New ridings painful for rural B.C., but fair

There’s going to be some pained shouts from the north and Interior, but B.C.’s Electoral Boundaries Commission has done a pretty good job of redrawing the map of ridings around the province.
The commission has set out two reworked sets of ridings, one for the current system and one for a new proportional representation electoral process.
The basic news is that the commission proposes creating five new ridings - four in the Lower Mainland and one in the Okanagan – to reflect the population growth there.
Instead of simply increasing the legislature by five seats, the commission recommended reducing the number of seats in rural B.C. by three.
The Caiboo-Thompson goes from five seats to four; the Kootenays from four to three; the north from eight to seven ridings.
The end result is that the legislature goes from 79 to 81 MLAs and urban areas get more political clout.
The three commissioners faced a tough task. Their principal mandate was to look at the province's changing population and come up with riding boundaries that would ensure that each MLA would represent about the same number of people.
Sounds easy. Figure out how many MLAs you want, divide that number into the total number of eligible voters and come up with ridings with have roughly that number of people, ones that make sense, where people share a set of interests.
But it's not that simple. Our system, no matter how it's tweaked, is messy. Right now, Lorne Mayencourt represents 75,000 people in Vancouver-Burrard; Gary Coons represents 28,000 people in Prince Rupert and in the North Coast riding. That hardly seems fair.
But Mayencourt's riding is nine square kilometres. In a day, he can cover every corner - walking. Coon's riding is 66,000 square kilometres. It can take three days to visit one community.
There's no real arguing against the commission's recommendations, based on the underlying assumption that ridings should all include roughly the same number of people. On that basis, the Lower Mainland should have 75 per cent of the seats.
And it all makes sense, when you're drawing lines on a map.
But for those regions seeing fewer MLAs, the result is discouraging. The candidates are a little less interested in your concerns. It's farther to drive to the constituency office for a meeting.
When a vote comes up in the legislature, there are fewer people knowledgeable about the local issues. (OK, that is a little idealistic. It often seems that MLAs spend more time promoting their party and leader than their constituents’ interests.)
And, broadly, there's a big political shift under way. In the 1986 election, there were 69 ridings. The Lower Mainland had 45 per cent of the seats, and back then the Fraser Valley barely counted as urban.
The legislature - and the Socred cabinet - was dominated by MLAs from rural and resource communities.
If the commission's recommendations are accepted, Lower Mainland MLAs will dominate the new legislature. Vancouver and its sprawl will have 57 per cent of the seats in the house.
For the first time in the province's history, a party will be able to form government without electing a single MLA from outside the Lower Mainland.
You can understand how that will worry people in the rest of B.C., especially because they feel they have been forgotten for much of the last six years by the Liberal government. Even now, with the economy doing well across the province, many rural communities fear not enough is being done to prepare for the crash when the pine-beetle-damaged wood runs out.
But there’s no avoiding the reality that our system is based on representation by population, and ridings need to be roughly comparable. Given that, the commission did a good job of redrawing the map.
It also took some useful steps to make ridings more appropriate, bringing like communities into the same riding to ensure a set of common interests and concerns. That will help voters, and MLAs.
Footnote: The commission will now listen to submissions before submitting a final report. Expect minor tweaking at most. Then the politicians have to make the final decision, and will face pressure to add a couple of seats in rural areas.
The report also set out proposed ridings for the single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation. That’s a different column.

Premiers' contribute mostly hot air to climate change

Climate change and energy were supposed to be the big issues when the premiers got together in Moncton.
And given all the enthusiastic talk about the importance of the global-warming issue to life on Earth, you might have expected them to do something.
But no. After two days, the best the premiers could do was agree to start keeping track of greenhouse gas emissions in a consistent way.
Weird, really. All this time they've been talking earnestly about reducing emissions by sector and setting goals and trading carbon credits.
And yet they don't even really know how much greenhouse gases are being produced by each province now, or how.
The premiers have been trying to stake out a bigger place in government. Since 2003, they've referred to themselves as the Council of the Federation, a name that's supposed to suggest - I'm not really sure what, actually. But the idea is the council speaks with some authority.
In real life, the council mostly mumbles. Like this time. Premier Gordon Campbell - along with his counterparts from Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba - were keen emission caps and a trading system. If a B.C. industry cut its emissions below the agreed-on level, it could sell the right to produce those emissions to some company in Nova Scotia that couldn't afford to install emission-reduction technology. The big benefit is that emissions come to have a cost. There is an incentive, beyond the vague notion of doing good or winning goodwill, for companies to cut emissions.
But Alberta, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan were opposed. They're afraid caps would hurt their energy industry. There was no agreement, which meant the no-caps side won. The premiers also talked about bringing in tough automobile emission standards to match the coming Californian regulations. Eventually, 12 of the 13 supported the idea.
But Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty nixed that proposal. The cost of meeting the California standards could add $2,000 to the price of a car. Fewer car sales would hurt Ontario's automotive industry. So the emissions didn't matter so much.
Individual provinces might still try to adopt the standards, but they'll have a tough time if automakers claim it's not worth producing special vehicles for a small market.
It wasn't a total bust. The premiers promised to produce an additional 25,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2020 - figure about the equivalent of the production of 10 Revelstoke dams. They will include climate change in school curricula.
And the move to measure and report emissions is useful; the first step toward some sort of trading system.
"I'm not suggesting this is Earth shattering," said B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell. Right. "We've made some progress, though." Not much, really.
It wouldn't really be a premier's meeting without some grumbling about the federal government. Saskatchewan and Newfoundland are still angry because they say Stephen Harper broke his promise to exclude oil and gas revenues from the equalization formula. (Short verdict - they're right, Harper broke the promise, but it was a bad promise and bad policy.)
Some of the premiers were also fretting about the Conservative government might do.
Harper has said the government should be playing a smaller role in creating and supporting national social programs. The federal government should not be insisting on health-care standards or funding child-care programs, the argument goes. Those are areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government should butt out.
The approach reflects Harper's view that the federal government should be smaller.
And it will score political points in Quebec. Premier Jean Charest has said he wants to start talks about a reduced role for the federal government. But other premiers are edgy, because they believe federal programs are needed to ensure equal standards and improving programs and they fear Ottawa government will cut back funding.
Still, based on the premiers' inability to make progress on climate change - supposedly a national priority - the prime minister doesn't have much to worry about from the council of the federation, grand name or not.

