Note on comments

I've had to add a slightly clunky step for people who want to post comments.
It's needed to thwart the spamsters who have now targeted the Comment section of blogs like this for their junk.
The good news is that if they are that desperate, the business is on its last legs.
The bad news is that you need to copy a wavey word before you can comment.
I hope people still will, and once again note the reason and respect shown by people who comment on the issues raised here.
Cheers
Paul

Bungling on both sides as teachers go on strike

VICTORIA - It looked like amateur hour at the legislature Thursday as teachers prepared to walk off the job.
Who are the good guys in this, a Press Gallery colleague wondered aloud?
No one, really.
The Liberal government has invited this strike and failed to take the most simple steps to try and head it off.
When the government used legislation to rewrite the teachers' contract in 2002, taking out clauses governing issues like class size, it created an obvious problem.
The reasoning behind the change makes sense. Class sizes, for example, are an issue of educational effectiveness and one of many possible priorities. The ultimate responsibility for deciding on the best approach should lie with elected trustees and MLAs.
But they are also vitally important to teachers, and an important element of their working conditions. They need a chance to make their case on issues like class size, and support for special needs students.
The problem was clear then. It remained clear over the last three years. And commissioner Don Wright reminded the government of the need to address teachers' concerns in 2004. They have legitimate rights which the legislation removed.
But the government did nothing that could be considered even a serious effort to address the problem. Only Thursday did Labour Minister Mike de Jong announce that Vince Ready would review the bargaining process, and consider teachers' concerns.
Education Minister Shirley Bond also leaped into action Thursday, holding up a new "Learning Round Table" as the forum that would solve teachers' disaffection.
It was an ludicrously empty political gesture. The membership and mandate were undefined, though Bond said trustees, teachers, parent advisory councils and administrators should all be involved. The round table wouldn't have any real power; Bond would just relay the substance of the discussions to cabinet. It was meaningless.
And it turned out the government hadn't even pitched the idea when BCTF head Jinny Sims, BC Federation of Labour head Jim Sinclair and other union leaders met de Jong a few hours earlier in a last-ditch effort to head off the dispute.
Bond said the government had just decided on the round table. And she acknowleged that reporters were hearing about it before the BCTF. That's an indication the round table proposal has more to do with dodging the wrath of parents than reaching a deal.
Meanwhile, Sims emerged from the meeting with de Jong demonstrating just how tough it would be for even a more skilled government to get a deal with the union.
The BCTF has real and serious grievances.
But the union has treated collective bargaining like a crusade for justice, with Sims comparing the strike to acts of civil disobedience by civil rights campaigners in the American south.
Effective collective bargaining demands realism. The goal is to get the best deal you can, not to insist on achieving what you consider your due.
And sometimes, that means accepting a crummy deal indeed.
Both government and union have sat in a car speeding toward a cliff for a couple of years now, each insisting the other should do something about it, neither willing to reach out and grab the steering wheel.
And now we're at the cliff.
Negotiations often take unions and employers to the edge. But smart ones leave themselves a last-minute way out - a concession that can allow both to claim partial victory, a path to reluctant settlement.
The BCTF and the government haven't done that. The union does not appear to be interested in compromise; the government's silly "round table" ploy shows it is not prepared to make a real effort.
The losers are children and parents.
The loss of a few days of school are a major hassle for many families, especially working parents.
And the prospect of a school system staffed with teachers who feel beat up and abused by their employer is much worse news.
Footnote: The strike is illegal even without passage of the contract legislation, since the LRB hasn't yet set the required essential service levels. It now looks like we face several days of court proceedings, and penalties for teachers and the union. It's a result that signals failure by everyone involved.

Children's deaths need to mean something

VICTORIA - If it takes a study by Judge Thomas Gove to restore proper reviews of children's deaths in B.C., then let's get it done.
Something was lost when the Liberals wiped out the office that - among other useful functions - used to investigate children's deaths in B.C.
Look at the numbers. In six years the Children's Commission reviewed and reported on 800 children's deaths.
In the three years since it was eliminated, there has been one public report by the coroner, and two reviews by the ministry.
It is a big loss.
The Children's Commission released the reviews every few months, in batches. It was generally a depressing day. The reports were sad - children dying of sickness, or in car crashes, or committing suicide.
But the deaths often offered lessons, and the commission made sure they were heard. Sometimes, the children were in government care, and the lessons involved the ministry of children and families. The reports raised alarms about children bounced between foster homes, or left with too little support.
And they raised alarms about other issues, reminding us how many youths die because they don't wear seatbelts, or how often warnings of suicide are ignored, or how adult alcohol abuse puts children's lives at risk, or even how the right choice of a bicycle can save lives.
They were lessons from death. Because someone was looking, they were discovered. Because someone reported them, those lessons were shared.
It seems a useful government function, a way of providing the public with information on how well the ministry was doing, and on how we could keep all children safer. But the Liberals shut it down.
That is about to change.
Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen announced this week that he and Gordon Campbell had met with Gove to hear his concerns about the accountability lost along with the Children's Commission.
As a result Gove, Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley and Chief Coroner Terry Smith would be reporting on the current system on reviewing and reporting child deaths, and possible improvements, Hagen said.
Gove, whose 1995 review into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil led to the creation of the children and families ministry, has made his views clear.
The controversy over the death of 19-month-old Sherry Charlie was unnecessary, Gove told the Victoria Times-Colonist's Lindsay Kines.
"If the children's commission. . . was still in existence at the time that this little girl died, they would have done a death review in the normal course," he said. "It would not have required any politician to instruct anyone to do so. That report would have gone to the experts panel. They would have made recommendations, which may well have examined and challenged some of the policies that had her placed where she was. . . And that report would have been made public."
"We do not have a service close to what we had before," Gove said.
He's right, despite the government's denials. The numbers speak for themselves. Maybe too many reviews were being done, and the scope can be narrowed. But eliminating all public reporting was damaging.
The other troubling aspect to this is the government's inability to look critically at its own actions - to learn from mistakes, and successes.
The government insisted that the summary of the internal review of Sherry Charlies' death was all anyone needed to see - until public pressure, helped by Morley forced release of a more complete version.
It insisted that the report was adequate - until questions from the New Democrats forced the promise of one narrow review, then a slightly wider one. Then Morley and the Ombudsman both stepped in.
And it has insisted that reporting deaths is fully adequate - until Gove and the NDP raised the political pressure.
It's good to respond to public concern. But what's emerging is a picture of a government unable to take a hard look and learn from is own inevitable mistakes.
Footnote: "When any child dies in this province, that should be referred to an independent review board, with people with the expertise, knowledge and understanding to get to the bottom of every single death, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such deaths from taking place." - Gordon Campbell, 1996.

