Lots of questions on Port Mann project

Eight months ago, the government said twinning the Port Mann bridge would cost about $1.6 billion, with not a penny from provincial taxpayers.
A private consortium would build the bridge and maintain it in return for the future toll revenue. Good deal.
But now, the cost is $3.3 billion.
Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 billion in financing.
Oh, and the bridge isn't being twinned anymore. The existing bridge will be pulled down after a new 10-lane bridge is built.
There is a good case for another bridge to get people across the Fraser River. Traffic is a mess for large chunks of the day. (Though the question of what happens to the thousands of additional cars when they get off the bridge is still largely unanswered.)
But this announcement by Premier Gordon Campbell does not inspire confidence.
The government said the soaring cost is caused by inflation, the decision to tear down the existing bridge and a more realistic look what's involved in the project, like feeder roads.
Still, a doubling of costs before the first shovel of dirt is moved is hardly reassuring. Especially from the government that stuck taxpayers with $500 million worth of surprise overruns on Vancouver's convention centre.
That's far from the only worry.
The government has said the initial toll will be $3, rising with inflation. With a modest increase in traffic, that would produce $150 million a year for the bridge operators. (Toll collection will be high-tech. Electronic devices would log regular users crossings and deduct the toll from an account.)
When the bridge was to cost $1.6 billion, $150 million in revenue wasn't bad. That's about a 9.5-per-cent return.
But at $3.3 billion, the return is down to 4.5 per cent. The consortium is not likely to go ahead - especially not with the risks of construction cost overruns, shortfalls in revenues and interest cost - without more revenue.
So what will the province - that is to say, you the taxpayers - pay to keep the private companies committed to the project? Will it be $100 million a year, on top of the tolls, or more?
And then there's the whole question of the $1.2 billion taxpayers are advancing to pay for the project.
It's apparently a loan, at commercial rates. If it's repaid, the government should make money given its low borrowing costs.
The project is being funded with $1 billion from the construction consortium, which includes Macquarie Group, an Australian investment business that has done well in its dealings with government, but hit tough times. The province is to put up $1.2 billion; other lenders another $1.2 billion.
The theory is that provincial taxpayers are protected. The consortium, with $1 billion at risk, has a big incentive to make sure the project is completed.
But no other lender, no bank or pension fund around the world, could be found to provide the $1.2 billion in financing. That's why the province stepped forward.
OK, it's a skittish time for lenders.
But does that mean taxpayers have to take on the risk? Or should the government have waited for a year, developing a clearer assessment of the risks and a realistic business plan?
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, who has championed the bridge and other Lower Mainland road projects, says traffic delays cost B.C. $1.5 billion a year in lost productivity. If the Port Mann cuts that problem by 25 per cent, it's a good investment.
But that's not clear. And the government's leap into this megaproject is looking a little blind. It's hard not to worry that the desire to get a deal done before the provincial election is encouraging too much haste.
It's been tough to get information about other private-public partnerships. This time, the government should recognize the legitimate public concern and answer all the questions before the deal is done.
Footnote: The project is popular, mostly, in the Lower Mainland. But Liberal candidates in the rest of the province might find it a challenge to defend going ahead with another Vancouver-area megaproject even as cost estimates soar.

Run-of-river gold rush or not?

Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom wrote the Times Colonist to argue there is no boom in run-of-river power applications in the province. The letter, published this week, said:
"Despite the claims of a "gold rush" in new independent power projects, only 46 such projects are in operation; almost half were started under the previous NDP government."
But the government handed out employee recognition awards this week and gave a Gold Award to a cross-ministry team from energy, agriculture and lands, environment and forests for their work on a flood of IPP applications.
"The team was brought together in response to a phenomenal increase over five years of 1,140 per cent in independent power project applications. Without a corresponding increase in resources, agency staff looked for new ways to do business. They came up with an integrated and coordinated inter-agency approach to application management."
Maybe a "phenomenal" 1,000-per-cent increase in applications isn't a gold rush for the minister, but the people who do the work see it differently.

