Insider lobbying scandal and arrogance

The B.C Liberals reputation for arrogance isn't being helped by the latest lobbying scandal.
And the people supposedly on Gordon Campbell's side are doing the biggest damage.
The new lobbying scandal was dug up by the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
The allegation - unproven, but based on evidence that raises reasonable concerns - is that Patrick Kinsella and his company violated the provincial Lobbyist's Act by pushing their clients' interests without registering as lobbyists.
Kinsella is not just another person selling advice on how to get government to do what you want. He's been a powerful political player for decades.
Kinsella guided Gordon Campbell's entry into provincial politics and co-managed the 2001 and 2005 Liberal election campaigns. Mark Jiles, also with the Progressive Group, Kinsella's company, managed Campbell's 2005 campaign in his riding. These are ultimate insiders.
And Holman uncovered information that suggested they had been lobbying the government without registering, as required by laws the Liberals introduced to shed light on the murky world of lobbying.
The Liberals introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act within months of the 2001 election. The government said people had right to know who was trying to influence government policy, their clients and the purpose. That would reduce the risk that party insiders would offer special access to people with money and a desire to steer government policy.
It was a good first step. The NDP had taken no action to bring order to lobbying.
But it hasn't worked. The loopholes were enormous; among the most critical was the lack of any real enforcement effort to ensure people played by the rules.
Theoretically, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner was supposed to enforce the regulations. But the law was badly drafted and the office no real legal power.
That wasn't a problem in the first scandal, when Campbell associate Ken Dobell admitted violating the act. Dobell, while being paid as an advisor to Campbell, was also being paid to get money for a Vancouver city project. He never declared his lobbyist role.
But Dobell did co-operate with the privacy commissioner when the case went public.
Not Kinsella. His lawyers told commissioner David Loukidelis, who had launched an inquiry, to take a hike. The law gave him no authority, Kinsella's lawyers said.
Legally correct, perhaps. But not so good for Campbell.
The B.C Liberal campaign manager - unlike Dobell - has thumbed his nose at the rules, effectively saying the lobbyist registry is a sham.
If lobbyists decide whether they need to register, with no oversight, there is no real registry - just posturing.
It's an odd decision on Kinsella's part. Why not let Loukidelis look at the concerns, if there is no problem? Why subject the premier to so much negative action.
Especially because of the potential effect on the next election. Kinsella advised Alcan, which received such a generous deal from the government that the B.C. Utilities Commission had to intervene in behalf of consumers. He helped Accenture win a $1.5-billion contract to take over B.C. Hydro office functions, helped get millions in tax breaks for the movie industry and guided a payday loan company in its efforts to shape rules governing that industry.
Lobbying and government relations consulting are legitimate activities. People pay for help in convincing government to bring policies and programs that help them.
If the help is based on guiding the clients in aligning their goals with the public interest, as seen by government, no worries. But if it's based on who you know, that's a problem. People without the money for access are left in the cold.
In the end, Kinsella torpedoed any semblance of effective lobbyist registration. Loukidelis threw up his hands and said he wouldn't try to enforce the rule any more.
Arrogance? You decide.
Footnote: Campbell has nothing to say on the scandal or why the government has stalled needed changes to the Lobbyist Act for two years (while canceling the fall sitting of the legislature). The RCMP now has the option of picking up the investigation, along with any future complaints that come up about possible violation of the act.

More tools for strategic voting

Many people — of all political stripes — are interested in strategic voting to achieve or block an election outcome. One of the challenges is figuring out how to shift your vote to produce the desired result in your riding. Or, for that matter, whether the race is close enough that you need to bother. If it's not, then voting for the party you like best gets it $1.75 a year in federal funding.
An environmental group has created one tool that looks at the effects of strategic voting in individual ridings. It's purpose is to help defeat the Conservatives, but of course the information is equally useful for people voring strategically with other outcomes in mind.
Another great resource is the election predition project that offers reader-driven assessments of the races in every riding. The project has seven seats in B.C. still close to call; the choices a few voters in those ridings make could determine the next government.
Of course, all this would be much less necessary if we had a system of proportional representation to ensure voters' preferences were more closely reflected in Parliament.

More warning signs from children and families ministry

It's looking like things are spinning out of control in the Ministry of Children and Families, based on a meltdown at a recent meeting of a legislature committee.
The ministry has a difficult, important job. In 2006, a review by Ted Hughes found it had serious problems and recommended changes. Those included the restoration of an independent officer of the legislature - the representative for children and youth - to report on successes and problems and make recommendations.
Hughes said the representative should report to a committee of MLAs charged with monitoring progress.
The government accepted the report, with Premier Gordon Campbell promising action on all the recommendations.
The committee - six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats - was established.
But the ministry doesn't seem to have accepted the idea of real oversight and accountability. Last month, I wrote about the ministry's failure to respond fully when representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raised questions about the measures taken to ensure the safety of children placed in the care of relatives.
At the committee meeting, the ministry appeared to be trying to do an end-run around the representative's office to avoid accountability.
The subject is serious. Turpel-Lafond reported in April on the deaths of four children in care in northern B.C. The report - "From Loss to Learning" - found significant systemic problems and made recommendations to address them.
The recommendations called for real change. "The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena," the representative reported. "Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died." The legislative committee adopted the recommendations. Its agenda called for a progress report some six months after the report was presented.
Things went off the rails. The ministry wanted to have a manager talk about the report.
But Turpel-Lafond spoke first. She noted that she had been trying for six months, without success, to get the ministry representatives to sit down and respond to the recommendations.
"I and my staff are deeply disappointed about this fact," she said.
The Hughes report didn't propose the legislative committee be some sort of ministry management committee, she noted. Her office was to provide expert oversight and report to the MLAs.
Instead it looked like ministry managers were trying to cut out the oversight.
And not even in a subtle way. The MLAs on the committee had been sent a lot of information by the ministry five days earlier. But the ministry didn't send the same package to the representative's office until the day before the meeting.
The delay looked much like an attempt to subvert the office's role. Especially given the representative's effort, over months, to get a response from the ministry.
Turpel-Lafond told the MLAs that this wasn't the way things should be working, based on the Hughes report and the legislation. The representative's office should be reviewing the ministry's response and providing its analysis to the legislative committee.
Liberal MLA absences gave the New Democrats a majority in the committee room. They voted to adjourn to give Turpel-Lafond time to review the material from the ministry and report to the committee. A new date will be scheduled.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen has a good rep. He shouldn't be happy that the ministry is withholding information and failing to co-operate with an independent officer of the legislature.
But that's what has happened, even though Turpel-Lafond told the committee she had raised the problems with Christensen this summer.
That creates questions about Christensen's grasp of the tough portfolio.
And about where the ministry is going. Why would the children and families management team have such difficulties with the idea of oversight?
Footnote: There was good news at the committee meeting. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to arrange a Children's Forum, bringing together representatives from the ministry, coroner's office, ombudsman, health officer and all the other agencies involved have paid off. The members reported progress in a number of areas.