The public wants photo radar - why is Campbell saying no

It's getting harder and harder to figure out Premier Gordon Campbell's opposition to photo radar.
The statistics suggest the Liberals' decision to cancel photo radar in 2001 has cost about 50 lives a year and thousands of injuries. Tragedies for the individuals and their families; a waste of human potential; and a major health-care cost.
Campbell is seen as a pretty pragmatic politician - look at the big swings on First Nations and climate change. You'd expect him to accept the reality that photo radar works. Crashes and deaths are both reduced.
I attributed the reluctance to an unwillingness to admit a mistake and the fear of a public backlash.
But last month Ipsos-Reid asked British Columbians how they felt about photo radar and red-light cameras.
The support was overwhelming for both, surprising even for those - like me - who figured the public recognized the common-sense benefits of deterring speeding drivers.
The poll, done for the Canada Safety Council, asked people across Canada about the devices.
Almost 90 per cent of British Columbians, and 84 per cent of Canadians, supported the use of photo radar in school zones.
Almost three out of four British Columbians supported the use of photo radar on highways, compared with 69 per cent of Canadians. And 84 per cent of British Columbians supported red-light cameras.
So there's no risk of a real political problem. In fact, it seems the public would welcome a measure that made life safer for their families.
It all makes the refusal to act baffling.
The evidence is overwhelming that photo radar works.
Before B.C. introduced photo radar in 1996, an average of 510 people had died annually in the five preceding years.
For the almost six years photo radar was in operation, the average annual death rate was 412 - almost 100 fewer lives lost per year to crashes.
The Liberals acted on their campaign promise and killed photo radar in 2001. And in the next three years, the average number of deaths increased to 449, an average 37 additional deaths per year.
A study done on B.C.'s first year of photo radar found "a dramatic reduction of speed" at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
Almost 20 per cent fewer deaths.
The people who object to the cameras can come up with explanations.
But a major Australian review last year analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies done around the world. The number of crashes was reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent once photo radar was installed, it reported.
Fatalities were reduced by an even more dramatic 40 to 46 per cent - cut almost in half.
Photo radar - or speed cameras, as they're called now - isn't a cure-all. It would be more effective to have increased policing. The survey found that 42 per cent of Canadians thought there should be more traffic enforcement - roadside checks, radar, speed traps and the general visibility of police. Only seven per cent thought there was too much enforcement.
But police officers are expensive. Speed cameras, done right, are cheap. The old B.C. system used vans. Other jurisdictions set up permanent camera boxes in appropriate locations - school zones, stretches of highway with a high rate of crashes. They rotate the actual cameras between sites.
So for very little money, speeds are reduced in dangerous areas, there are fewer crashes and lives are saved.
Sometimes people would get tickets they don't deserve, because they loaned their cars to someone. But most of us would want to know if someone - a child, perhaps - was driving our vehicle at high speed.
The public backs photo radar. It saves lives, reduces health-care costs and protects families.
How long can the government keep saying no?
Footnote: The government hasn't come up with any reason for its position. Solicitor General John Les has even turned down a request for speed cameras on the deadly Patullo Bridge. The RCMP want them; they say enforcement is too dangerous. ICBC and Surrey council say the cameras are needed to save lives.
But the government won't budge.

James and the politics of leadership

NDP leader Carole James took quite a little beating for her muddled responses to the treaty ratification by the Tsawwassen First Nation.
Mostly deserved, I'd say. James was attempting to explain why the party hadn't taken any position on the treaty in the months leading up to the vote.
It was out of respect, she said. The choice to accept the deal - or not - was up to the First Nation.
James said she decided the party's position should be kept secret to avoid any appearance of telling the Tsawwassen what to do.
So how does the party feel about the coming Maa-Nulth treaty vote, James was asked.
We hope it passes, she said. (It did.)
Which raised the obvious question: Why wasn't James staying silent on that treaty ratification vote out of respect, as well?
Right. I should have, said a stumbling James. Oops.
Not a great leadership moment.
And confirmation, I'd say, of suspicions that the New Democrats' silence on the Tsawwassen deal was based more on a desire to avoid airing their public divisions than on any principle.
The party is pro-treaty. An NDP government fought for the Nisga'a treaty, while Gordon Campbell staged a long battle against the deal, trying to stall approval in the legislature and challenging it in court.
But the NDP has also taken the Agricultural Land Reserve as a sacred cause.
The Tsawwassen treaty includes a transfer of land to the band. Some of it was in the reserve, but it will be removed before it is handed over to the First Nation.
Supporting the deal would have been tough for the ALR purists within the party and the caucus. There might have been internal fighting.
And James' contradictory responses on the two treaties suggest that avoiding a public squabble was a large part of the NDP's decision to stay silent on the Tsawwassen deal.
The whole affair raised once again that perhaps James isn't tough enough for the job. The suggestion, I suppose, is that she should have bludgeoned the party into line - or at least public silence - and taken a position on the treaty.
There's not much evidence for the claim. James' approval ratings are still better than the public marks for Premier Gordon Campbell.
The last Ipsos-Reid poll, in June, found 54 per cent of those surveyed approved of the job she was doing. Campbell won positive ratings from 49 per cent of those surveyed.
And James has generally been gaining ground. Back in March 2005 a similar poll found her approval rating at 50 per cent. Some voters who were undecided then have been won over.
It might be that the pundit types put too much value on toughness.
It seems to be generally considered a good thing when leaders are decisive, even authoritarian. Hesitation is worse than being confidently wrong.
Canadians don't cut and run, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper, so the war in Afghanistan continues no matter what's happening on the ground. But certainty can be dangerous. The leader who insists he alone knows the right course can - with great and stylish decisiveness - lead his followers over a cliff. (Or into Iraq.)
Earlier this year The New Yorker profiled rising U.S. political star and presidential candidate Barack Obama. One of the knocks against Obama is that he's too inclined to compromise and consensus. (The article was titled The Conciliator.)
But Obama said he simply considers that sensible. He has strong views, he said, but he also recognizes that he doesn't have a monopoly on wisdom. If others feel strongly about an issue, it's smart to heed their views.
There's a risk of drift and indecision in the approach.
But we've run into a lot of problems created by leaders who are convinced they have all the answers.
Maybe it's time to celebrate a little compromise and conciliation.
Footnote: What's Campbell's approach? Tough to tell from the outside. But the government's big initiatives - the Conversation on Health, the New Relationship with First Nations, forest policy changes and now the new enthusiasm for fighting global warming - have all been launched from the premier's office. And the role of backbench MLAs in shaping policy through caucus committees has been sharply cut back since the 2005 election.

Maybe Hillbilly Heroin is a good thing

Apparently prescription drugs are bumping heroin off some addicts' shopping lists in Victoria these days.
Which seems like a good thing, one that points to a solution to at least some of the drug problems causing our communities so much grief. The Times Colonist reported "the evolution of drug use in Victoria" is under way. Dealers are shifting from heroin to prescription drugs that have similar effects - Dilaudid, OxyContin and morphine variants. OxyContin has kind of a buzz going. It's apparently swept through small-town and rural America and made inroads in Atlantic Canada. The prescription drug even has a media handle - "hillbilly heroin." (Of course, we in the media don't have a good record in reporting on drugs; we tend to get overly excited about each new drug that comes along.)
The article suggested the shift marked a "troublesome trend" in drug use. I can't see much troublesome about the change. Being addicted - to prescription drugs, heroin, cocaine or alcohol - is terrible.
And some substances are worse than others. Cocaine addicts seem particularly likely to have a tough ride; alcoholics have the benefit of easy access and a certain social tolerance. But any addiction is bad news. Still, oxycontin or heroin - what's the difference? Some argue prescription heroin substitutes might add to addiction problems if they're more readily available than heroin. Getting phony prescriptions and reselling the drugs might be easier than importing heroin, they suggest. But there never seems to be any problem meeting the demand for heroin. The biggest busts and record-breaking seizures make absolutely no difference in supply.
Basically, it seems that the new street drugs are appealing because they're a safe, cost-effective alternative to heroin. How is that a bad thing?
When people buy heroin, or cocaine or meth, they can't tell what they're getting.
When they buy a prescription drug, they often can check the tablet or capsule before they grind it up. The drug has been made in a pharmaceutical company's manufacturing centre, not some basement. That means addicts have a reduced risk of taking bad drugs and dying, or ending up in hospital. Surely that's a good thing.
The cost of feeding a prescription drug addiction is about the same as being on heroin. Markets work that way. If prescription drugs give the same effects as heroin, then they'll command pretty much the same price. But the article raised an interesting possibility. On the street, it said, the prescription pills sell for $5 to $20 each. An addict would typically use $40 or $50 worth at a time, based on street prices. Consider the process involved. Someone persuades a doctor he has terrible pain and gets a prescription for a morphine-like drug. He sells the pills to a dealer, who sets out to resell them on the street. A buyer - an addict - would need $40 to make the buy. If he's doing crimes to support his habit, that means perhaps three cars broken into to get stuff to sell.
Which would, of course, cost each of the owners $500 for a new lock or window. So the addict gets drugs. Dealers and gangs make money supplying them. Property crimes soar. Police are kept busy.
Instead, why not write the addict a prescription, and even provide free drugs? The real price for the bills, prescribed, is $8, not $40. Providing the drugs deals a big blow to the criminals making profits in the drug trade. The addict wouldn't break into those three cars. Perhaps, given freedom from the daily scramble for drug money, he might even begin to get a grip. It's worked that way in other jurisdictions. Switzerland conducted an experiment in which 1,100 addicts received free heroin. During the test there was a massive reduction in criminal activity by the drug users and an increase in employment and not one overdose death.
And more than 80 people quit drugs while using legal heroin. So why aren't we just writing prescriptions for at least some addicts?
Footnote: There are practical issues. Drugs shouldn't be too readily available, as difficulty deters at least some new users. But making life difficult for addicts serves no purpose. Their lives are worse, the entire community suffers through crime, policing costs, health care pressures and our sense of safety is eroded. What is the point?