The drug mire in Afghanistan

The plan for NATO troops to start attacking opium producers in Afghanistan seems a pointless step into a nasty mess. The theory that drug money helps supports the Taliban is almost certainly true; if nothing else, looking Taliban leaders can collect taxes or protection money.
But poppy production provides income for one in 10 Afghans, in a country where the average monthly income is about $30. Every effort to end the industry — which provides some 90 per cent of the world's opium - will be fought by large sections of the public.
And, as this fine piece on the fumbling and corrupt eradication efforts from a couple of years ago shows, the effort is likely to cost vast sums and accomplish little.
Drug eradication spending in Afghanistan has been running at about $650 million a year — about $55 million froom Canada — while production increases.
There are alternate approaches. The Senlis Council, an international research agency with a focus on Afghanistan, has proposed a Poppy for Medicine program. Afghan villages would be supported in growing poppies and producing morphine. The pain-management drug is in desperately short supply for medical use in much of the developing world.
Western nations could also subsidize farmers to grow other crops or simply buy and destroy the poppy harvest.

Campbell, thankfully, flip-flops on deficits

Heave a sigh of relief that Gordon Campbell has decided deficits aren't the ultimate horror after all.
Campbell has been an anti-deficit zealot for every one of the 16 years he's been in provincial politics. He brought in a law that made deficits illegal and denounced them as the folly of the weak and morally bankrupt.
Even in late October, when the premier went on television to announce his responses to the economic meltdown, he stuck to the claim that deficits are the tools of the devil.
"Let me be very clear, we are not going to run a deficit in the province of B.C.," he said at a press conference after the talk. "When anyone talks about a deficit, they're talking about turning their back on the next generation and sending our problems forward to them."
Less than four months later, Campbell has changed his mind. He and Finance Minister Colin Hansen called a dramatic press conference this week to confirm government revenues have plunged. Without deficits for the next two years, the government would have to cut spending on health and education. That would be worse than a deficit, Campbell said grimly.
Hallelujah.
The fact that Campbell and Hansen could only be persuaded now, two weeks before budget day, means disaster was dangerously near.
Hansen said if was only in the last couple of weeks that he accepted the impossibility of a balanced budget next year. That means the government was on the brink of a desperate gutting of spending to meet its ideological commitment to balanced budgets. Government officials have spent months looking for programs and spending to cut to bring expense in line with revenues.
The result would have been predictably terrible, with deep and damaging cuts to vital programs.
Hansen said this week that government revenue for the next three years is now forecast to be about $6 billion below the projections used in last year's fiscal plans.
Not surprising, as the resource industries struggle, tax revenues slump and home sales - and property transfer taxes - drop. But huge.
Consider the impact of building a balanced budget with that kind of revenue shortfall.
Assume a two-year freeze on health and education spending, which would mean growing waits and other problems as health authorities cut back to cover salary increases and critical needs.
The government would still have to cut 10 per cent from the rest of its spending to have a hope of delivering a balanced budget. That would mean deep cuts to services and programs, from policing to child protection to retraining.
The fact that Campbell was willing to cling to the idea that could be managed is alarming.
Deficits are, in most circumstances, to be avoided. Spending more than you take in - as an individual or a government - means racking up debt that must be repaid and interest costs. It's an easy way to put off hard decisions and leave the consequences for someone else.
But sometimes it makes sense to borrow to get over a brief period of lower income. That's especially true in a recession, when cuts would further weaken the economy and deprive people of services just when they are most needed.
It's still not clear whether Campbell accepts that reality. He said at the press conference that he only abandoned the idea of balancing the budget when it became clear that health and education cuts would be required. That raises, again, the suggestion that other government functions - children and families, forestry management - are expendable.
And he pledged to still try for a balanced budget, promising cuts to contracts with service providers, grants, contributions and government operations. Service providers - the agencies that actually do much of the work on behalf of the government - are already struggling. Cuts could be disastrous.
Still, count the flip-flop as a sign that Campbell found some common sense, in the nick of time.
Footnote: There was more encouraging news. Hansen said the panel of independent economists the government consults had knocked their growth forecast for this year down to zero. But in 2010, their average prediction is for 2.8-per-cent growth. That would point to a relatively quick emergence from the worst of the slump for the province.

If the courts don't work, what's the alternative?

