Liberals take on princely powers to push development
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' latest economic development bill looks remarkably like something Glen Clark might have written.
It's called the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. But it could as easily be called the 'Making the Premier King Act.'
The idea is that it's too hard to get approvals to build things or open mines in B.C., despite the Liberals' pledge to get rid of regulations and make government work better. Approvals take too long, municipalities ask too many questions and things don't get done quickly enough to keep the developers happy.
And the Liberal solution is to give cabinet - which means the premier - the power to designate any project as "significant." Once that's done, cabinet can rewrite the rules, or eliminate them, and make sure the project gets approved in short order. The people behind the project only have to persuade the cabinet that it's a good thing, and with a wave of the pen almost all obstacles can be made to disappear.
It will be convenient. Anyone who has tried to add on to a house or build a new deck would recognize the benefits of being able to skip all those building inspections and plan approvals.
And it's a useful part of the sales pitch for the premier when he courts new industries. What about regulations and approvals, the proponents can ask? No problem, says the premier. We'll designate this a significant project, and the only approvals you need are from me.
If you were a developer, you would love it. And if you were premier, you would really love it. You could get a lot done, quickly, if you didn't have to worry about public consultations or municipal bylaws or planning and zoning restrictions. Attractive idea, public benefit, pressing need - clear the track.
But taxpayers shouldn't be quite so welcoming. This is the kind of approach, after all, that brought us the fast ferries. It could be that we need a stringent approval process most when cabinet or a premier has fallen in love with a project.
Here's how it would work in real life. You would convince a cabinet minister or the premier that the your plan for a new racetrack would be great for the province, And you would warn that it has to be built quickly, or the project couldn't go ahead.
Once the cabinet designates the racetrack a significant project - and their power to pick a public or private partnership is unlimited under the proposed act - things start happening.
If you've got a problem with approvals or zoning, or neighbours are demanding to be consulted, or municipalities are worried about traffic congestion when 200,000 spectators head to the race, you can go to the premier or a cabinet minister. He can order a facilitator to try and resolve the problem. And if that doesn't work, cabinet can just give you a green light to go ahead without the required approvals, on the terms he choses.
There are few limits. The laws says cabinet can't ignore or over-ride provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission Act or the Environmental Assessment Act. But every other act, or any municipal provisions, can be ignored to get a project built more quickly.
Some municipalities are onside, keen to see development come more quickly. And the province does need the jobs.
But taxpayers should be worried. The temptation to take shortcuts - for Olympic projects, the hugely expensive RAV line, new public-private partnerships, a power plant, mine or resort - will be huge. And decision-making will move from the public arena to behind the tightly closed doors of cabinet and the premier's officer.
It's the kind of extraordinary power that should include safeguards and protection for the public interest, or be restricted to clearly defined project types.
But that's not what the bill does. Instead, it confers near absolute power on cabinet.
And that, no matter how good the intentions, should be worrying.
Footnote: The bill is a confirmation of just how much trouble the Liberals have had delivering a streamlined, clear approval process. After more than two years, Industry and developers are still complaining of regulatory overlap and unreasonable delays. Municipalities, and front-line provincial staff, come in for much of the criticism.



Tough talk on youth crime mostly - and wisely - empty
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's much less than meets the eye to the Liberals' youth crime bill.
That doesn't mean the new law isn't useful. While politicians love bold initiatives - because we do - small, smart changes often make more sense.
The spin - dutifully reported - was that the new law would see more youths go to jail for doing bad things like trespassing on school grounds to recruit gang members or coerce kids into the sex trade.
The maximum penalty for those offences has been a fine or probation. Now the courts will be able to jail offenders for 30 days.
The government's news release, Solicitor General Rich Coleman and even Premier Gordon Campbell talked about getting tough with young offenders. Earnest reporters trotted off to make sure there would be enough jail space.
But the reality is that almost nothing has changed. Only a few more kids will likely go to jail - which is a good thing.
There's nothing wrong with the changes. They send a signal that certain offences are viewed seriously. There's a remote chance that they'll make some kids think twice, although that's not likely. The average 15-year-old offender is not great at considering consequences. If he was, he wouldn't be doing dangerous things.
And the changes give principals another weapon. If a problem youth won't stay away from the school - whether he's trespassing to get in a fight, sell drugs or just hang out - then school act charges could, in an extraordinary case, result in a few days in custody.
But it's going to be a mighty rare occurrence. All across B.C. only 51 trespassing charges were laid last year under the school act. (There are more than 1,800 schools.)
A few more charges may be laid. And a few youths may spend a couple of days in jail, when they're a real nuisance around a school and police can't figure out a way to make more serious charges stick. But charges will be scarce, and probation the norm.
That's good. Some youths need to be locked up because they're a danger to others. Some kids benefit from a few days in custody so people have a chance to try and help them.
But mostly kids who are locked up learn to be better criminals. That's why the number of youth in custody has fallen by 40 per cent in the last three years.
So if the bill's measures really represent only an almost insignificant, though useful change, why all the tough talk from the Liberals?
