Harper winning skirmishes, but risks losing public trust

VICTORIA - The first spin was that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had won political victories around big issues in the last week.
But it looks just as much as if Harper has revealed critical weaknesses that could give the Liberals new life in the next election campaign.
The Conservatives were slicing and dicing on an extended commitment to the war in Afghanistan, the unfair abuse dished out to Harpers' choice to head the new commission on public appointments and the firearms registry.
In each case the government scored some political points. But in each case it treated Parliament, and thus Canadians, with heavy handed disdain. Harper demonstrated that once he thinks he's right Parliament and public opinion don't much matter.
It's exactly the kind of thing many voters already feared about him.
Start with Afghanistan.
Harper wanted to extend Canada's commitment to provide troops, which was to end next February, for another two years. He called a surprise debate in Parliament - MPs had two days to prepare, gather the views of their constituents and consider what the situation in Afghanistan might be in two years. Harper limited it to a few hours. And he indicated he would not be bound by the vote.
A "tactical triumph," one commentator called it. The vote passed and the Liberals were split on the issue, with leadership candidates on both sides.
But where's the triumph? Canadian troops have just been committed to a long, deadly mission with no real public discussion of the risks to them, the support they will need and the chances of success. Instead of seeking a full debate and making a strong case, Harper opted for political cleverness on an issue that demanded better.
The Liberals were divided, which the Harper team will emphasize during the next campaign. But their MPs were allowed to vote freely, hardly a bad thing.
Next consider Harper's response when a Parliamentary committee rejected his choice to head a new accountability agency to watch government appointments and make sure merit and not patronage was the big factor.
The committee's decision was a travesty. The opposition members grilled retired EnCana CEO Gwyn Morgan about past comments that had nothing to do with his ability to handle the job, which he had agreed to take on for $1 a year. They focused on his observation that immigration raises social issues, referring to people who "come from countries where the culture is dominated by violence and lawlessness." Hardly a radical observation.
Harper was miffed. His response was to abandon entirely the promised accountability commission to oversee appointments, an act of presidential petulance.
Finally, there was the gun registry.
Conservatives mostly hate it, partly because many rural Canadians have never accepted the idea that they should have to register guns as they do vehicles and partly becuase it is a symbol of waste and dishonesty under the Liberal government.
But the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police want the registry kept intact. Police use it about 5,000 times a day, they say, and it helps keep officers safer. Canadians, conerned about gun crime, are divided.
Harper could have held a vote on the registry's future and left the question to Parliament. That's the essence of this democracy thing.
Instead, fearing defeat, the Conservatives launched a stealth attack without Parliamentary support. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced a one-year amnesty for shotgun and rifle owners who have ignored the registration requirment, effectively rewarding them for breaking the law. The Conservatives chopped funding to the registry and eliminated fees for permit renewals. They are killing it, while avoiding a vote in Parliament.
Clever tactics, I suppose.
But many Canadians feared Harper's certainty would translate into a contempt for the views of others.
His actions in ignoring the legitimate role of Parliament and concentrating all power in the prime minister's office affirm those fears.
In winning some quick battles, he risks losing the longer political war.
Footnote: Two Liberal leadership candidates - Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison - voted with the Harper government to extend the Afghanistan commitment. The other six, including Ken Dryden and Stephane Dion, were opposed. It should be a big issue in the leadership race.

U.S. gets say on B.C. forest policy; public doesn't get say in softwood deal

VICTORIA - The New Democrats took their best shot at digging into the softwood lumber agreement this week, pressing for an emergency debate on the deal.
It didn’t work. And that’s too bad.
The agreement, like any treaty or trade pact, is ultimately between governments. It’s unrealistic to expect MLAs to be able to pick through the softwood deal clause by clause and send government back to the table on any issues they find troubling.
But the legislature - and the public - should get a chance to have an informed say on the broad principles.
That’s what the NDP proposed this week, calling for an emergency debate under the arcane rules of the legislature.
Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson raised the need for an urgent debate. He cited Trade Minister David Emerson's weekend comments that provinces would be expected to check with Washington before making any forest policy changes during the agreement’s seven-year life.
A "surrender of sovereignty," said Simpson, one that would take away the right of future governments to set forest policy for the province.
Forest Minister Rich Coleman didn't disagree. Any agreement would have to include provisions to satisfy the Americans that provinces weren't going to introduce unfair subsidies for the forest industry, he said.
"So we will be going through that with our legal people, and we're at the table as British Columbia making sure that British Columbian interests are taken care of," he said.
Coleman is right. Any agreement has to include some mechanism to make sure that neither side finds ways to cheat.
But there are a range of solutions. The agreement could provide for independent arbitration, for example, which would protect B.C.'s right to set policy.
All we have now is Emerson's comment that Washington will be able to vet any changes in provincial forest policy.
Coleman wasn't reassuring.
"There's nothing to worry about," he said. B.C. won't need to worry about U.S. approval for policy changes between now and 2013 because it won’t make any.
"We won't because we've done ours," he said. The government has advanced the introduction of market-based stumpage in the Interior. It will now be complete before the softwood deal is signed
It’s an alarming answer. Coleman is acknowledging that the U.S. has a say on B.C. forest policy.
And his claim that forest policy is fixed for the next seven years is implausible.
Maybe everything has been done and the province has got policy to the point of perfection. But perhaps markets will change or the pine beetle disaster will have unforeseen consequences. Maybe future governments will overhaul aspects of forest management to increase safety. The notion that our forest policy is now locked in place is unrealistic.
The NDP wanted the softwood deal discussed under a legislature rule that allows for emergency debate on a "definite matter of urgent public importance."
There were only three days left in this session of the legislature, the deal could be signed by June 15 and MLAs don't sit again until the fall.
This is the only chance to get answers about the sovereignty issue before B.C. is committed, Simpson said.
Speaker Bill Barisoff said no. The softwood discussions have been going on for some time and MLAs have had a chance to ask questions, he said. It's not enough that new details about the deal have emerged, and anyway the NDP can raise the issue in the three remaining Question Periods.
The decision fits with precedent. But it’s a loss for the public.
There are important questions about the tentative deal that haven’t been answered. It’s been treated so far as an issue for government and forest companies.
But it also affects individuals and communities. A draft released by the NDP Tuesday said, for example, that export quotas will be based on a region’s average share of U.S. imports from 2001 and 2005. Those were tough years for the coastal industry and boom times for the Interior, rushing to process beetle-damaged wood. Vancouver Island and Coastal forest communities deserve to know if they’re being locked into seven years of limited access to the U.S. market.
A fuller debate now would ensure that the public supports the agreement, and that issues are raised and addressed before we are locked into a long-term deal.
Footnote: The NDP asked Premier Gordon Campbell if he would guarantee a public debate on the deal before it is signed. No, he said. It’s a good deal, B.C.’s policies will govern forest practices and - apparently - there’s no need for a public discussion of the impact of the seven-year agreement.