When only people with money can access the legal system, what are the rest of Canadians to do when their rights are violated? What's to stop the rich and powerful from ignoring the law, knowing their victims can't fight back?
And how long before people decide if there is no legal recourse, they should feel free to take matters into their own hands. If a pushy neighbour builds a fence on your property and you can't afford to deal with the matter in the courts, pushingit over with a backhoe might seem a good idea.
The Times Colonist takes a good look at the issues in this editorial.

Who will get stuck with the $1-billion Games security bill?

You can't blame Colin Hansen for getting cranky about Olympic security costs.
But you also shouldn't forget this mess is partly the B.C. Liberals' fault.
With a year to go until the Vancouver Games, and weeks before the province's budget day, the only thing certain is that security costs are hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.
That's no surprise. The budget - $175 million to be split between the federal and provincial governments - was recognized as unrealistically low from day one.
But now the cost estimates are reported to be around the $1-billion mark.
And since the province is on the hook for Games' cost overruns, that means a big hit for provincial taxpayers this year.
How big is still to be determined. Hansen's officials are wrangling with the feds and the RCMP about what should be included in the actual costs of Games security. They argue that the bill should only include security at the Games venues. Other costs are a federal responsibility, the province says.
Sorting the cost-sharing out won't be easy.
Any manager will recognize the opportunity this situation offers to the RCMP. New equipment, fancy technology, training costs - from the perspective of the force, the more you can dump into the budget the better. It's money you don't have to find somewhere else.
And given the tough economic times, the federal government will be trying to limit its contribution.
Even though the original figure was always seen as unrealistically low - except by various ministers in the Campbell government, who maintained until last year that it was just fine - the costs are staggering.
How can security for a 17-day sporting event cost $1 billion? If you used the money for salaries and hired police officers from everywhere at overtime rates, you could have 111,000 security people working for a month - about 800 to watch each athlete.
Of course, it's more complex. There are border issues and transportation and media and traffic. But $1 billion equals about $60 million per day of the Games. It seems crazy.
The costs were inevitably going to be an embarrassment for the government. The claim that provincial Games spending is strictly limited to $600 million has always been obviously false and contradicted by the auditor general.
The security overrun will enforce even Gordon Campbell to concede the reality.
The overrun, up until the economic slump, could have been covered out of the government's expected big surpluses.
Now a $300-million or $400-million overrun could be enough to push the government into a deficit. That would mean repealing the no-deficit law - the right thing to do, but a big reversal of years of Liberal lectures on the evils of red ink.
And the overrun raises other problems.
Government ministries have been looking for spending that can be cut or put off in light of the plunging economy. Those kinds of changes would be unpopular, but could be pitched as necessary sacrifices.
But that will be undermined if the government is paying a big chunk of cash for Olympic security after years of insisting the budget was adequate.
The governments might try and dance around the issue. If the talks are continuing, they could say the costs are still unknown and would be covered out of a contingency fund.
But having no handle on costs at this point would leave the Liberals open to attack during the election campaign.
It's a tricky problem, in large part because of the timing. Neither the federal Conservatives nor the provincial Liberals want to get stuck with a big bill right now. But neither wants a public spat, either.
And while the problems might be forgotten a year from now, if the Games are a success, the election is May 12. The security problems - and the lack of openness - are going to feature heavily in the NDP campaign.
Footnote: For an example of the scale of Games security, the first major exercise is scheduled for the coming week, involving up to six naval warships, military helicopters and jet fighters and RCMP and emergency personnel.

Blazing a trail with tall wood buildings

Sean Holman over at publiceyeonline.com has an alarming look at serious concerns about the government's push to allow — and encourage — six-storey wood apartment, condo and office buildings.
The safety is being questioned by firefighters; other jurisdictions deny the government's claim that they allow such buildings.
The government says rules will ensure safety. But government also allowed construction of leaky condos — and schools — that brought ruin to thousands of people.

Imagine an independent holding the balance of power in the B.C. legislature

OK, a lot to has to happen. But even the potential election of an independent MLA, as Vaughn Palmer writes about here would be welcome. Party politics, as practised today, has kept a lot of great people from becoming truly effective, representative MLAs.