They've decided it's a good idea to be seen as tough on crime. That's why Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who does a good tough bit, did the talking about what was really Attorney General Geoff Plant's bill. That's why the news release talked about tougher penalties for kids who trespass on school property for gang activities or sexual exploitation, when really the penalties apply to all school trespass. Usually, it's drug dealing or picking fights that results in charges, not pimping.
It's a risky tactic. Practically, the public loses if our approach to crime is simplistic. It will take much more than tougher penalties to make communities safer. Most criminals don't think about the penalties first.
And politically, the Liberals are on thin ice. People are already worried about the effects of the government's policies on crime rates. And next year Coleman's ministry plans to cut $19 million - about eight per cent - from spending on policing and community safety. Probation officers will have larger caseloads, and supervision of people on house arrest will continue to be lax.
It was a good bill. The changes, although small, are useful.
But the Liberal spin was worrying. We don't need slogans about crime - from either the 'lock-em-up camp' or the 'it's-all-someone-else's-problem camp.'
It's going to take smart, complex - and in the short-term costly - programs to deal with our crime problem.
Footnote: The media - that's me - needs to take a look at our work on this one. Our crime reporting is consistently misleading, giving an overblown sense of the risk. Look around at your family; in B.C., they are 10 times more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed in some crime.

Liberals should come clean on welfare time limits
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If the Liberals' radical plan to chop people off welfare makes sense, why are they afraid of telling the truth about it?
B.C. is set to become the first province with mandatory time limits on welfare. If the government deems you employable, you will only be allowed to collect welfare for two years in any five-year period. The first people will hit the deadline April 1.
What will that mean? How many people will lose benefits, and what will become of them?
Human Resources Minister Murray Coell won't say.
He has the information. The ministry has built its budget on reducing the number of people on welfare, and plans to cut spending by $200 million next year. It has calculated how many people will hit the time limits.
But it's a secret. On documents obtained under the freedom of information act, the numbers are blanked out.
Coell won't provide the information. Instead he started a recent newspaper column by trashing people who had concerns about the plan. "People who are opposed to this government's time limits policy are really saying that they are in favour of 'welfare forever' for individuals who can work," the minister wrote.
It was bad enough when Coell talked such rubbish as he avoided questions in the legislature. We're used to such foolishness here. But it's insulting to be told that if you don't unquestioningly follow the Liberal line you're some sort of crazed spendthrift who wants to see people on welfare.
In fact there are important, legitimate questions about the Liberals' radical policy. Some leaked documents suggest 29,000 people will lose benefits, about half the welfare recipients deemed employable.
The government should provide its estimates. It should say how many people it expects to find work, and how many will leave the province. It should reveal how many will be be forced into homelessness.
And it should explain what will happen to a single parent who has received welfare for two years, is hired and then thrown out of work when the business closes. With no welfare or employment insurance, and no savings, what will become of her family while she seeks a new job?
Provinces, including B.C. under the NDP, have made welfare tougher to get. They have used a combination of incentives, job training and punitive measures to push people into the workforce.
That's a good thing. Welfare is a terrible and destructive way to live. Escaping - even for children growing up as welfare's next generation - is hugely difficult. Coell can take pride in successfully reducing the number of people on welfare since the election.
But the public needs straight answers about the coming time limits. Across Canada, if you can't find work and have no money, then you are helped. But now in B.C., if you use up your two years, then you fend for yourself. (Many recipients are exempted, including those with disabilities or multiple barriers to employment. If you have very young children, you won't be cut off, but benefits will be reduced.)
Coell says people who want jobs will be able to get them. The government is spending $75 million a year on job placement and training, he says, and contract agencies have 10,000 jobs waiting for welfare recipients.
Critics say the move will result in serious hardship. With a weak economy, unemployment over nine per cent and some 200,000 people already looking for work, job prospects are bleak for unskilled welfare recipients.
If the Liberals have a sound plan, based on realistic projections and an accurate assessment of the job market, they should come clean. Coell should explain where the needed jobs will come from, and who will be affected and how.
The fact that he is hiding the truth from the public raises serious doubts about whether the Liberal plan makes sense.
Footnote: About 20,000 people have moved from work to welfare in the first 28 months of the Liberal tenure, Coell says. That raises new questions about the likelihood that a greater number can find work in the coming 12 months. Communities and social agencies need to know how big the impact will be when the new rules kick in.


Join the campaign for bring-your-own wine
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, enough with the life-and-death matters of government, of tax cuts and health care and welfare.
Why can't we take our own bottle of wine to a local restaurant for dinner?
Albertans can, as of this week. The government looked at its liquor regulations and realized it was none of the state's business whether people could bring a bottle of wine into a restaurant.
The decision should be up to the restaurant owner, and the diner. There's no need for government red tape to set the rules, Alberta's Conservative government decided this month.
So tonight in Red Deer someone is going to stroll into their neighbourhood restaurant with a $9 bottle of B.C. red tucked under her arm, order a steak sandwich, and enjoy a dandy, low-cost meal. Here, that same bottle of wine will cost $20 or more.
Why not free choice for restaurant owner and diner here, in the land of deregulation, where red tape is to be pruned like so much ugly, tangled growth choking the life out of us?
