten their survival. And British Columbians don't much seem to care.
Footnote: The Pearse-McRae federal-provincial report proposing radical change for the commercial salmon fishery is still under review six months after it was released. The report proposed creating long-term licences for fishermen, giving them a stake in management and enhancement of the stocks.

Liberals slow to learn from Surrey defeat

VICTORIA - Even if Gordon Campbell doesn't much care what the voters in Surrey Panorama-Ridge think, he could at least fake it.
Some voters who voted NDP, or stayed home, likely thought they were sending a message to the Liberals last week. But it doesn't look like the premier wasn't listening.
One news headline did say that 'Campbell sees lessons in byelection.' Interesting, I thought. What had Campbell taken from the fact that more than one-half the voters who backed the Liberal New Era in 2001 no longer support the party?
Then I read the story, and found the only lessons the premier had learned were that the election campaign would be difficult, and the big unions would be working hard against the Liberals.
Those are both accurate observations. But they are also both about process.
People weren't dragged to the polls by union workers and forced, against their will, to vote NDP. They considered all the candidates and parties, and by a wide margin said they preferred the NDP.
Campbell could have said that he accepted their verdict, and would learn from it. He could have said that he'd be sitting down with his caucus to talk about what the government could do to regain the trust and support of voters. He didn't.
Unions did work hard for NDP candidate Jagrup Brar, and Campbell can be expected to remind voters of the former NDP government's tendency to put the interests of public sector unions ahead of the public interest. (The New Democrats, among other initiatives, set out to force unionization on social service agencies by only allowing increases to cover higher wages if the staff was covered by a collective agreement. No union, no raise.)
But the Liberals and their business allies put a huge effort in as well, supported by taxpayer-paid advertising, government spending announcements and the sales tax cut. Campbell and cabinet ministers worked the riding heavily.
Some Liberals - including Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, who was heavily involved in the effort - also blamed the loss on the party's failure to win support among IndoCanadian voters. The riding's population is about one-third IndoCanadian, and Liberals say those voters opted overwhelmingly for Brar. (As they voted overwhelmingly for Liberal Gulzmar Cheema in 2001.)
That's likely true, and it's arguable that community loyalty played a role. It's also likely that IndoCanadian voters had a range of reasons for rejecting the Liberal candidate.
Anyway, strip out the IndoCanadian vote entirely, and by my best calculation the Liberals would still have lost the byelection, although by a much narrower margin.
It's tough to take a byelection result and predict the outcome of a provincial election still six months away. But shuffle all the factors, and a good guess is that the byelection signals if the election was held today, the Liberals would end up with around 45 seats, and the NDP around 35.
Bad news for some 30 current Liberal MLAs. They should want the party to sit down and take a look at the Surrey byelection. The party had what it considered a strong contender in Mary Polak, so strong Campbell has already endorsed her as the candidate for next May. It ran a major effort, and threw big resources at the campaign. And lost.
It seems a matter of common sense for the Liberals to reflect on why people who once were supporters weren't prepared to vote for them. The public interest isn't well-served by a government that flips and flaps according to the public whim. But it also isn't served by a government that doesn't care about whether the public thinks it is doing a good job.
It's ironic. One of the complaints disaffected voters would likely offer is that the Liberal government was uncaring, and didn't listen. The response to the byelection defeat will just convince those voters that they were right.
Footnote: The Liberals still did a lot better than the NDP in their last byelection before the 2001 vote. In the 1999 Delta South byelection the New Democrat's human sacrifice attracted 433 votes, less than 2.5 per cent of the total. (Which, from a Liberal perspective, should make the NDP's recovery it all the more alarming.