Harper, maybe Campbell, decide deficits OK

The world has changed. Stephen Harper is acting like a Liberal, leaping into budget deficits and tossing cash around to win votes.
Even Gordon Campbell, who three months ago called deficits a dangerous "addiction," now says B.C. might have to break its balanced budget law next month.
These are signs of how dramatic the economic crunch has become, how badly politicians under-estimated the problems and how worried both leaders are about election prospects.
Harper's budget called for Ottawa to spend $36 billion more than it takes in this year, ending a decade of balanced budgets. (The deficit is forecast at $30 billion for the following year, but that estimate is about as reliable as a $4 watch.)
Spending will jump 10.8 per cent, at a time when inflation is almost non-existent. Revenue will fall by 4.2 per cent, thanks in part to tax cuts.
The rationale is that the government spending will take up some of the slack in the economy. If people are laid off in the forest industry, maybe they will get work on a road infrastructure project.
There is broad agreement among economists that government intervention of this type is necessary in a serious economic slowdown to cushion the impact and hasten the recovery. That almost inevitably means several deficits.
On balance, the government's direction is sound.
But it's the details that should make you nervous.
This is all an inexact science. Few economists will hazard a guess about the real effect of the programs - how much the billions will add to economic output or reduce the jobless rate.
And once the money starts flowing, it's hard to keep track of where it's going or how wisely it's used.
Some stimulus measures make obvious sense. If a bridge is planned for construction in five years, building it now creates jobs and provides needed infrastructure. In five years, the theory goes, the economy will be stronger. The money that would have been spent on the bridge can be used to pay down the debt run up in the deficit years.
Other measures are questionable. The government has promised $160 million in new spending on cultural projects. It's hard to judge the real economic value of that spending - except in make-work terms. And it's harder to see how the government can avoid pressure to keep up the commitment once begun.
And it's committing $3 billion this year to subsidize home renovations and landscaping. That doesn't qualify as smart spending - there is no gain in productivity or long-term benefit. (In contrast, social housing for low-income serniors, the disabled, natives and northerners gets about $500 million this year.)
And some measures are just foolish. The income tax cuts announced in the federal budget aren't targeted to create jobs or improve our long-term situation. While they are nce, they are not going to bring a spending rush to stimulate the economy.
And the $4 billion in foregone revenue over the next three years will now be borrowed, for us - or our children - to pay back at some point. But the cuts will score some political points.
The budget marks quite a transformation for Harper, whose political career has been built on an abhorrence of deficits and rejection of this kind of interventionist role for government.
Gordon Campbell might be having the same kind of conversion. His government made deficit budgets illegal in B.C. Even a few months ago, when he outlined the province's initial response to the meltdown, Campbell pledged the province would remain "a deficit-free zone."
But this week, with the provincial budget less than three weeks away, Campbell told The Globe and Mail he's not sure the government will be able to balance the budget.
That's a big reversal. But probably a wise one - depending, of course, on the prudence and effectiveness of the economic stimulus measures. An ideological aversion to deficits shouldn't become a straitjacket. Families sometimes borrow to get over tough patches; governments have the same opportunity.
Footnote: Politically, I have no idea what the impact will be in the provincial election May 12. Campbell could look a little hypocritical in embracing once unthinkable deficits, if it comes to that. But that's likely better than looking detached from the economic problems affecting so many families and communities.

It's 2009, but roads are still destroying salmon streams

I'll do a column on the topic, but the Times Colonist has a good editorial on a Forest Practices Board report on the number of streams and rivers that are critical fisheries habitat, yet blocked by shoddy road construction. It's appalling, even astonishing, that for all the talk about threats to salmon runs, we still act like it's 1920.
The board, a watchdog on forest practices, has released a number of expert, balanced and useful reports. Take a look a here.