That's your fault.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman is the man in charge of liquor regulations in the province. There doesn't seem to be any big public policy question involved, he says. Nobody has raised the BYOW issue, he says, so he hasn't given any thought to the idea of allowing British Columbians the freedom to bring their favourite wine to dinner out.
So let's raise it.
There's not a single legitimate argument to justify a role for government in dictating that outside wine is some toxic substance in restaurants, while a bottle plucked from a fat wine list is OK.
Many restaurants won't be keen on the change. Wine is an important profit centre, bringing in up to 20 per cent of revenue for full-service restaurants. Restaurants generally sell it for twice as much as the liquor store cost. Since there's no preparation, that's a tidy profit. Take that away, and food prices may rise, restaurants warn.
Maybe. But perhaps restaurants would find themselves just a little busier if dinner for two cost $25, not $50, because people would eat out more. Maybe those empty tables would be full, and the extra business would more than cover the lost wine revenue.
Or maybe not. But surely that's not government's problem. If I want to take a bottle of wine to dinner, and the people around the corner at Wonder Wok think that's OK, there's no reason the government should be bossing us around.
It's important to remember that the changes in Alberta don't force restaurants to let people bring in wine. The owner gets to decide. If owners value the mark-up, or think it important that the servers pair the right wines with different foods, they can just say no to outside wine.
But if they don't want to stock a wine cellar, or think more people would come if they could BYOW, then they can say yes. So far, many Alberta restaurants have made that decision. (Restaurants can charge a corkage fee for opening the bottle and providing the glasses.)
Alberta's not breaking new ground. Quebec restaurants have the option of having a wine list or letting customers bring their own. A whole segment of moderately priced, casual bring-your-own restaurants has sprung up.
But Alberta is going further, allowing restaurants to choose to serve their own wine while welcoming customers who bring their own. (Most U.S. states and many countries take the same approach.)
Restaurants and their customers get freedom of choice, wine stores pick up some more business, and red tape gets shredded. No wonder the Alberta government embraced the policy.
And surely the B.C. government would too, being just as ardent exponents of choice and free markets.
That leaves it up to you. Want the right to bring that special bottle to your anniversary dinner at the Club Cafe?
Tell Rich Coleman, and your MLA.
Footnote: Giving restaurants and diners freedom of choice would also be a nice gesture to the people who spent money planning and building private liquor stores believing the government was serious about getting out of the business. Now that the Liberals have abandoned that plan, the owners could use the chance to sell a few extra bottles of wine.

The old Campbell would have seen a conflict question
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - First day back in the legislature, and NDP leader Joy MacPhail raised what seemed to be a pretty good question.
As the Liberals were hard at work on their energy plan last year, they decided to hire some expert outside help to present it to the public. They turned - as the NDP had in the past - to National Public Relations' Vancouver office, and signed a $22,000 contract with Marcia Smith.
No harm there. In a perfect world governments would be able to handle these kind of things with the large gang of people on staff who charged with communicating with us. But in a perfect world I'd be smarter, too.
However only days before Energy Minister Richard Neufeld's department hired Smith, she had registered as a provincial lobbyist for the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Energy.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? There's not many people about to organize a counter group, the citizens for irresponsible energy.
But the coalition would be more accurately labelled the Canadian coalition of businesses worried about getting hurt by the Kyoto Accord, especially the oil and gas and coal industries. (There is no shame in being in that group; many good questions remain about the accord's approach to reducing greenhouse gases.)
Now those two jobs would strike many people as a problem. Smith was working for a special interest group to make sure it's anti-Kyoto Accord message was heard by the Liberal government. And then she's hired - at the same time - by the same government to develop a plan to explain their new energy policy to the public and stakeholders.
If it's me, and I'm sitting in my office on a grey Sunday morning putting the finishing touches on the communications plan, I'm going to wonder - did I add this sentence because it's the best for the government, or best for the companies that I'm lobbying for?
And even if I'm sure I've kept the roles separate, I'm going to wonder how this would look.
Neufeld ignored the questions, just filled in the time with a lot of blather about how great the Liberals are and how bad the New Democrats were. If you asked your kid a simple question and they answered with a lot of self-serving irrelevancies and ignored the real issue entirely, you'd wonder where you'd gone wrong. In Question Period, it's par for the course.
But an hour later Premier Gordon Campbell did a rare session with reporters in the waiting room outside his office and faced the issue.
He didn't see a problem, the premier said.
But couldn't the public wonder at the impartiality of a consultant drafting a plan to emphasize some parts of the energy policy and downplay others, who was also being paid to influence government energy policy? Couldn't it make people nervous to know that a person registered to lobby for an industry group was getting an advance look at the policy?
No, said the premier, and anyway the lobbying was about the Kyoto Accord, not energy.
But surely the province couldn't have developed an energy policy without considering the Kyoto Accord?
"Absolutely," said Campbell. Kyoto didn't even figure in the energy policy.
Anyway, he added, it's not the government's problem. The contract says it's up to the consultant to tell the government of any potential conflicts. The government is clean.
Here's how to figure out who's right, Campbell or MacPhail.