Imposed teachers' deal a badge of failure

VICTORIA - It wasn't much of a surprise when Labour Minister Mike de Jong stood up in the legislature Monday and launched a pre-emptive strike on teachers.
No chance of a settlement in the dispute between the BC Teachers' Federation and the BC School Employers' Association, said de Jong.
So rather than wait for the job action to escalate, the Liberals introduced legislation to impose a new contact, making a strike illegal. (Like most unions, teachers are barred from job action when there is a contract in place, even an imposed one.)
It was, given the situation, the only real option. Deputy labour minister Rick Connolly had just reported that "there is no prospect for a voluntary resolution at the bargaining table."
The failure was "predictable," said de Jong, explaining the decision in his office. "The history of these two parties is that they have never in the past 10 or 15 years been able to negotiate an agreement."
The comment highlights a Liberal failure.
The deadlock was predictable. The parties haven't reached a negotiated deal since bargaining under the current structure began in 1993. The possibility of settlement became more remote in 2002, when the Liberals passed legislation to strip the teachers' contract of critical provisions, including class size limits and guaranteed number of support teachers.
Which means that the government could have seen this problem two years ago - or last year, when their own review identified the problems - and moved to address it.
De Jong took that step now.
The legislation extends the teachers' current contract for a two-year term, with no changes and no wage increase. The contract expired in 2004. Now it's extended to next June.
De Jong said that by the end of the week he will have appointed an industrial inquiry commissioner to recommend a better way of reaching contracts with teachers. The commissioner will report in time to allow a new system to be in place before talks start next year.
BCTF president Jinny Sims wasn't pleased. Sims said she had been fighting tears as she watched the pronouncement from inside the legislature. Teachers would decide quickly on their next step, she said.
None of the parties emerge from this looking good.
The negotiations were always certain to have problems. The union wanted a significant raise; the government told the employers' association that teachers, like other public servants, would have to take a two-year freeze.
And teachers wanted to negotiate issues like class size, and support for special needs students. The government said no chance.
It was a tough spot for teachers. There was very little to negotiate, and the employers' association knew that all it had to do was wait, and the government would impose a contract on its terms.
But negotiating isn't about justice and righting wrongs. It's about getting the best deal possible under the circumstances. The BCTF never accepted that reality.
The government never accepted what de Jong now says is so evident - that the bargaining system doesn't work. Commissioner Don Wright identified the problem in a report to the government last year, and offered a solution. If talks didn't work, a third party would conciliate. If that failed, union and employers would submit their best offers and the conciliator would pick one to form the new collective agreement. Issues like class size, while not part of the contract, needed to be discussed with the union in a separate process, Wright said. (Connolly made the same finding.)
But faced with a predictable, foreseeable problem, the government didn't act.
It's tough to measure the consequences. It should be a concern when teachers are denied the right to negotiate working conditions that is enjoyed by others under our system.
And it's bad for the quality of education if large number of teachers feel abused and unheard.
It may have been impossible to avoid this outcome. It would have been nice if all concerned had tried harder.
Footnote: De Jong's choice of inquiry commissioner, and the amount of freedom offered by the terms of reference, will be critical in at least establishing the chance of success. A broad mandate will will be needed to convince teachers the exercise is serious.

Time, sadly, to legislate end to teachers' job action

VICTORIA - There's no real alternative to a legislated end to teachers' job action, and no real reason to wait any longer.
Labour Minister Mike de Jong released the fact-finding report from deputy labour minister Rick Connolloy Friday, which concludes that "there is no prospect for a voluntary resolution at the bargaining table."
He's right, given the circumstances. The BC School Employers' Association has no mandate to bargain the issues that concern teachers, and no reason to make any concessions. If they wait, their proposals will be the basis of a legislated settlement.
De Jong said cabinet is considering the next step. But waiting for rotating strikes to start Oct. 11 before reacting with legislation would simply create needless disruption.
It is a disheartening situation, and one that reflects badly on all involved.
The main items in dispute are compensation, and issues like class size and teacher aides for special needs students.
Compensation was always going to be a point of conflict. The government says teachers have to take a two-year wage freeze, like other public sector employees, before getting any increases. Teachers want to keep up with inflation, and wage settlements in Ontario and Alberta.
Donnolly reports that the BC Teachers' Federation proposals would mean cost increases of seven per cent to 10 per cent a year for three years. (The employer and the union have come up with different costings.)
It's hard to see how the impasse over compensation could have been avoided.
But that' s not so true of the deadlock over the other issues.
Teachers had maximum class size guarantees and provisions for teacher aides and librarians in their contracts until 2002. (And they believed they had given up wage increases in return for those provisions.)
The Liberals used legislation to strip them from the contract, without consultation or compensation.
The motive is understandable. Issues like class size affect educational quality, and must be balanced with other priorities. Those decisions should be made by elected - and accountable- trustees, and MLAs.
But the issues also affect working conditions, and teachers should be able to get a serious hearing for their concerns. (Teachers are also rightly angry that their voices as frontline professionals aren't being heard.)
Donnolly is sympathetic. "Effective public policy requires involvement of all those affected," he reports. "It is my opinion that government should develop an approach to engage with teachers and education stakeholders including parents, trustees, superintendents and principals in an effective and meaningful dialogue regarding this critical issue that is entirely separate from the collective bargaining process. "
Commissioner Don Wright made a similar recommendation in a report to government 10 months ago. last year.
But three years after creating the problem, the government hasn't acted to provide a way for teachers to be heard.
Government action might not have changed anything. The BCTF is insisting on government-union talks on the issues, linked to contract negotiations. The Liberals want more stakeholders involved and a separate process.
De Jong expressed surprise at Donnolly's report. "I don't know how you can meet for 35 times and not agree on anything," he said.
It's simple. There is no reason for the parties to bargain. People negotiate and compromise because they think they have a chance to reach an agreement that gets them something, and because they fear the consequences of failing.
The employer has nothing to fear from failed talks, and no reason - or mandate - to bend. The teachers don't believe they can get anything. Negotiations will fail.
The result is bad for students - employees who feel abused do not do their best work - and violates teachers' right to bargain the terms of their employment.
Wright reported the problem to the government last year, and proposed a solution. Not perfect, perhaps, and not what teachers wanted, but a start.
The government's inaction, and an intractable union, set the stage for this damaging deadlock.
Footnote: What now? The government's best option is to impose a two-year deal, which takes the union to next June. At the same time it could legislate a timetable to ensure that a new, workable process - perhaps based on the Wright recommendations - is in place in time for new negotiations next year.

Hopeful outlook for treaties, and progress without them

VICTORIA - Maybe it's time to think about the treaty process in B.C. as a 40-year project.
The BC Treaty Commission weighed in with its annual report this week, citing some good reasons for optimism about progress, along with a few warnings. There is a chance three final agreements will be signed over the next year, the commissioners said.
But I've been heading to these annual updates for years now, generally - though not always - hearing some fairly hopeful words from the treaty commissioners.
Just as the politicians have usually been optimistic. Last fall then attorney general Geoff Plant was predicting four final treaty agreements were likely in coming months. None were signed. His NDP predecessor, Dale Lovick, was even more wildly optimistic back in 1999, predicting 10 final agreements in the next five years. And none were signed.
The outlook does look brighter now. Partly, that's the benefit of 12 years of slogging away at the treaty process, and in the courts. While the efforts were slow, and costly, they may have been needed to get everyone to the point that they could focus effectively on treaty making.
But it also reflects major changes in the province's position over the last several months, and a new unity on the First Nations side.
The Liberals' "New Relationship" project has gone a long way toward setting the stage for more productive talks. The Liberals were combative in opposition, when they went to court to try and overturn the Nisga'a treaty and promised the foolish treaty referendum. In government they have fought aggressive legal battles that angered First Nations by denying their right to aboriginal title.
All that has changed. The New Relationship document promises a broad recognition of aboriginal title, shared land-use and resource management and a share of resource revenues.
And this week Premier Gordon Campbell promised native treaty negotiators that things would be different. "For too long, and I acknowledge this, we did follow a path of denial," he said. The government will review its positions in dozens of continuing court cases, to ensure aboriginal title is respected.
These are big changes. But it's hard to be confident they will quickly lead to treaties being signed. The issues remaining, even in the negotiations that are farthest along, are the tough ones - fisheries, taxation, self-government. (The commission's earlier suggestion that an effort be made to tackle them on a provincial or regional basis still makes sense.)
Some First Nations are waiting to see what all the legal and political changes mean before they take the next steps.
And no one wants to be the first to sign, in case someone gets a better deal later.
The treaty process remains slow.
But what was striking this year is the growing recognition while treaties are important, they are not necessary to achieve improved relations, more opportunities for aboriginal communities and needed certainty about land use.
Given goodwill and shared goals, many of those goals can be accomplished through interim agreements that will solve immediate problems and help build the basis for treaties.
That hasn't really happened on a significant scale. Interim agreements have been strictly limited in their scope, and as the commission noted, often prompted by court decisions not a desire for co-operative solutions.
It's also become clear that treaties will not end the need for ongoing consultation and accommodation. First Nations and their neighbours and the province will still have to deal with common issues around land use and planning. We are in this together.
It might be helpful to broaden our focus to include not just the need for treaties, but the need to build a base of understanding and shared recognition of ground rules for decision-making.
Meanwhile, welcome the optimism, despite all the questions and doubts.
There are strong moral and economic reasons for reaching both treaties and effective interim agreements that strengthen aboriginal communities and reduce the economic damage done by land ownership uncertainty.
Footnote: The notion that treaty-making could take decades should prompt another look at the costs. The treaty commission allocated $29 million in loans and $7 million in grants last year to First Nations to support treaty efforts, bringing the 12-year total to $325 million.