To understand First Nations blockades, look to Ottawa

VICTORIA - Of course First Nations are going to stage blockades and occupations of disputed land.
It's the only way they can get government to respond to their claims.
What would you do if you launched a legal effort to get back land you believed someone had taken from you and found that you were being stalled for year after year?
People have been getting mightily exercised about the latest First Nations' blockade over some disputed land in Ontario.
And let it be said that everyone has to obey the rule of law or accept the consequences. That's what keeps our society working.
But before you get too righteous, let me tell you about another land dispute here in B.C. Consider the way the federal government handled it, then decide whether you'd be thinking about a blockade too.
The Doig River and Blueberry River bands were part of the Treaty 8 agreements reached in 1900. They were given reserve land near Fort St. John for giving up their traditional territories.
By 1920 settlers had become established. They wanted the province to build a road to Alberta and - not surprisingly - said the best route was through the reserve land.
OK, said the province. It wrote the federal government and asked for 32 acres to be taken from the reserve for a road. The land wasn't being farmed and maybe a road would even make the rest of the reserve more valuable, the province said.
Of course the province didn't want to pay for the land.
Ottawa - the legal protector of the bands' interests - countered by saying that the province could have the land if it would fence the roadway.
No, said the province. So the federal government just handed the land over. It didn't ask the bands if they wanted to give it up. In fact, Ottawa never actually told them about the deal.
But eventually, decades later, they found out. In 1995 the Treaty 8 association decided to submit a claim for compensation. The Crown had ignored its legal obligations and the bands were owed compensation, the association said.
Here's a nice detail. The association didn't want the dispute to drag on, so they used a new "fast-track" process.
It seemed simple. Even today 32 acres up there aren't worth much. There's no tricky precedents involved. The federal government could admit compensation was owed, and negotiate a deal. Or it could say no, the Crown did nothing wrong.
Figure six months as a reasonable period for definitive answer.
Instead, Ottawa did nothing. Eight years went by and the federal government wouldn't respond to the claim.
Finally, after eight years of waiting for any answer, the First Nations had enough and filed an appeal with the Indian Claims Commission.
The federal government had denied their compensation claim and they wanted to challenge the decision.
Get this. The federal government then argued that the natives had no right to appeal to the commission, because there was nothing to appeal. Their claim hadn't been denied yet. It has been ignored for eight years, but it had not been denied.
Come on, said the Indian Claims Commission, grab some common sense. If the federal government hasn't responded in eight years, it has effectively denied the claim. We're investigating and issuing a decision.
And then - cornered - the federal government said wait , we'd rather negotiate. Talks are going on now.
Ottawa's approach was stall, ignore and then attempt to deny access to legitimate appeal channels. People will grow impatient.
And this case appears to be much too close to the norm. One lawyer involved in the process says B.C. First Nations find claims for specific compensation are regularly stalled for years in a gridlocked system.
It's wrong to break the law or defy the courts.
But when I expect it's something many of would do faced with a government that took our property and then ignored us like we just didn't matter.
Footnote: The Blueberry and Doig could afford to be patient. The tiny didn't just lose the 32 acres for the road. Indian Affairs also handed over reserve land and mineral rights to returning Second World War veterans just before gas reserves were discovered. After a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in their favour, the bands received $147 million in compensation.

Liberals move to centre and rise in polls

VICTORIA -  It's time to start thinking about a B.C. Liberal dynasty.
The Mustel poll released this week confirms the success of the Campbell government's effort to move towards the centre. And it suggests that the Liberals have the chance to become a multi-term government, like their Socred predecessors.
It's just one poll, with the usual margin of error, but it has Liberals smiling. The poll showed the Campbell party has the support of 54 per cent of decided voters, up from 45 per cent in November. NDP support fell to 37 per cent from 41 per cent.
It's a great showing for the Liberals. The party only had the support of 46 per cent of voters in last May's election. In fact they haven't done as well in a Mustel poll since the fall of 2001, when the post-election honeymoon ended badly.
The poll doesn't reflect poorly on the New Democrats. Their support is down from the 42 per cent they attracted in the election, but within the range of results from the last few years. Green support is at five per cent, the lowest in a Mustel poll in five years.
The NDP hasn't made any big mistakes. The New Democrats may not have been quite as effective in Question Periond this session, but they've pressed the government effectively on emergency room problems. They’re still getting good coverage in regional newspapers on a range of local issues.
But the poll - and remember, it's just one snapshot - suggests that it's hard for even an effective opposition to gain ground if the government doesn't give people a reason to be angry at them.
After four years in which the Liberals didn't seem to care what voters thought about them,  they've got smarter.
Sure, the Liberals still refuse to admit obvious problems for far too long. They denied problems in the children and families ministry for years, looking increasingly ridiculous. But finally they acknowledged reality and appointed Ted Hughes to investigate. They now have a window to show that they learned from their blunders.
The biggest evidence of the changed approach change came in public sector labour relations. The Liberals stomped on their employees for much of the first term, ripping up contracts, conducting mass firings and rolling back wages for the lowest-paid employees.
The approach changed after the teachers’ strike. The Liberals were shocked to find that the public solidly supported the teachers even after the strike was declared illegal.
So when contract talks started they reacted with a fair wage mandate, the clever idea of a signing bonus linked to early agreements and and a determination to reach negotiated deals.
It worked. And I'd wager that the poll results would be much different if the government was at war with health care support staff right now.
The Liberals have learned some lessons. This week they pulled the plug on three controversial bills in the face of NDP opposition and public concern. They had defended a new law that would have allowed government to keep details of public-private partnerships secret, even in the face of sharp criticism from Information Commissioner David Loukidelis.
But when the pressure mounted, they bailed instead of stubbornly pressing on and alienating voters.
It's been a big change for the Liberals. And it looks like it's working.
Given a strong economy, a tolerable leader, no disasters and a government that doesn't poke people in the eye, a centrist party can stay in power for a long time in B.C. The Socreds went 20 years, were out of power for three, and back for 16 years.
Gordon Campbell has become a more tolerable leader. His approval rating, at 46 per cent, is higher than he has ever received in a  Mustel poll. Carole James received the same approval rating.
The Liberals looked much like a potential two-term government through their first four years.
They’ve changed. And so have their chances of a longer run in government.
Footnote: Mustel tracks British Columbians’ views on top issues affecting them. The latest numbers show unsurprisingly that health is the main issue. But the number of people identifying it as their main concern has fallen to 40 per cent, the lowest in 2 1/2 years, despite the current ER problems.

Straight answers could have headed off Olympic cost concerns

VICTORIA - I probably wouldn’t even be writing about Olympic costs if the Liberals were serious about all their “most open and accountable” government talk.
But faced with the chance to be open about spending, the Liberals opted for secrecy.They ended up looking foolish and turned a small issue into a bigger one. New Democrat Harry Bains has been pushing for answers on Olympic spending during budget debates. But estimates debates, as they’re called, don’t grab much attention. So this week, Bains took the issue to Question Period, the daily 30 minutes guaranteed to get noticed.
How much, he asked Hansen, is the government spending on 2010 Legacies Now?
I don’t know, said Hansen, the minister responsible for the Olympics. Despite its name the agency doesn’t have anything to do with the Olympics, Hansen said, so don’t ask him.
Anyway if people want to know how much has been spent they can wait until June and search through hundreds of pages of Public Accounts. Don’t expect the government to answer a question about how taxpayers’ money is being spent voluntarily.
OK, said NDP leader Carole James, surely Finance Minister Carole Taylor knows how much has been spent. James asked her.
But Taylor stayed in her seat. Hansen, the man who said it had nothing to do with him, leaped up again and refused to provide the information.
So it remains a secret how much taxpayers’ money has gone to 2010 Legacies Now in the last fiscal year.
The Liberals appear to be nervous about the whole issue of Olympic costs. They maintain that the province will contribute only $600 million to staging the Games. Other expenses - like 2010 Legacies Now - are mostly on things the government would have done anyway and shouldn't be counted, they say.
Bains has been making a good case that the tab is really higher.
Most obviously, the government has chosen not to count the Olympic Seretariat as a Games' cost. That would strike most people as illogical; without the Olympics surely we wouldn't need an agency to oversee the province's role. So far the Secretariat has spent $26 million, with the biggest costs still ahead. (The original forecast put the total cost of Games' oversight at $15 million.) The government can make a better argument for keeping 2010 Legacies Now out of the tally. The agency is obviously linked to the Olympics - its website says the agency "creates sustainable legacies that will benefit all British Columbians as a result of hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games." It was launched, with fanfare, as an example of the kind of great benefits that would flow from the Games.
But the activities are varied, from literacy funding to supporting minor sports to paying for big video screens for communities to watch the Games. We would have spent some of that money anyway, says Hansen. Other agency projects are aimed at taking full advantage of the opportunities the Olympics provide to inspire people.
Maybe. But Legacies Now has also been doing activities that are clearly linked to the Games.
In any case the obvious solution is simply to come clean on how much is being spent by Legacies Now and where the money is going. People can decide whether the spending is Olympic-related or not. (And the public can decide if it was worth setting up a new agency to handle the money. Legacy Now adminstration costs ate up $3 million last year; the agency only handed out $17 million.)
Tell the public what you're spending their money on, and how much. Don't refuse to answer, or tell people it's a secret unless they're prepared to wait and search through hundreds of pages of spending information.
It's the right thing to do. And it seems the politically sensible thing to do.
By stonewalling, the government just increased suspicions that it has something to hide on 20101 Legacies Now and Games' costs.
Footnote: For the record, B.C.'s auditor general estimated B.C. taxpayers will be spending $1.25 billion to host the Games, including costs like the Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements and the Olympic Secretariat. The government turned down the auditor general's request for additional funds to allow his office to monitor Olympic spending.