Cast your mind back a few years, and imagine it came to light that the NDP government had hired a consultant to help launch a new labour law policy. And imagine that it turned out the same consultant was being paid to lobby on behalf of the a group of big unions on the same issue.
I'm guessing Gordon Campbell would have found something wrong about that.
Footnote: Give the Liberals full credit in one area. The issue arose because they passed a law requiring lobbyists to register and disclose who they're working for, on what issues and who they're contacting in government. The lobbyist registry was an important step forward in accountability and openness, and the government deserves full marks for putting it in place.


Who sent a Canadian citizen to a Syrian jail?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A Canadian citizen is snatched by U.S. police while changing planes in New York. The Americans send him to Jordan, then Syria, against his will. He spends a year in jail without being charged, facing a secret trial. Then he's returned to Canada without explanation.
And our government, the people who are supposed to be protecting Canadians from abuse, wants to keep the circumstances -- including its role -- a deep, dark secret.
Maher Arar was on his way back to his Ottawa home from a Tunisian holiday when he was arrested in New York and sent to the Mideast. American police or the CIA apparently considered him a suspected terrorist.
But what's supposed to happen in such cases that the Americans can either hold a suspect, if they have charges, or deport him to Canada.
So why was Arar, a software engineer, sent to Syria, locked up for a year and separated from his wife and two young children without any charge? What role did the Canadian government and the RCMP play in the affair? And now that he's released -- having missed a year of his childrens' lives while languishing in a Syrian jail -- what justification was there for the snatching of a Canadian citizen by three foreign governments?
None of your business, says the federal government. He's back in one piece, so just drop it. (I'm paraphrasing.)
It's not just Arar who wants answers. MPs from all parties have been trying to find out how and why this happened, and what role the Canadian government played.
They especially want to know whether the RCMP set Arar up, sharing intelligence with the U.S. that led to his imprisonment. (But not to any supportable charges.)
That seems a reasonable question.
But Solicitor General Wayne Easter won't answer the MPs' questions. "Aren't you as mad as a wet hen that [United States officials] took a Canadian citizen and sent him to a Syrian gulag?" Liberal MP John Harvard demanded at a foreign affairs committee meeting this week.
Easter isn't mad. He stonewalled the committee. Discussing RCMP operational matters could compromise continuing investigations, he said. That's the same non-answer RCMP assistant commissioner Richard Proulx tried when he appeared before the committee.
MPs -- again, including Liberal MPs -- wanted to know what role the RCMP played in the arrest and whether they had told the Americans to grab Arar and send him to a Mideast jail. Proulx wouldn't answer. I'm the police, you're just MPs. Beat it. (I'm paraphrasing again.)
Prime Minister Jean Chretien said pretty much the same thing. "Every time that we have a problem in government we cannot have an inquiry on everything," he said.
A problem in government? A Canadian citizen is snatched and transported to Syria against his will, with no charges and no hearing, no access to a lawyer. He's questioned by the CIA, and his own government is denied access to him.
The rule of international law, and basic principles of human rights, were tossed aside.
Canadians deserve answers. Did the RCMP play a role in Arar's detention by the U.S.? They won't say, but the Americans say they grabbed Arar because of information provided by Canadian police.
Did the Canadian government play a role in having Arar sent to Syria -- the country he left 17 years ago as a teen? Was there an attempt to get around Canadian law, where some evidence is required before a person is arrested, by conspiring with the U.S. and Syria?
MPs from all parties haven't been able to get the answers to those questions, stonewalled by police and federal ministers.
The only solution left is a full, independent inquiry.
Our laws hold us all responsible for our actions. They are also intended to protect us from abuse by our governments.
Canadians need to know whether the government decided a citizen's rights didn't matter in this case.
Footnote: The Arar case also highlights the drift in Ottawa, where Chretien and Paul Martin are both acting like prime ministers, with the result that neither is really accountable for the decisions now being made. Chretien's desire to stay in power until February looks increasingly destructive.

BC Liberals, NDP get warning from Ontario vote
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Both the NDP and the Liberals in B.C. could take a lesson from the Ontario election.
Voters turfed out the Conservative party, choosing to place spending on health, education and infrastructure ahead of tax cuts.
The Ontario Conservatives have been frequently cited as an example of how things should be done by the Campbell Liberals. Mike Harris took power promising a "common sense revolution," which would include big tax cuts and spending reductions.
Eight years later, his party is gone.
There's lots of factors - this is, after all, Canadian politics. Harris was succeeded by Ernie Eves, who was unable to convince voters he was equipped to lead. The Conservatives bungled some critical issues, like power deregulation and privatization.
But the debate over tax cuts, and the kind of society people wanted, was central to the campaign. The Conservatives went to the voters promising more tax cuts - a reduction of corporate tax worth about $550 million, savings for seniors and homeowners and people who send their kids to private schools.
It was a similar message to their promises in the last two elections, based on the same premise - that tax cuts will boost the economy, and that voters' priority is on keeping money in their own wallets.
It didn't work.
That doesn't mean that voters don't like saving money. But the Liberals successfully argued that public spending isn't bad, if it is used to deliver needed services in an effective way.