Strategic voting - part one

It seems likely that strategic voting is going to be a big part of the election, especially in B.C. where up to 10 seats could be in play next week.
Under our current, deeply flawed system, it's inevitable, if unpleasant, that people have to vote for a candidate that isn't their first choice in order to block a party they don't want to see in powe ror support one they do.
The problem is making the most effective choice given the lack of available information on what other voters are going to do.
The Tyee has poll results that could help in making a strategic choice. I'll point to other resources over the next few days.

More insider troubles for BC Liberals

If you haven't, check out Sean Holman's exemplary work on B.C. Liberal co-campaign manager Patrick Kinsella's role in helping companies, from Alcan to payday loan clients, influence government policies. Given the government's various ethical and accountability stumbles, this looks like a major problem, especially if Kinsella continues to refuse to co-operate with an investigation. It's all here.

A Green miscue on the provincial scene

Stuart Herzog says Green leader Jane Sterk is making a big mistake in running in the Vancouver-Fairview byelection. The piece is here.

Life catches up with a lot of candidates

Has Google cost most Canadians their chance to run for Parliament?
One of the oddest aspects of this election campaign is the number of candidates who have been fired by their parties, dropped out or at least embarrassed by their pasts.
There are four possible explanations. This could be a flawed group of candidates, but it's hard to see why that would be true. We - the public - could have become more judgmental. But again, why would we?
The parties are likely more intent on digging dirt on their rivals. One of the most offensive aspects of elections today is the "war rooms." These are big budget operations set up mainly to snipe at the other side. The concept assumes both that politics is a game, and the object is annihilation. Surely we've gone beyond tribal warfare?
The biggest factor is the online world. Our pasts are much more with us than ever before.
On some level that's good when it comes to political candidates. They should be accountable for the lives they've led. But the peccadilloes being picked on vary wildly in significance.
And will any reasonable people run in future, knowing that they will be judged on such small aspects of the lives?
The New Democrats have lost three candidates here in B.C., One was linked to a business that sold coca seeds and had been broadcast on the Internet driving after smoking pot, as a demonstration that it wasn't risky. Another had been broadcast judging various strains of marijuana on a webcast. It was hardly a shock - both were long-time marijuana activists.
The Conservatives have lost a candidate to drugs too. A Saskatchewan MP said he wouldn't run because he had to deal with an addiction to prescription sedatives. (Though based on the number of Canadians reporting drug and alcohol dependencies, about 30 MPs should be representing their concerns.)
Nudity has come up a few times. Liberal candidate Briony Penn did a stylish Lady Godiva ride in 2001 in downtown Vancouver to protest logging. Conservative candidate Sharon Smith was briefly famous in 2003, after she had been elected mayor of Houston. Her husband had taken photos of her in the mayor's chair, wearing just the chain of office. Her kids had a party, someone peeked at the computer and Houston was on the map. Neither candidate has faced any real criticism.
But New Democrat candidate Julian West's candidacy came to an end this week over reports he was too keen on skinny dipping at a 1996 environmental conference attended by young teens. He also reportedly dropped his pants during a body painting session. He was 31 at the time. It sounded creepy, really.
What's weird is that this wasn't really a surprise. The allegations were covered at the time.
West's withdrawal came too late for the New Democrats to replace him and made things very interesting in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Gary Lunn, the Conservative natural resources minister, looked a good re-election bet, in part because Green Andrew Lewis, New Democrat West and Liberal Penn would split the vote. With the NDP out, Penn has a better chance.
The Conservatives have had their own creepy episode. Toronto Conservative candidate Chris Reid quit the race, suddenly too busy to run, once his blog postings became public. He had written that gays and women should be carrying handguns to protect themselves. Canadian gun laws, he said, had created "a castrated effeminate population."
A Conservative candidate in Burnaby-New Westminster is hanging in, despite reports he's been disciplined three time for incompetence and misconduct by real estate regulators. And two Quebec Conservatives were dumped over anti-aboriginal comments.
This kind of candidate attrition is new. And worrying.
Worrying because some quite bad candidates seem to make it through the nomination process, which is mostly a sign of a lack of involvement in candidate selection.
And worrying some good candidates are being hassled over long-ago, minor stumbles.
Footnote: This should be a useful lesson, especially for young people. The YouTube video from a party that seems so funny today, or the blog that sets out to provoke with outrageous comments, is permanent. In 20 years, it might be awkward to explain why it seemed such a good idea.

A federal election campaign about nothing

What an odd federal election campaign. We've had naked pictures of a Conservative candidate, a couple of New Democrats and another Tory dumped for drug use, jokes about wishing for an opponent's death.
Stephen Harper is wandering around the country in baby blue sweaters, talking like Mr. Rogers. It's jarring - like he's on some new drug that mixes Valium and ecstasy.
Stephane Dion is leaving baffled audiences in most of Canada. He might be able to speak English on a basic level, but he's not able to communicate passion or complex ideas easily. (Especially why the Green Shift isn't really all that central to the Liberals' platform after all.)
Elizabeth May is on a train across the country. I've done that a few times. It's going tough campaigning when you're stuck on a siding somewhere outside Kenora waiting for a freight to pass. (And tough to sleep when guys get on with their duffle bag full of alcohol in Chapleau.)
Jack Layton is working hard, I guess.
As for the media, we're probably doing one of our worst jobs ever in communicating information to voters in a way that allows them to make an informed decision. Polls and gaffes, we've got covered. Strategies in responding to polls and gaffes, we've also got. Party spokesmen - the Conservatives, bizarrely, demand a secret identity - are asked to say how the last week went. (Usually pretty well their guys, apparently, and badly for the other side.)
My impression that most people are not only paying little attention, but wishing this wasn't happening to them right now. The Conservative minority was OK.
But you still should vote Oct. 14 - a little over three weeks away. Here are some things worth considering.
First, Harper promised that Canadian Forces would withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. That's a big policy change for him, if he's to be believed. The war will not be won by then, and Afghan police and military won't be ready to be on their own.
But Harper says Canadians will have done enough.
I agree. But it's a big change from Harper's position that deadlines are impossible and that Canada would stay until the job was done. And it raises a question about the value of Canadian deaths between now and then, particularly if conditions continue to deteriorate.
Dion has backed away, but the major Liberal policy remains a carbon tax on most fuels - not gasoline - and offsetting cuts to other taxes. It makes perfect sense economically, but people don't like it. Certainly beats the two other main parties' positions on climate change.
After that, it gets blurry. I bounced through all the major media websites looking for a basic summary of the platform pledges so far.
No luck, though about everything else, from comedian Rick Mercer's take to nude shots of a Conservative candidate, were covered (or uncovered).
There are policy differences. Dion has promised money for the auto industry, farmers and post-secondary students and to boost arts spending. He's also pledged to honour the Kelowna accord and introduce a child care plan and spend more on social housing.
Harper offers about $750 to help first-time homebuyers and a tax break for seniors. He'll let the self-employed claim maternity benefits. And he'll cut the tax on diesel fuel, reducing transportation costs.
Neither leader of the main parties says he will increase taxes.
There's more to come. But so far, this has become a campaign about itself.
The two main parties are mostly trying to create a sense that the other guys are risky - note those Conservative ads suggesting electing Dion would be like pumping money into a slot machine - and that they are at least OK.
Voters are already trying to figure out how to vote strategically, in our outmoded system, to get the least bad outcome.
Good luck choosing.
Footnote: OK, this column might be considered part of the problem. As the campaign continues, I'll try to write once a week on the issues and where the parties stand.
But this is a campaign - again - that will likely be based on who voters don't want to see in power and on which party can do the best job of persuading its supporters to vote on Oct. 14.