Campbell strong on Kelowna Accord, but Harper not listening

VICTORIA - Gordon Campbell gave a great speech on the need to honour the Kelowna Accord.
But it doesn't look much like anyone outside the province noticed, or that Stephen Harper even cares much about B.C.'s views on the agreement.
Campbell spoke two days after Harper's first budget effectively repudiated the accord, which allocated $5.1 billion over five years to try and address the economic and social problems that afflict First Nations.
The Conservative government's decision was a blow to First Nations and an unintentional slap in the face for Campbell, who had championed the agreement.
And it created a special problem for the B.C. government, which has taken great care to work positively with Ottawa since 2001.
Campbell's carefully crafted response, delivered in a special statement to the legislature, worked hard at keeping a positive tone. He welcomed the budget commitment of money to address First Nations' housing problems and acknowledged that the Conservative government might have its own ideas on addressing First Nations' problems. (The budget commitment was between 25 per cent and 70 per cent of the money promised under the Kelowna Accord, depending on who is doing the counting.)
But the speech made it clear that the B.C. government believed that abandoning the accord would be a betrayal and a tragic mistake, calling it "Canada's moment of truth."
"It was chance to do something that had eluded our grasp as a nation for 138 years - to end the disparities in health, education, housing and economic opportunity," Campbell said. "First ministers from all the provinces, all the territories and the federal government came together. They lit a torch, and that was a torch of hope. It was a beacon that we should hold high." The honour of the Crown is at stake, he said. Ottawa should not abandon a unanimous agreement between all provinces, the federal government and First Nations.
The speech was tremendously well-received. First Nations leaders, on hand for the speech, and the NDP joined in a standing ovation.
But it caused barely a ripple outside the province's borders - almost no national media coverage, no real response - positive or negative - from the Conservative government.
The reaction was a reminder that B.C. remains a peripheral province. If a premier from Ontario or Quebec had made a similar speech, it would have been a major national story.
And it shows that First Nations' poverty and despair have not yet become a national issue.
The Kelowna Accord matters a great deal in B.C. Campbell rightly calls the poverty, illness and despair among natives across Canada a national disgrace.
And the accord is linked to the province's New Relationship initiative, which is intended to replace confrontation and conflict with co-operation. That's a key element of future economic development.
But the issue isn't a priority for the Harper government, which has stayed tightly focused on five priorities ( Accountability Act, child care payments, GST cut, crime and health care wait times).
The accord is also tainted in Conservative eyes because it was signed by Paul Martin days before the last election. "Something crafted on the back of a napkin," Conservative MP Monte Solberg said last January.
But the agreement was reached only after 18 months of negotiations and work by provinces, Ottawa and First Nations.
It's tough to see a way to salvage the deal at this point. Campbell's speech was applauded in B.C., but went unnoticed on the national stage. It's possible that the agreement could be saved if other premiers joined the effort, but there is no sign of that happening.
Worse, the Conservatives have shown no evidence of having a replacement  plan of their own.
The Kelowna Accord was an important commitment. It was part of a new relationship that is important for B.C.'s progress and propserity.
And it was an effort to end the suffering and despair of Canada's First Nations, a situation that is a true national disgrace.
Footnote: There is a certain irony here. Five years ago Campbell was heading his own new government and insisting on a destructive treaty referendum despite warnings that it would seriously harm relations with First Nations. Now he is the champion of reconciliation, sending similar warnings over the death of the Kelowna Accord.

Little to cheer for B.C. in budget

VICTORIA - Finance Minister Carole Taylor was quick to offer enthusiastic support for the federal budget.
It’s a little hard to see why.
The quickness was understandable. Radio reporters are always looking for fast reaction for their next newscast and the two Caroles - the NDP’s James and the Liberals’ Taylor - were ready to deliver first opinions an hour after the federal budget was released.
But the support was a little harder to fathom. On balance the federal budget seemed to merit a best an OK rating from the province’s perspective. Some good news, some bad news and nothing defining either way. (That’s not surprising from the first budget from a spanking new minority government.)
Start with the most obvious good news. The budget includes $400 million over two years to deal with the pine beetle crisis. That may not be enough, but it’s a welcome start and an improvement on the $100 million a year coming from the former Liberal government.
There are still a lot of questions about how the money will be used, especially in helping communities prepare to cope the post-beetle crash in the timber supply. But the money is a welcome downpayment on what is needed.
Taylor also praised the Harper budget for maintaining the Liberals’ promise of $591 million for the Pacific Gateway project, a major effort to improve transportation - road, ports and the rest - to help build trade with Asia.
But the Liberal government had promised the money over five years, working to a timetable that reflected the urgency of seizing trade opportunities.
The Harper government has pushed the commitment out over eight years, a significant watering down of the commitment.
Then there’s the bad news.
The biggest disappointment for the B.C. government is the Conservatives’ repudiation of the Kelowna Accord on First Nations. Premier Gordon Campbell travelled the country to win support for the agreement, which committed $5 billion over five years to improving conditions for natives across Canada. He championed it as a moral and economic obligation to end a shameful situation. The deal won the unanimous agreement of premiers and then prime minister Paul Martin in Kelowna last fall and was supported by First Nations leaders.
And the Conservatives blew it up within 90 days. The accord promised about $1 billion a year to improve housing, education and social conditions for First Nations. The Harper budget has committed less than one-quarter that amount.
The Conservatives complained that the Kelowna Accord lacked substance and was simply an attempt to throw money at a problem. That’s a serious rebuke to the Campbell government and setback for dealing with a national disgrace.
(The decision drew quick fire from First Nations’ leaders. Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs said it showed the Conservatives couldn’t be trusted - he actually accused them of speaking with “forked tongue.”)
The budget also failed to provide any money to cover Olympic construction cost over-runs.
The cost of Games venues is forecast to be $110 million over budget. The B.C. government has already agreed to pick up half the extra costs.
But despite a big lobby effort from the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee, Ottawa hasn’t said it will contribute any more money.
If it sticks with that position B.C. taxpayers could be squeezed for more cash. (B.C. has agreed to take responsibility for all Games cost over-runs or revenue shortages.)
Taylor said she’s confident the federal government will come through. Trade Minister David Emerson is responsible for the file, she said, and understands the seriousness of the issue.
But if he does, where’s the money?
Details of the budget - good and bad - are still to come. The Conservative plan offers a vague indication of an army presence in B.C., which could offer benefits to a community. There are details of specific provisions for targeted industries still to come.
But so far this looks mostly like an adequate budget for B.C. There are few reasons for cheerleading.
Footnote: James seized on the expected lack of child care funding as a significant problem. The Conservatives’ decision to cancel the federal-provincial child care deal in favour of a $1,200 child allowance was expected, but it leaves B.C. without a clear plan for child care.