Byelection bad news for Liberals, disaster for Greens

VICTORIA - That was a convincing win for the NDP in Surrey, a blow for the Liberals and a disaster for the Green Party and Adriane Carr.
The Liberal spin is that it's tough for governing parties to win byelections.
True enough. The last victory by a governing party was in 1981. People can safely send a message of dissatisfaction in a byelection, without having to worry about which party will form the government.
But this was a still a sharp slap in the face for the Liberals. The Gordon Campbell party took 60 per cent of the vote in the riding in 2001, while the NDP stumbled home with 20 per cent, results that almost exactly reflected the provincial vote.
Now the Liberals could only win the backing of 33 per cent of voters, while the New Democrats topped 50 per cent.
The defeat comes less than seven months before the provincial vote next May, and after a big effort by the Liberals. They thought they had a strong candidate in Mary Polak, and poured taxpayers' money into pro-government advertising during the campaign. Campbell helped out, and they came up with a flood of spending announcements and even tax cut one week before the vote.
It didn't work. The Liberal challenge is to get beyond denial, and figure out why they have lost the support of more than half the people who voted for them in 2001.
Their first reaction was that voters just wanted to signal their dissatisfaction. In the general election voters they'll have to vote for us, said the Liberals, because the NDP would be worse. It's a complacent, even arrogant, attitude. If people think you're doing a bad job you need to improve.
For New Democrats, the win demonstrates that their dismal record in government is no longer fatal to their hopes. That's good news for leader Carole James, whose main challenge is to show that the party has changed.
The NDP was able to field campaign workers - something that didn't happen in 2001 - and run a winning effort.
The victory is also a big practical boost for the party. The NDP gets a much greater opportunity to press the Liberals in Question Period, and to get the party's views into the public debate. New MLA Jagrup Brar has six months to show up at every elementary school concert and service club lunch in the riding, and raise issues that affect all the Surrey ridings. And generally, the party gets some badly needed hope.
The big losers are Carr and the Green Party.
Carr chose to run herself in the byelection, saying that party leaders have traditionally taken the first chance to seek a seat.
The decision backfired. The Greens captured fewer votes than they did in 2001, finishing with less than nine per cent.
Worse, the byelection left voters with an obvious conclusion. A Green vote, under our current system, will be a wasted vote in almost every riding in the province.
That was fine in 2001, when it was clear the Liberals were going to win a huge majority. Voters could safely go Green, either because they liked their policies or didn't support of the two main parties. In 68 of the 79 ridings the Liberals would have romped home even if every Green voter had decided to back the NDP.
The byelection results show that things will be different this time. The Liberals and New Democrats will be locked in a number of close races, and perhaps even in a battle to form the government.
The only people who will safely be able to vote Green are those in ridings where the races aren't close, and those who don't care whether the Liberals or the NDP form government. That leaves the Greens with bleak prospects.
The results should send a warning to Campbell. People are unhappy with the style and substance of the government. It's a message that needs to acknowledged, not denied.
Footnote: Liberals moved quickly to blame the defeat on the active NDP support by big unions, which did pour workers into the campaign. But the government made a big push as well, and ultimately the defeat reflected the judgment of the 12,000 people who voted.

'Crackdown' on drunk driving really masks decriminalization

VICTORIA - Don't fall for the rhetoric about getting tough on drunk driving.
While the debate about decriminalizing marijuana rages on, we've already quietly decriminalized most drinking and driving offences in B.C.
The Liberals introduced changes to drinking and driving penalties in the brief fall session, and even got a few headlines that talked about a crackdown on impaired drivers.
But the changes - though useful - continue the process of decriminalizing drinking and driving, and treating it as a less serious offence than Parliament intended.
Canada's laws say that drinking and driving is a criminal offence.
But enforcing the law would cost money that the government doesn't want to spend, for police and prosecutors and court time. So the province has moved to cheaper alternatives, with much less serious consequences for drinking drivers.
About 51,000 drinking drivers were caught by B.C. police last year. But only 7,000 - 15 per cent - faced Criminal Charges. The rest received 24-hour roadside suspensions and were sent on their way.
In some cases, there may not have been clear enough evidence for criminal charges, and the blood alcohol level is lower for a roadside suspension is lower.
But the government's own review released last year found that police just don't have the time to process drunk drivers and do the work needed to lay charges. The government also doesn't want to pay for the prosecutors and court time needed to handle more offenders, with drinking and driving offences already taking one-quarter of provincial court trial time.
It's too expensive to enforce the law, so charges are now reserved for the very drunk, repeat offenders or people who are in accidents.
The changes to provincial laws didn't change that. The government remains unprepared to pay the cost of enforcing the law.
They amendments are useful, but relatively minor compared to all the rhetoric about the dangers of drinking and driving.
B.C. will finally end its dubious distinction as the only province that doesn't require offenders to take a course on drinking and driving, and if necessary receive alcohol counselling. (Alberta has been requiring the courses for 30 years.)
But the province still took a baby step. Only repeat offenders and the small minority convicted of a Criminal Code offence will have to take the course. The government estimates that one in seven of those guilty of drinking and driving will have to take the course. the message - intended or not - is that 85 per cent of drinking drivers aren't really doing anything too bad, and have just made a little mistake.
The other changes are also worthwhile, but small. Minimum fines for driving while suspended were raised from $300 to $500, and possible terms of vehicle impoundment doubled.
And the government introduced the use of ignition interlock devices, which require some offenders to provide a breath sample before they start their cars.
Again though, it's a small step. Only drivers who have been convicted of three Criminal Code drinking and driving offences will be considered for the program, and it remains optional. In Ontario, the device is mandatory after two convictions. (But then in Ontario a third conviction brings a lifetime driving ban, which can be reduced to 10 years. In B.C. the ban is only five years.
Overall, the changes make sense. But they are very small, even timid steps.
One reason is likely pragmatic. Make the consequences too tough and penalties too severe, and drivers will have the same incentive to spend time and money fighting them. That is what helped lead the government to move away from Criminal Code charges in the first place.
Still, the overall message is that the government is only moderately concerned about the problem of drinking and driving, and prepared to take only small measures to deter the hundreds of thousands of people who take to the roads impaired each year in B.C.
Footnote: What's urgently needed is an awareness and education campaign. The government's report on the issue found drivers weren't aware of the current penalties, and underestimated the legal consequences. People won't be deterred by penalties that they don't even know exist.