Premier picks school in his riding for big benefit

The scent of old-style pork barrel politics is hanging over the premier's office.
The government has decided it would be a good idea to see schools threatened with closure used as community centres.
The five lucky schools selected for the pilot project would not only be spared the risk of closure, but get big money for upgrades and new facilities.
Typically, for Premier Gordon Campbell, the first step was a snappy name - Neighbourhoods of Learning. (Community schools by another name.)
Next, a $30-million budget.
But then, the obvious questions. Where should these pilot projects be located? Where students and communities need them? In the places school trustees decide are priorities? Nope.
Two of the three schools announced as pilot projects are in Gordon Campbell's riding. Two rural schools that will participate are still to be chosen.
One of the schools in the premier's riding, General Gordon Elementary, only made the list because Campbell said that's where he wanted the money to go.
It wasn't purely a move to steer money to a school in his constituency. Campbell said the parents there had pitched the idea for the community schools and deserved a reward for their initiative.
But the government's had already signalled its nervousness about the premier's intervention.
Education Minister Shirley Bond - always a loyal trooper - tried to maintain Campbell hadn't been involved at all in the decision to award the big money to two schools in his riding.
Vancouver school district trustees had raised the need for upgrades to General Gordon, she said.
But the school district contradicted Bond.
The superintendent said the district had raised concerns about a number of older schools in Vancouver that were threatened by the need for seismic upgrades.
The premier, not the school district, said General Gordon should jump to the front of the queue as part of the Neighbourhoods for Learning pilot. He had been lobbied by the parents, who had also noted their in with the top guy in pushing the Education Ministry to see things their way.
There are a lot of schools in the Lower Mainland and on the Island that need upgrading to keep children safe in the event of an earthquake. Some of them might close because of the problem. The government has leaned toward building smaller, cheaper schools.
Should the fact that parents' advisory council can get a meeting with the premier decide where the money goes?
Rural communities that have faced closures, long bus rides for kids and lost schools might have liked the chance to make their case for a larger share of the money. Though that could still come when the remaining pilot projects are announced - especially if the parents can get a meeting with an influential cabinet minister.
Too cynical? Maybe.
But it does look much look who you know matters more than what you need to give kids and communities a boost. Campbell's riding - Vancouver Point Grey - is among the most affluent in the province.
Meanwhile, out in Langley, a 5,000-seat arena and community centre is being built at a cost of $56 million. Great news for the community.
Especially because almost one-third of the money is coming from the provincial government. When he was forests minister, Rich Coleman decided to spend $15 million of forestry money on the arena. It would use wood laminate beams and be a great marketing tool, he said.
But the industry could likely suggest better uses for $15 million than an arena in the minister's riding. Unemployed forest workers - some 12,000 jobs have been lost in the last year - certainly could.
What should worry supporters is that neither of these were missteps Campbell would have allowed a few years ago. The Liberals risk becoming the government they once ran against.
And it's not hard to remember what happened to that government.
Footnote: The whole school closure issue is a problem for the government. It had been pushing school districts to be aggressive in closing and selling schools to pay for new facilities for the last six years. Now, after about 170 schools have been closed, a policy flip-flop calls for new uses and a moratorium on closures. It's sensible, but erratic.

'Surprise' surplus sign of bad budgeting

Surprise. Three months into the fiscal year and the provincial government has discovered that it underestimated revenues by about $1.2 billion.
Well, not really a surprise. More the norm by now.
The Liberals have made it standard operating procedure to introduce and have the legislature vote on budgets that project modest surpluses.
Then, like an exotic dancer, the finance minister slowly reveals the real numbers over the course of the year.
The modest surplus turns into several billion dollars, which the government can do with as it pleases.
Generally, that means paying down the debt. But with an election coming next May, expect some goodies out of this year's slush fund - maybe even another carbon rebate next spring.
This can all seem a little abstract, I know. But the bad budgeting has consequences.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out that as a result the government is collecting more money from you than it actually needs. Last year's surplus of $2.1 billion - after about $1 billion in last-minute spending - would have let the government cut income taxes by 15 per cent for a year or chop a point off the provincial sales tax.
Or, alternately, the surplus means the government has money it could have allocated for services that people need. The B.C. Association for Community Living asked this week why so many children with disabilities are on waiting lists for services if the government has more than $1 billion extra.
And anyone waiting for surgery will wonder why more of that money isn't addressing health-care issues.
Some of it will. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's first quarter update included the $120 million the government has already committed to address health authority underfunding. More is likely on the way. (Again, welcome, but why not do it right the first time so health authorities can plan properly?)
It's certainly better to err on the side of caution. But this goes beyond prudence. The surplus for this year, budgeted at $800 million in the budget, is already forecast to be more than $2 billion.
The "surprise" surplus comes even though Hansen also warned that economic growth will be slower than the government expected this year and next.
The ministry's panel of outside economists had forecast growth at 2.8 per cent in 2008 when the budget was being prepared; they've knocked that back to 2.1 per cent; they pared the estimate for next year from 3.0 per cent to 2.7 per cent.
That's still healthy growth. But not for everyone. The quarterly update includes bad news for hard hit forest communities. The expected harvest from Crown land has been cut by 12 per cent since the budget was prepared. Those communities too will be wondering why some of that surplus isn't coming their way to help deal with the crisis.
The Liberals mostly used the surpluses as a way to reduce the debt. Collect more than you really need, spend less than you have and then end the year with no option but paying down debt. That's not a bad thing, but B.C.'s debt is manageable and the public - according to the annual budget consultations - wants the priority to be better services, not tax cuts or debt reduction.
The government has also used of the money for year-end spending - setting up a housing fund, sending the $100 carbon dividend cheques to every British Columbian (and about 18,000 people who are no longer living in the province).
That's probably what lies ahead, with the election coming in May. Hansen said the surplus gives the government "flexibility" to cut taxes, or spend more on programs people want.
Or even to send out rebate cheques again. They'll decide, but because the fall sitting of the legislature has been cancelled, the decision will be rubber stamped next spring.
It's really not a good way to run a government, or a business, or a family's finances. If you work with bad forecasts, you make decisions based on faulty information.
In the private sector, that can land you in trouble.
Footnote: A budget consultation flyer - that will look much like a Liberal campaign brochure - is being mailed to every home in the province, allegedly to allow you to comment on the budget options. Based on past practice, the comments stand a good chance of being ignored; one year, the government only looked at 10 per cent of the forms.