Perfect storm battering tourism; aid needed now

VICTORIA - The NDP was asking about BC Ferries Monday, but missed the most urgent questions.
BC Ferries wasn't their first choice. The New Democrats were keen to ask about emergency room problems, but neither Health Minister George Abbott or Premier Gordon Campbell showed up in the legislature.
So the opposition turned to the sinking of the Queen of the North. The questions were fine, about fare increases and environmental damage and whether BC Ferries should should keep getting paid a subsidy for the route now that it's not delivering the service. But they missed the big issue.
The sinking of the Queen of the North and the drastically reduced service for this summer are a tourism disaster for Prince Rupert and northern Vancouver Island.
And their impact is going to be felt across the entire province.
In the past that would have mattered less. The tourism industry was strong enough to handle even a serious problem like reduced ferry service on a key route.
That's no longer true. Tourism is getting clobbered by a storm of bad news. Start with the Canadian dollar, which topped 90 cents US this week for the first time since 1978. Three years ago our dollar was worth about 70 cents US.
Good news if you're heading to Seattle. Bad news for B.C. tourism.
An American tourist looking at a weekend in B.C. might plan on spending $400 Canadian. Three years ago that would have cost him less than $300 US. Today the same trip would cost him $375 US. That's the kind of increase that makes people think twice. Then consider gas prices. Three years ago gas was about 70 cents a litre. Now it's $1.12. Add the effects of the rising dollar and a driving holiday in B.C. that would have cost an American tourist $190 for gas three years ago would now be $385. (BC Stats estimates that each one-cent increase in U.S. gas prices results in 6,000 fewer tourists. American gas prices are up 55 cents from a year ago, enough to cost the province 330,000 visitors.)
On top of those problems add confusion about the U.S. government's coming requirement that American travelers have a passport. Only about 30 per cent of Americans have passports, and few are likely to get one for a brief trip to our province.
And now BC Ferries has slashed service from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. A few years ago we did an RV trip from Prince George to Prince Rupert, and then down on the ferry to Port Hardy and home. It was early fall and the trip was spectacular. Most nights we met tourists from Europe, doing a big loop out of Calgary in rented RVs.
The threat of cancelled sailings is enough to make tourists consider other options. The effects will be felt from Nelson to Nanaimo.
The problem is already with us. Visits from the U.S. - by far our major international tourist market - fell 4.6 per cent last year. The number of U.S. visitors in February was the lowest of any month in 25 years.
Government can't ride to the rescue every time an industry hits hard times. Aid often just delays needed adjustments.
But the tourism faces extraordinary challenges. There is a role for government aid.
To its credit the government has sharply increased tourism funding in recent years, doubling support for Tourism B.C. to $50 million a year and providing one-time grants to the six regional tourism authorities.
A one-time emergency grant now now could help the industry through this year.
Tourism BC and the regional authorities could decide best how to spend the money. But a campaign aimed at assuring tour operators that the Rupert-Hardy trip is still possible would make sense. So would efforts to attract more visitors from within Canada, or encourage Americans to visit before passport rules kick in.
It's a good time for the government to land a hand to a key industry.
Footnote: The NDP questions on BC Ferries focused on whether the supposedly independent corporation would be docked money for failing to provide service on the route. Maybe, maybe not, said Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. The reality is that penalizing the corporation would just mean higher fares for users.

New class size law a reasonable compromise

VICTORIA - Hey, the system works. Look at the government's move to set class size limits.
The Liberal government is in the process of bringing back size limits for Grades 4 to 12. It has acknowledged that eliminating maximum class sizes was a mistake. Too many children were lost in large classes.
That's a win for the students and for the BC Teachers' Federation, which went on an illegal strike last year at least partly over the issue.
The strike worked. The government had steadfastly maintained there was no problem with class size. That was contradicted by Industrial Inquiry Commissioner Vince Ready, who said the issue had to be addressed. And now the Liberals - to their credit - have admitted they were wrong.
At the same time the BCTF didn't get all that it wanted. Class size limits used to be in the teachers' contract. The Liberals used legislation to break the agreements. Class sizes and the number of special needs students were educational issues to be decided by trustees, they said.
The problem is that they are also workplace issues, which are usually subject to collective bargaining.  
The union would have liked to see the class sizes back in the contract. But this is a reasonable compromise. Teachers get influence, if they can keep the public's support.
The government refused to do anything about the issue until last fall's strike. Its interest appeared to be waning until negotiations with the union reached a critical point this month. That's when the legislation was introduced.
It was a pragmatic move. The BCTF is the last significant public sector union without a contract. The government wants to negotiate a deal without job action, especially after last year's strike. The public's support for the teachers did much to shape the government's new, more moderate approach to labour relations.
Partly, the union won support because the public had just grown tired of the government's rough treatment of its employees. People were prepared to tolerate some righting of the union-management balance after the NDP years. But after four years time had run out on tolerance for union-bashing.
The BCTF also made the strike about class sizes as well as about wages. It's an issue much more likely to attract public support.
The legislation pretty much takes that option away as teachers bargain a new contract. BCTF head Jinny Sims accepted the class size legislation as "a small step" forward.
Now contract talks will be largely about money. The union is apparently seeking something above 20 per cent in a three-year deal, citing the need to keep up with Alberta and Ontario. The government is looking for am agreement by June 30 that would match the rest of public sector deals - about 11 per cent over four years, plus a $3,700 signing bonus. The public is not likely to be onside if the BCTF demands more than other public sector unions. Sounds like good news for everyone, right?
Not for school trustees, and perhaps not for some students. The old regulations let districts have some large classes from Grade 4 up as long as the district average was under the cap. Now with the new law districts will face strict limits. That means some larger classes will have to be split and districts will have to hire additional teachers. But while the government is passing the law, it's not providing any more money to to school districts. They face increased costs and fixed funding; some other area will suffer. The problem will be especially serious for rural school districts, which will have fewer chances to shuffle students around to try and stay within the new limits.
It's far from a perfect outcome.
But class sizes have been addressed, as the union wished. The decisions have been made outside collective bargaining, as the government wished.
Students won't face extremely large classes. And a strike is now less less likely.
Score one for this democracy thing.
Footnote: The new law also deals with special needs students. Until 2002 classes with special needs students were required to have fewer students overall. The new law sets a soft limit of three special needs students per class. Advocates fear this will mean special needs students are shuffled around.

Softwood deal looks a bad bargain

VICTORIA - It sounded like big news, an end to the costly softwood dispute.
The first reports said Canada and the U.S. had hammered out a framework deal to end the trade battle, news that offered hope for a more secure future for B.C. forest communities.
And then it all started unravelling as forest companies and provinces picked at the deal reached by the new federal government.
Rightly, based on the sketchy details available. After almost five years of duties and legal battles Ottawa appears to have reached an agreement that looks much like capitulation.
Start with one big issue, the $5 billion in duties collected by the U.S. since 2001. Canada’s position has been that the duties are illegal. The federal government has claimed success in a series of legal skirmishes, even winning a NAFTA ruling that the money should be returned.
But the draft agreement would see the U.S. keep 22 per cent of the money, likely to hand it over to the American companies competing with Canadian producers. Canadian companies would only get back 78 per cent of the duties they had paid.
Disappointing, but not a dealbreaker if that was the only negative aspect.
But it isn’t. Canadian companies still face duties and trade barriers under the proposed settlement.
Canada had argued for free trade, rejecting the American argument that our industry was subsidized because provinces didn’t charge enough for trees on Crown land. The NAFTA agreement means Canadian producers should be able to sell into the U.S. without restrictions or tariffs.
The proposed deal includes both.
Canadian producers would be limited to supplying 34 per cent of the American market. That’s less than Canada supplied in 1995, the year before the last softwood deal was signed. And it’s about the level Canada has captured over the last few years, even with the duty.
So much for hopes for free trade. Even if Canadian producers were more efficient, and able to offer lumber at better price, they would be limited in how much they could sell to the U.S. The quota would do the work the duties have done for the past five years.
And even if Canada’s share of the U.S. market was below the ceiling a duty would be imposed anytime lumber prices fell below $360 US. Prices were below that level for much of last year.
It doesn’t look much like a win for the Canadian side. Quotas and duties remain in place, and the industry forfeits $1 billion.
The reaction was swift, and negative.
Even if companies - and provinces - could live with the terms, there are some major problems ahead.
It sounds simple to say Canada will observe a quota limiting exports to 34 per cent of the U.S. market.
But practically it’s a nightmare. Who allocates the quota, and how much does each company get to sell? The 1996 deal allocated quota based on sales over the previous few years. Coastal companies had been selling into a hot Japanese market during those years. When that collapsed, they were left without access to the U.S.
It’s not just competition between companies. Ontario is already complaining about unfair treatment. It had a poor year for exports to the U.S. in 2005, in part because of B.C.’s ramped up logging of pine beetle wood. Ontario fears that will be used to justify a permanent smaller share of the quota.
There are solutions. The quota could be auctioned and traded among companies.
But all in all, this looks like a mediocre deal after five years of sacrifice and struggle.
While B.C. may stand to do well on quota in the short term, the agreement falls far short of what the Campbell government has been arguing for over the last four years.
It’s not the agreement anyone wanted. Now we’ll see if companies and governments are desperate enough to accept it.
Footnote: B.C. launched a major overhaul of its forest management and stumpage systems to try and demonstrate to the U.S. that producers are not subsidized. The costly, complicated restructuring will have other benefits, but it didn’t help on the softwood front.