New way of electing MLAs offers great hope

VICTORIA - OK, it's confusing, but you should be wildly enthusiastic about the chance to change the way we elect MLAs and governments in B.C.
It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Once political parties are in power they aren't much interested in changing the system that got them there, even if it has huge flaws.

But Gordon Campbell, to his credit, promised to give a randomly selected citizens' assembly the chance to see if there's a better way of electing governments.
And what's more, he promised that any recommendation would go to a binding referendum at the same time as next May's provincial election.

Now they've done it. The 160 members of the assembly, after 10 months of study and consultation and public hearings, have come up with what they say is a better way.
You have six months to assess their proposal before the referendum. It deserves your full attention. The assembly came up with two basic conclusions.

First, that the current system isn't working. The make-up of the legislature doesn't reflect the votes of British Columbians. The New Democrats, for example, received 22 per cent of the vote in 2001, but have 2.5 per cent of the seats. The Green Party had the support of 12 per cent of voters, who have no representatives in the legislature. In 1996, the NDP received 40 per cent of the votes, but 52 per cent of the seats.

The assembly also found that the current system concentrates power in the hands of the party leadership, with the result that MLAs are seen as servants of the party, not the people that elected them.

Second, the assembly decided that the best way to improve the system was by moving to a single-vote transferable system, already in use in other jurisdictions.
It's painfully complicated to explain, and a full review will follow in a later column.

But basically, there are several key elements.

The legislature would stay the same size, but individual ridings would be larger, and would elect more than one MLA. Three Prince George constituencies, for example, could become one larger riding that would elect three MLAs.

And the way you vote would change. Instead of marking an 'X' beside one candidate, you would rank the people on the ballot in order of preference. One of the Liberals may be your first choice, because you like the party and the candidate.

But your second choice might be an independent candidate who has done a good job on school board, or a New Democrat whose abilities you admire. You don't have to say yes or no to a party, but can effectively split your vote among several.

Here's where things get complex. When the votes are counted, the rankings come into play and the votes are weighted to ensure a result that reflects the preferences of the voters.

The result, the assembly says, would be a much more diverse legislature, with candidates representing a wider range of voters.

And as importantly, it would -- by ending the domination of two main parties -- lead to a greater need for parties to co-operate with each other, and would shift power from the premier's office to backbenchers.

There's room for a full debate about the pros and cons, and much to learn about the specific proposal going to the referendum. The assembly hopes to have that work done by mid-November.

But this is an extraordinary opportunity for real change, to a system that has worked in other parts of the world for decades.

Few can deny change is needed. The legislature isn't representative; barely half the eligible population bothers to vote; citizens don't feel well-served by their MLAs; and this place is an embarrassment too many days.

The citizens' assembly is composed of two people from every riding in the province, from students to seniors and farmers to scientists. They consulted the best experts, and the public, and produced a recommendation. It deserves serious consideration.

Footnote: Green Party leader Adriane Carr immediately trashed the proposal. She favours a different proportional representation system, and wants to organize a "no" campaign in the referendum. It's a short-sighted, negative response to the one best chance for change that would actually help the Greens and other smaller parties.