Second vote on STV gives public needed choice

VICTORIA - Give Gordon Campbell top marks for his handling of the prickly problem posed by the referendum on electoral reform.
Most politicians would never have gone near the idea of asking a Citizens' Assembly to find a better way of electing governments. Campbell championed the process.
And once the referendum on the single-transferable system failed - barely - the big experiment would have been over.
But Campbell is giving voters another chance to consider electoral reform, this time with a clearer proposal and adequately funded yes and no campaigns. Another referendum will be held in the fall of 2008, at the same time as the municipal elections.
It's a fair solution to to a tricky political problem.
The Liberals decided that electoral reform could only go ahead if it received 60-per-cent support in last May's referendum. It missed by a whisker, with almost 58 per cent of those voting backing a change to the new system.
That's huge support - the Liberals were elected with only 46 per cent of the vote - and Campbell was right to look for a way to produce a definitive decision on whether B.C. should change.
Some supporters wanted Campbell to bend the rules and implement STV, on the basis that it came close enough. But the referendum requirements were clear, and justified.
His solution, unveiled in the Throne Speech, makes sense.
British Columbians will vote again on 2008, in a referendum to be held at the same time as the municipal elections. (That could be a huge factor in municipal races if it brings to the polls people who don't ordinarily vote.)
If it passes, the new rules will be in effect for the May 2009 provincial election.
This time, voters will have more information. The Electoral Boundaries Commission was already slated to review the ridings to adjust them for population changes. Now they will prepare report on what the ridings would look like under STV.
Under the STV system, there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each. Most of the Okanagan could be one riding, for example, with four MLAs.
On election day, you would no longer just mark an X beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked.
When the votes were counted, the results would reflect the rankings. A voter might rank an NDP candidate first, and Liberals second and third, and a Green fourth. All the votes would matter.
The result should be a more representative and diverse legislature, with MLAs who are more responsive to their communities.
The size of the new ridings concerned some people during the referendum campaign. Having that information set out will allow for more informed voting.
The yes side is heartened by the opportunity. Most believe they simply didn't have the time, or money, to inform people about the benefits of STV before the referendum. "Anytime we get a chance to explain the system to someone, they become a supporter," one campaigner noted.
Now they will be put to the test, with three years to inform people, and the promise of government funding for yes and no sides.
One interesting factor will be how the referendum is affected by the efforts to make the B.C. legislature more civil and effective. The need for change was reinforced for many people by the unrepresentative election result in 2001, and the Liberals' unwillingness to recognize the existence of an Official Opposition.
The situation is now much changed. But it should be easy for pro-STV campaigners to remind voters of the many other benefits.
Skeptics can advance a brace of theories about why Campbell is so keen on electoral reform. But many Liberals are also nervous about the idea.
The simple explanation is that Campbell is committed to the idea of letting the people decide whether there is a better way to elect governments, and is doing his best to give them that chance.
Footnote: Ontario has just followed B.C.'s example, launching its own Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform. It has gone one wise step further, charging another assembly with developing new controls on political donations and spending. That was a missed opportunity in B.C.

Sherry Charlie and broken promises, broken hopes

VICTORIA - I am running out of ways to say how sad it is that we are so indifferent to the people who need us most.
The families on the edge, people who need a little help to cope, and the kids struggling to fall asleep in some new foster home, they all trust us to care.
That's mostly why we have a children and families' ministry, because we've decided that we won't let children's lives be wrecked. We - you and I - will make sure that somebody cares for a scared little boy when his family can't or won't.
It seems such a long time and so many columns about the mess we've made of this essential task.
I expected better from Gordon Campbell. The NDP government was hopeless.The children and families' ministry was underfunded and mismanaged, and the government ignored good advice and useful criticism.
But Campbell and the Liberals, they were inspiring with their principled, focused commitments in opposition.
The ministry had to have more money, Campbell said, in order to do what was needed. In fact Linda Reid, now junior minister for child care, wanted a needs-based budget. Figure out what it would cost to give people the help they needed, make the information public, and then make the hard choices, she said.
And Campbell and Reid were huge fans of the Children's Commission and the Child and Youth Advocate, the offices that provided effective, public oversight of the ministry. Reid grilled the NDP on a score of recommendations from Child and Youth Advocate Joyce Preston. Campbell demanded that every child death be reviewed, and the results reported, so no chance to improve our response was missed.
I believed him. Policies may change, but this was about principles, and they aren't shed like a cheap suit after a long hot day.
But the needs-based budget never happened. Instead of finding more money for the ministry, Campbell backed plans to cut its budget by 23 per cent. When that proved a fantasy, the cuts were reduced to 11 per cent.
Despite soaring revenues, and all the promises, provincial spending on children and families is about $160 million less now, in constant dollars, than it was before the Liberals were elected.
The Liberals also eliminated the Children's Commission and the Child and Youth Advocate.
And they halted independent reviews of children's deaths.
The Children's Commission used to review about 150 deaths per year, making scores of recommendations based on its findings.
Since the commission was eliminated in 2002, there has been one public report, by the coroner, on the death of a child in care, and two by the ministry.
If the Children's Commission still existed, the government would have been spared its fumbles and stumbles last week over the death of Sherry Charlie. An independent review would have been automatic.
Instead the government looked secretive, and inept. Attorney General Wally Oppal, who instructed Children and Youth Officer Jane Morley to investigate the ministry's review of Sherry's death, acknowledged he hadn't read the original report before deciding what questions that Morley should answer.
Instead of giving Morley a free hand, the government tried to restrict her review. Under pressure, Oppal amended the terms of reference to offer her slightly more freedom.
But still not enough. Morley rightly swept aside the government's instructions, and has launched her own sweeping review. (The Ombudsman and the coroner's officer are also reviewing Sherry's death. Scores of others have received no such attention.)
The ministry faces huge challenges every day, and terrible choices. Things will inevitably go badly wrong sometimes, no matter how well the system work, and people perform.
That's why we have to demand commitment, and openness, from government. We need to learn when things go wrong, or right. We have to know if we're giving the ministry the resources needed.
Government, the ministry, may do the work. But caring for the children and families is ultimately our responsibility.
Footnote: Morley has proposed an all-party legislative committee on children and youth, just as there are on education, health and finance. Campbell hasn't yet responded to the idea. He should seize on it as a chance to show that the issues matter to his government.