Campbell’s evasions leave children and families’ worries

VICTORIA - I don’t understand why Premier Gordon Campbell doesn’t want to say he’s sorry the government mismanaged the children and families’ ministry.
Acknowledging error and promising to do better - sincerely - is usually well-received.
But it’s the premier’s call. If he doesn’t want to say sorry, no one can make him.
What’s worrying is that Campbell may actually believe that the government did a competent job of managing the ministry. That would mean he has misread the Ted Hughes’ report on the ministry. And worse, it would mean that he had failed to learn from five years of fumbling.
And that would be bad news for children and families who need the ministry’s help.
The legislature was back Monday after a two-week break, giving the opposition its first chance to ask about Hughes’ report. Will Campbell admit mistakes and apologize, asked NDP leader Carole James? (OK, it’s a political question.)
Here’s how Campbell responded. “What we should all learn from Mr. Hughes' report is that the government undertook initiatives which Mr. Hughes endorses,” the premier said. “He also says that we, perhaps, took on too many initiatives at once.”
That’s not really what Ted Hughes said. "The strongest impression I have gleaned from this inquiry,” he wrote, “is one of a child welfare system that has been buffeted by an unmanageable degree of change. . . Much of this has gone on against a backdrop of significant funding cuts, even though it is commonly understood that organizational change costs money."
Campbell went on to say if the government had any failing, it might be that it was trying too hard to help children. “We did not carry that out as well as we should have,” he said. “There is no question about that.”
He acknowledged problems, including budget cuts. “In fact, in December of last year we pointed out that there may well have been challenges with funding,” he said. “In this budget this year we provided an additional $100 million, which Mr. Hughes endorses, to allow us to move forward and to build on the regionalization concept which we announced in the throne speech.”
But the budget cuts started in 2002. Campbell didn’t explain why he didn’t know about the problems until last fall.
And here’s Hughes on the move to create regional authorities. "Decentralization can not be done off the side of a desk. It requires a dedicated team, and resources. It can not be accomplished in an environment of instability and ever-changing priorities.”
Campbell sees a government trying to do a little too much.
Hughes reports "a climate of instability and confusion" and a ministry "stretched far beyond its limits." Basic elements like support for children who had problems with the system and help for teens who left foster care at 18 were chopped. Things fell apart all over the place.
If Campbell doesn’t want to acknowledge the problems, that’s one thing.
But if he really doesn’t see them - as he apparently didn’t see them over the past four years - that’s another, far more serious problem.
“I can tell you this: at no time was there anything in front of this government except for what is in the best interests of young children and their families in British Columbia,” Campbell told the legislature.
Really? How was it considered in the best interests of young children to cut the budget to help them by 11 per cent?
Maybe it’s just politics. I remember Campbell in opposition, arguing passionately for more money for the ministry, pledging to work with the NDP government to help make things better.
He was rebuffed.
Now it was James, writing Campbell two weeks ago, asking for a meeting to talk about making things better.
She was ignored.
I think the government has much to apologize for.
But right now, I’d settle for a sign they had really learned from the mistakes and failures of the last four years.
Footnote: Back in December Solicitor General John Les called off an internal review of how 713 incomplete child death reviews were forgotten in a warehouse. The government had messed up, he said. Hughes would provide more answers. Hughes immediately wrote Les and said he couldn’t, a fact Les never revealed. Now he says the file is closed.

Posturing aside, there is no Conservative child care plan

VICTORIA - Stephen Harper is busily talking tough about the Conservatives' plan to send $1,200 per preschooler out to Canadians.
The money's going to be in the budget, Harper vows. If the opposition votes against it, we'll have another election.
It's Harper's right to spend your money this way. He campaigned on the promise.
But the opposition parties have no intention of waging a fight to stop the payments. What politician in his right mind would take a stand aimed at keeping parents from getting money?
Once Harper is through posturing, he needs to recognize that it's ridiculous to call the payments a child care plan.
The Conservatives want to send families $1,200 a year for every child under seven.
It's a weird notion. The idea that the government will take money from a low-income senior in Duncan and hand it to a millionaire parent in West Van makes no public policy sense.
Still, for many parents the money will make a useful difference. A single parent with two small children on welfare in B.C.receives up to $555 for rent, and another $573 a month for all other expenses. It's tough life, and children suffer. The extra $1,200 a year will make a real difference. (Income Assistance Minister Claude Richmond has promised the province won't claw back the money.)
But it's not a child care plan. It's not enough money to come close to allowing parents to pay for child care, which typically would be about $550 per month. And it will not stimulate entrepreneurs or non-profits to provide more spaces.
The Harper government says it will eventually unveil a plan to create child care spaces. Companies will be offered $20,000 per space in tax credits. The government says it will offer a total of $250 million in credits, enough to pay for 125,000 spaces.
But Ontario and Quebec have tried similar tax schemes, without success. Companies don't want the headaches of becoming responsible for a child care centre, even one run by a contractor. It's a complicated, regulated, demanding operation. Their focus is on their business.
Nothing Harper has talked about replaces the $5-billion federal-provincial child-care agreement negotiated by the Martin government.
That five-year deal provided the provinces with money to increase child care access. They could subsidize new centres, or come up with targeted assistance for parents or add child care to community schools. B.C. planned to increase parent subsidies and aid for child care providers with its share.
B.C. was to get about $120 million a year. Harper honoured this year's commitment, but told provinces to forget about seeing any more money under the program.
Child care is a real problem.
Parents can't find it, and many can't afford it even if they do. If they are fortunate, a friendly neighbour or relative can provide care. Otherwise the lack of child care becomes a serious barrier to employment.
Children who would benefit the most from quality care are often from families least able to afford it. They lose out on a chance for a fair start at life.
And the problems are yet another drag on productivity. People who could be working aren't, and companies suffer as employees book off to handle the latest child care crisis.
Sending $1,200 cheques out to parents isn't going to takes us closer to solving the real problem. It was politically effective, and is highly popular among parents campaigning for their right to subsidies even if they stay home to care for their own children.
But it's not going lead to better care, or more spaces, or real help with what is a serious crisis for many families.
The provinces haven't given up. They accept the fact that the $1,200 cheques are going out, but hope Harper can be persuaded to honour the federal-provincial child care deal.
It would be a wise decision.
Footnote: The child care debate has focused on costs. What's also needed is a serious consideration of benefits. What's gained if we can offer a three-year-old a safe, educational and stimulating social environment, especially a child who would otherwise start school at a significant disadvantage? For many children the cost would be an investment with lasting benefits.