So how much did the panelists who recommended giant raises for MLAs get paid?

Sean Holman has the answer at publiceyeonline.com. Look for the item headed "Reviewing the reviewers."

RCMP complaints process a travesty

As questions mounted about the death of Ian Bush, the RCMP repeatedly noted that the shooting would be investigated by the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints.
What they didn't say was that the top Mounties get to rewrite the commission's reports before they're made public.
And they routinely do, clearing officers accused of wrongdoing.
The Commission for Public Complaints issued 48 interim reports in its last fiscal year, which ended March 31.
The commission, after reviewing the evidence, issued 184 "findings." Half of them - 92 - were critical of the actions of the RCMP officers involved.
But the RCMP commissioner gets to go through the reports before they're released. During that 12-month period, the commissioners - first Giuliano Zaccardelli, then Beverley Busson - regularly rewrote reports. They decided witnesses judged credible by the commission should not be believed. They changed findings of fact and introduced new evidence.
And they over-ruled and rewrote 50 per cent of the commission's "adverse findings" against the actions of officers.
The situation is so outrageous it's like something out of a political satire. If something goes wrong - from a small complaint to a shooting - here's what happens. The RCMP investigates the actions of its officers. The investigators might forward a report to Crown prosecutors, who would use it to decide if charges are warranted.
If someone was unhappy with the results of this process, they could ask the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints to review the case. But the commission relies largely on the investigation by the RCMP.
And the top Mountie can and does rewrite the commission's reports to remove criticisms of officers or the force.
This has nothing to do with the general conduct of RCMP officers. Based on my limited experience as a police reporter - all right, very limited - they routinely do a tough job with remarkable good judgment.
But not always. Not invariably, 100 per cent of the time, like some saintly brigade. These are people like you and I, who chose a challenging line of work.
We give police officers great powers - from carrying guns to stopping people they suspect of wrongdoing. And most of us, I think, when we hear someone complain about being mistreated by police, tend to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. We've seen the kind of people they have to deal with, drunk and stupid and contrary.
That's exactly why there has to be accountability and independent oversight. When something does go wrong, a victim needs to know someone will look at his complaints with an open mind. Someone who isn't on the side of the police, or against them. Someone just interested in the truth and law.
Instead, complaints are investigated by RCMP officers. The information goes to the commission for public complaints. And then the head of the RCMP can rewrite any recommendations he doesn't like.
It's a deeply flawed process. The head of the RCMP has a natural desire to protect fellow officers. And too many bad reports might cost him his job.
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is trying to improve things. It announced this month, in the aftermath of the Ian Bush shooting, a test program that will see its staff observe investigations into serious cases in B.C.
Commission chair Paul Kennedy says more is needed. The government has to pass legislation that allows real independent oversight. (Justice Dennis O'Connors investigation into the Arar case produced the same recommendation.)
The federal government's failure to deal with the issue is particularly unfair to British Columbians. The province has an independent Police Complaint Commissioner in charge of investigating public complaints.
But the RCMP won't accept the commissioner's oversight. Since most communities are policed by the RCMP, about 75 per cent of British Columbians don't have access to an adequate complaints process.
It's time the federal government acted on the urgent need to bring adequate oversight to the RCMP
Footonote: An independent review released earlier this year found significant problems in the provincial police complaints' review process. The report's author, former appeal court justice Josiah Wood, also advocates bringing the RCMP under the authority of the province's complaints commissioner.

The premier and that gift to private liquor stores

It's nice to know the government was worried about how it would look, taking some $25 million a year out of taxpayers' pockets and handing it to private liquor store owners.
But it would be better still to know why the Liberals decided to make such a generous gift to a handful of businesses, one that will keep on giving.
I wrote about the gift back in January. The government had quietly decided to cut the wholesale prices it charged private liquor stores. It reduced prices by about five per cent, across the board.
Great news for the companies. If you can get a supplier to cut your costs, then your profits jump.
The biggest company quickly wrote investors and said the government's decision would mean a 10-per-cent jump in pre-tax profits.
Not so good for taxpayers. The price cut reduces the amount of money coming into the Liquor Distribution Branch. The branch's profits flow back to the government, to pay for health care or reduce the debt. The money was significant - up to $31 million a year.
But why would the government cut prices? It doesn't have any competition - the Liquor Distribution Branch is the only legal supplier.
And the branch has already cut prices for the stores twice since the Liberals opened the door for expanded private liquor sales.
There is no financial crisis in the liquor business. In fact, stores are still opening and the industry leaders have big plans.
It's still a mystery why the government gave the gift.
But thanks to Sean Holman at www.publiceyeonline.com, the how of the deal is becoming clearer. (The site is mandatory reading for anyone interested in politics and policy in B.C.)
Holman filed freedom of information requests to find out what happened.
It turns out Solicitor General John Les announced the gift to private liquor stores at the B.C. Hospitality Industry Conference Exposition. There was never a news release or public notification.
Les noted the government had already "taken a number of steps" to help private liquor stores.
And then he announced that government was prepared to give up more revenue to help the private liquor stores. "This increase in the discount will help to further ensure your long-term viability in the marketplace," Les told the cheering liquor store owners.
Why the government is willing to pony up your money to ensure the success of these businesses remains unclear.
But don't blame Les for the giveaway. He was watching out for your money, or at least that's how the industry saw it. The head of their association complained in late 2005 that Les had "no appetite" for meeting the industry's demands for bigger profits.
Perhaps what matters is who the industry complained to.
Holman reports the criticism of Les came in a "Dear Gordon" letter to the premier. Former solicitor general Rich Coleman had promised the price break, they said, but Les wasn't going along.
And a year later, the industry had its $25 million price break.
The industry's letter to the premier was interesting. Alliance of Beverage Licensees president David Crown said Coleman had promised to help the private liquor.
And Crown said the companies were waiting too long "to gain the market share that was promised us."
Whoa. Who promised the investors in private liquor stores a guaranteed share of the market? Why, and when?
Those questions still aren't answered.
The owners' association urged members to tell anyone who asked that the deal would mean lower consumer prices.
But the Liquor Barn group of stores had already told its investors that the change would bring a big boost in profits. And people who shop in private liquor stores don't report any big round of discounting.
The bottom line is that the government handed up to $30 million a year in revenue it had been receiving to a group of companies. That's money that could have paid for additional surgeries, or been returned to taxpayers.
Instead, it's boosting profits for a few private businesses.
Footnote: The break for private liquor stores will hit the government's Liquor Distribution Branch's bottom-line this year. The Crown corporation - despite a booming economy - is forecasting a drop in profits for the 2007-8 fiscal year.