Government fumbles again in toddler's death

VICTORIA - A train wreck of a scrum with Attorney General Wally Oppal smashed any confidence that the Liberals are responding competently to the death of Sherry Charlie.
In the space of 10 minutes Oppal betrayed a lack of knowledge about his job, and the toddler's death - even though he claimed to be taking the lead in the government's latest response.
It was painful, and sad, to see that this is the best the government can do in a case that has dragged on for more than three years. Oppal stepped up Wednesday to expand the mandate for Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley's review of the government's initial investigation. On Tuesday, Children and Families' Minister Stan Hagen had announced that Morley would be stepping in. His announcement drew immediate criticism, because Morley's mandate  was strictly limited. She could look at why it took almost three years to complete and release the report. And she could investigate why the ministry rewrote the terms of reference for the initial review to eliminate a question about its own role in the little girl's death.
But Morley was barred from examining the gaps in the initial investigation and identifying any shortcomings in the ministry's response.
Not needed, said Hagen. "I think the ministry has acted appropriately. We're not reviewing the review that was done."
The child and youth officer actually works for Oppal, who issues the formal instructions for reviews. He initially backed Hagen. "I'm completely satisfied that the terms of reference here are exhaustive, they're thorough, and they will provide the appropriate answers and recommendations," Oppal said Tuesday.
A day later, and things had changed. Oppal said he had listened to the debate in the legislature, and talked to others in government, and decided the review should be expanded.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.
But this isn't some issue that has just arisen on the edge of the government's agenda. A child died, the questions have been clear and the controversy growing. The response should have been carefully considered.
It wasn't, as Oppal revealed in a series of damaging answers.
He said Morley had already done one report on Sherry's death, apparently the one he thought he was asking her to review. She hasn't.
He acknowledged that he hasn't read the ministry report on her death that is at the centre of the controversy - the one that he is actually asking Morley to investigate. That raises the obvious question how he determined what the scope of the investigation should be. (The report is only 45 pages long.)
And Oppal revealed he doesn't understand some of the key issues tied in to this controversy, including the tole of the Child and Youth Officer.
"The idea that Ms. Morley is not independent is patent nonsense," he bristled. She's appointed by the legislature, he said.
Except she's not, as reporters had to explain to the attorney general.
The Child and Youth Advocate, eliminated by the Liberals, was an independent officer appointed by the legislature. The Child and Youth Officer isn't.
The Children's Commissioner, also eliminated by the Liberals, reviewed and reported publicly on all child deaths. The Child and Youth Officer takes instructions in such cases - as in this instance - from the attorney general.
She has not reported on a single death.
Since the opposition and most of the people involved in helping children in the province have called repeatedly for the restoration of the Children's Commission; you would expect Oppal to know and understand the distinctions.
It's reasonable to allow new politicians time to learn some of the skills.
But Oppal was taking the lead for the government on a major issue - the death of a child. Serious questions have been raised about the government's role in the case, and whether the push to reduce spending played a role, and about the
handling of the investigation.
Oppal's lack of knowledge, about the case and related issues in his own ministry, was painful.
The public has right to expect better.
And so do all the children and families who are counting on the ministry
Footnote: Oppal apologized for any misunderstanding Thursday, saying he wasn't used to answering so many questions. But he did not respond in the legislature when asked to apologize for not reading the report on Sherry's death.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Children’s ministry fails to counter cover-up charge in girl's death

VICTORIA - Did the government attempt to cover up its role in the sad case of Sherry Charlie, the toddler battered to death after she was failed by the children’s ministry?
That was the direct charge from the NDP Monday in Question Period.
And an hour later, down in the minister’s office, Stan Hagen and a top deputy, offered no convincing rebuttal.
Sherry was beaten to death three years ago, days after being placed in the care of relatives under a new ministry policy. The man who beat her, the father in the home, had a long and violent criminal record.
The ministry and the First Nations agency involved both failed Sherry, according to an internal review done for the children and families ministry.
The review was not released until almost three years after Sherry’s death, a delay that took it past the election campaign. The ministry first released a summary, which turned out to omit damaging information about its role. Only after two weeks of pressure did Hagen order the full report released.
On Monday New Democrat Adrian Dix leveled a new charge.
The review into Sherry’s death was originally supposed to look at five issues, he said, including the role of the ministry.
But then the ministry rewrote the terms of reference, eliminating the review of the government’s role, Dix said.
Inside the legislature Hagen said he’d investigate.
An hour later he confirmed that the charge was true. The ministry had rewritten the terms of reference for the review to head off an investigation of its own role.
That was wrong, said assistant deputy minister Jeremy Berland. “It’s clearly not an acceptable way to conduct a review,” he said. And he was “irritated” when he learned of the change to the original terms of reference, which he drafted.
And then things got terribly fuzzy.
Why was the change made?
We don’t know, said Berland and Hagen. There was no memo, explanatory note or rationale, a bizarre thing in a ministry that considers effective record-keeping vital. Former ADM David Young, who left government in 2003, just ordered up the change.
It’s an unacceptable answer.
Berland acknowledged, when questioned, that he has known about the change to the mandate for about 10 months. All he had to do was ask Young for an explanation.
Hagen said he doesn’t remember being told about the decision to shelter the ministry’s role from scrutiny. Berland said he told the minister, but maybe not clearly enough, whatever that means.
Berland couldn’t explain why the ministry didn’t reveal the problems with the review when it released the report. He defended the decision not to re-open the investigation, saying it had taken too long already and he thought most issues had been covered.
And both men denied political pressure had been involved - although they had no basis for making that claim.
It was a discouraging meeting.
This isn’t a review of expense account policies - a child died.
And there are real concerns that budget cut pressures and chaos in the ministry played a role in Sherry’s death. The ministry had rushed ahead - with inadequate preparation - on a new program to place children at risk with family and friends, instead of in foster care. Done correctly, that is better for children. It also was cheaper, and had to be implemented quickly to allow the ministry to achieve its planned spending cuts.
Yet the ministry blocked a full examination of those issues. And no one has taken the effort to find out why, or - until the NDP revealed the facts - to come clean with the public.
Expect many more questions.
But at the minimum the case shows that the ministry can not investigate its own performance. It failed to conduct a proper review of Sherry’s death, by Berland’s admission, and it is only by good fortune that the failure has come to light.
Surely it is time to reinstate the Children’s Commissioner to provide independent oversight.
Footnote: Hagen praised ministry staff in the legislature, but said the case involved errors by a social worker. A reading of the review suggests much broader problems in the system played a role in the failure to protect Sherry Charlie.