New children and families head has chance for change

VICTORIA - I have not quite been able to let go of Ted Hughes' report on the children and families ministry.
The government has just announced a new top manager for the troubled ministry. Lesley du Toit, the South African who spent the last few months working in the premier's office, now has the permanent job.
But big questions about what went wrong remain. Hughes said the government has mismanaged the ministry for five years. Big changes were introduced without any effective plan. Unreasonable budget cuts were made, Hughes found, even though implementing change costs more money. So children and families suffered.
Governments, like all of us, mess up. What's baffling is that for four years the government was in denial. Plans were falling apart, budgets were based on wishful thinking, child death reviews were forgotten in a warehouse. And the politicians said everything was just fine.
We still don't know if they were hopelessly out of touch, or misleading us. Hughes said he favours the out-of-touch explanation. But if politicians are so insulated from reality that they can ignore warnings from front-line workers, families and the public, we have a profound structural problem.
There was, for example, no plan or budget for completing child death reviews after the Children's Commission was eliminated in 2002. Long after the failure became a major issue Gordon Campbell stood in front of reporters and said there was both a transition plan, and a budget. Somebody must have messed up, he said.
As Hughes pointed out, the premier was wrong. There was no plan, and no money.
Politicians shouldn't be so sadly and obviously misinformed. How can they be accountable, if they don't know what's going on?
Enter du Toit, newly named deputy minister for children and families. She's spent the last few months talking to staff and service providers as part of her consulting work for the premier's office. This week Campbell surprised no one by appointing her deputy minister.
Du Toit becomes the ninth deputy minister in 11 years. If you're on the front line, you aren't be betting much on her longevity.
But du Toit has some advantages, starting with a four-year contract. That's consistent with Hughes' concern about turnover in the ministry's senior management ranks.
She can still be dumped, or course. But the government would have to explain why it had soured on its chosen candidate, and had ignored Hughes' call for stability.
That gives du Toit considerable power to make change. The government has budgeted an extra $100 million over the next three years to fix things, based on the recommendations from Hughes and other reports that are still due. (It's alarming that after five years of fumbling the government is still waiting to figure out how to help kids and families in crisis. But that's where we are.)
Du Toit has the mandate, the money and the clout to make things better. For a year or two, she is charmed. The premier annointed her; should she fail, it will be a reflection on his judgment. It's a talisman for a manager.
Can she deliver? Those who have had dealings with her are impressed so far. She's familiar with many of the issues in B.C., serving as an advisor to the ministry since 2001, mainly as part of an international advisory panel.
It's tougher to see how her resume fits with this job. In 1995 du Toit helped set up the a child and youth care system for the Mandela government, a significant task. Since 1999, she's been executive director of the Child and Youth Care Agency for Development. That's a small organization, involved heavily in helping communities' cope with the effects of HIV/AIDS.
It's a leap to become top manager of a large, troubled B.C. ministry. But at least du Toit starts with the political clout to make the premier's office finally pay attention.
Footnote: A key thrust of du Toit's South African agency is promoting Circles of Care. HIV/AIDS has destroyed traditional family and community support for children in the many communities. The agency is experimenting with ways of building new local capacity to help vulnerable children and youth. The lessons should be applicable in many First Nations' communities.

Spending now, to help the wounded, is just good sense

VICTORIA - I got a call a couple of years ago from a man who wanted to talk about his son. The boy had fetal alcohol syndrome. He couldn't see the consequences of actions, and made terrible decisions.
That had changed for a while in foster care, when he was living on a small farm. Life was structured, and he took to the responsibility involved in caring for the animals. Things were good.
But he turned 19, and was pushed into the world. Trusting and inept, he hung with the wrong people, and became criminal and victim. His dad expected it to end with a terrible phone call.
Meanwhile it was costing us a lot of money to patch him up, lock him up and push him back on the street.
Just like my acquaintance Dave. He's often charming, and an addict. I suspect some fetal alcohol disorder, since he makes such bad decisions.
Dave is a very expensive member of society. In the last year I count two jail stays, at a cost to you of about $12,500.
He landed in hospital at least three times once with one of those nasty - and expensive - drug-resistant infections. Dave skipped out of hospital twice, once with an IV attached to his arm. The ER is still looking for the borrowed crutches, I'm sure. Figure $13,000 for hospital bills.
Then there's the regular calls for an ambulance and ER visits. Say another $1,000.
There's more. Dave sleeps mostly in shelters, or on the street when they kick him out for bad behaviour. Living half the year in shelters, at $70 a night, would cost $13,000.
Social agencies provide support, police keep him moving - say $5,000 minimum for their efforts. And then add welfare, at $7,300 a year.
The grand - yet understated total - is $52,000 a year. All that's buying is a slow-motion decline.
That's not even a complete tally. Here in Victoria people have started to get worried about homeless men and women sprawled on the sidewalks around our busiest shelter. They are bad for business, and tourists don't want to see rough-looking people in sleeping bags sprawled on the sidewalk. There's a cost to that. (People are understandably concerned. It's not good for anyone to have often difficult people camping on city sidewalks.)
Still, figure $52,000 for Dave, without actually providing much of a chance for change. (Dave is a real person, heavily disguised.)
Dave really needs a place to live, with a house parent to help him with choices and talk him out of bad ideas. It could probably be done for about $30,000 per resident.
He'd be better off. Maybe he'd even start to get a handle on things
And we'd be spending $30,000 instead of $52,000.
So why doesn't the government do it?
I got to thinking about how much Dave costs because of a Malcolm Gladwell article in The New Yorker that looked at some of these issues. He was writing about power law theory, which suggests that to fix a problem you don't need to come up with a solution that works for everyone involved. Target the hardcore, and things improve dramatically. (For them, and the collective.)
But Gladwell notes that can be a tough sell. How can we provide free housing to a self-destructive alcoholic, and not to a more deserving single mom? We'll save a fortune by keeping the alcoholic out of jail, the ER and the street, but it still troubles people.
And partly we just don't think people like Dave deserve that kind of help.
But he does. He's clever, and charming and pays attention to what much of the time. He just needs help at life.
And even if you're not so sure he deserves it, the numbers are clear.
Spend $52,000 to support a crazy, dangerous life, or $30,000 to provide a home.
Catching him, and keep him safe, is just the right thing to do.
Footnote: Addiction treatment offers enormous payback. Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill says that 90 per cent of property crime in the city is done by addicts looking for drug money. That's 8,500 crimes last year. Deal with the addiction - or even just the daily struggle to get drugs - and you create safer cities, and free police for other issues.

Grow op law erodes your right to privacy

VICTORIA - You can understand firefighters' concerns about marijuana grow ops.
Almost 10 per cent of building fires in Surrey last year were in grow ops, says Chief Len Garis, and many were particularly dangerous to fight. In a normal house fire breakers trip and kill the power supply. But in some grow ops jury-rigged electrical systems mean firefighters encounter live wires as they fumble blindly through smoke-filled rooms and tangles of equipment.
That's why Garis and other fire chiefs lobbied for the new law that will force BC Hydro and other utilities to hand over information on customers and their electricity use.
But the law raises serious privacy issues. The legislation - still to be passed - would let municipalities require BC Hydro or other utilities to provide two years worth of power bills for every resident. (Regulations will limit the act's application, government officials say. Hydro will screen the reports and just pass on ones that show people who use a lot of power.)
The town will look at the files, and then be able to come to your house and post a notice giving you 48 hours to prepare for an inspection. The idea is that if you have a grow op, either you'll dismantle it or the inspectors will.
The plan worked in a Surrey pilot project. More than 90 per cent of the flagged properties had grow ops; 119 marijuana operations were shut down.
Or were they?
More likely they moved down the road, or into a neighbouring community. There is money to be made at a risk level that many people find acceptable.
And the tactic likely worked in part because the operators weren't aware that their power use information was being shared with the municipality. Once they are, they will adapt. The dangers may actually be increased if growers decide to try improvised wiring to bypass the power meter, or switch to propane or gas-powered generators. A move to more smuggling, or large outdoor grow ops, would bring different problems.
The firefighters' frustration is understandable. A University of the Fraser Valley study on grow ops found that in 1997 police across B.C. investigated more than 90 per cent of grow op reports within one month. By 2003, that had fallen to barely 50 per cent. That means grow ops operate longer, and the risks for firefighters increase.
But the new law isn't likely to make people stop growing marijuana, or make firefighters safer.
It will expand the state's reach into the lives of its citizens. Authorities can get your electricity records now. They just have to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that you may be running a grow op. But BC Hydro has refused to hand over their customers' information on a random basis, citing privacy laws.
It's an important principle. The state doesn't get access to information about you unless it can show a good reason. The BC Civil Liberties' Association opposes the new law. B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis questioned the need for it, and says this kind of government surveillance - without any grounds for suspicion - is increasing, and a cause for concern.
It's not an easy public policy question, and it's made more difficult by our fumbling approach to marijuana use generally. The Harper government has announced it won't go ahead with decriminalization. But practically, marijuana use is legal since the laws are not enforced. Even grow ops have - as the study showed - become a low police priority.
StatsCan found almost 600,000 British Columbians fessed up to using marijuana in the last year. That's an attractive market. It is hard to imagine what sort of enforcement would actually cut off the supply of a product that many people want.
That's the challenge. Maintain some enforcement, especially aimed at organized gangs and keeping residential neighbourhoods safe, without sacrificing police resources needed elsewhere.
It's a tough balancing act. But it should mean the careless loss of individual rights.
Footnote: If the main marijuana public policy issues are the risks of grow ops in neighbourhoods and the role of criminal gangs in profiting from the industry, a different response should be considered. Allowing people to grow a handful of plants without penalty would reduce the threat to neighbourhoods and the available profits for gangs.