And they found a receptive audience. For the past couple of years there has been a growing sense in Ontario that the things that residents were once proud of - quality health care, good public schools, parks, clean cities, opportunities for children - were deteriorating. Talk to Ontario residents, or read their papers, and you heard of mounting concern about health care waiting lists. People noted that schools - once well-maintained and a centre of community pride - were now dirty, with scruffy yards and unpainted buildings, because there wasn't enough money.
They simply decided that they were willing to pay taxes to see those services maintained. And they didn't buy the argument that further tax cuts would generate any economic benefits. The Conservatives dropped from 59 seats to 24; the Liberals went from 35 to 72.
It's an important lesson for the BC Liberals.
The Campbell government's focus is firmly on cutting spending. The government needs to cut more than $850 million from this year's programs to meet the goal of a balanced budget by next year. And they are in a tight enough bind that the quality and value of services matters much less than the arbitrary budget deadline.
And that is the kind of government that Ontario voters rejected.
But the BC NDP, as they head toward a leadership convention next month, can also learn from Ontario.
Voters didn't take the NDP seriously or believe that the party had a credible plan for governing. The Ontario New Democrats focused on public ownership of power generation as a key issue. It wasn't enough for voters, who elected only seven MLAs - not enough for official party status in the larger legislature. (Barely a decade ago Ontario had an NDP government. The party's descent to fringe status is quite remarkable.)
The bottom line lesson is that the voters wanted a balanced government. They rejected the tax cuts before people policies of the Conservatives. And they rejected the NDP's record of bad management.
Instead they elected a government that pledged to improve schools and health care and strengthen communities, and promised to do that without major tax increases or deficits. Voters rejected the notion that tax cuts are more important than the quality of services.
The situation is different here. There is no centrist party at this point, just two choices occupying their own far sides of the spectrum.
But parties have a way of emerging, when there's a political vacuum to fill.
Footnote: The Ontario Liberals - like the Campbell government - are committed to a referendum on electoral reform. They received fewer than half the votes, but ended up with 70 per cent of the seats. The Conservatives captured a third of the vote, but elected fewer than one-quarter of the MLAs.

Treaty optimism great hope for B.C. economy
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Newish treaty commissioner Mike Harcourt sounds pretty optimistic about the next couple of years.
But let's face it, he's a positive guy. You can't dispute the upbeat credentials of a man who falls down a cliff, almost drowns and then makes an amazing recovery from serious injuries. The former NDP premier is a walking example of the power of positive thinking.
He's right this time. The BC Treaty Commission presented its 10th annual report this week, the most upbeat I've covered. (That's not saying much, of course. The last few years have been gloomy.)
For one thing, there's some real progress this year. Harcourt noted that two agreements in principle have been ratified, and three others are almost there.
OK, it's not exactly a stunning success after 10 years and some $500 million spent on the process. Agreements in principle are a forward step, but they don't address many of the key issues, which have been left for talks on a final agreement.
But in the context of the treaty process, this is cause for celebration.
It's not just the agreements in principle. Harcourt says the parties - the federal government, provincial government and First Nations - are making progress on some of the bigger, tougher issues.
The Liberals' willingness to work towards interim agreements, on everything from revenue sharing to economic development to resource management, is allowing some measure of certainty and progress even when treaty talks are stalled.
And the Liberals - after a shakey start with their ill-advised referendum (ill-advised is column code for dumb) - have provided more resources to negotiators, and a more relaxed set of instructions about what they can do at the table.
We should be celebrating any progress. The lack of treaties is probably the greatest single barrier to economic development in much of the province. The courts have ruled that until they're are treaties, then government and private companies have a duty to engage, consult and accommodate First Nations before undertaking any activities in their traditional areas.
That's possible, of course, But it's all cumbersome and costly, and anyone contemplating a big investment, in a tourism resort or a mine or a mill, will likely look instead to a jurisdiction where the rules are clear and the zoning and regulations in place. Why spend money on planning and negotiations, with no guarantee of a successful outcome?
The treaty commission annual report quotes a 1999 study by Grant Thornton Management Consultants that found signing treaties will be worth something like $4 billion to $5 billion in economic activity, and would result in more than twice as much in new investment.
So it's good news that progress is finally being made.
But don't get too excited, too quickly. Harcourt also warned that a lot can go wrong.
Part of the reason for the recent progress is that the parties just decided to give up on including some of the toughest issues in preliminary agreements, leaving them to be resolved in the talks towards a final treaty. Agreements in principle are sorting out cash and land compensation, and some economic issues. But thorny problems like the extent of First Nations' political independence, compensation for resources taken in the past and certainty still remain.
Harcourt says they can all be dealt with, and some final treaties can be in place within 18 months - if the parties have the political will and determination.
That's a pretty big qualification. All three parties have shown themselves unable to get deals done in the past. First Nations negotiators have signed deals, only to have their communities turn them down.
And it's important to remember that most of the more than 40 negotiating tables are still far from reaching any sort of agreement.
Still, after years of disappointment, there is reason for hope on the treaty front.
And that's worth celebrating by all British Columbians.