Liberals cheat voters by cancelling fall sitting

You can see why Gordon Campbell decided to cancel the fall sitting of the legislature. His government would spend six weeks getting batted around on bunch of contentious issues.
Cancel the session and everything changes. Instead of facing daily questions from the opposition and journalists, the premier can make one or two carefully planned appearances a week. Cut a ribbon here, speak to a friendly group there, make good news announcements in time for the evening news and dump the bad ones when you're on a private jet bound for another country.
It's an easier life. That's the problem with democracy, even a flawed version like our own. It's inconvenient to face all those questions and criticisms when you just want to wield power.
The Liberals cancelled the scheduled fall sitting this week. They had no legislation to present, so why bother, said house leader Mike de Jong.
That's not exactly true. The Liberals have three bills - on resource roads, improved insurance industry regulation and wills and estates - that they wanted to pass in the spring, but dropped because of lack of time. (They also could have delayed some of the half-dozen bills that were pushed through with no debate on the last day of the spring session.)
They were ready, and considered important then.
And there are other areas where they have acknowledged change is needed - like improving the police complaints process - and have had lots of time to draft the bills.
Even leaving aside the excuse, the Liberals know that the legislature isn't just a place to pass bills. When MLAs - government and opposition - gather in that red-carpeted chamber, it's their chance to speak on behalf of their constituents.
They can raise the issues and concerns that matter to people back home. They can ask cabinet ministers what's being done about issues, from seniors care to forestry to potholed roads.
By cancelling the session, Campbell is denying them and the public that right.
The decision carries some political risk. A recent poll found British Columbians believed Campbell is out of touch and uninterested in their concerns. Shutting down the legislature reinforces that impression.
And the timing, right after Stephen Harper and Jack Layton were pilloried for trying to avoid debating Green leader Elizabeth May, was a problem. It looks like Campbell is afraid of debating Carole James.
But the Liberals figure the risks of a session are greater. There is a lot of anger over the carbon tax, and it's being ramped up by Harper's attacks. Campbell still hasn't provided any justification for the massive hike in pay scales for senior government managers.
There are potential questions on a range of issues that could make the government look bad, from seniors care to forestry problems to the efforts to deny help to the disabled based on an arbitrary IQ level.
And there are smaller embarrassments, like Campbell's decision to fly to the Beijing Games on a private jet with a developer and party supporter.
Campbell says people have told him cabinet ministers and MLAs should be out in the ridings, talking with them.
But the legislature will have sat for only 47 days this year, among the fewest in a non-election year in more than two decades. If the fall session had lasted the full six weeks, MLAs would still have 180 working days free this year. That seems plenty of time to keep up with local concerns.
De Jong was right to say there's no point passing laws just to keep the legislature busy. But he can't really be saying that the government no longer cares about the bills it introduced in the spring and sees no need to update or improve any other legislation.
Still, that's that. MLAs lose their chance to speak for their constituents. The legislature will sit for about 19 days in the spring and then break for the election.
Not democratic, but it suits Campbell's political purposes.
Footnote: There's probably not a big political price for the decision to abandon the sitting. Most people aren't all that aware of where MLAs are or what they're doing. But the decision does reinforce the impression that Campbell doesn't really accept the idea of accountability and raises the perception of arrogance.

Harper carbon attacks bad news for Campbell

Among all the people who didn't want a federal election, Gordon Campbell has to be one of the unhappiest.
For the next five weeks, the Harper Conservatives are going to be attacking Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
And Campbell is going to be caught in the crossfire, unable to take cover or fire back as his supposed allies deliver wounding blows.
One of the Conservatives' big targets is going to be Dion's Green Shift, and especially the proposed carbon tax.
The "tax on everything" that would "screw everyone across the country," Harper has already called it.
And that's before things got rough.
And Dion's proposal is pretty much identical to the carbon tax that Campbell promised in the throne speech and brought in July 1. Use fuels that produce greenhouse gases, and you pay - 2.8 cents a litre on gasoline, for example, rising to 7.2 cents by 2012, and more after that.
The unpopular carbon tax has already given B.C. New Democrats a big boost, without Harper's help. They support a carbon tax in principle. But not the Campbell version, in what seems a rather contrived distinction.
The tax actually makes sense. If you accept that global warming is real, greenhouse gases are a factor and that market forces matter, then a tax on fossil fuels is an incentive to reduce consumption.
But the public isn't buying it, according to the polls. They think it won't work. And they consider it a tax grab, even though the provincial government has introduced offsetting tax cuts equal to the money it will take in from the carbon tax.
Campbell is now in a weirdly vulnerable position, with Stephen Harper and Carole James ganging up on him over a critical policy.
The provincial Liberals have worked hard at getting along with Ottawa - no matter who is in power -with reasonable results.
Partly, that's pragmatic. One of Campbell's real accomplishments is getting people who are passionate Conservatives and Liberals federally to work together in one provincial party. It's no mean feat; federal elections are hard fought and the scars are lasting. Campbell inspires people to check their baggage at the door.
That might be harder this time, especially with the carbon tax as a big issue and the federal stakes so high. Things could get nasty between the Harper and Dion troops in B.C.
It looked that way in the first days of the campaign this week as Harper came to the province. The federal Conservatives had tried to avoid criticizing the Campbell carbon tax directly since he announced it.
But no more. Harper's attacks might have been directed at Dion's tax, but they drew blood from Campbell too.
It was brutal and direct. Harper effectively challenged Campbell's honesty, rejecting the claim that revenue from the B.C carbon tax is balanced by offsetting tax cuts.
"Every politician in history who wants to impose a new tax claims that it's either revenue neutral or it's temporary. It's not true," Harper said. "Everybody knows - especially in British Columbia - that that kind of a carbon tax is not revenue neutral on the average working family."
Ouch. It's rhetoric straight from a Carole James' speech. But because the accusations are coming from Harper, the claims that Campbell is not to be trusted are getting a lot more attention.
The B.C. carbon tax was already a tough sell, especially given rising energy costs this summer.
Now the Conservatives - with bags of money and a good organization - are going to spend the next five weeks trashing the idea as an irresponsible tax grab.
Which will leave Campbell with just six months to try and undo that message before the provincial campaign starts.
And, of course, just six months to encourage federal Conservative members of his coalition to swallow a tax they have been attacking with vigour.
Footnote: The campaign also quickly got stupid. On Tuesday, a controversy over a cartoon on the Conservatives' website that showed a puffin pooping on Dion threatened to overshadow policy announcements and the NDP and Conservative efforts to bar Green leader Elizabeth May from the televised debates.