Stan Hagen

I have a soft spot for Stan Hagen. When he died this week, in a coffee shop a few steps from the legislature, something passed with him.
Hagen was a veteran MLA and cabinet minister. He was always perfect – suit, tie, crisp shirt, perfect white hair, healthy glow. He was always positive and happy. And he always really interested in how you were.
He wasn’t perfect, of course. I always get wary when people suddenly are seen as saint-like after they die.
But Hagen never lost sight of the reason he went into politics. And that was to make things better for the people he represented in the Comox Valley, and the province.
You could argue about choices made to achieve that. But I don’t think you could doubt that Hagen was trying to do the right thing, as an MLA and a cabinet minister.
He represents, to me, the best of the Socred cabinet ministers of the 1980s. He wasn’t a politician. Hagen had been a school trustee — he has five children — but mostly he’d been involved in church and a whole raft of community activities. People knew him and respected him. So in 1986, in his mid-40s, he was elected.
It’s a good route to office. You have a family, experience, a whole life outside politics. And everyone knows you – not just the business types, or the guys from the Steelworkers, or the party stalwarts. When you go out to get groceries, they tell you how you’re doing.
And you represent them in Victoria, instead of representing the government in the riding. When people are unhappy, you say so and think about changes. That culture helped the Socreds to almost four decades of power.
And Socreds, at least until things unraveled, had a useful focus on the individual. Understand one person’s problems, and fix them, and things would get better.
Sure, that led to some mistakes. But on balance, maybe fixing problems that way is better than ending up in endless studies and exercises in process.
Again, this isn’t St. Stan stuff. I remember being terribly frustrated with Hagen’s evasions when something had gone wrong in his ministry of children and families. In part, because I expected better.
But I also remember talking with him in the corridor outside the legislative chamber, when he said he’d told Gordon Campbell he wanted to stay as children and families minister after the 2005 election. The work was so important, he said.
That is one brutally hard job. But Hagen wanted it. He could see the children whose lives were changed, maybe saved, by the ministry’s workers. The families kept together.
And he did have a certain freedom. Hagen held 10 different portfolios during his time in provincial politics. He was 69 when he died. He could say what he thought.
It’s a funny thing, covering the legislature. Ideally, you just don’t know the politicians. That way, you can focus on policy and actions, without worrying that you’re being swayed – either way – by the way you feel about some minister. There was hopeless NDP cabinet minister, but I was always slightly kinder after she talked about how much she missed the Thursday night bowling league back home.)
But my partner grew up in the Valley. She taught piano to two of the Hagen’s five children. And at a desperately hard point in her life, scared and feeling alone, she ran into Hagen, in a restaurant in Parksville. And he listened, for a couple of hours, and didn’t judge and, she says, one of the worst nights of her life was not quite as bad. (You can read her account. There'sa link down a post or two.)
I can imagine people thought of Stan Hagen as the bad guy, the enemy,
Nah. Right sometimes, wrong sometimes. But he wanted to make this a good place for everyone to live.
That’s a pretty good starting point for anyone in government.

The beauty of art and politics

The best all-round Canadian blog, I'd say, has a great post on a street response to Barack Obama's win. The combination of joy and the willingness to do real work to bring it to others are heartening.

Stan Hagen

I'll post something later, but wanted to point to this fine column as a reminder that there is much more to our politicians than the clips we see on TV or the quotes that we see in the newspapers.

If newspapers fade away....

The tone is a little whiney, but an east coast newspaper manager makes points that should be consideredabout the future of news, and specifically the problems when newspapers generate the content but aggregators get the revenue.
Lord knows newspapers have their failings and self-inflicted wounds, but in most communities they put the most money and time into news reporting. Without them, what will happen to that role? What will happen to the shared understanding of community issues - flawed or not - if mass news media fade away?

Where's our Obama, in Canada or B.C.?