Footnote: The commission was critical of provincial and federal governments on a couple of issues. B.C.'s unilateral offer to the Haida - long before treaty talks ahd reached that stage - have disrupted other talks, Harcourt said. And excluding First Nations from a federal-provincial task force on fisheries was a mistake that should be fixed, the commission said.



Desperate Kitimat forced to court over Alcan-Liberal pact
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It all looks rather embarrassing, the way a succession of B.C. governments have messed up their dealings with Alcan over the Kemano power project.
Unless you live in Kitimat, or Terrace. Then it's not embarrassing, it's infuriating.
I followed the Kitimat River into the aluminum town this month, a beautiful drive from Terrace. The town was laid out in the '50s, a planned community built from scratch for Alcan's work force, showcasing the best and worst in town planning of the era.
But Kitimat's got worries. About one in 10 residents have left the community in the last five years. That exodus - along with concern about the future of the town's industrial base - has driven down real estate prices and hurt small business. Tax assessments are down 40 per cent, a loss in real estate value that works out to about $20,000 a resident.
And Mayor Richard Wozney and council figure the province is letting a chance to ensure the town's future slip away.
Kitimat was born more than 50 years ago. Alcan wanted a smelter; B.C. wanted jobs in the northwest. So to get Alcan to build the smelter, the provincial government handed over the right to generate power by diverting the headwaters of the Nechako River. The company carved a tunnel through a mountain and sent the water racing to the Pacific, and had itself a dirt-cheap source of power.
The 1950 contract, and legislation authorizing the deal, were clear. The power was to be used to smelt aluminum, or for other industrial enterprises "in the vicinity of the works."
And that's the way it worked for decades.
Then in the 1990s, Alcan was allowed to sell power ' surplus to its needs.'
And in 2001, when the California crisis hit, the company was selling power - very profitably - while operating the smelter at 65 per cent capacity.
That's when people got nervous in Kitimat, and started lobbying the provincial government.
Town manager Trafford Hall says no one is mad at Alcan. The company's loyalty is to shareholders. If it can make more money by shifting aluminum production to Quebec and selling the B.C. power, then that's what it will try and do. The company is just interpreting the contract to its own benefit, pushing a little and setting precedents each time the province doesn't push back, he says.
Alcan sees it differently, arguing that it is not violating the agreements. The ability to sell surplus electricity helps protect the viability of the mill, it says.
And the Liberal government agrees. Attorney General Geoff Plant says government has reviewed all the agreements since 1950, and concluded that Alcan isn't breaking the rules.
Anyway, tangling with the company could be risky, he adds. Alcan filed a massive lawsuit when the NDP cancelled the Kemano Completion Project, which would have increased power production. The NDP and Alcan reached a settlement in 1997, but Alcan kept its option to sue. Pushing the power sale issue could lead to Alcan relaunching its lawsuit, Plant says.
But Plant hasn't provided any legal opinions or analysis to support his claim that the agreement isn't being broken. And it's tough for the community to hear that avoiding a lawsuit - due in part to a previous government's incompetence - means their interests get short shrift.
Lobbying hasn't worked. Now Kitimat is preparing to go to court to argue that the contracts are being broken, the province isn't acting, and a judge should review the entire case.
It shouldn't be necessary. But it's hard to see an alternative. The original agreement with Alcan gave up a valuable public resource in return for a major investment, with a clear requirement that electricity be used to benefit the region.
If some government has quietly changed the deal, the public is owed a clear explanation of when and why.
Footnote: Alcan released an economic study it paid for this month in response to the community's concerns. It warned of continued job losses at the town's big three employers, and said the community needed more entrepreneurs. And, the study added unsurprisingly, everyone should be nicer to Alcan to encourage investment.

Two choices. Adrienne Clarkson and the odd attitude of the province's college of physicians and surgeons. Both 650 words, with footnote to take them to 710 or so.
Cheers
Paul

Clarkson's Great White North tour out of line
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Much that's wrong with this country can be found in Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's million-dollar junket to Russia, Finland and Iceland.
I almost didn't write about the 19-day trip with 59 "talented Canadians." Too easy, I thought. But then some of the usual Upper Canadian suspects started defending the Great White North tour as a modest and reasonable initiative by a charming and stylish governor general.
Modest? The price tag will be more than $1 million, or about $900 per person each day.
The justification for the trip is that Canadians share a bond with other people who live in cold countries, and some good will come of sending some of our smart people to talk to their smart people.
Or, as Clarkson says: "By bringing these talented Canadians to help us represent Canada we will engage Russians, Finns and Icelanders in a vigorous exchange of ideas and culture affirming and strengthening our shared northern identity."
I have no idea what that means. And I certainly don't know how sending failed Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae and his writer wife on a trip to Russia is a worthwhile way to spend your money.
In fact, how the heck can anyone justify a Northern identity junket in which only 10 of 60 people actually live in the North? Almost half the group comes from Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal; fully one-quarter come from the remote Northern outpost of Toronto.
I'm sure they're fine folks. But why are you paying so Clarkson can take seven wine experts with her to Finland and Iceland? Why should you send soprano Measha Brueggergosman and architect Howard Sutcliffe off to some nice hotels and fine dinners, when you're probably trying to figure out how to pay for a weekend away?