Ready offers a way to dodge teachers' strike

VICTORIA - Vince Ready's decision to put off an overhaul of teachers' bargaining and push for a quick settlement under the old system makes sense.
Teachers were disappointed when Ready reported he couldn't meet the deadline for recommending a new bargaining structure.
But his interim recommendations should still help head off a repeat of last fall's bitter teachers' strike, welcome news for all concerned.
Ready's proposals would ensure much more effective bargaining between the BC Teachers' Federation and the government.
For starters, Ready says the government has to be directly involved in talks.
The official bargaining agent for school districts is the BC School Employers' Association. But really the government decides all the key issues, from setting the wage mandate to decide what can be bargained. Real problem-solving negotiations require the involvement of decision-makers from both sides.
Both sides should appoint small bargaining committees, Ready says, and the government should name "a senior representative" to convey its position. That's an important change.
Ready also sets out a tight timeline.The two sides should exchange initial proposals by Saturday, and start talks with the help of a mediator. If they don't have a deal by May 15, the government should present "a serious settlement offer," Ready says. If that doesn't get a deal by June 1, then the mediator should report on the outstanding issues, and the  parties' positions.
That's an important step. Teachers' contracts are ultimately settled on the basis of public opinion. The right to strike is an illusion; no government will let the schools be closed. So the question in those circumstances becomes what sort of deal teachers' get in an imposed settlement. And that is usually shaped by the government's guess at what you would think fair.
That's one reason the teachers did well in last fall's illegal strike. Public support - to my surprise, and the government's - stayed with the teachers' union.
So public reporting on the positions should ensure compromise. Neither side will want to look unreasonable, the one to get the blame if schools are closed.
And Ready gives the government a serious poke about taking action on class size and composition issues. Ready's recommendations to end last fall's strike included government action on class sizes, and issues like support for special needs students.
He accepted the government's position that those decisions should not be part of the contract. The problem should be dealt with by the the government’s new Learning Round Table, he said, and it should also consider legislation setting maximum class sizes.
But not much has happened. The Learning Round Table met three time in three months after the strike. Now it hasn’t met in four months, although the next session is set for next week. The class size issue remains unresolved.
That's not good enough, says Ready. The problem is real, and the government committed to action last fall. A plan should be in place before the teachers' contract expires June 30.
It is clear teachers won't sign a deal without seeing some sort of real resolution to issues around class size. The government said last fall that it saw the problem. Its own research showed thousands if large classes. Now it has to respond.
If that happens a deal should be within reach.
The BCTF has naturally been trying to argue for large pay increases for its members. But the public sector pattern has been set - about 2.5 per cent a year for four years, plus a $3,600 signing bonus. If teachers push for more, they will be seen as greedy.
There's still a need for a new way of bargaining teachers' contracts, one that recognizes that the right to strike is an illusion. Don Wright's 2004 report offered a sound model.
But right now attention needs to be focused on reaching a negotiated agreement with teachers in the next two months. Ready has offered an approach that increases the chances of success.
Footnote: The government chose to release Ready's report on the same day Ted Hughes' damning report in the children and families' ministry grabbed the media's attention. Ready puts the government in a tough position on class sizes. Meeting his expectations could mean class size legislation not currently on the agenda.

Hughes confirms Liberals botched children and families

VICTORIA - Ted Hughes report on the ministry of children and families laid the facts out pretty clearly. The Liberal government has bungled for four years and bi changes are needed to get things back on track.
At 78 Hughes remains a highly respected, straight-talking problem solver.
He did not disappoint with his BC Children and Youth Review.
The Liberals cut too deep into the ministry, he found. They launched a poorly planned, underfunded re-organization, with senior managers spinning in and out through a revolving door. Child death reviews and other important efforts to ensure quality services were forgotten. Children and families lost needed supports.
"The strongest impression I have gleaned from this inquiry is one of a child welfare system that has been buffeted by an unmanageable degree of change," Hughes' report says. "Much of this has gone on against a backdrop of significant funding cuts, even though it is commonly understood that organizational change costs money."
None of that comes as a surprise. Except perhaps to Premier Gordon Campbell, who has steadfastly maintained that everything was fine, and the ministry had enough money.
Hughes wrote about the 900 child death reviews abandoned in a Victoria warehouse. "I can not agree with the premier's earlier assessment that budget cuts did not contribute to the failure of the transition process," he said.
In fact, Hughes found, budget cuts caused problems throughout the ministry. Asked about Campbell's repeated claims to the contrary, Hughes was blunt: "He was wrong."
The ministry didn't have enough money and the government's mismanagement created "a climate of instability and confusion," Hughes found.
This is not just another ministry. Failure here means children's lives can be at risk, their futures blighted, and families lost.
Hughes introduced a short, sharp dose of reality. For four years others have been warning of the same problems. Now, in the face of mounting public pressure and a determined opposition, the government should act.
Hughes has offered a clear blueprint.
For starters, he told the government to restore the important roles that were lost when it killed the Children's Commission and the Child and Family Advocate in 2002.
The replacement - the Child and Youth Officer - has not been adequate, Hughes found. Families have been denied the help they needed to navigate the system and protect their rights, and independent oversight has been lost.
He proposes a new Representative for Children and Youth, an office that would report to the legislature, not the government. It would have "the authority to advocate for individual children and families; advocate for system change; monitor the child welfare system; and review child injuries and deaths."
The representative and two deputies - one aboriginal - should have true independence, he says, and report to a new legislative committee on children and youth with representation from both parties.
Hughes wants the government to start over with its expensive and mismanaged plan to hand ministry operations over to new regional authorities - five aboriginal and five non-aboriginal. "Decentralization can not be done off the side of a desk," the report says. "It requires a dedicated team, and resources. It can not be accomplished in an environment of instability."
That shouldn't be a surprise. But four years after the government launched its effort, Hughes found it necessary to recommend it develop an actual plan.
That needs to include much more consultation with First Nations, he says, and a much larger commitment to supporting them in preparing for whatever changes are ahead.
There's not a lot of good news in the report.
But Hughes does offer 62 recommendations to help the ministry recover from four years of problems.
And he says the extra money in February's budget should be enough to address many of the issues. The budget included $100 million over three years to act on the various ministry reviews.
The four lost years are gone. But at last perhaps the government will face reality, and do the right thing.
Footnote: Hughes aid he expects the government to act on his recommendations, and won't sit quietly if it doesn't. He's been turning down invitations to speak about the review, he said. But if nothing has been done by fall, he may change his mind about those opportunities, Hughes warned.