Let’s make lost opportunity an election issue

I took a break from working on a look at big issues in the federal election campaign and flipped through some old newspapers sitting on a chair in the office.
They were from 1961. And they raised a question for all the political parties – how come we aren’t happier or better off than we were then?
Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion will go back and forth about crime and climate change and leadership. Those are all important. They will slag each other in quite nasty and unfair ways. That’s not so important.
But no one is going to talk about the sense that a lot of Canadians feel like things have got worse for them over the years.
The 1961 paper had a front-page story about a new contract for teachers. The top wage was to be $8,360. Today, the top teacher wage here is about $78,000.
Then I flipped to the classifieds. There was an ad for a four-bedroom house on a quiet street in Oak Bay for $10,000. I checked; it’s assessed today at $575,000. (Both prices are typical for the time.)
So an established teacher could figure on buying that home for 14 months’ salary. Mortgage payments would be one-sixth of his income.
Today, the same house, at $575,000, would cost the equivalent of more than seven year’s gross pay. The mortgage payments would consume more than 40 per cent of the income.
It’s not just teachers, of course. Forest workers, office staff, people on an assembly line or fixing cars, even journalists – they all faced a different, cheerier future in 1961. They could afford a house and new car and if not a cabin, at least a couple of weeks at one. Moms could stay home (or were forced to). Families expected things would be even better for their children. Things like the introduction of medicare were on the horizon.
Today, a lot of people see their kids facing a much tougher time than they did, or perhaps their parents did.
John Diefenbaker was prime minister in 1961; Lester Pearson led the Liberal opposition; Tommy Douglas was the leader of the truly New Democratic Party, formed that year. Not pantheonic, necessarily, but have we had three leaders who commanded similar respect in the last 20 years. Paul Martin? Brian Mulroney?
Maybe that’s what this election — and the provincial election next May, and the municipal elections in November — should be about. Which politicians understand the concerns of the average Canadian? Who among them thins things could be better, and has some ideas? Who, in Parliament or cabinet, wouldn’t disillusion or embarrass the people who voted for, and against, them?
Who would make the priority creating happier, more prosperous average Canadians?
It’s hard at this point to see which leader is going to step into that role. Stephen Harper comes off as kind of cranky and doesn’t seem to see government as responsible for bringing a better life to Canadians. There’s a sense that the Conservatives are too infatuated with the failed polices of American Republicans, from militarism to simplistic lock-em-up crime responses.
Stephane Dion seems barely in control of his own party, fuzzy on the direction his government would go and a little shell-shocked. Jack Layton, Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe — none are likely to captivate voters with vision and plans.
Some voters, of course, would disagree. They are passionate in their belief that one party or another has the answers.
Most voters, I’d suggest, aren’t looking really forward to casting their ballots. Many have resigned themselves to voting against someone, rather than for a politician or platform they truly support.
Maybe we should keep that in mind over this election campaign. We can assess the issues and look at hard at the local candidates.
But it would be nice to hear a candidate or a leader acknowledge that for a lot of people, things seem harder than they did a few decades ago.
And that making them better was one of their concerns.
Footnote: B.C. should be a critical battleground in a close election. Some five Conservative seats and four seats each for the Liberals and the New Democrats, are likely in play. The Island and Lower Mainland should see most of the focus from the parties.

Poll suggests big problems for Campbell, Liberals

It's not the fact that the Liberals and NDP are tied in a recent poll that raises doubts about a third term for Gordon Campbell after next May's elections.
Poll results bounce around and people often have reasons for being irked at the party in power.
But the poll - and the reaction - raises a couple of more profound issues for the B.C. Liberals.
The poll itself reveals a grim assessment of Campbell as leader, and the party's direction under his rule.
And the reaction, based on an unscientific and unrepresentative survey, suggests that a lot of the Liberals core supporters are dangerously unhappy.
The poll, by Angus Reid Strategies, found the NDP had the support of 41 per cent of British Columbians, compared with 38 per cent for the Liberals. That's within the margin of error; practically, the parties are tied. (The Green party is at 14 per cent.)
That's still good news for Carole James and the NDP. For most of her term as leader, the party has lagged at least 10 points behind the Liberals. Another defeat seemed inevitable.
The poll, conducted Aug. 21-25, was likely affected by what could-be short-term issues - the carbon tax, which took effect July 1, and the massive raises for senior government managers this month.
But the company also asked some broader questions that revealed deeper, much harder to deal with issues for the Liberals.
The biggest revelation, assuming the poll accurately reflects public opinion, is what a liability Campbell is with an election only nine months away.
The pollster asked respondents a number of questions about the leaders of the two main parties. The judgment of Campbell was harsh and involved perceptions that would be hard to turn around at this point.
Parties and leaders can always launch new policy directions to get out from under an unpopular issue. But turning things around once people have decided they just don't trust someone is harder.
And it appears they don't trust Campbell. If the poll reflects reality, they really don't trust him.
Only 18 per cent of those polled believed Campbell is honest and trustworthy; 60 per cent said he isn't to be trusted. (Almost half - 45 per cent - said James is honest and trustworthy; only 16 per cent said she isn't.)
Does Campbell inspire confidence? Sixty per cent said no. Does Campbell understand the problems of British Columbians? Again, 59 per cent said no. Agree with you on issues you care about? Sixty per said no.
Campbell scores high for having a vision, but the poll found 43 per cent of British Columbians think the province is on the wrong track. The visionary thing might not be a plus.
And he is rated significantly more highly than James in two important areas. Campbell is seen as significantly stronger and more decisive, qualities that are over-rated by voters. And he's seen as able to manage the provincial economy effectively.
But overall, James was seen as the person who would make best premier by 35 per cent of those surveyed; 31 per cent said Campbell would do the best job. (Leaving a critical 34 per cent who weren't sure.)
Sixty per said the Liberals hadn't delivered the promised "new hope and prosperity." More people though the province is on the track than supported the government's direction
And 58 per cent said it's time for a new party to govern; only 29 per cent said the Liberals should be re-elected.
Polls this far out don't necessarily reflect the way people will actually vote.
But it was a pretty damning view of the current government. And, based on a scan of blogs and comment streams, a lot of people who identify themselves as right-wing are incensed with Campbell. It's been assumed those voters had nowhere else to go, but some seemed ready to stay home next May 12.
Footnote: Campbell has been seen as a one-man government, certainly setting the agenda on big issues like climate change, which adds to the problems if people decide he's the wrong guy. Don't expect any real talk of replacing him, but the poll suggests some big challenges ahead for the Liberals.\