Taylor's big surplus cost the public services

Finance Minister Carole Taylor was trying too hard, I'd say. The big-time spin on this year's public accounts suggested the government is getting worried about what you think about the recurring mega-surpluses.
Sure, big surpluses are better than big deficits. But I've been a corporate guy, responsible for a few businesses.
And if a manager who reported to me kept smashing his budget numbers year after year, I'd start to wonder if he was being dishonest when he submitted his plan.
The government smashed its budget again this year. Taylor has released the public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31 - the final accounting - and revealed that the government had a $4.1-billion surplus.
The plan at the beginning of the year called for a $600-million surplus. But the plan underestimated revenues by about $3.1 billion. Spending was $1 billion lower than the worst case forecast.
That's no surprise. Since the Liberals were elected, the government has posted very large surpluses at year-end, consistently low-balling revenue forecasts.
Here's the problem. If the government had prepared an accurate forecast - within a conservative but reasonable margin of error - than there would have been a chance for the public and the MLAs who represent them to talk about priorities.
Good news, the government could have said. It looks like, given the best forecasts, we'll finish the year having taken in $4.1 billion more than we'll spend. What should we do with the money?
That's enough for a $1,000 cut in the taxes each British Columbians pays. Or to eliminate the wait for surgery in the province, or increase welfare rates or improve home care for seniors. Or to pay down the province's already modest debt.
The government's inaccurate forecasts steal the chance for that kind of debate. By the time the surplus is revealed, the only option legally left is to plunk it down on the debt.
So far, the government has been mostly upfront about the whole business.
But not this year. Taylor said the surplus was used to pay for hospitals, schools and roads. "Fortunately, we were able to use the larger-than-forecast surplus to both pay for these projects and pay down debt by $1 billion," she said in a press release.
That's a major tweak to reality. None of those projects was started because of the surplus. None of them is directly paid for with the extra money the government collected.
And they were planned and would have gone ahead without the surplus. (Sorry kids, we budgeted too well. No school for you.)
There is just no $3.1 billion allocated to infrastructure and $1 billion to pay down the debt.
The whole $4.1 billion is going to pay down debt.
Anytime the government communications' types ramp up the spin cycle that much - and enlist Taylor to front the effort - you should be warned something is going on.
There isn't anything dramatically wrong with paying down debt. I hate debt; it always seems to take away your freedom. That's another column.
But B.C. doesn't have a debt problem. Next to debt-free Alberta, B.C. has the lowest debt per capita. That, and prudent government, is why the province has such a good credit rating.
That means there was a real choice - tax cuts, or help for people or paying down the debt.
Spending decisions would of course have to be made carefully. It would be foolish to launch programs that require long-term commitments based on a large surplus one year. (Although big surpluses are the norm for this government.)
But even the most cautious approach would have allowed major improvements in the lives of British Columbians or significant tax cuts for individuals or businesses.
When the legislature finance committee consulted British Columbians on the budget, they said improving services should be the priority.
The government's bad forecasting allowed it to ignore the priorities of British Columbians.
Footnote: The legislative committee hearings are a legally mandated part of the budget process. The committee received 8,000 submissions which overwhelmingly called for improved services - faster access to health care, efforts to deal with mental-health and addiction issues, more affordable housing, enhanced education and so on. Instead, the government plunked $4.1 billion down on the debt.

RCMP must accept real accountability

The Ian Bush case should surely convince politicians that it's time to bring accountability to the RCMP.
Bush was 22 when he was arrested for drinking a beer outside the Houston arena before a hockey game. He gave false name and was taken into custody. Thirty minutes later he was dead, shot in the back of the head by an inexperienced officer. They were the only two people in the detachment when he died.
The night of the shooting, RCMP officers didn't ask Const. Paul Koester what happened; they supported him, told him it wasn't his fault and advised him to get a lawyer. Officers testified at the just-concluded inquest that they considered Koester a victim. Ambulance attendants were initially denied access to the detachment. Bush's body was left there for 24 hours, allowing decomposition that made the eventual autopsy more difficult.
RCMP officers attended the autopsy and offered theories about what might have happened to the pathologist. He forgot to examine a visible bruise on Bush's thigh.
Koester, didn't provide a statement on what happened until 18 days after the shooting. Then, it was a written statement prepared with the help of a lawyer. He shredded his original handwritten notes after the RCMP investigators said they didn't want to see them.
And RCMP investigators didn't interview him until three months after the shooting. Then, they asked only the questions that they had provided to Koester's lawyers two days in advance of the meeting
No one in Canada - including police officers - has to answer police questions. But if the shooter had been anyone other than a fellow Mountie, would investigators really have patiently waited three months for the first interview? Would they have missed the chance to interview a person involved in a shooting that first night?
Most people expect RCMP officers to have loyalty to the force and fellow Mounties. That's expected. It also makes it essential that they not be in charge of investigating possible wrongdoing by fellow officers.
In this case, the RCMP investigators accepted Koestler's eventual statement that Bush attacked him. He was kneeling, the officer said, with Bush choking him from behind. He feared for his life pulled his gun, reached around behind his back and shot Bush in the back of the head.
But at the inquest, RCMP investigators couldn't demonstrate how that was physically possible. One of Canada's leading blood-splatter experts testified the shooting could not have happened in the way the RCMP claimed.
No one except Koester knows what happened that night. But most people would conclude that the RCMP did not conduct a credible investigation. Most people would certainly believe that things would have been handled differently if they had shot an intruder.
The RCMP had pointed to the coroner's inquest as an independent. But the Coroners Service took an extremely narrow view of its role. The coroner barred evidence on the RCMP investigation of Bush's death and ordered the jury not to bring in any recommendations dealing with the issue.
The RCMP public complaints commissioner will now review the shooting. But the review won't be public and it will be based on the evidence prepared by the RCMP investigators.
The case isn't some oddity. There have been other deaths in B.C. in the last few years that have cried out for an independent investigation.
The solution is clear. Ideally, have a specialized unit investigate all such deaths and other serious cases involving police; failing that, at least require an outside police force to conduct investigations into shootings involving an RCMP officer.
It's hardly threatening. But the RCMP is opposed to any outside accountability. Federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is dodging the issue. Provincial politicians have no stomach for it.
We ask a lot of police and give them great power. But we also have every right to expect them to be properly accountable for their actions.
Footnote: Const. John Ward of the B.C. media section conveyed The RCMP attitude to public oversight. When Gary Mason of the Globe and Mail suggested the public had an interest in knowing RCMP policies on handling prisoners like Bush, Ward was clear: "The public doesn't have a right to know anything," he said.