A quick guide to the legislature raid twists and turns

VICTORIA - Things are getting weirder and weirder in the great legislature raid case, with a fresh wave of information and even new influence-peddling charges.
Claims that top Liberal political aides were flown to an NFL game by lobbyists, and that developers paid big money to get property eased out of the Agricultural Land Reserve - it all sounds like a plot for a bad movie.
So what’s happened, and what does it mean?
First - and this is important - start with the recognition that none of this new information is proven fact. It comes mostly from the affidavits that RCMP officers swore to get search warrants from the courts. They outlined their evidence and their suspicions, and the court gave them the go-ahead to seize bank records. Dave Basi, the former ministerial aide to then finance minister Gary Collins, denies any wrongdoing. The case won’t be tested the first trial starts, likely in June.
But that doesn’t mean that the information should be ignored. The questions raised are real and serious.
The RCMP allege that lobbyist Eric Bornman paid Basi about $24,000 over the course of a year for information, documents and steering clients his way. The two men knew each other well; both were active in the Paul Martin wing of the federal Liberal party.
Bornman, now starting a career as a lawyer, hasn’t been charged. He provided the police with information when they came calling and will be a prosecution witness
Police also alleged Basi and his cousin Bobby Virk - assistant to the transportation minister Judith Reid - went with their spouses to Denver in 2002 and watched an NFL game. They sat with Gary Rennick, a top exec with OmniTRAX, then a bidder for BC Rail.
And, police say, lobbyist Brian Kieran, a former political columnist and lobbyist for OmniTRAX, paid for the trip. Kieran was a partner with Bornman in Pilothouse Public Affairs. He’s also expected to testify.
Basi and Virk already face fraud and breach of trust charges.
But this week the special prosecutor laid new charges against Basi and two Victoria developers. The men - Tony Young and Jim Duncan - allegedly paid Basi $50,000 to help get property in Sooke out of the Agricultural Land Reserve for a $175-million housing development.
The good news for the government is that the charges are all limited to actions by Basi and Virk. No politicians have been involved in the investigations.
The damage done - at least in the narrowest of terms - is relatively minor. (Taxpayers lost $1 million when Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon cancelled the sale of a BC Rail spur line because the deal may have been compromised.)
But that didn’t stop the NDP from raising legitimate questions once the latest news broke.
The allegations of interference in the agricultural land reserve decision, and the other newly revealed payments, raise questions that go beyond the BC Rail deal, said Carole James. What has the government done to ensure that no other decisions were affected?
The answer seemed to be not very much. Lands Minister Pat Bell said the RCMP told him no one at the Agricultural Land Commission was under investigation. He hadn’t asked his staff to look at any other decisions to make sure things were fine.
And Attorney General Wally Oppal just kept saying that since the matter was before the courts, people should quit asking questions.
That’s not really good enough. It is important to respect the fact that no one has been proven guilty of anything.
But that doesn’t mean the government can’t account for what it and hasn’t done to ensure that the public interest wasn’t compromised. (Although some NDP questions did come close to convicting Basi before he had a chance to defend himself.)
The big questions aren’t really going to be answered until the case works its way through the courts.
Footnote: The NDP has been asking the government to refer its flawed Lobbyist Registration Act to a legislative committee for review. This case shows that should happen. The act - while a very positive step - isn’t ensuring that the public has access to the needed information about the role of lobbyists. The best way to fix that is by involving MLAs.

Union deals open door to a better government

VICTORIA - Give both the government and public sector unions top marks for finding their way to speedy contract settlements.
The deals don't just offer the pleasant prospect of four years free of labour battles. They're the first step towards important changes in the way the public sector works, changes that are important to everyone who relies on - and pays for - government services.
Finance Minister Carole Taylor acknowledged as much as she reacted to the flood of deals reached in the final hours of the month as unions raced for a share of the $1-billion signing bonus.
The negotiations were important in their own right. No rational government or union is keen on strikes and strife.
But the new approach to talks was just the start, Taylor said. "It has set the foundation for a new relationship," she said. "We're pleased that negotiators stepped up to the challenge to begin a dialogue and explore how we can improve services to British Columbians."
That's not just cheery rhetoric. The government has a problem. After four years of cuts, imposed contracts, mass firings and frequent union-bashing, public sector employees were understandably unhappy and demoralized.
A survey released last year by Auditor General Wayne Strelioff found government workers didn’t trust senior management and thought their departments were bad places to work. This wasn't the usual employee grumbling. Strelioff compared the survey results with effective organizations and warned B.C. is in trouble.
So why should you care if they're unhappy? For starters, people who feel abused do poorer work, especially when it comes to the extra effort critical to making organizations better.
But the problems go deeper. B.C. faces a significant skills shortage over the next several decades. Organizations seen as crummy places to work are going to be shunned by the best candidates. Why work somewhere grim, when you can find somewhere exciting and satisfying?
Premier Gordon Campbell says he's ready to sit down with public sector union leaders and start talking (although he's vague about what).
The agreements are a very good start, and both sides deserve credit for reaching them.
Taylor helped by promising early on that there would be money for settlements. She allocated enough money for raises of about 2.5 per cent a year for the next four years. That's enough to allow most employees to make at least a tiny real gain on inflation.
She also dangled a $1-billion carrot for unions that could settle by March 31, when almost all contracts expired. That allowed an average $3,700 signing bonus, a big boost for employees whose wages had been frozen or cut.
It was a good starting point. But unions still had to swallow some very deep anger over the last four years, when some were badly betrayed by the Liberals.
Both sides were able to bridge the gaps - the goal of negotiations in a mature bargaining relationship.
It's good news politically for the government. The public's strong support for the teachers - even after their strike was declared illegal - was a warning that people had tired of government union bashing.
Now there is likely labour peace until this time in 2010, after the Olympics and the next election. (Only likely because the BC Teachers' Federation contract doesn't expire until June. But the union is now isolated. If it demands much more than nurses or other workers, public support won't be as strong.)
That's time that can be used to build on the agreements and start overhauling labour relations in the public sector. The government needs an effective, motivated workforce, and it needs to be able to attract the best people.
Right now, it can't achieve either objective.
The good news is that the government recognizes the problem, and both sides have opened the door to a co-operative start at finding solutions.
It's a remarkable change from the first four years of confrontation.
Footnote: Critics say the new approach shows the government's use of legislation to gut contracts, fire thousands of workers and impose wages was a mistake. But the alternate argument is that the willingness to take a tough stand in the past established needed credibility for these talks. The reality is somewhere in between.

Government's computer privacy problems a warning for you

VICTORIA - Consider the B.C. government's recent problems in protecting private information and keeping its computer networks secure a wake-up call.
It's easy to let things like privacy protection slide. What's the harm if government, or business, has some information about you stashed in files? You've got nothing to hide.
And not long ago that might have even been an OK attitude. The technology of the day made it hard to gather information, and even harder to pull it all together. The sheer challenge of the task helped protect your privacy.
Not any more. Computer advances means it's technically easy to compile vast and detailed files on anyone. Where you shop, what you buy, medical treatment, personal problems, books you read, what you earn, how quickly you pay your bills.
The potential loss of privacy, and damage, has become much greater than ever before.
And the protection has not kept pace with the increased risk.
The government demonstrated that this month as it admitted to two information management failures with privacy implications.
First the Vancouver Sun was contacted by a man who gone to a provincial government surplus sale and spent a few dollars each for a big box of computer tapes.
He checked them out, and there was information on 77,000 British Columbians. Names, social insurance numbers, medical histories, contacts with the government. Information about people who were HIV positive. People who had reported their child had been sexually assaulted, or sought help for their own personal problems, all their information available.
The purchaser turned them over to the newspaper, which in turn secured them and passed them on to government.
But what if it had been someone else? Identity theft - gathering enough basic information to get credit cards and bank accounts in other peoples' names - would be simple. Blackmail possible. Simply putting the information up on the Internet for all to see an option.
Days later the NDP revealed that hackers had broken into the government computer system, and seized control of 78 computers for two months before they were detected. They loaded porn movies on to the computers, apparently using the government's network as part of a pay-for-porn business.
Sorry, says Mike de Jong, the minister responsible. We won't sell surplus tapes and hard drives any more. And at least the hackers didn't go looking for private files, he said.
There's reason to be worried about this specific case. The auditor general warned last year that the government's computer security systems were flawed.
But there will always be a risk that human error or criminal attacks will compromise security. Hackers and security experts struggle to see who stays one step ahead. Sometimes the bad guys will win.
Just as there is always a drive by organizations to want to gather information, and then to use it. Stewart Brand is credited with the observation that 'information wants to be free.' Information also wants to be used.
Users often resist privacy requirements. There's pressure within the B.C. government for legislative amendments this session that would reduce privacy protection.
So what's your defence?
For starters, your own vigilance about surrendering personal information. Canadian and B.C. privacy laws require organizations to get your consent before gathering and sharing personal information.
But application is lax, and the public inattentive. Most of us signed up for loyalty cards of one kind or another, and checked the little box that says we accept the companies privacy policy. But we don't read that policy, which gives the company the right to share our personal information with other corporations, and store it in the U.S.
We also need to be able to count the independent watchdogs that are charged with protecting our interests, like B.C.'s auditor general and the information and privacy commissioner.
But both offices have been starved of needed funds by the Liberal government, despite rising challenges and workloads.
Privacy matters. And we are placing it at risk.
Footnote: The Liberal government cut the Information and Privacy Commissioner's budget by 35 per cent in their first term. Increases have still left it office with less money in real dollars today than it had in 2001, despite a 24-per-cent increase in complaints in 2005 alone.