Budget puts debt payment before service gains, tax cuts

VICTORIA - The Liberals launched their minibudget with the normal political spin, proudly proclaiming “Improved Support for Seniors at Heart of Budget Update.”
There was good news for seniors, with an extra $242 million earmarked over the next three years for income and housing supports and long-term care improvements. The main benefits will flow to those with the lowest incomes.
But there was better news for corporations, although it didn’t make the headlines in any press releases. They got another 11.5-per-cent tax cut, a benefit worth almost $360 million over the next three years.
The tax cut came out of the blue. It was never mentioned during the election campaign (but then the Liberals never mentioned plans to cut corporate and personal income taxes by 25 per cent during the 2001 campaign).
And the business community - while generally keen on paying less in taxes - hadn’t placed tax cuts high on its wish list, focusing instead on land use, labour and regulatory issues.
The theory is that lower taxes will encourage businesses to locate here. But even before the latest cut, B.C. had the third lowest tax rate in Canada, after Alberta and New Brunswick. The province was already competitive.
The other big budget commitment, like the tax cut, was not even hinted at in the election campaign.
The government budgeted $100 million this year for a First Nations New Relationships Fund, supporting its effort to build a more effective working relationship.
The Campbell government was already well advanced on its new relationship project during the election campaign, but kept the effort - which is worthwhile - under wraps. First Nations have been promised shared decision-making on land use issues, a chunk of the revenue from development and broad recognition as partners by the provincial government.
The $100 million is intended to help First Nations develop the skills and institutions needed to take on their expanded role. No one is sure what that means; the budget promises a plan by spring.
The biggest news in the budget may lie in what wasn’t there.
Taylor’s minibudget acknowledged that the budget introduced in February underestimated government revenues by about five per cent. That means the government had an extra $1.8 billion available to spend on programs, or to fund tax cuts. (That number is still far too conservatives, and understates the likely year-end surplus by some $500 million.)
But the Liberals only increased program spending by another $400 million in the minibudget, with new tax cuts consuming another $400 million.
The Liberals’ overwhelming priority remains paying down the debt., not cutting taxes or improving services. Last year 75 per cent of the surplus money went to debt repayment; the minibudget means a similar commitment is likely this year.
Debt repayment makes sense, as one part of a balanced approach to the finances of the province - or a family.
But the government, by making it the top priority, is running counter to the wishes of British Columbians. A legislative committee on the budget held consultations last year, and reported that the public wanted most of any surplus funds spent to improve health care and other services.
That’s reasonable. B.C.’s debt is relatively small, and easily manageable. Paying it down makes sense, but not at the expense of useful tax cuts, or improved health care. Most people balance their eagerness to pay down their mortgage against the needs of their family today.
The needs exist. A small share of the money going to debt repayment could allow hundreds of hip and knee replacements, or a reduction in MSP premiums, or more money to prepare for the long-term impact of the pine beetle.
The government had decided that paying down the debt is more useful than a grater commitment to any of those.
The budget now goes before the legislature, for the first real scrutiny any government financial plan has received since the Liberals questioned the Dosanjh government’s 2000 budget.
That alone is something to celebrate.
Footnote: The budget includes no money for a teachers’ pay increase. But while the government says it hasn’t worked out a pay mandate for the next round of contract talks with government workers, which start later this year, the budget numbers suggest something like two, two and two is planned. Expect some serious conflicts.

Christy Clark takes a risk with run for mayor's job

VICTORIA - That was a short retirement for Christy Clark, who is on the brink of stepping back into politics with a risky bid to become Vancouver's mayor.
Clark quit as children and families minister last year, and didn't run in the May election. She said it was important to spend more time with her son, then three.
That's understandable. And demanding as the mayor's job is, being a cabinet minister is more disruptive to family life. Ministers have to be in Victoria for much of the year, and travel around the province. The mayor gets to sleep in her own bed.
It's a little harder to see how being mayor is less disruptive to family life than being an MLA, the job Clark gave up four months ago. The legislature sits for a few months a year, and even then backbenchers generally only have to spend three nights a week over here.
Still, things change.
Clark is a career politician; she's never had a job outside politics and is happy to be seen as a future premier, or MP from B.C. (Her husband, Mark Marrisen, is a key federal Liberal wheel in the province.)
So it's fair to look at her interest in the mayor's job in that context.
It's been a stepping stone for others. Mike Harcourt and Gordon Campbell both went from the top elected job in Vancouver to the premier's office.
And, if all goes well, the timing works nicely for any future plans. Clark's first term - if she wins - would end in 2008. If Campbell isn't going to run in the next provincial election, scheduled for 2009, she would be positioned to jump into a leadership race.
If he decides to stay on - and isn't pushed out - Clark has the option of a second term as mayor, presiding over the Olympics, before considering a bid to become Liberal leader.
But there are a few problems with those tidy scenarios.
First Clark has to win the nomination for the Non Partisan Association. (Non-partisan in the sense that it brings together federal Liberals and Conservatives in a rightish coalition.) She'll be up against veteran councillor Sam Sullivan, who has his own strong base.
Clark can probably take the nomination. The contest is about selling memberships in the party, and she can tap an excelent organization.
Then she has to beat Jim Green, the left's candidate, a veteran councillor who will be backed popular ex-mayor Larry Campbell. Green has already characterized her as a parachute candidate - she lives outside the city in neighbouring Burnaby - and said she would be Gordon Campbell's ally in City Hall.
Even an election victory doesn't end the problems. The mayor's job is only a career launching pad if you are popular and successful. The job often calls for skills at building consensus, and dealing with a lot of small problems.
Clark is a great politician and organizer, personally appealing and clever. She was an excellent opposition MLA.
But her track record as education minister, and in children and families, was less impressive. She alienated teachers, trustees and parents as education minister, a warning of trouble ahead in the often fractious world of civic politics.
And despite a lot of activity and announcements, it's hard to point to any significant achievements in either education or children and families. (Though Clark can take credit for at least restoring stability to the children's ministry when she took over after Gordon Hogg.)
It's also hard - despite her nine years in the legislature - to say exactly what Clark stands for, and what big issues and ideas drive her participation in political life.
The mayor's job could be a chance for her to answer all those kinds of doubts, and show her ability to take on whatever comes next.
And it can be, as we've seen, a launch pad for future political opportunities.
But we've also seen lots of films of things blowing up on launch pads.
Footnote: All this talk about the next premier could create problems for Gordon Campbell. Once people begin talking about your replacement, the contenders start thinking about what they need to be ready for the race. It's a process that can promote damaging divisions within a party.

Katrina a preview of our lives after the ‘Big One’

VICTORIA - Take a long look at those pictures from New Orleans of weeping, lost people trying to figure out what’s left for them.
It could just as easily be Victoria, or Vancouver.
I’ve been watching the news, and like many people wondering why the richest nation on Earth has been doing such a poor job of responding to a foreseeable natural disaster.
Everyone knew that Katrina was coming, and that it was a fierce storm. They had days to prepare.
More importantly, everyone has known for decades that at some point a really big hurricane was going to sweep in off the gulf.
But knowing isn’t enough to make people act, to take the long-term steps needed to be ready for the feared big one, or to have the short-term relief plans in place.
I sat outside a pleasant bar in Algiers a few years ago, across the river from New Orleans. It was right beside the Mississippi, but there were no views of the water, or the ships and barges shuffling past. The river was being held back by a 10-metre berm that ran as far you could see. It’s surface was far above our heads as we sat and drank the local beer.
It was slightly unnerving, even on a sunny day. A hole in the levee and all the water in the river would spill into the country - and keep flowing until everything for a huge distance was under metres.
That’s what happened.
The levee system’s failure is no big surprise. The dikes were supposed to be able to withstand a Category 3 hurricane - though experts questioned even that prediction.
But it was a certainty that some day, a more powerful storm would hit.
And Katrina did.
Just as one of these decades a big earthquake - or a small earthquake, dangerously close - will strike along B.C.’s coast.
Most of the people in New Orleans literally couldn’t imagine the destruction of their city by a storm. Neither could the government officials responsible for preparation.
Just s we can’t imagine seeing large parts of Victoria or Vancouver devastated by an earthquake.
But the worst case scenarios for B.C. are as frightening as anything coming from New Orleans. Imagine, says the experts, a situation in which transportation was impossible and power and water services non-existent for hundreds of thousands of people.
Figure thousands homeless - perhaps in a cold, rainy January - and food supplies running out. And accept the reality that the scale of the disaster would swamp our ability to respond quickly and effectively. We don’t have the ability to set up tent cities in every park, or feed the people who may have to live there for months.
In short, imagine something much like New Orleans, without the water but with the rest of the dislocation, suffering and fear.
It is difficult for any government - and for most individuals - to balance today’s pressing needs against the importance of preparing for a disaster that may be a century away.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, which maintains the system tat protected New Orleans, has been asking for more money to fix problems. Its 2004 funding request to improve levees around Lake Pontchartrain was cut by 80 per cent. The government had other priorities.
Here in B.C., the government faces similar pressures. Improving schools’ ability to withstand earthquakes would cost about $1.5 billion. The government is committed to spending an extra $80 a year for the next three years on the problem, and hopes to complete the upgrades by 2020.
Too slow, critics say. But it’s tough to justify tax increases, or cuts to the health budget, to pay for faster progress on earthquake protection.
And it’s tough to gripe about government delays when most of us have done little personally to prepare.
Katrina’s an awful reminder that even remote threats deserve attention when their consequences are so terrible.
Footnote: Another lesson in the perils of procrastination. Paul Martin delayed calling George Bush to talk about the softwood dispute for weeks. The call was finally scheduled for Thursday, and Bush had understandably no interest in anything beyond Canada’s willingness to help in the Katrina aftermath.