Uranium mine proposals put Liberals in hot seat

The problem for nuclear power - and by extension uranium mining - is that almost everybody has seen some disaster movie about a meltdown that threatens life on Earth as we know it.
The few who have missed those films have probably watched Homer Simpson's less-than-diligent job performance in Springfield's version of the Three Mile Island generating plant.
Now the problems are heading toward the Liberal government, as companies keep talking enthusiastically about opening uranium mines in the province.
Worse, for the Liberals, the big interest is in a property about 50 kilometres southeast of Kelowna.
You might - perhaps - be able to get local support in the north for a uranium mine; there's not a chance in the Okanagan or the southern interior.
The Liberals haven't figured out what to do. The government has, with some success, worked hard at encouraging exploration and mining in the province.
Blocking a uranium mine would be taken as a negative sign by the industry.
But there are a whole lot of votes to be lost in approving a uranium mine. Neighbours would be unhappy. And so would a lot of people across the province with concerns about the safety of nuclear energy.
The argument that nuclear power, with no direct greenhouse-gas emissions, is a sound response to the issue of climate change hasn't yet won the day.
It's still hard to see how serious the mine proposals are. But the question is looking more real.
The focus is on the Blizzard uranium claim near Beaverdell, south of Kelowna. It's already part of B.C.'s mining history. In 1980, a consortium that included Ontario Hydro announced plans to develop a uranium mine there. The opposition was fierce and then-premier Bill Bennett introduced a seven-year moratorium, which lapsed 20 years ago.
Now uranium is hot. Ontario is committed to new nuclear power plants and China plans a massive expansion.
Around the world, nuclear is being seen as both green and increasingly affordable as oil and gas prices rise. Last summer, two companies bought the Blizzard claim and announced they would revive the mine plan.
Last month, a corporate-share shuffle transferred ownership to Boss Power Inc., formerly known as Boss Gold International. The company says the claim has real potential as a uranium mine.
It's hard to know how seriously to take any of this. Junior mining companies are known more for their enthusiasm than the successful completion of projects.
Still, the more the company talks up the mine, the more problems for the government.
Kevin Krueger is the junior minister for mines, named to cabinet when Bill Bennett resigned after sending a cranky and thin-skinned e-mail to a constituent.
It's the Kamloops MLAs first real moment in the spotlight, and he's understandably having trouble dancing the required two-step.
The Liberals don't want the uranium mine to go ahead, but they also don't want to irritate the mining industry by doing anything about it.
So Krueger confirms the government doesn't have any special policy on uranium mines. Companies can apply just as if they wanted to dig up coal or copper.
They'll need the same environmental approvals, but that might not be much of a hurdle.
But at the same time, he told The Globe and Mail that mining companies should be aware that there's strong public opposition in the province.
"People fear it, and that's a reality in B.C.," he said. "Whatever assurances are passed along to them, people either don't believe it or they say they're opposed regardless, saying we don't need it, we don't want it, and we don't want you to allow it."
Which sounds a little like a warning that while there's no ban now, there might be - after shareholders had invested, companies had spent time and money and the government had taken criticism for allowing the mines to move forward.
The project might just fade away. If it doesn't, the politics should be way more complicated than actually developing a mine.
Footnote: Last summer, the concern was over uranium exploration near Clearwater, closer to Krueger's base. Canada is already one of the world's top two uranium producers and Saskatchewan is home to the largest mine in the world.

The battle for a sacred golf course

It's almost comical, like something out of a movie, the way a golf course in a posh Vancouver neighbourhood has become a flashpoint in First Nations' treaty efforts.
The province is in secretive talks about turning the University Golf Club over to the Musqueam band, which has outstanding claims over a lot of expensive Lower Mainland real estate.
The neighbours and golfers, in an area where $1 million gets you a starter home, are shocked and outraged.
One observed that some golfers had so loved the course that they had their ashes scattered over the fairways.
If the Musqueam developed the land, it would be like desecrating a burial site, he said, adding that First Nations don't like it when someone digs up the bones of their ancestors to clear the way for some condos or a new road.
Can't you see that in a movie, the actor — I’m thinking Gene Hackman, for some reason — making his case for the sacred spiritual nature of the course, as a group dressed in black golf clothes scatters someone's ashes beside the eighth tee?
The golf course - open to the public, with rates of $70 for a weekend round - has been a point of contention for years.
The Musqueam and other urban First Nations involved in treaty talks have a problem. The settlement model is based on compensation in land and cash.
But the federal and provincial governments have little land available to hand over in urban areas. First Nations get edgy when any of it is transferred out of their hands.
The Campbell government did exactly that with the University Golf Club in 2003. Despite the Musqueam's objections, and knowing the band was eying it as part of any future settlement, the province sold the course to the University of B.C. for $11 million.
It looked bad. And in 2005 the B.C. Court of Appeal said it was bad. The government had an obligation to consult before selling the land, the court ruled. It gave the province and Musqueam two years to negotiate a settlement. It's not hard to understand why people who golf on the beautiful course or use it for quiet walks would be disappointed it ends up as a housing development. (The Musqueam have said if they get ownership, the land will remain a golf course until 2033.)
But their arguments are so strange as to be alarming. The course does offer a lovely green space. But the area already has an extraordinary amount of parkland, thanks to the lovely UBC campus. (And some of those complaining live in houses on land carved from that space for development.)
The golf-course defenders - ignoring the fact that the Musqueam have a legal say in all this - also say the provincial government should just offer the band cash in return for giving up their claim to the golf course. One opponent fighting any transfer is Martin Zlotnik, a Gordon Campbell backer and big-time Liberal fundraiser. He says the Liberals could just "write a cheque" to cover the cost. "The government prints money, don't forget that," he said in a radio interview.
But, as Campbell likely reminded, him the government doesn't print money; it collects from people and companies.
And the land is worth something over $300 million if it’s developed. The idea that someone in Trail or Prince George should pay higher taxes to preserve a golf course for a largely affluent group in a ritzy Vancouver neighbourhood is just bizarre.
The other interesting question this affair raises is the depth of urban residents' commitment to treaties. Polls generally found them supportive when the land likely to be transferred was far away. This group isn't so keen now the issue is closer to home. (Rural residents have so far accepted the need to transfer land as part of treaty settlements.)
Still, it would make an awfully good movie.
Footnote: The golf course is in Campbell's own riding and he's been criticized by constituents, especially for secrecy around the land negotiations (though that's normal in these kinds of talks). The whole affair shows how much Campbell's approach to First Nations has changed in four years. In 2003, he ignored the Musqueam's claims and pretty much gave the land away; now, he's looking to ensure the band gets the property.

Battle brewing over oil-tanker traffic

An odd public debate has broken out over the issue of oil and gas tankers sailing through B.C.'s coastal waters.
The topic isn't that strange. You can expect conflict over any activity, from tanker traffic to offshore oil and gas development, which involves potential risk to the coast.
What's weird is that this debate isn't about the principle. It's about whether tanker traffic is currently banned by the federal government.
It's not, says Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, MP for a riding that includes a Victoria suburb and some of the Gulf Islands.
"There actually is no moratorium for traffic coming into the West Coast," he says. The Conservative government will only acknowledge an "a voluntary exclusion zone" that applies to U.S. tankers carrying Alaska oil to Washington State. The American companies have been willing to stay out of B.C. waters, but there's nothing to say they couldn't start sailing through tomorrow, according to Lunn.
David Anderson disagrees. He made his political mark by championing the tanker issue and oversaw the moratorium as environment minister for the federal Liberals. He says the tanker ban has been in place since 1972.
NDP MPs and MLAs have taken the same position; so have most environmental groups.
Most of the evidence appears to be on their side, although there is no cabinet order or legislation setting out the ban.
When the federal Natural Resources Department commissioned a study on offshore oil and gas in 2003, the terms of reference acknowledged the ban.
"In 1972, the Government of Canada imposed a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic through Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound due to concerns over the potential environmental impacts. The moratorium subsequently extended to include oil and gas activities."
It seems clear. And people who say the ban exists note that many federal government documents acknowledge the ban and none - prior to the Conservatives being elected - claim it doesn't exist.
The silliest argument that the ban doesn't exist is an industry-lobby group's claim that because barges and small tankers have continued to carry fuel from Vancouver to coastal communities, there can't be a ban. The moratorium or voluntary exclusion or whatever wasn't meant to stop Bella Bella from getting gas to run generators.
The whole debate largely misses the main point. Whether there is or isn't a moratorium now, should there be?
Lunn's position is significant in that context. If a moratorium exists, then the Conservatives would have to justify lifting the ban. If there is no ban, then opponents of tanker traffic would have to justify imposing one.
The B.C. government comes down somewhere in the middle. It acknowledges the ban, but says it only applies to tankers passing through B.C. waters without.
That's a critical distinction. There hasn't been any other kind of tanker traffic in the past. B.C. hasn't imported or exported oil or gas products through its ports.
But the Alberta oil sands could change that. There are five pipeline proposals to link Alberta with Prince Rupert or Kitimat. Some would transport crude; some would send condensate, used to produce the heavy oil, to Alberta.
And they would all require a steady stream of tankers heading in and out of port several times a week.
That's obviously a risk; look at the Queen of the North. But life is a series of calculations about risk and reward. How many jobs would the pipeline projects provide? How much revenue could the government collect? What can be done to ensure tanker safety?
Those are the question that need to be answered before tankers are given permission to operate in B.C.'s coastal waters, no matter whether there is now a ban or not.
And politicians need to listen to the public before any decision is made.
Footnote: The tanker traffic has already started. Fourteen tankers have been allowed through in the last 18 months delivering condensate to Kitimat. From there it's shipped to Alberta's tar sands. The tanker issue has been politically significant in the past. It could hurt the Conservatives in close B.C. races in the next election.