You may wonder why the politicians are so silent on this issue. Perhaps it's because they're going along. Victoria MP David Anderson is heading a group of senators and MPs going along on the trip. Foreign junkets are a regular perk for MPs who further the cause of world democracy by heading off to some pleasant country for 10 days on your bill.
It's not wrong to send Canadians abroad - if there is a clear, useful purpose, and a justification for the guest list.
But this trip fails the sniff test. Clarkson is taking her spouse, John Ralston Saul. Eight other married couples are on the guest list, adding to the impression the jaunt is as much a holiday as a working trip on behalf of Canada.
It's not a lot of money, in the context of the federal government.
But symbols matter, especially in this case. The role of the Governor General is symbolic, a representative of the Queen who can graciously hand out awards, help communities celebrate milestones and generally make Canadians feel better about who we are.
This trip is also a symbol. Clarkson has picked 60 people much like her - affluent people, largely from the Toronto-Ottawa corridor, mainly from the arts and gentle left. (One Albertan is going along, a composer from Calgary; six British Columbians are on board.) They are heading off on a dream trip, with no clearly articulated purpose, at someone else's expense.
It's not what Canadians expect. And it sends a message that the people in charge in Ottawa don't really care much about what we do expect.
Under Clarkson's hand, the budget for the governor general has climbed from $11 million to almost $19 million. A Parliamentary committee had talked about examining the spending, but Liberal members are shying away.
That's too bad. We don't need witchhunts that seize on big expense accounts and kick the spender around.
But we do need to know that our money is being spent wisely and carefully. The fact that this trip doesn't meet that test justifies a closer look at the governor general's $19 million budget.



Who owes patients protection from bad doctors?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It doesn't feel me with confidence to hear the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons argue that it has no responsibility to protect individual patients from dangerous doctors.
The college agrees it has a role in protecting the public. But not in protecting people, the college argues. Not people like the 19 women who are suing over sexual abuse by a Campbell River doctor.
The 19 women are suing Dr. Mark Stewart, who was sentenced to four years in jail for sexual assaults on patients. They're also suing the college, prepared to argue that the college was recklessly negligent in dealing with past complaints, and that its failures led to the women being abused.
The evidence remains to be heard in court. But before that could happen, the college applied to be dropped from the suit. No professional regulating body had ever been sued in this way, its lawyer argued. Allowing such lawsuits would make it impossible for the college to do its job of regulating the medical profession, and anyway the college is charged with the protection of the public, but isn't responsible for protecting individuals. Even if the college was negligent in dealing with bad or abusive doctors, it's immune from legal action, they argued.
Madame Justice Lynn Smith didn't agree. Requiring the college to act in good faith in dealing with allegations of abuse by doctors doesn't compromise its ability to protect the public and the rights of doctors.
You could suggest, I suppose, that this is an other one of those cases of judicial activism that people like to grumble about. If it is, it's a case to be celebrated.
It doesn't seem too much to expect, that the college - which has all the authority for regulating doctors, and hearing complaints - would accept responsibility for the job it's doing.
The ruling - and the college's argument its role doesn't include protecting patients - brought to mind a report earlier this year by provincial Ombudsman Howard Kushner.
Looking at 10 years of investigations into complaints about the college and other professional regulatory bodies, he said they often just don't get it.
"They still believe, perhaps because it is the members who elect the governors and pay for the colleges' operations, that the colleges are primarily there to protect the interests of the members."
That's an especially alarming because the Liberals have chopped the Ombudsman's budget. The office will no longer be able to investigate complaints about how the colleges do their jobs, Kushner reported.
And the case also brought to mind the government's readiness to blow up the College of Teachers, arguing that it had paid too much attention to the concerns of its members and not enough to the need to serve students. (A legitimate criticism, and one that required action - although not such extreme action as the government's radical overhaul.
The college is taking steps to improve its work in protecting patients. The college announced earlier this year that it will set up a web site to allow patients to see the doctor they are considering visiting has faced disciplinary action in the past, and what for. (The college sends out news releases of disciplinary decisions right now, but it remains difficult for most patients to get the information.)
It's a laudable idea, one that gives patients information they should have.
But it also comes six years after the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons provided the same service to patients in that province.
The court case should raise renewed concerns about the cuts to the Ombudsman's budget, and the college's view of its role.
When the college regulating doctors doesn't even see that it has a responsibility to individual patients, then the public needs a watchdog.
And at the same time, we owe a debt to the courts for insisting that the college face up to its responsibilities to patients.
Footnote: The plan to take over the college of teachers has run into a snag, as thousands of teachers threaten to withhold the membership fees that support the organization. If you're not a member, you can't legally teach in B.C., but school districts can hardly fire protesters if numbers are too great.

Collins' gloomy economic forecast should make you nervous
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - As the boss, you should be a little worried about Gary Collins' first quarter financial report.
After all, you write the cheques. When the finance minister shows up to report on the progress for the first three months of this budget year, it's your approval he needs.