School strike escape plan sitting unused on the shelf

VICTORIA - Expect trouble in schools this fall, unless the teachers' union and government are willing to try an already mapped out escape route.
The BC Teachers' Federation loathes the Liberal government, wants pay raises and is adamant about negotiating issues like class size.
The Liberal government loathes the BCTF, expects teachers to take a two-year wage freeze and says elected officials must decide issues like class size.
Teachers will take a strike vote Sept. 20-22, which will be overwhelmingly positive. The Labour Relations Board will then set essential service levels - perhaps a three-day school week - and eventually teachers will start job action. Parents will freak, and the government will pass legislation ordering teachers back to work and imposing a contract.
Surely it's time to try a better way, especially as the parties have a realistic alternative.
Last December Don Wright, a former deputy minister, prepared a report on teachers' bargaining for the government. Wright concluded that the current system doesn't work because it's built on a lie. Everyone, including the Liberals, pretend teachers have a right to strike. Really, no government will allow more than a brief school disruption before imposing a contract.
So there's little incentive to bargain. If the union thinks an NDP government might be sympathetic, it waits for an imposed deal; employers do the same when the Liberals are in power.
Wright proposed giving the two parties a set time to negotiate. If they were unsuccessful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's position. That should encourage reason; neither side would want to look like the problem. (Ideally, Wright said, the parties would agree on a commissioner; if not they could each submit names to an independent third party, who would pick one.)
The commissioner would then try to help the parties reach a deal. If that didn't work, the employer and union would both submit final positions on all the outstanding issues. The commissioner would pick one set in its entirety to form the basis of the new contract.
It's called final offer selection, and it's seen as a way to promote compromise. Take too extreme a position, and you lose everything. (Normal arbitration can encourage parties to stay far apart, hoping the arbitrator will split the difference in settling the dispute.)
Both sides can find fault with the idea.
Teachers are unhappy that Wright's proposal wouldn't let them bargain class size, support levels and other issues the Liberals stripped from their contracts through legislation.
Those issues do affect working conditions, which are normally negotiable, and teachers say they gave up past wage increases in return for smaller class sizes. But ultimately the issues are also about the best way of providing education, and that's a matter for elected officials.
Wright proposed a separate process that would bring teachers, school districts and the province together "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a compromise worth trying.
The government fears the commissioner would impose a deal that that would be too costly, or break the wage pattern that calls for no increase in the first two years of the teacher's contract.
That's a risk. Wright recommended that the commissioner have only two terms of reference in imposing a deal - the need for competitive pay and job conditions to ensure that good teachers want to work here, and the state of the economy and the government's finances. That leaves a lot of room.
Teachers also simply don't trust the government. The Liberals have ignored agreements they don't like. Why go to dispute resolution if only decisions that go against you will be recognized by the government?
But practically, the BCTF has nothing to lose. The realistic choices are a legislated agreement, on the government's terms, or a chance at the new approach. There's no downside.
It seems a perfect chance to try for a better way of resolving school labour disputes, one that really does put children first.
Footnote: The government hasn't ruled out trying the Wright way. A first step could be to appoint a commissioner early this fall to begin the process, preparing the public report on the parties' positions. That would encourage a move towards realistic, practical proposals from both sides.

Time for controls on third party advertising

VICTORIA - Of course it matters if businesses and unions spend a lot of money to influence election results.
The political parties think so. The Liberals say the NDP is nestled in the deep pockets of big labour. The New Democrats say the corporations have bought special treatment from the Campbell government.
There's been a lot of controversy and concern around third-party advertising this time around. The financial reports just filed with Elections BC show an explosion in spending this year. In 2001, third parties - people who wanted to influence the election outcome, but didn't want to give money to a party - spent $315,000.
Four years later, they came up with more than $4 million. That's 50 times the amount the Green Party raised for the campaign, and closing in on the NDP's $6 million. By the next election, they could be spending as much as the parties.
And the reported spending is likely a gross underestimate. Third-party campaigners have to report spending during the 28-day election campaign, but not any efforts outside those four weeks. If a union, or business, spends $1 million in the 10 days before the campaign starts, that can stay a secret.
Unions were the big third-party spenders during the election campaign, putting more than $3 million into an effort to persuade people to vote NDP. The BC Teachers' Federation spent about $1.5 million, including more than $600,000 sent out to local unions to spend in their communities.
Business groups spent more than $1 million to help the Liberals, with the Independent Contractors and Businesses Assocation, the lobby group for non-union construction firms, spending more than $600,000.
All this spending is on top of the money unions and business contributed directly to the parties. Do the totals, and the Liberals end up with about $9 million in direct and indirect support from business. The NDP got more than $5 million worth of help from unions.
The Liberals have been pointing with grim alarm to the unions' third party efforts. But the Campbell government cleared the way for the spending spree by removed the limits on third party advertising. And it remains the only party not calling for spending limits.
The right to participate directly in election campaigns should be protected. Individuals or groups may want to spend money to raise local issues, or support individual candidates. They may believe that they can spend the money more effectively on their own than by handing cash over to a party. Political parties shouldn't be the only voices heard during a campaign.
But practically, that right should be limited.
We have agreed that there is a real risk that democracy will be undermined if those with the most money dominate the discussion and the battle for votes. That's why we set spending limits for candidates and parties. Allowing unlimited spending by others in support of parties makes those limits meaningless.
And we rightly fear that politicians will feel indebted, or pressured, if their chances of election rest on support from business or union lobby groups. Their influence - by favoring candidates, or withholding their support - can quickly become enormous (Politicians reinforce those fears with their warnings about the corrosive effects of big donations on their opponents.)
The conflict between the right of third parties to participate in campaigns and the need to protect the system has now been resolved by the courts. The BC Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that a law restricting third party spending to $5,000 was an unwarranted limit on free speech. But last year the Supreme Court of Canada found that third party spending limits are acceptable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Federal law limits their campaign spending to $168,900.
The last provincial campaign made the risks clear. Reasonable spending limits and more effective disclosure rules are needed, and the current problems reinforce the urgency of political finance reform in B.C.
Footnote: I reported in an earlier column that the Liberals' financial disclosure forms reported the transfer of $145,000 to Lorne Mayencourt's campaign, the third highest total among candidates. Mayencourt notes that all that money was raised in the riding during the past four years, sent to the party, and then returned this year.