Polls show election Liberals to lose

We've crossed the divide, more than halfway to the next provincial election on May 12, 2009.
It doesn't seem that long since the last vote in 2005. The Liberals lost their stranglehold on the legislature, but still won a solid majority. Premier Gordon Campbell seemed to take the lesson to heart. The Liberals have been more moderate since, and that's translated into better poll standings. Good enough, in fact, that there's been some sniping at NDP leader Carole James. Partly, that's because some New Democrats live for internal battles. Partly it's based on the dubious argument that James hasn't been tough enough on the government.
But mostly, it's because of the polls, which have shown the NDP well behind the Liberals and making no progress through the last two years. There's a little bit of good news for New Democrats in the latest Ipsos Reid poll. The NDP was up four points from an April poll, to 36 per cent of decided voters.
But the Liberals, while down by the same amount, had the support of 45 per cent of decided voters. That's basically the same support they had in the 2005 election, good enough for 46 of 79 seats. And why not? The economy, through most of the province, is strong. The benefits haven't flowed equally to all British Columbians, but still this is a good time for a lot of people.
And the Liberal government has mostly avoided doing things that people don't like, something that couldn't be said of their first term. There's not much an opposition can do to win support from a competent, error-free government in good times.
But that doesn't mean the 2009 election is already decided. I referred to "error-free" government. That's tough to manage. The Ipsos poll that found the gap narrowing between Liberals and NDP also asked about peoples' responses to the 30-per-cent pay raise and generous pension plan that MLAs awarded themselves. Half those surveyed said their opinion of Gordon Campbell and the Liberals had worsened because of the rich deal; only 26 per cent thought worse of the NDP. James' decision to vote against the raise, donate the money to charities and take the pension seemed to work. Count the whole deal an error.
The pay raise was particularly outrageous. But it's easy for governments to make mistakes, and after a time even the little ones can start to pile up. Like bungling the supervision of lotteries or protection of workers in farm fields or forests. A lot can go wrong for any party in power.
But that doesn't necessarily mean the opposition can start deciding how to pass out the cabinet offices. It's not enough for the governing party to mess up. Voters have to be convinced that opposition could do better. (Unless, of course, the party in power messes up so totally - like the Clark NDP government - that voters would choose anyone other than the old gang.) A lot can go wrong for the Liberals. The Basi-Virk corruption trial, with allegations of political dirty tricks, is hanging over their heads. The health authorities have proved a bad idea and public concern about care problems is mounting. (Though the conversation on health might allow a fresh start.) The children and families ministry appears to be drifting again, raising the risk of new scandals. And government gets blamed for everything from the street problems plaguing cities to forest industry problems. And then there's the areas where the government has raised expectations without delivering - climate change, health reform, progress for First Nations. People are waiting for action that matches the promises. The Liberals have been adroit since 2005. But there are a lot of things that can go wrong.
And that's the NDP's challenge. It won't be enough to crab about the Liberals, the usual opposition role. They have to convince voters that they're capable of doing a better job - competent, with a plan. Which mostly falls to James. The New Democrats have some strong MLAs to carry the load - Mike Farnworth is the law-and-order guy, Adrian Dix in health, Bob Simpson in forestry.
But ultimately, the next election is the Liberals to lose. Unless they mess up and James convinces the public her party can do better, Campbell will be front and centre at the 2010 Olympics.

Signs point to end to Afghan mission

Until last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has talked as if a Conservative government would automatically extend the military mission in Afghanistan when the current commitment ends in February 2009. Canadians don't cut and run, maintained Harper, and we'll be there until the job - whatever that might be - is done.
But last week, Harper changed his position. The troops will only stay if Canadians support military action against Afghan insurgents, he said. "I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition at home is going to undercut the dangerous work that they're doing in the field," he said. So unless Canadians say that they support a continuation of the current mission, our front-line combat role will end in about 20 months. (Harper might have meant opposition political parties, but their positions are shaped by the public's views.)
Most opinion polls suggest that Harper should tell NATO now that Canada won't be fighting after 2009. We might be willing to offer humanitarian aid, but Canadians don't want to see our troops to continue to take a combat role. A national Decima Research poll conducted at the beginning of June found two out of three Canadians want the troops out of the fighting when this commitment ends. The main reason appears to be that the public has decided lives are being lost for no reason; 75 per cent of those surveyed did not believe our effort will produce real change in Afghanistan. Canadians aren't a huge part of the NATO commitment - 2,500 out of some 31,000 troops. But we've taken on a tough combat role, one shunned by many of the other participating nations.
So what do we tell Harper about extending the mission? There's no doubt that Canada's efforts have made a positive difference in the lives of some Afghanis. Women point to freedoms that would never have been imaginable under the Taliban. And the mission's goals - supporting the government, preventing terrorists from using Afghanistan as a safe haven, helping improve the lives of citizens - are all laudable.
But that's not enough to justify sacrificing more lives. There has to be not just a noble cause, but also a realistic chance of success. Increasingly, that appears unlikely.
The NATO forces have stepped in to the middle of a civil war. The Taliban are the bad guys - violent, repressive, tyrannical and supporters of terrorism outside Afghanistan's borders.
But the government has a shaky claim to legitimacy. The police and army are at best inefficient and poorly equipped. At worst they are corrupt and criminal. The gap between our ideal of bringing democracy to Afghanistan and the reality of life on the ground are enormous.
And the country remains so desperately poor - comparable to the most struggling countries in Africa - that it is difficult to see how, even with significant aid, it can provide the basic services and institutions needed. At the same time, it appears there is no end to the military struggle in sight. The Taliban is waging a classic insurgency campaign. It attacks when conditions are in its favour and fades away when the NATO forces are strong, only to return once attention shifts elsewhere. The three most recent Canadian deaths came in an area our forces thought they had won control. There is no quick victory over that kind of enemy.
And any hope of success relies on winning the support of the civilian population and demonstrating that the government and the foreign forces can ensure their security.
That's increasingly difficult. Afghan President Hamid Karzai this week complained that NATO forces' reliance on air strikes and artillery to fight the guerrillas is resulting in too many civilian deaths. The best estimate is that NATO forces have killed 203 civilians so far this year; the Taliban 178. It doesn't matter whether the Taliban are using innocents as shields; they are still dead.
Harper says the future of the military mission is up to Canadians. Given the terrible costs and the slim chance of success, the choice is clear. NATO should be told now that while Canada might help with aid, training and other support, our military role won't continue. Footnote: Why did Harper change his position? The war has become a larger political issue, particularly in Quebec; the death toll is rising; and there is no good news to offset the concerns. The Conservatives risk facing an election in which their support for the war is a significant issue.