Government rush leaves your privacy at risk

VICTORIA - Mostly, it comes down to trust and common sense when your government says it has a plan to protect your privacy from a powerful neighbour.
The BC Liberals have - after almost no debate or public consultation - just passed a law that they say will protect British Columbians' privacy from the extraordinary provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
You should be skeptical.
This issue came up in the spring, when the Liberals decided they could save money by contracting out the administration of the Medical Services Plan and Pharmacare. The idea was to hire a private company - one that already had the software needed - and save a lot of money.
That's reasonable, with the right safeguards.
But the BC Government Employees' Union raised an alarm. In the wake of 911, the U.S. government had passed the USA Patriot Act. It pulls any companies with significant operations in America into the service of the U.S. government. They are required to hand over any information they have, on people anywhere in the world, over to the FBI, and they're forbidden to tell anyone.
So if the B.C. contracting went ahead, the U.S. government could download your medical records, your credit rating, the prescription drugs you and your children used, and plunk them into a database that would pop up the next time you decide to do a weekend in Washington State.
Why would they want to? Mostly because they can. People who have access to information want to gather and use it. It may prove useful, and it certainly justifies someone's job.
Don't worry, say the Liberals. We think we've fixed the problem with a new B.C. law. Trust us.
But trust has already been shaken. When the government appeared ready to contract out the MSP records to a U.S. company this spring, the BCGEU warned of the privacy risk. Health Minister Colin Hansen was dismissive: "The privacy of information is not compromised in the least way possible," he said then.
He was wrong. The privacy of information would be compromised, dramatically, as the government was later forced to admit.
The government still wanted to go ahead with the MSP/Pharmacare deal with Maximus Inc. of Arizona. So it has just passed legislation that is supposed to protect your private information from the reach of the Patriot Act. Companies and government would be barred from storing information outside Canada, or disclosing it. If they were asked for information by foreign government, they would have to report the request.
That leaves big companies with a choice. Obey the B.C. law. Or obey the USA Patriot Act.
This is where common sense comes in.
Because the choice is no choice at all. Disobey the Patriot Act and companies risk serious penalties, the loss of huge contracts and possible political problems in the United States, the world's largest economy. Disobey the B.C. law, and you pay a fine.
Which option would you choose when the FBI came calling?
What's most alarming is the government's baffling rush to pass this bill.
B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis is weeks away from delivering a major report on the implications of the Patriot Act, and an assessment of the risks. He has received submissions from corporations and governments, and the best advice.
But the B.C. government has rushed through this legislation. It's not retroactive, so there's no need for haste. Delay doesn't increase the risk.
The obvious conclusion is that the government is in a big hurry to get on with contracting our information to U.S. corporations.
Privacy is a significant issue in these days of supercomputers and global networks. Your business - what you tell your doctor, how your children are doing, what you own and what you owe - should be your business.
It's important. and by rushing through a law, without the privacy commissioner's report., the government has failed to recognize the value British Columbians place on their right to personal privacy.
Footnote: How many questions or suggestions from Liberal MLAs as the changes moved through the legislature? Sadly, none. I would have expected backbenchers to have suggestions or questions about the details of the legislation that's supposed to stand behind your privacy and the FBI's appetite for information.

Tax cut good news, and timely for Liberals' byelection hopes

VICTORIA - Call me cynical, but it seems like a heck of a coincidence that the Liberals decided to offer up a sales tax cut days before a hotly contested Surrey byelection.
But leave that aside for now.
The first thing to note is that this is good news.
Knocking the sales tax from 7.5 per cent to seven per cent will cost the government about $280 million a year, which means that the average British Columbian will be about $70 ahead of the game. Not a huge amount, but a good deal for families, especially ones that are spending most of their income on life's basics.
And the second thing - leaving aside lingering concerns about the Liberals' reckless first day tax cuts and the resulting huge deficits - is that the government can afford to roll back the sales tax increase it imposed in 2002. The economy is doing well enough to generate more revenue for governments.
After that, it's time to start ticking off some concerns.
Premier Gordon Campbell denied the sales tax cut had anything to do with next Thursday's byelection in Surrey-Panorama Ridge. The latest poll suggests that the Liberals and NDP are effectively tied, given the Liberals a shot at being the first governing party to win a byelection in B.C. since 1981.
Finance Minister Gary Collins said the government wasn't sure it could afford to reduce the tax until last week, so couldn't have given you a break any earlier.
And he wanted to make the cut through legislation introduced in the House, and feared that the fall sitting might end within days. That made it risky to wait any longer, he said. (That was a surprise; the schedule calls for the sitting to last until the end of November.)
It's an argument that's impossible to refute. But the government tabled its latest financial update five weeks ago, and it projected a surplus this year of more than $1 billion. The tax cut will cost the government about $130 million for the rest of this fiscal year. If the aim was to get money in your pocket as quickly as possible, there was room to do the cut earlier. And never in B.C. history has this kind of change been made outside of the normal budget process.
Then there's the matter of the legislative committee that has been touring the province, gathering information on what should be done with the coming surpluses. They've heard a range of suggestions. Some people want to use all the money to pay down the province's debt, others want to see tax cuts of various types. And some would like the surpluses spent to restore services, or reduce surgical wait lists.
The committee is scheduled to report in a few weeks. It would have been useful to see what they learned about the wishes of British Columbians before the decision to cut the tax was made.
Collins disagrees, and says there is wide agreement that rolling back the sales tax increase should be a priority.
What's ahead, one of the media pack asked Campbell in a rare press conference. If you'll cut the sales tax by one-half a percentage point in the middle of a byelection campaign, how big will the tax cuts be in the actual election budget next February?
The premier said the budget would be based on the Liberals' existing plans.
But the plans don't contemplate the kind of surpluses that are now on the horizon. The government has room to provide adequate funding to the ministry of children and families, or effectively wipe out health care waiting lists.
Or to cut the sales tax rate in half over the next three years.
Your reaction to this cut will help decide where the money goes.
Footnote: Tax changes are supposed to be secret until they are presented to the legislature, to make sure that no one profits from advance notice. Collins announced the cut at 2:12 p.m. By 2:14 p.m. Retail BC had a press release out praising the move. The association denied any advance notice, and said they had the release ready to go in case of an announcement.