It's a disheartening contrast.
Take any moment of debate from the weekend legislative session on the Olympic athletes' village and contrast it with Barack Obama's inauguration speech.
Leave aside, for a few moments, the issues involved in the legislative session. The debate was the usual legislature mix of interruption, insult and vilification. Both sides, as usual, were to blame.
Not that legislature debate need be all warm and fuzzy. There are real issues and real disagreements on how to approach them. Debate is inevitable and healthy.
But I thought of the legislature - indeed of Canadian politics generally - when Obama said it was "time to put away childish things." When he talked about the need for Americans to abandon politics of division and fear and envy.
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them," Obama told the crowds gathered in Washington D.C. "That the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Meanwhile, on this side of the border, stale political arguments are all we hear from our leaders. (That might explain why Obama's inauguration attracted more than two million people who wanted to be part of the change. Can you imagine 200,000 people gathering in Ottawa for the first speech by a new prime minister?)
It was not just the usual rhetorical nod to co-operation. When Obama talked about the current economic crisis, he noted the role of "greed and irresponsibility on the part of some."
But he also told all Americans they share the blame because of "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." Not George W. Bush's failure, or Wall Street's or Republicans', but all Americans.
There was no mention of enemies. The message was that the people of the U.S., and the world, are in this together and have many common goals and aspirations and values. They might disagree, strongly, on some moral issues or policy directions. But not on the fundamental principles that have been part of their national life for 230-plus years.
Our politicians see enemies everywhere. Gordon Campbell dismissed people who rallied outside a Liberal party convention to protest some government policies as stupid and representatives of special interests. Glen Clark called people who disagreed with his government's forest policy "enemies of B.C."
In fact, politicians and their political staffs are always on the lookout for "wedge issues." The aim is to split the society into opposing factions in ways that increase their support at the expense of other parties. The issues don't have to be consequential, or the positions legitimate. The best wedge issues play on emotion, particularly fear. That explains the popularity of tough talk on crime or politicians' love of talking about the "powerful interests" behind other parties.
Obama largely shunned such tactics in his campaign and such topics in his inaugural address. He appealed not to peoples' fears or their self-interest, but to their sense of decency and justice. "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," he said. "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
Instead of ideology, decisions should be based in pragmatism. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
Obama is a gifted orator. But what lifted his address was not clever writing, or a skilled delivery.
The speech was illuminated by a belief in the energy, intelligence, compassion and shared values of Americans - and indeed of people around the world.
Footnote: A striking feature of Obama's entire political career has been his willingness to listen and accommodate the views of other people, while still working toward goals he considers important. He has proved that approach is not only more decent, but also more effective in bringing change and building support.

Campbell's forest land contradictions

Last week, Premier Gordon Campbell told the truck loggers the province would move to create a "forest reserve" to make sure timberland isn't lost to other uses. It was critical to families and communities, he said.
A Times Colonist editorial notes the contradiction between the new commitment to forest land and decisions to allow two forest companies on Vancouver Island to remove land from tree farm licences. Those decisions, criticized by the auditor general, enriched the companies by at least $700 million and produced no benefits to taxpayers.

Four months to go, and the Liberals should be worried

British bookies take bets on election results and post odds years in advance.
Perhaps it's the next bit of gambling expansion the B.C. Liberals will look at, now that people are getting less keen on scratch and lose tickets.
But the oddsmakers would be having a tough time right about now.
Even a year ago, Gordon Campbell and company would have been heavy favorites.
The economy was good, Olympic plans were allegedly on track and voters in the Lower Mainland could see big infrastructure projects all over the place.
There were problems - homelessness and street disorder, health care waits and gaps in seniors' care. The forest industry, especially the coastal industry, was a mess.
But problems are part of governing. It's only when they become really serious, or when the party in power doesn't seem to have any plans to deal with them - or worse, doesn't acknowledge them - that voters get really riled
And Carole James and the New Democrats hadn't convinced voters that they could do any better.
The polls suggest that's changing. A year ago, the Mustel Group had the Liberals with the support of 48 per cent of decided voters and the NDP with 36 per cent. (In the 2005 election, the Liberals captured 46 per cent of the vote and the New Democrats 42 per cent.) That kind of lead translates into a comfortable majority.
But the last Mustel poll, done in late November, found the two parties tied.
Since then, the Liberals have run into more problems. Some are definitely of their own making; others are just the kind of bumps - like the global economic collapse - that would jar any government.
MLAs gathered in Victoria for an emergency legislative session to pass a law letting Vancouver borrow almost $500 million. The city needs the money to rescue the botched athletes' village project.
The mess was created by terrible decisions made by Vancouver's former council, not the province. (The new council, now dominated by provincial New Democrats, is unlikely to make things easy for the government.)
But it's bad news for Campbell. The price tag for next February's Games is already an issue, especially as the economy slumps. The $500-million overrun on the Vancouver Convention Centre raised doubts about the government's competence and it has been criticized for secrecy on the real cost of the Games. The security bill is still secret, but will likely be five times the $175 million the province maintained would be adequate.
At a time when the government is looking for programs to cut next year to save money, it will likely be asked to spend some $350 million in extra security costs for a 16-day event.
The global economic woes have nothing directly to do with Campbell and the Liberals.
But he will be judged on two fronts as a result - on the effectiveness of efforts to respond to the crisis and, much more subjectively, on whether he "gets it."
So far, there isn't much sign of a response, although next month's budget will be the real test.
Campbell's real problem might come when voters decide whether he actually understands and cares about their concerns. An Angus Reid Strategies poll last fall found 59 per cent of those surveyed didn't believe Campbell understood the problems of British Columbians.
Campbell did outpoll James on management competence, an important factor in peoples' voting decisions.
That's why the Olympic cost problems are so critical. The Liberal campaign is pushing the themes that the New Democrats can't be trusted and aren't competent. The risks are especially high at such a turbulent time, they will argue.
But the distinction blurs if voters are wondering about the Liberals on the same two qualities.
Campbell and the Liberals are still the favorites. But a year ago, it looked like they were cruising to an easy victory; today, it's a real contest.
Footnote: The Liberals' problems are compounded by the perception that this is a one-man government, with Campbell's enthusiasms - like climate change - setting the agenda. A bigger effort to demonstrate a larger role for ministers and MLAs would have insulated the party from some of these problems.