No-fly list should be the last straw for Canadians concerned about their rights

The no-fly list should mark a turning point, the time when Canadians push back at increasingly intrusive - and dubious - security measures.
"Passenger Protect" is under way in Canada. Every time you go to take a flight, the airline will check your name against a secret list compiled by the Transportation Department.
If your name is on the list, you'll be barred from flying. (Or if someone with the same name is on the list.)
You can't find out if you're on the list. That's a secret. It's also a secret how many people are suspects. The government says between 500 and 2,000 so far. The number is growing.
And there's no set criteria - no requirement that people on the list have committed crimes; no need for evidence; no independent review.
And no chance to clear your name, because you never know you've been blacklisted.
The Transportation Department consults CSIS and the RCMP to see who should be listed. Names are proposed and added to the list, which is available to all airlines operating in Canada.
The government says it also might be shared with other nations and their security agencies. Bad luck for someone who - like Maher Arar - ends up in Syria or some other country, pegged as a potential terrorist based on bad information, or a confused informant.
The government insists that only people who are serious threats will go on the list.
But if these people are so dangerous, why are we only restricting their ability to fly? Aren't they being watched? And wouldn't people who are real threats have already considered the possibility that they might be on the list, and instead send someone else on a flight?
In fact, if you plan to attack an airplane, wouldn't it make sense to book a trial flight first, to see if the government is on to you?
Of course, the most dangerous people won't likely be on the list. They aren't in the U.S., because security officials think that would make it too easy for potential terrorists to check on whether they have been detected. They just have to try to take a flight; if they're turned away, they can go underground.
The no-fly list in its present form, even if it were useful, would be unacceptable.
But it's not useful. The only person who could be caught would be a sloppy, stupid and lazy potential attacker. The kind of person who would be caught anyway.
For that tiny, illusory promise of increased safety, Canadians are being asked to give up our basic rights and freedoms.
We're presumed innocent in this country. If the state has concerns about our actions, it can certainly keep files on us.
But when it wants to interfere with a citizen's life, the state has to show evidence and give the accused a chance to respond.
That most basic protection is being sacrificed. Based on a secret accusation - a mistake, malicious charges by an enemy, misidentification - people will be denied the right to fly and put at risk of arrest in some other country.
There is an appeal. But your name could be on a list today and you wouldn't know it. You might find out on the day you try to fly to your daughter's wedding and are turned away.
Since 9/11 most of the things that have made our lives worse have come from our governments' response to terror threats, not from external enemies. From the small, like the increased difficulty in travelling; to the dramatic, like our troops involvement in the Afghan war.
We've tolerated the changes, hopeful they were needed to keep us safe.
But it's time to stop. When our government proposes to create lists of enemies and deny them the right to travel - and in the process accomplish little in terms of real safety - things have gone too far.
Footnote: Why do we have a no-fly list? Because it will please the U.S., the only other country with a similar program. It will give the illusion of increased safety. And because security forces always want to compile lists of suspect people and find ways to use them. It is the politicians who are supposed to guard citizens' rights.

Premier's interference steers B.C. Lotteries wrong way

Investors get nervous when a company director becomes so concerned about its direction that he resigns.
Directors are usually onside, or they leave quietly when their term ends. If they bolt, it's considered bad news.
John Bell has just bolted. He resigned as a director of the B.C. Lottery Corp. last _week. Bell, a consultant, was among the B.C. Liberals' early appointments to the board back in 2001, in the months following their election win.
Bell says his resignation wasn't related to the devastating B.C. ombudsman's report on the failure of both the lottery corporation and the government to protect customers from fraud.
"I am leaving the board due to differences of opinion subsequent to the report's release.," he said in a news release.
Which leaves a couple of likely explanations. Either Bell disagreed with the board's decision - made under some political pressure - to fire corporation CEO Vic Poleschuk in the wake of the report.
Or he balked at the board's willingness to hire an interim CEO pushed on it by Premier Gordon Campbell.
It's tough to see how Poleschuk could have stayed, given the ombudsman's report. It found a failure to establish procedures that would protect people who bought lottery tickets from fraud; a lack of meaningful response when people raised complaints; and an empty, misleading response when the problem became public last fall.
Though then again, it's tough to see how others in government - including Solicitor General John Les - have kept their jobs. The failure of the Gambling Policy and Enforcement Branch to do anything about the problem over the last five years is just as serious. And the branch was just as misleading in its response to the initial reports of fraud risk.
If Bell has concerns about the choice of an interim CEO, they would be justified.
Faced with a major crisis and the need to re-establish public trust, the board should have been looking hard for an interim CEO who would take on the job without any baggage. Maybe a retired corporate type from outside the gambling industry.
Instead, it picked Dana Hayden, who had been Premier Gordon Campbell's deputy minister of strategic policy. Campbell said he had suggested the board hire her; the board apparently considered a suggestion from the premier a pretty good recommendation.
Hayden has a good reputation and she has held senior positions under both the NDP and Liberal governments in her 23-year career in the B.C. government.
But it is a bad hire for a board serious about regaining the public trust.
Just as it shows poor judgment for the premier to have influenced - or instructed - the board to hire someone from his office. The Liberals have made much of the need for independent directors, managing Crown corporations free from political interference. Now, the premier has ignored the principle with the kind of appointment he would have fiercely condemned in opposition.
Campbell points to Hayden's past experiences as CEO of the Crown Agencies Secretariat, the government branch that oversees and supports B.C. Lotteries and other government-owned companies. But that's a negative under the circumstances. These problems developed despite the role being played by the secretariat.
More critically, the lottery board's responsibility is to fix the serious problems identified by the ombudsman and restore fading public confidence in the gambling industry in B.C. That means rooting out the past problems, identifying weaknesses and fixing them.
The premier's interest - inevitably - will be seen as being focused on minimizing political damage from the scandal.
So it doesn't matter how Hayden approaches the job. The fact that she worked in the premier's office and was Campbell's choice creates a damaging perception.
The public's confidence in the B.C. Lottery Corp, is critical. Without it, the government's plan to create more gamblers and persuade them each to lose more money won't work.
And its first steps in the wake of the lottery scandal are taking it in the wrong direction.
Footnote: The next item tough day for the board will likely come when it reveals whether Poleschuk receives a severance payment that could reach $500,000. The corporation has said so far no decision has been made. But if the money gets paid, expect some tough questions about why an executive who has been terminated is eligible for a payout.

An overdue move to address native claim backlog

Give Stephen Harper credit for promising a long overdue plan to fix the way the federal government deals with native land claim issues.
This isn't about new treaties. That's a different, tough problem.
But while First Nations and the federal and B.C. governments have been struggling to sign treaties, hundreds of disputes about existing treaties and agreements have been piling up. Those are the kind of disputes that sparked protests and blockades, like the ongoing battle over land at Caledon in Ontario.
The federal government has behaved in a truly appalling fashion. The most amazing thing about the whole affair is how little protest there has been from First Nations as they waited and waited for answers. The average time to have a claim dealt with was 13 years.
The disputes mostly involve existing treaties, reached in the 19th century. The British were keen on treaties. They wanted a written record showing the natives had given up their land in exchange for compensation, even if the deals looked a little unfair.
But once the treaties were signed, things tended to slide a bit. A neighbour decided a chunk of reserve land would be a useful addition to a pasture. Settlers squatted on unoccupied land. The province wanted to put in a highway and decided it was easiest to go through a reserve. Or perhaps promised land was never actually included in the reserve.
The legislature, for example, is built on land listed in documents as being set aside for a reserve for the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations in Victoria. Somehow it just got taken. (The governments paid $31 million to settle the claim last year.)
As First Nations started relying less on the Indian Affairs Department and looked into their rights, they started trying to get back - or get compensation - for land that was wrongly taken.
The response was appalling. Claims were stalled and ignored. In 1991 the government acknowledged the problem, sort of. It set up the Indian Claims Commission, an appeal tribunal that could investigate claims and mediate or make recommendations.
It would be fair to describe the progress as hopeless.
The Saulteau First Nation near Chetwynd, for example, made a claim to the Indian Affairs Department in 1997 alleging it was shortchanged by about 5,000 acres under an 1899 treaty. The government didn't say yes or no. It ignored the claim for six years.
The Indian Claims Commission accepted the claim for review in 2003.
Only last month was it resolved, in the band's favour.
I was going to write that it was a typical case, but that wouldn't be true. It took 10 years. The average is 13.
And at least the government didn't fight the referral to the claims commission, as it did with the Blueberry and Doig bands in northeastern B.C. In that case, the government didn't respond to a claim over land taken for a road for eight years - and then argued the commission couldn't hear an appeal because the government had never turned down the claim. (The commission over-ruled the bizarre argument.)
The end result is that today there are 850 claims outstanding, about half. At the current rate of progress, some will still be unresolved in 2090.
The government's position is baffling. There are a handful of big claims. But about half are worth less than $3 million, even if the First Nations win. It doesn't cost much to compensate a band for the loss of some land in a remote area.
But the government wasn't interested.
Harper promised this week to change that, prompted by Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, a former co-chair of the claims commission.
The commission is to be replaced by a new board, with the power to decide claims, rather than just make recommendations. There will be deadlines for responses. And, probably most importantly, the government will set aside $250 million a year for 10 years to cover the costs of settlements.
The changes are useful. The delays hurt First Nations, poisoned relations and increasingly have sparked disruptive protests.
Harper is doing the right thing in getting on with the work.
Footnote: The changes, which will take a year to put in place, were seen by some as way to reduce the intensity of an aboriginal national day of protest June 29, which some feared would include blockades. If so, the move may be successful. The claims plan was quickly welcome by the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council and national native groups.