Robertson’s ’assassinate Chavez’ talk a symptom

VICTORIA - It’s tempting to make fun of Pat Robertson and his assassination fantasies, to write him off as a nutty novelty act on the American political-religious scene.
Robertson made the news again with his proposal - on his popular television show - that the U.S. should just go ahead and kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The democratically elected Chavez is a bad guy, Robertson said, and America needs Venezuela’s oil. Invasions cost too much, so George Bush should just send some folks off to kill Chavez.
Robertson recanted in an elaborate two-step. First he denied saying Chavez should be assassinated, a doomed effort since people could watch the videotape of him saying just that. Then Robertson acknowledged calling for the killing, and said he was wrong. He was just frustrated that the U.S. wasn’t taking the Chavez threat seriously, Robertson said, accusing Chavez of a brace of offences, including making common cause with Carlos the Jackal, a surprise since the terrorist has been a French prison for a decade.
It’s the latest in a long line of weird and creepy statements from Robertson, who is apparently in personal touch with his own cranky God. He has a long list of enemies, from liberals to pro-lifers to Supreme Court justices who are more dangerous to America than “a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
Gays and their friends are on God’s hit list, Robertson says. When Disney World wouldn’t cancel a Gay Pride Month, he predicted some serious smiting. "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes. It'll bring about terrorist bombs. It'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor," he told his TV audience.
It all sounds looney, in a hateful kind of way, the rantings you would expect from a disgruntled lonely guy down in the local coffee shop.
But about 860,000 Americans tune in each day to The 700 Club, Robertson’s flagship TV show, more than CNN attracts in prime time. Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network has more than 1,000 employees, and its news talk shows get the top politicians in Washington as regular guests. (The 700 Club is broadcast in Canada on the Miracle Channel.)
And despite Robertson’s nutty comments, he has political influence as a leader of the evangelical right. George Bush meets with Robertson, who takes credit for a major push to help Bush in both his election wins.
Robertson’s influence, some contend, is fading. But the White House’s cautious reaction to the ‘lets-kill-Chavez’ comments show an eagerness to keep him and his supporters on good terms. A State Department spokesman said the comments were "inappropriate," but didn’t say they were wrong, or stupid, or unhelpful. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield said the Pentagon doesn’t do assassinations, but he wouldn’t criticize the comments. "He's a private citizen,” Rumsfield said.”Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
But most of those private citizens don’t have access to the president, or a national TV audience.
It’s all helpful to Chavez, who has already claimed the U.S. wants him dead because of his leftist policies and alliance with Fidel Castro.
And in a small way, it’s probably unhelpful to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Many Canadians worry about the influence of social conservatives and the religious right on the party. This affair shows how large that influence has become in the U.S.
But mostly it’s another reminder of how dangerous people can be when they believe they have a direct and certain line to God. Osama Bin Laden finds justification for blowing up civilians, something the Koran forbids. Robertson finds grounds for killing leaders of other countries. Their certainty that they are right makes them dangerous.
Faith is a wonderful and powerful thing. It naturally shapes the way people live their lives.
But when it’s used to justify compelling others to live the same way, it becomes a menace, as Robertson has again shown.
Footnote: Robertson’s retreat was half-hearted. OK, he says, it was wrong to advocate assassination. But he went on to note German protestants found it acceptable to try and kill Hitler. “There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions,” Robertson concluded. “There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action.”

Ottawa too slow to raise pressure on softwood

VICTORIA - B.C.'s forest industry has a right to be steamed at the way our governments have handled the softwood dispute.
The federal government, and even the province, haven't done enough for the industry and the communities that depend on it. And both have been slow to acknowledge the need to pressure the U.S.
There's no easy solutions. But it's been clear for a year that Canada's approach to the dispute - supported by the B.C. government - has not been working. Only now has federal Trade Minister Jim Peterson said Ottawa might change tactics and retaliate. Prime Minister Paul Martin may even call George Bush to talk about the issue.
Ottawa was reacting to the U.S. announcement that it will simply ignore what was supposed to be the definitive NAFTA ruling on the dispute. The NAFTA panel dismissed the Americans' case, and said the 21-per-cent duty should be lifted, and the $5 billion already collected returned to Canadian companies.
Get lost, the U.S. government said. We don't like the decision, so we're going to ignore it. What are you going to about it?
That's been the question for some time now. Resolving the dispute through legal appeals under NAFTA or the World Trade Organization has looked increasingly unlikely. The Americans are willing to ignore the judgments.
That leaves a negotiated settlement.
But a deal reached now would be bad for Canada, which has no bargaining power. For three years the U.S. government has collected the duties with no real response from Canada, politically or economically. Both the B.C. and federal governments rejected trade retaliation. Legal efforts have failed. So have lobbying campaigns, and attempts to involve U.S. consumers, who are paying more for homes because of the duties.
The Americans can leave the duties in place indefinitely without fear. Any deal would be on their terms.
Unless Canada and B.C. are able to increase the pressure on the U.S., politically and economically.
Trade wars are risky and destructive. Canada exports about $300 billion worth of goods and services a year to the U.S. American companies only sell about $200 billion into Canada. An escalating trade battle would be much more damaging here.
And retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports will cost consumers, who will pay more for the affected goods.
But there's no realistic alternative.
The U.S. government has been tough on softwood because the American lumber producers are effective lobbyists with political muscle.
Canada has to impose duties that encourage other U.S. industries with political clout to demand Washington find a solution. The U.S. wine industry is already struggling; a 20-per-cent duty on exports to Canada would see them pushing for a quick end to the trade dispute. (Though it may also see B.C. wines facing more barriers to U.S. markets in retaliation.)
The federal government has been slow to take any action, and B.C. has been quiescent and equally reluctant to act. Former forests minister Mike de Jong said the government might tell the Liquor Distribution Branch to quit buying California wine, a $60-million gesture. Nothing happened.
Ottawa has also been slow to provide aid for affected workers and communities, or for companies facing both reduced cash flow and the need for capital investment to increase their efficiency.
Now, three years after the dispute began, the Ontario government has succeeded in getting Ottawa's attention where B.C. failed. The federal government is considering an industry aid program, after Ontario announced its own plan and called for a similar federal effort.
The aid program is likely too late for Interior companies, which have already invested to increase their efficiency, though it may help Coastal operators. But it also raises new risks. Provincial incentives in Ontario, and not in B.C., could put pulp mills in that province, for example, first in line for investment.
But aid plans aren't the answer. A more effective push to resolve the dispute holds the best hope for a real solution.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell will get a few minutes to raise the softwood issue when he meets U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney next month at a Calgary fundraising dinner for the Fraser Institute, a rightish policy centre. (You can sit with the premier for a $10,000 donation to the institute.) Cheney is also touring Alberta's oilsands.

Weirdness and worry in the political finance reports

VICTORIA - First notes from the Elections BC reports on B.C.'s most expensive political campaign ever. (With a more thoughtful overview to come.)
- The buzz that the Liberals were spending huge amounts to try and save key candidates like former labour minister Graham Bruce turns out to be entirely accurate. The finance reports show that the Liberals sent $189,000 into his Cowichan riding in an unsuccessful effort to hold the seat. Only Gordon Campbell, with $157,000, Lorne Mayencourt, with $145,000, and Virgina Greene came close to getting such a big chunk of cash from the party. Greene and Bruce lost despite the money, but the big spending may have made the difference in Mayencourt's narrow win. (There are spending limits for candidates, but they only cover the 28 days of the campaign. It's wide open in the months before, when the lucky candidates got much of the money.)
- The reports also confirm that the Liberals had written off seats in southeastern B.C. Poor Wendy McMahon got just $21,000 to help fight her losing battle, while Blair Suffredine got $27,000. The average across all 79 ridings was $76,000.
- The First Dollar Alliance Society, based in Campbell River, registered as a third-party campaigner, raising $27,250 to promote the Liberals and local candidate Rod Visser. The biggest donor? Why the government of B.C., which contributed $17,500. But it's not like it looks, said Leanne Brunt. That money was for a conference of women from resource communities. The money spent on the pro-Liberal campaign came almost entirely from corporate donors. It still leaves the Alliance's grassroots claims looking a little tattered.
- The money trails behind the third party campaigns are twisting and tangled. Which side, for example, would you say the Comox Valley Association for Good Government is on? Liberal, as it turns out, and more than one-third of the $15,000 it raised to support Stan Hagen came from Great Canadian Railtours, a good Liberal donor with not much to do with the Comox Valley. Great Canadian gave another $57,000 directly to the Liberal campaign.
And then there's the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of BC, which raised $86,000 to oppose the Liberals. But dig in to the documents and you find $71,000 of that came from various union groups, including $45,000 from the BC Federation of Labour. That's on top of the BC Fed's own $114,000 third party campaign and the $412,000 it donated to the NDP.
- Unions spent more than $3 million on third party campaigns, a large amount but less than the Liberals had predicted during the campaign (and as recently as last week when they quoted a figure of $10 million in a press release).
- Cline Mining, the small corporation at the centre of a big B.C.-Montana fight over a planned coal mine near the U.S. border., came through for the Liberals with a $15,000 donation. Cline's right to develop the mine has been championed by the government, but it's still a generous gift from a company that lost almost $400,000 last year.
- It was once again not easy being Green. The party manage to raise $90,000, almost all from individual donations. It's a hopelessly small amount to fund a provincial campaign. The Green's biggest budget expense - brochures - cost less than the $15,000 victory celebration party in Gordon Campbell's riding.
- The Greens were able to get their financial reports in by the deadline, but Adriane Carr had to get an extension for filing her candidates' financial statements. So did 11 NDP candidates, including five who were elected - Ronin Austin, Mike Farnworth, Sue Hammell, Harry Lali and Diane Thorne.
- The most efficient campaigner among the leaders filing returns was Marc Emery, who reported campaign expenses of $100 and got 374 votes, for a cost of 27 cents for vote won. Carole James, who spent $55,000 and got 16,081 votes spent $3.40 per vote. Campbell's $177,000 in spending and lower vote total meant he had to spend more than $14 per vote.
Footnote: The pressure for political finance reform is mounting. The NDP and Greens already support a ban on union and corporate donations, and the New Democrats are now open to better controls on third party spending. The Liberals stand alone in defending the status quo.