Harper chose fall election over principle

Stephen Harper seems about to force an election on Canadians on completely bogus grounds.
And, at the same time, he's breaking a key promise from the last election campaign.
Harper has launched a blizzard of phony excuses over the last few days to try and justify an election.
But really, this is just about political opportunism. It's exactly the kind of abuse of power Harper promise to end in two election campaigns. Once the Conservatives won, as part of his commitment to improve democracy, he followed B.C.'s lead and established four-terms for governments.
"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties."
So the Conservatives passed a law. The next election was to be Oct. 19, 2009.
But Harper's law is full of holes and now he's decided short-term political advantage isn't so bad after all.
The Liberals don't have much money and aren't really ready for an elections.
And things could get worse for the Conservatives, especially on the economy, by next fall.
So Harper looks ready to call an election. He's tried to come up with justifications, but the arguments are empty, and kind of insulting.
Parliament has become "dysfunctional," he says, whatever that means. There has been "impasse" on a range of issues, the prime minister complains. The Liberals have different policies than the Conservatives.
It's all apparently just too much.
Except there is no deadlock. The Conservatives haven't been stopped from governing. Their budget and tax program passed. Crime bills have made their way through Parliament. The Conservatives have made changes in ministries and at least a start on increasing military capability.
Even the commitment to keep fighting in Afghanistan until 2011 was reached in a way that suited the Harper government. For a minority government, the Conservatives have had a pretty free hand, thanks in large part to the Liberals' disarray.
There has been lots of bad behaviour and partisan jockeying, particularly in Parliamentary committees.
But the Conservatives have contributed their share to the shabbiness; the Prime Minister's Office gave committee chairs a manual on how disrupt and delay things to make sure that nothing would come out that embarrassed the government.
Those are peripheral. The main point is that the Conservatives have been able to govern. They have never lost a vote on a significant bill, let alone a confidence vote.
It's possible they have felt constrained by being a minority government. Harper hinted at that this week, saying that even if an election produced another minority government, the party in power will have a "mandate to proceed and to proceed quite aggressively for some period of time." (That might make some voters nervous.)
But this is the Parliament that Canadians chose - Conservative minority, with strong counterbalancing forces. Harper has shown no reason to ignore the will of the public.
It might be better if Harper took a more candid approach, and just said he decided he'd made a mistake in giving up the political advantage by committing to fixed election dates. The Liberals are weak and it's a good time to try for a majority, he could argue.
Harper mentor Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political science professor, thinks the goal is more strategic. The Liberals are having trouble raising money. An election would be expensive. Another leadership race, if leader Stephane Dion got dumped, would require more fundraising and divide the party.
As long as the Conservatives keep win at least minority governments, they could plunge the Liberals into years of hard times.
The parties are all pretending to be ready and eager for an election, though that's not likely too.
The big losers are the Canadian people. The election will cost some $200 million, a fair chunk of it from taxpayers. And there is no indication the public is looking for a chance to pick a new government.
Footnote: So what would the election be about? Mostly, it seems likely, about how bad the other guys are. Harper will talk about Dion's carbon tax and say he's too free-spending. Dion will say Harper has forgotten ordinary Canadians and is too right-wing. It won't be pretty.

STV and the legislative goon show

Sometimes Gregor Robertson had this slightly dazed expression on his face in the legislature, like someone who has shown up at a party, realizes he's the only sober person in a crowd full of rowdy drunks and isn't sure how long he has to stay.
Carole Taylor had a different look, sitting serenely at her desk with an expression that hinted she wasn't even prepared to acknowledge the party-goers dancing in the koi pond in their droopy underwear.
David Cubberley's look - a half-embarrassed smile - suggested he'd decided to be a good sport about the whole weird business.
All three were keen on being MLAs in 2005, when they were first elected. And barely three years later, they've had enough. None of the three is running again.
That should worry us. It suggests that our style of politics, and in some part the abusive, stupid things that go to often in the legislative chambers, are driving sensible people from the job.
Robertson was billed as a rising NDP star in the 2005 election. A youngish, good-looking, earnest guy who had started a successful wholesome juice business - he was a dream candidate.
But he never made an impact, at least a public one. And it certainly looked like he found the legislature foolishness somewhere between inexplicable and repugnant.
Taylor made much more of an impact as finance minister. She just refused to participate in the foolishness and acted like a serious, courteous person who had an important job to do. And as a result, did it well. But only for one term.
Cubberley, a NDP MLA for the Victoria area, should have thrived in the job. He'd spent years in government on the policy side and more than decade as municipal councillor. But he didn't last either.
All three had good reasons for not running again, as did the other MLAs packing it in.
And there are lots of drawbacks to the work, from long hours to the required adherence to the party line, often dictated without much consultation.
But still, the legislature itself - especially question period - is both part of the problem and a symptom.
It is really appalling most of the time. Shouting, insults, bad questions and worse non-answers. Most days, at least some MLAs act out in ways that get them kicked out of a Grade 6 class. Almost none of them would act in the same way around the kitchen table or at a meeting back in their ridings. It's irritating or embarrassing, depending on the day.
And it's got to be demoralizing for a sensible MLA.
It doesn't have to be such a horror show. In fact, after the 2005 election - perhaps because there were so many new MLAs - the tone wasn't bad for a while. But things deteriorated in time.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the referendum, to be held at the same time as next May's provincial election, on changing the way governments are elected in B.C.
This is a repeat of the 2005 referendum. A majority of voters - 58 per cent - wanted to change to a single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation.
But the referendum law required 60-per-cent support. The proposal failed.
Premier Gordon Campbell, to his credit, said that because the results were so close, the public should get another chance to vote on the change in May.
It will take a separate column to look at all aspects of the STV option. But one huge advantage is that candidates' qualities and reputations would become more important. It would not be enough to be a New Democrat in a traditionally left-leaning riding; you would have to be seen as the best representative from several NDP candidates.
And that would mean, I hope, a different kind of legislature - one where the loud and obnoxious no longer felt at home.
Footnote: Some of the enthusiasm for electoral reform might have faded since Campbell launched the project in 2001, after the second straight election that produced wildly unrepresentative results. This time, however, the yes and no sides will both have provincial funding to make their cases.