Liberal bullying handed unions their big win

Well, you brought it all on yourself.
People hate to hear that, especially because it's so often true. It certainly is for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Liberal legislation that gutted union contracts and permanently limited some employees' rights.
The Supreme Court broke new ground in the judgment, finding for the first time that the right to form unions and bargain collectively is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, the court had taken the view that those weren't charter rights.
No one knows exactly what this is going to mean. But it isn't good news for employers.
And the only reason the court went so far was the Liberals' unreasonable heavy-handedness in 2002 when they brought in Bill 29.
The legislation was extraordinary. It gutted the contracts of health employees, removing all protection against layoffs and contracting out. The goal was clear. The government wanted the employees fired and replaced with people who could be hired at much lower ages.
So it changed the rules to clear the way.
And it went further. The legislation said that health employees, whether they worked for government or a private company, could never again negotiate the same kind of job protection that everyone else in the province could seek.
It was extreme legislation, but the government maintained it had no choice. The health employees were paid too much. Their rights had to be sacrificed.
The legislation sailed through on a weekend. The Liberals had 77 of 79 seats. There weren't many questions from the obedient backbench MLAs.
The unions challenged the legislation in court, losing in the B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Both noted previous decisions that found bargaining rights weren't protected by the charter.
The unions pressed on to the Supreme Court of Canada. And the justices, hearing the facts of the case, decided that their earlier judgments were wrong. Canadians had accepted that people had the right to band together and negotiate contracts with their employers. The federal government had signed international agreements recognizing the principle.
The Supreme Court said they are now to be counted among the individual rights protected by the charter.
And the B.C. government had illegally violated those rights, the court found.
What's striking when you read the judgment is how easily the government could have avoided this. The justices accepted the fact that health care costs were a problem that needed to be addressed. And they were clear that government had the responsibility and authority to take the steps needed to manage tough public-policy issues.
But that isn't a licence to stomp all over citizens' rights. What got the Liberals in trouble was indifference and arrogance. The court noted that the government didn't try and sit down with the unions and find a solution. There was no consultation, just a phone call 20 minutes before the bill was introduced. There was no debate. And the government couldn't offer any evidence it had looked at less draconian solutions.
The Liberals went straight to bully tactics, using the power of the state against citizens. And it lost in court because of that.
Efforts to negotiate savings likely wouldn't have worked. The unions had won some pretty good deals under the NDP government. And Gordon Campbell had promised to respect those agreements in an interview with the Hospital Employees' Union newspaper.
But the government's failure to try has proved costly.
The Supreme Court suspended its judgment for a year, giving the government time to right the wrong.
So far, Campbell has been talking tough. That can't last long. The onus is on the government to respond to the ruling. It needs to come up with a proposal that reflects the damage done to the thousands of people who lost their jobs or took pay cuts as a result of the legislation.
And it needs to show how it will allow legal bargaining in future.
If it doesn't, the unions will be presenting their solutions to the Supreme Court a year from now.
Footnote: The ruling opens the door for more cases. The government used legislation to strip class-size limits from the B.C. Teachers Federation contract. The union can now argue that those kinds of working conditions should be subject to bargaining, even if the government can ultimately impose a solution.

Government failing sexually abused children

So how do you feel, as a British Columbian, knowing that your government thinks it costs too much to ensure children who have been sexually abused get quick access to counselling?
It’s hardly a frill. A little boy or girl is abused. Somehow the abuse is uncovered. Maybe the child works up the courage to tell.
You know that child needs help now, not in weeks, or months. Delays are terrible. Children wonder if the abuse is their fault. They withdraw. Sometimes, they even become abusers. The abuse looms over every hour of every day, for the child and family.
But the government has decided it’s too expensive to make sure children get quick access to counselling and therapy.
Instead, they wait while it considers whether there is a cheaper, better way to deliver the services.
This is not a Liberal thing. The first time I wrote about this problem, the NDP was in government. The situation was the same. The Mary Manning Centre in Victoria took the lead in raising the issue that time, as it has again.
Government funding for child sex-abuse prevention and counselling has not been increased in 17 years. Other programs might help children who have been abused. But the funding focused on the problem has been froze since 1990.
The Mary Manning Centre said it has had to lay off three part-time therapists this month because provincial funding wouldn’t cover their salaries. As a result children will wait longer for help in dealing with their sexual abuse.
And it’s not just the Victoria centre. Other agencies in Victoria and Nanaimo report waits of four to six months. One Nanaimo agency has just given up and quit offering support for sexually abused children. There are similar stories of waits across the province.
So why is government letting this happen to little children?
First, Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen said urgent cases would still get help quickly. Only “non-urgent cases” would wait.
But those on the front lines said that wasn’t true. And they added that until children began treatment, it’s impossible to determine how serious the abuse was. They might be reluctant to reveal everything, keen to minimize what happened.
Then Christensen said Mary Manning, which got a $25,000 funding increase this year, wanted too much money — another $150,000. (Enough for the equivalent of about two full-time counsellors.)
The government could afford the money, Christensen said. But it needed to do “due diligence” first, “to ensure that the delivery of sexual abuse and intervention services is being delivered in the most cost-effective way possible while at the same time providing the best outcomes for children.”
I haven’t heard any allegations that Mary Manning and the other centres are wasting money or performing poorly. Maybe there are savings - each child could get fewer counselling sessions or something. If the ministry has a plan, excellent.
But until it does, the obvious obligation is to fund the service adequately, so children don’t wait.
Especially because it’s unclear when the government will unveil it’s new, more cost-effective treatment model.
In a letter to the Victoria Times Colonist, Christensen wrote as if things were well under way. “An examination of the Sexual Abuse and Intervention Program has provided information that will allow us to strengthen and improve services for children, youth and their families in a diligent and thoughtful manner,” he said.
But the ministry says that examination has not resulted in a report, or memo or any paper record of recommendations.
The sensible and compassionate thing to do is clear. While the government is working to figure out if there’s some better, cheaper way to help these children, put up the money to ensure they get prompt treatment.
They shouldn’t suffer because the government is uncertain about the best way to help them.
It’s baffling. These are all decent people.
How can they think it’s acceptable that boys and girls who have been sexually abused go to bed night after night, waiting for help?
Footnote: Christensen said the ministry will work with the centre on a “case-by-case basis to ensure children requiring assistance get appropriate services in a timely manner.” Presumably, the centre is supposed to call the ministry when there are too many victims, plead for funds and then try and find counsellors. The result, of course, is delays in treatment.