Benefits outweigh risks in new deal for First Nations

VICTORIA - Give the Liberals' credit for a bold, somewhat risky, effort to forge a "New Relationship" with First Nations.
The five-page framework for sweeping change has been circulating through First Nations and industry for months, but has just become officially available on the government's web site.
It shows how far the Campbell government has moved since the days of the now ignored treaty referendum.
The New Relationship document promises government-to-government negotiations with First Nations. It commits the province to shared decision-making on land and resource management in areas claimed as traditional territories, and promises a share of the revenue and economic benefits. The government agrees to accept a broad definition of aboriginal title.
And the pact acknowledges that “the historical Aboriginal-Crown relationship in British Columbia has given rise to the present socio-economic disparity between First Nations and other British Columbians.”
The agreement even says that the government will work “to ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations.”
That's the kind of promise that's making industry nervous.
The big resource industry groups welcome anything that increases certainty about who owns the land and what the rules are. But they're worried, for example, about just what First Nations laws they're going to have to obey, and where those laws are written down.
And they wonder if the new revenue-sharing commitment means that the government will just cut First Nations in on a piece of the existing royalties and lease charges, or whether industry will be asked to come up with more money.
The worries have increased because this agreement was negotiated between the premier's office and the First Nations' groups. Nobody asked industry, or municipalities, MLAs, or even cabinet ministers, about how this would affect them.
That's not the only cause for concern. Premier Gordon Campbell talks about the relationship in terms of reconciliation and the overall state of life in the province. The government can't achieve its goals for health and education and the economy without a radical improvement in the lives of aboriginal people, he says.
But Ed John of the First Nations Summit, hardly a radical, says the new relationship means big changes on the ground, and an end to an era in which resource companies grew rich at the expense of First Nations.
It's always risky when two parties have such different understandings and expectations of an agreement. Someone is going to be disappointed, and perhaps angry.
Still, this is a positive step.
The Liberal government has moved a long way. In 2001, Campbell eliminated the aboriginal affairs ministry, placing the responsibility under the attorney general. (A mistake - the attorney general represents the province's legal interests. Hard-line positions are necessary in legal battles, but destructive in terms of building relationships.)
Now Tom Christensen is the new minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation, reflecting the new relationship themes. The province is working with First Nations on new institutions to develop the government-to-government agreements on land use and revenue-sharing, and has promised funding to support the process.
There are risks in all this, but bigger potential rewards.
Treaty-making is proving to be slow, difficult and expensive. The resulting lack of certainty about land use has been a major drag on the B.C. economy.
And the lives of aboriginal people, as a whole, are a disgrace. Being born Indian means that it is much more likely that you will be poor, under-educated and sickly. The odds that you will end up in jail, or a suicide, are sharply higher. It's the kind of social disparity Canadians are quick to condemn in other countries.
It's time every child had a chance to make the most of the future.
The new relationship could be a start.
Footnote: The impetus for much of this work was last fall's Supreme Court of Canada ruling that the province had a duty to consult First Nations before making decisions affecting lands they claimed. The level of consultation required would vary with circumstances, the court ordered, and it recommended some sort of dispute resolution method to avoid more court cases. That lead to the much broader effort.

Teachers' strike looking like part of students' fall

VICTORIA - There's going to be a nasty shock this fall for parents who thought electing a Liberal government meant no school strikes.
Barring big change the battle between the BC Teachers' Federation and the government will lead to some sort of strike or job action this fall.
The campaign rhetoric left some people thinking that school strikes had been banned by the Liberals.
Not so. The Campbell government did change the law in 2002 to make education an essential service. But that doesn't mean an end to strikes.
It simple ensures that before a strike or lockout the Labour Relations Board must set essential service levels, just as in a health care dispute. Lawyers for both sides will make creative arguments about what essential means when it comes to schools, and the board will set out ground rules.
Parents won't like the results. The board has to ensure people who rely on the services aren't unduly harmed. But it also is bound to promote collective bargaining, so it sets essential service levels low enough that strikes still mean pain and an incentive for negotiations. (In the last BC Ferries job action, service on some routes to the Island was cut in half under the approved plan.)
Schools won't be open five days a week. Several districts have already gone to four-day school weeks to save money. If the government considered that acceptable, it will have a tough time arguing five days are now essential.
Two or three-day weeks, half days, combined classes, cancelled optional subjects - expect some or all of those to be part of the approved plan.
None of which will please parents. The reality is that we rely on schools for child care as well as education. For working parents, finding substitute child care will be costly, inconvenient and sometimes impossible. Businesses will be hit with higher absenteeism, and too young children will be fending for themselves.
None of this will last long. The Liberals, like the NDP government, will bring in legislation to end the strike, and ultimately impose a contract.
But it will still be a big disruption, and one that will leave some voters feeling betrayed.
Unless the union and the government find a way put aside their mutual contempt and come up with a solution that puts students first. (The union officially bargains with the BC Public School Employers' Association, but the association doesn't have the ability to address the key issues.)
So far, neither side seems willing to take the needed steps. Instead, the union and the government are fighting over issues that should be swept away.
The Liberals are all fired up about politics in the classroom, fretting about a BC Appeal Court decision giving teachers a right to talk about issues like class size in parent-teacher interviews, if they are relevant to the child. The reality is that this a non-problem. How many parents have complained after their eight-minute chat with a teacher?
And the BCTF is suing Gordon Campbell for defamation for his campaign claim that the union and the NDP had a secret plan to engineer a school strike last spring. Campbell went too far, but the case should be settled with an apology.
Even with the distractions pushed aside, it will be tough to reach an agreement. The government says the teachers must accept 0 and 0 in the first two years of the new contract, citing the wage freeze imposed just after they signed their last contract, which gave them 7.5 per cent over three years. Teachers want raises in all three years.
And the union wants a chance to negotiate class size limits and other working conditions, all previously negotiated terms of their contracts that the Liberals removed through legislation. That's not going to happen.
Both sides say they want to avoid disruption in the schools. But neither is doing much to head off the coming crash.
Footnote: There is a solution. The Wright report on teachers' bargaining completed last year outlined an alternative approach which acknowledges that teachers don't have a real right to strike, and substitutes conciliation and a form of arbitration. A future column will look at the risks and benefits of giving it a try now.