Harper’s drug flyers a dishonest abuse of tax dollars

The federal Conservatives seem set on confirming many people’s worst fears with their sleazy, dishonest and just plain stupid direct mail pieces to millions of Canada homes.
And at the same time, they’re playing fast and loose with taxpayers’ money, pretending that partisan promotional material is legitimate communication between MPs and the public.
You’ve seen them. The flyers are cheap looking single sheets, with a picture or two of Steven Harper and a headline on some issue. Then there’s a ballot, with an arrow aimed at Harper’s name.
And the flyer likely came to your mailbox from some Conservative MP you’ve never heard of in another province.
MPs can send mail at no cost; the government compensates Canada Post. The intent is to let them keep their constituents informed. (You can write MPs without putting stamps on the envelopes too.)
But these aren’t information pieces. And they’re not going to the people MPs represent. They’re political ads, masquerading as legitimate communications.
A lot of people voted for Harper’s party because they were sick of seeing these kinds of abuses. They wanted a moral, conservative government that respected the rules and the need to spend taxpayers’ money responsibly. They expected better.
And other people voted for them because recent Liberal governments appalled them. Some worried a Conservative government might impose an aggressive social conservative agenda, but decided to trust Harper.
And a flyer that has attracted a lot of attention has made a lot of them figure that was a mistake.
It has a picture on the outside of a syringe laying a playground, and a big headline: “Safe?”
Inside, there’s a jail door and more headlines: “Junkies and drug pushers don’t belong near children and families. They should be in rehab or behind bars.”
The Liberals let thugs and drug pushers write the rules, the flyer says. The Conservatives will “keep junkies in rehab and off the streets.”
It’s really offensive, perhaps mostly because the flyer assumes Canadians are both dumb and lacking in basic compassion. While many Canadians might be sick of dealing with the effects of addiction, they are not stupid.
The language in the flyers tells part of the story. A junkie is someone you sweep off the street, into the garbage. An addict, someone with a mental illness, they are people – someone’s son or daughter. And most of us – most of the time – see that.
And the wording of “keep junkies in rehab and off the streets” is plain dishonest on two levels.
No party – including the Conservatives – has called for compulsory detention and treatment for people with addictions.
It wouldn’t work, it raises a slew of rights issues and Canadians wouldn’t stand for government round ups of thousands of people in B.C. alone.
The capital region has 1,500 to 2,000 injection drug users, and thousands more with other addictions. Would a Harper majority government send squadrons out to drag them all off to rehab?
And where, exactly, would they go? There are about 100 residential spaces for the entire Vancouver Island. How would the Conservatives increase treatment capacity 40 or 50 times?
While the government is promising to lock up thousands of people, addicts who want to get clean today and seek help are being told there is no space for them and sent back to the streets.
And this all came as Health Minister Tony Clement accused the Canadian Medical Association members of unethical conduct because the organization supports safe injection sites. All the legitimate research shows the sites reduce sickness and death and connect users with other services, including treatment. There are no negative consequences.
But Clement doesn’t like the idea, so Canada’s doctors are accused of acting unethically.
There is a lot to be said for a true conservative party – one that respects individual rights and taxpayers’ money and approaches problems pragmatically.
Too bad Canada doesn’t have one.
Footnote: It’s odd, really. The Conservatives’ dishonest flyers might be appealing to a minority who already would likely vote for them. But in the process, there are scaring away the voters Harper needs to win a majority – moderate Canadians who just want competent, pragmatic government.

Campbell’s raises a poke in eye for public

There is no way in the world Gordon Campbell can justify the giant pay increases just handed to government senior managers.
Not that he bothered to try.
No owner of private business would throw his own money around so irresponsibly. A corporate exec who did would be grilled by the board.
About 150 people are eligible the big increases. Assistant deputy ministers are in line for retroactive raises of 22 per cent, in one jump. The new top rate of pay for the job is $195,000.
Deputy ministers - the chief operating officers of ministries - are in line for 35-per-cent raises, taking them to $299,215.
And the deputy minister to the premier, the top manager in government, gets a 43-per-cent raise in pay scale, from $240,000 to $348,600. That's a $108,600 raise, equivalent to seven years of full-time work at minimum wage.
Organizations sometimes have to pay big money to get the best talent. That's why some NHL team will end up paying Mats Sundin $8 million a year to play hockey.
And market forces could apply equally to the need to pay a big premium to attract the best scientists, doctors - or managers.
But well-managed organizations only spend the money when they have to.
The Campbell government has offered no argument that it needs to send salaries skyward to attract competent people. The only justification offered in the news release on the increases was a desire to make B.C.'s pay scale for top managers one of the highest of any government in Canada.
In fact, the government didn't issue the release until a Friday after the increases had already taken effect. Campbell was off in China, unable to explain or defend the huge pay hikes. The best other government reps could do was note that not all senior managers would necessarily get the raises.
There was apparently some sort of salary review, but the government hasn't released it.
These are not catch-up increases, needed because pay scales have been neglected.
Managers have been getting raises every year. And just two years ago, the government announced major increases and the promise that the pay scales would stand until 2010.
In that round of raises, the top pay for deputy ministers was increased by nine per cent and for assistant deputy ministers by 40 per cent.
So, since the 2005 election the government has handed senior managers pay scale increases of 50 per cent to 70 per cent.
But there has been no evidence of high turnover or difficulty filling these positions. While some of the jobs are demanding, the compensation - before these extraordinary increases - put them in the top one or two per cent of wage earners. And many of the jobs don't pose the kind of challenges that justify the pay scale.
And the incumbents all took the jobs knowing what the pay scales were and presumably considering it acceptable.
The cost of the increases is estimated at some $4 million a year.
But that's just the start. The government increased pay for MLAs by 29 per cent - and the premier by 54 per cent - last year. Defenders of the increase noted that elected representatives were falling behind the bureaucrats. This opens the door for more increases.
And everyone working in government, starting with managers one level below, can now make the argument that they too need increases for just the same reasons.
The raises, and the way they were introduced, show a remarkable disdain for the public. Campbell had to know that there would be anger and concern.
Yet he made no effort to explain, defend or justify the extraordinary windfall for those at the top of the public service period. There was no indication that government even felt a need to justify its actions.
It's a far cry from the political party that campaigned in 2001 on the need for accountability and responsibility in spending taxpayers' money.
Footnote: The whole affair should be discouraging for the NDP, which has made a questionable pledge to roll back the increases. It suggests the Liberals feel they can thumb their noses at the public and still win next May's election.