B.C.'s lobbying laws more hole than net

The promised lobbyist registry was a good idea when it was introduced by the Liberals, and, don't forget, followed the NDP government's failure to do anything to regulate lobbying.
But, as Sean Holman demonstrates at publiceyeonline.com, the lack of effective enforcement means it's perfectly safe to ignore the rules.
After the B.C. Rail scandal, you would expect the government to be keener on dealing with the need to protect the public interest and curb the influence of thjose with political power and money (the two being tightly linked).

The Games nightmare

How did we get into this Olympic thing, anyway?
The Games are a year away, and British Columbians face rapidly rising costs and growing doubts about the event's economic value.
Provincial taxpayers are likely on the hook for more than $2 billion for the Games and directly related infrastructure costs. That's about $450 per person.
Municipal governments - B.C. taxpayers, again - will pay some $600 million.
The federal government will end up contributing another $800 million.
That's a cost of something like $3.5 billion. And that's not including the out-of-control spending on the Vancouver Convention Centre, now at $900 million, or the $2 billion to expand rapid transit to Vancouver's airport. Both those projects went ahead, during a time of high construction costs, at least in part to support Vancouver's Olympic bid.
So just the basic costs tied to the Games will cost the public about $220 million per day during the big show.
That's not how the Games were sold to British Columbians by government. The Liberals, despite looking increasingly foolish, have consistently tried to claim the province is only contributing $610 million.
That required excluding the Sea to Sky Highway improvement costs, which the province's auditor general said should be considered part of the Games expenses. Poor Finance Minister Colin Hansen was even forced to try and claim that the government's Olympic Secretariat was not a Games cost.
And the government also claimed for years - despite mounting evidence - that the initial $175-million projection of security costs was credible. It has now conceded the costs will be higher, but won't say how much higher. Stockwell Day, federal minister on the file, says perhaps $1 billion will cover the costs.
And the federal government is only on the hook for $87.5 million, although expect it to come up with at least some of the increase.
The big risk-taker in this deal was the provincial government, which accepted responsibility for all cost overruns or revenue shortfalls.
Even the costs of the incredible mess in Vancouver, where city council ended up taking on all the risk involved in completing the athletes' village, could end up being worn in part by the province.
That could include at least a share of the hundreds of millions of dollars at risk in Vancouver's bungled plan for athletes' housing. A private developer was supposed to build condos that would be used for the athletes' village and then sold.
But the lender has cut off funding because of cost overruns and market concerns. The city foolishly entered into agreements that leave it guaranteeing all the costs - currently estimated at $875 million - to complete the project in time for the Games.
The money is certainly not all at risk. The condos will have value. But much less than expected, and Vancouver taxpayers will pay for the losses, which could easily be $250 million. And ultimately, the city might come looking for provincial help, pointing to the government's guarantees.
As all this happens, the potential benefits of the Games are shrinking. The long-term selling point was marketing exposure, bringing tourism and investment. But as the global economy chills, so does the chance of luring tourists and investment. (And anyway, how many of you made plans to vacation in Turin after the 2006 Winter Games there?)
Back to the original question- how did this happen? For starters, the whole Games bobsled started down the icy run with a gentle nudge. A group of boosters were interested, then premier Glen Clark kicked in $150,000 to help them and we were off on the thrill ride. We just kept going faster down the slope and no one really stopped to figure out if this was a good idea.
The other big problem has been lack of honest, open information. If the government had accepted the auditor general's recommendations in 2006, the risks would have been managed.
As it is, B.C. taxpayers face a big bill for this ride.
Footnote: The money is mostly spent or committed and the show must go on. British Columbians can at least expect every effort to control costs and protect their interest now - and much more openness. And it's critical to ensure that every effort is made to capture the Games' benefits.