Liberals fumble questions about on-line betting

VICTORIA - A surreal day at the legislature.
The cabinet minister for gambling says he has no opinion on whether gambling has expanded in B.C. over the last three years.
The cabinet minister for addictions refuses to answer questions on gambling addiction. That's not my responsibility, she says.
Gambling addiction, it turns out, is the responsibility of - yes, you guessed it - the minister responsible for creating more gamblers.
Even the Liberal backbenchers - generally a pretty enthusiastic bunch when it comes to pounding their desks any time a cabinet minister answers a question - seemed dismayed. The best they could manage was a few tentative taps.
The Liberals were trying to answer NDP questions about why they had introduced Internet gambling.
For the money, obviously. There's no public policy reason for encouraging people to bet on sports events from their homes, no community lobby demanding that people be encouraged to gamble from their home computer.
The Liberal election campaign platform included a promise to rein in gambling in B.C.
Gordon Campbell - and a raft of other Liberals - spoke out against gambling in opposition. He promised, in writing, that a Liberal government would "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put strains on families."
They have done the opposite.
There were 2,400 slot machines in 10 casinos when the Liberals took over. They've doubled the number of slots in three years, and are on track towards more than 8,000 of the machines by the end of next year.
Slot machines were restricted to casinos; now the government is pushing them into community bingo halls.
When the Liberals took over, gambling netted the province $560 million - money taken from losing bettors. This year it will be more than $850 million, and they're planning on cracking $1 billion.
The Liberals have moved casinos to 24-hour operation, raised betting limits, allowed alcohol to be served on the casino floor.
And now they have become the second jurisdiction in North America to move gambling on to the Internet.
Just selling lottery tickets on-line, Solicitor General Rich Coleman told the legislature, a less-than-accurate description of the BC Lottery Corp. initiative. People are able to bet on sports events, and the corporation has introduced a new "game" just for web gamblers who want to bet on football. Those bets can only be placed through the website, a dandy traffic-building measure. (The lottery corporation made a pitch to take betting online during the NDP years, and was told to forget it.)
So, given all that, have the Liberals broken their promise to "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put strains on families." Have they in fact expanded gambling?
Coleman says some people may think so.
But what do you think, a reporter asked.
"I don't really have an opinion," said Coleman, responsible for gambling policy and for dealing with gambling addiction in B.C.
Come on. People aren't stupid. Twice as many slots, on-line betting, mega-casinos, VLTs in bingo halls, another $300 million in profits from losers.
That's expanded gambling.
It's equally weird that Brenda Locke, the junior minister for mental health and addictions, isn't responsible for gambling addictions. Some 160,000 people in B.C. are problem gamblers. Their problem is, according to the experts, like any other addiction.
Not my responsibility, says Locke. Coleman - responsible for increasing gambling revenues - is also responsible for reducing and treating gambling addiction. (That's much like putting the tobacco manufacturers in charge of reducing smoking.)
So what did they have to say, those Liberals who used to be so strongly opposed to gambling expansion on principle and on practical grounds? Kevin Krueger, for example, was once a fierce gambling critic who urged NDP backbenchers to stand up to their government on the issue. What did he say now?
Krueger - like the rest of the Liberal MLAs - said nothing at all.
Footnote: The BC Lottery Corp. web site attempts to bar people under 19 from betting. Coleman was vague in the method, but it appears that if you enter your name the corporation launches quick electronic searches of other databases to gather information about you. Expect some privacy concerns to be raised..