Government stalling on broken police complaints process

It could have been funny, if it weren't such a serious issue.
B.C.'s police complaints process is broken. Four years after the police complaints commissioner started changes were badly needed to make the system work better, and 18 months after a review recommended 91 changes, the government hasn't acted to fix it.
So the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other groups that help people who feel they have been wronged by police announced a boycott.
From now on, they will encourage people with complaints to sue the officers or force involved.
Police don't like the idea. Tom Stamatakis, head of the Vancouver police union, warned the court process would be costly and time-consuming. It would take too long to get decisions, he added. "By the time you get to an outcome, you lose the opportunity to learn from it."
Stamatakis should spend some time with Thomas McKay and his family.
On April 23, 2004, McKay was celebrating the end of the college year. He was arrested for causing a disturbance and being intoxicated in public. At the police cells, in handcuffs, he was pushed or tripped to the floor. He suffered a serious head injury.
McKay's father believed unnecessary force had been used. Within four days, he filed a complaint with the Victoria Police Department. That's the start of the current process.
But there are no timelines in the legislation. Victoria police didn't complete their internal investigation for 19 months - an inexplicable delay. The officer had done nothing wrong, the force found.
Police complaints commissioner Dirk Ryneveld examined the internal review and concluded further investigation was required. That's part of the process too.
He took only three weeks to ask for the review. But it took Victoria police 10 months to review their own investigation - and come back with the same conclusion.
That's 2 1⁄2 years, with little to show.
The police complaints commissioner still wasn't satisfied with internal review and ordered a public hearing on the complaint.
That began last month, more than four years after McKay's father went to police with a complaint his son had mistreated and injured. (The hearing was adjourned until fall because of McKay's continuing problems from his head injury.)
It's not likely the McKays would be buy Stamatakis' argument that the current system delivers results in a timely way.
The case is not an aberration. Delays are the norm.
Those aren't the only problems.
In February 2007, former appeal court justice Josiah Wood delivered a review of the complaints process the province had commissioned.
On a key point, his report pleased police. He didn't feel that B.C., like four other provinces, should create a separate investigative unit to deal with complaints.
Police could continue to investigate themselves, with officers from another department doing the review in some cases.
But he also recommended 91 changes.
Woods also audited 294 complaints against the 11 municipal police departments covered by the provincial policy as part of his review. (RCMP detachments, even those providing municipal policing, do not accept the province's complaint process.)
He found 19 per cent of the complaints had not been properly investigated. In some cases, complaints that clearly should have been upheld were dismissed.
The more serious the complaint, the greater chance of a flawed or incomplete internal review by police.
Wood's audit found, for example, that 38 per cent - more than one-third - of complaints that police used excessive force weren't properly investigated.
The finding makes it hard to accept the recommendation that police should continue to investigate themselves.
What's even harder to accept is the government's inaction on Wood's recommendations and the changes sought by Ryneveld.
With a fall legislative session unlikely, change could be put off until next year, 2010 or indefinitely.
We ask police to do a tough, sometimes dangerous job and give them considerable powers. It's necessary that their be a process to guard against abuse of those powers.
And in B.C., that process isn't working.
Footnote: The RCMP won't accept the B.C. complaints process and its own is hopelessly inadequate. Those who feel they have been wronged can complain to the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints. But the commission relies on the RCMP's own investigation and the top Mountie routinely rewrite its reports to eliminate criticism of officers' actions.

Kindergarten for three-year-olds a great idea

I've been doing newspapering work for quite a few years, in quite a few places. It's like building sand castles below the tide line in some ways. The best column is forgotten in a few days.
But ask me what I'm proudest of, and I can answer in a flash. It started with a column and ended with a letter from a premier.
Columns can come easily. This one did. I was standing outside a school portable on a freezing day in a suburb of Saint John. (The one in New Brunswick.)
I'd lined up to register our ferociously bright daughter for a great kindergarten.
New Brunswick was and is a have-not province. Kindergarten wasn't part of the school system. If you wanted your child to go, you had to pay.
And I looked at the line of parents, and thought this was crazy. We were affluent and had been able to give our kids a lot already. Now, we were setting them up for success when they started Grade 1.
But in Saint John's scruffier neighbourhoods, or in rural communities, the children who really could benefit from kindergarten didn't get the chance.
Imagine how awful it would be to show up for the first day of Grade 1 and find out a bunch of the other kids - the ones who had been to kindergarten - knew what to do, and you didn't. You're six. You figure you're just not as smart.
That was the column, and it was good. I was in charge and our papers kept on writing about public kindergarten.
I left Saint John for a job in another province. But a few months after I'd headed down the road, New Brunswick introduced public kindergarten for all five-year-olds. And Frank McKenna, the premier of the day, sent a kind note saying that when he had wavered on the change - an expensive hit for a poor province - he had reread some of the pieces from our newspaper.
Which leads, in a twisty way, back to B.C. In the throne speech in February, Gordon Campbell committed the government to "assess the feasibility and costs of full school day kindergarten for five-year- olds."
Campbell also promised a look at much more aggressive agenda - optional day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010, and for three-year-olds by 2012.
It was a bold commitment. But the government appears to be taking a serious look at a great new approach to early childhood education.
Research from the jurisdictions around the world that have tried such early schooling has been overwhelmingly positive. Children benefit academically and socially and the results are long-lasting. Almost all children make gains, but the help is greatest for those kids who start with disadvantages.
Which shouldn't be surprising. A child who grows up in an affluent home, perhaps with a stay-at-home mom, with parents who have experienced academic success, has a lot of advantages heading into school. Those children have likely done art classes and reading groups and already made a lot of progress.
A kid from a poor home, perhaps with parents who don't read all that well themselves, is likely to have much tougher time in those first critical years in school.
The Education Ministry is seeking public comments on the idea. (You can participate; the website is www.bced.gov.bc.ca/ecla/.) There's been big interest and the deadline has been extended to Aug. 15.
It's a big project and there are lots of questions, like who would teach and what it cost to provide places for 80,000 thee and four-year-olds.
Perhaps the program could start in a targeted away - offered wherever schools consistently perform poorly on FSA tests, for example.
But this is an opportunity to build a brighter future for the province and give a lot of children a better chance to the most of their abilities.
Footnote: Her's one sign the government is serious. The Education Ministry, which had effectively encouraged school closures through its funding program and by requiring districts to come up with large chunks of cash for capital projects, has now told school districts to hang on to underused properties in case space is needed for new kindergartens.