How we stumbled into Olympic problems

First, the NDP government got all enthusiastic about a bid and launched the luge down the icy chute before anyone really thought much about whether we actualy wanted the Games, or why we should.
Second, no one paid too much attention because a) it was just a bid anyway; and b) the Games are a "good thing."
Third, governments got away with too much secrecy and silly claims, as in security costs will only be $175 million.
Fourth, effective oversight was ignored or eliminated. The auditor general's concerns were brushed aside; the public's representatives on the VANOC board reported to political masters.
Fifth, even people like I who raised issues, weren't nearly dogged enough.
Still, I repost a column from before the bid went in that suggests the warning signs were there for all to see.

Tuesday, June 22, 2002

Olympics' bid looking fiercely expensive

British Columbians should be getting mighty nervous about what the Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games could cost us.
The 2010 Games could turn out to be a great thing for B.C., a chance to showcase the province before the world.
But the Olympic bid is steam-rolling forward without nearly enough public information or consultation on the costs and benefits.
The Olympic bid committee has already sent its proposal off to the IOC, a list of promises of all the things you will do to make these the best Games ever.
Sadly, you won't know what those promises are, the bid committee having decided they should stay secret. That seems a little odd, since Bern, Switzerland, one of B.C.'s top rivals, has posted its proposals on the web site for all to see. Bern also plans a referendum before going further, something citizens in Whistler have unsuccessfully been seeking.
There's much encouraging in B.C.'s Olympic bid. The Games are expected to be officially self-supporting, with revenue covering the operating costs and maybe leaving a little money over. And the province could well score future tourism business and some nice sports facilities.
But the self-supporting claim is misleading.
Organizers already have about $9 million from the province to help make the pitch to get the Games. Ottawa and B.C. have promised $310 million each for new facilities for sports events.
And on top of that, the federal and provincial governments are on the hook for security costs, easily $500 million if recent Games are an indication.
And there's more.
The Games bid requires an expanded convention centre, which would serve as the headquarters for some 10,000 journalists, and cost some $500 million.
There's a strong case for a new convention centre, but it's certainly not clear why those who will benefit - Vancouver hotels and restaurants - shouldn't pay the bill.
Bid chairman Jack Poole also says that without major improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler, Vancouver won't win the Games. Figure $1.3 billion for that. And proponents also want a rapid transit line from the airport, another $1.4-billion megaproject.
Add them up, and you'll see that those cost-free Games will really reach into taxpayers' pockets for $5.3 billion.
Of course there will be benefits, including an estimated $2 billion in tax revenue for the two levels of government. But that doesn't come close to the costs.
And that too would be fine if we had decided that the most important capital priorities for B.C. were a better highway to Whistler and rapid transit from the airport.
But we haven't made that decision. And I'm not sure that people bouncing over rutted roads in the northeast would be so keen to know that their tax dollars were being used to make it easier for people to get to their chalets in Whistler. Or that people in the North and Interior facing health care cuts would think that a better way of getting from the airport to downtown Vancouver should be a top priority.
The Olympic bid has crept up on British Columbians. Few people realize that a specific proposal has been submitted, or that in about a year B.C. could have actually won these Games.
That's partly our fault. The Games people have been out talking about their plans, but the public hasn't paid much attention.
But it's also the proponents' fault, for failing to provide enough information about exactly what this will cost and where the money will be found within the finances of a government that says it's too broke to provide a wide range of other services to citizens.
The Games may make sense. But right now, it feels like we're being asked to hand over a lot of money with no clear idea what we're getting, or why we should want it.