In a past corporate life I used to go through this process, both as a presenter, putting the best face on often ugly news, and as an audience, waiting to see how much confidence I could have in the brave plans of managers.
I wouldn't be calling in the outplacement counsellors to help Collins pursue other interests yet. But it is time to get nervous.
Too many things have gone wrong. The Liberals knocked down their forecast for economic growth this year and next when they presented the latest update. The economy is now expected to grow 1.5 per cent this year, down from the 2.4 per cent the government predicted back in February. B.C. will have the worst performing economy in Canada.
There has been a ton of bad luck - SARS and mad cow scares, a soaring dollar, and of course the softwood dispute.
But the prolonged softwood shouldn't have been a shock. And other provinces have confronted many of the same issues, and done better than B.C.
And anyway, you don't hire managers to tell you that things have gone wrong - well, except for accountants - you hire them to fix things.
Here are three things that should concern you in Collins' report.
First, and most importantly, the government's economic measures are not producing results. The New Era of prosperity isn't here, and the government's own projections have B.C. limping along at the Canadian average through 2007. Politicians can cherry pick statistics and trot out all the upbeat anecdotes they like. The fact is that the B.C. is under-performing.
Second, the prospects for a quick recovery look slim. The first quarter reforecast knocked personal income tax revenues down from budget, because we aren't earning as much. And it says the shortfalls will be greater over the following two years. The same pattern is true for sales tax. We don't have the money to spend the Liberals expected.
And third, the Liberals' promise to bring in a balanced budget in six months is looking risky.
They'll make it. Give Collins credit - he has hit all his targets so far, and there's no reason to doubt him when he says he'll hit this one. But missing the target isn't the only risk.
The government's plan called for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. But that included a $500-million cushion, and before the forest fires a real deficit that was up to $1 billion lower was likely.
Not now. Moving from a $2.3-billion deficit to a balanced budget in one jump will require a big jump in revenues, or a sharp decline in expenses. The plan calls for revenue to jump by $1 billion next year, a steep but doable target.
The Liberals also want to cut spending by $850 million. Every ministry, outside health and education, must spend less than it did this year. Even the solicitor general's ministry, concerned with safety and emergency preparedness, faces a 20-per-cent cut.
Even hitting those targets leaves the government with a razor-thin surplus, and no cushion for emergencies like this year's $500 million forecast allowance.
It can be done. But the danger is that the poor economic performance - the Liberals' original plans predicted much higher growth and revenues - are going to force dangerous cuts, made not because they make sense but because an artificial political deadline looms.
You're the boss. It might be time to congratulate the finance minister on managing to the budget. But it also might be time to note the lack of real results.
After all, that's what managers get paid for.
Footnote: The Vancouver missing women's case has now cost you something like $40 million. The investigation - mostly at the Pickton farm - will cost $26 million this year, on top of more than $10 million last year. Trial costs are expected to reach another $4 million this year. How much would it have cost to keep them alive, instead of sifting through dirt to learn about their deaths?

No stars, but credible candidates at NDP debates
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, so the heavens didn't open and send down a golden shaft of light to illuminate a new leader who could guide the NDP out of the wilderness.
But at least there's a decent roster of candidates offering a chance for the drifting New Democrats to redefine themselves.
Seven candidates are ready for a series of debates around the province, events which will actually matter. There's no star, and Gordon Campbell isn't going to be in panic about any of the candidates. (Although those chants of 'Orcherton, Orcherton' from the premier's office may indicate who they would like to face in 2005.)
Who cares, you might ask?
You should. One party states tend not to be a good thing. And given the way we flail around in this province, the New Democrats could be elected just because we get mad at the Liberals. We should at least make sure they're not clueless.
Any one of five candidates has some sort of shot at winning. It's early days, and their policies, positions and personal qualities will become clearer, or fuzzier.
Left and right don't really work anymore as useful labels. But you can parse this race on the basis of how far the candidates want to run from what the NDP used to be. (What was that? Some would say a reckless, incompetent government that rewarded its friends; others would say a government committed to economic development and social opportunity. I'd say both.)
Put Steve Orcherton at the 'hey, we did OK camp.' He was an MLA in the Clark government, one of a small group that never made it into cabinet. He's proud of the record, and favours an interventionist government to take from the rich and give to the poor, with close ties to unions and a special place for them in the party.
Put Nils Jensen at the other end. He joined the party when he launched his leadership bid and figures the NDP needs a fresh, centrist start. Jensen's a Crown prosecutor and Oak Bay councillor. He's also the chair of the water board here in Victoria, a group that always seems to lean towards zealotry on the conservation side.
Jensen looks like a surprisingly strong candidate right now. He's toured much of the province already, and got more positive attention for the NDP than all the other candidates put together. The best way to get any job is to start doing it and wait for people to notice. That's working so far for Jensen.
In between, there's Leonard Krog, a Nanaimo MLA in the Harcourt government who has lost out in several election tries since. He's more centrist than Orcherton, and likely more competent. But his endorsement by former ministers Dale Lovick and Jan Pullinger, a warning label to many New Democrats.
Carole James is probably closer to Jensen. James is a widely respected former Victoria school board trustee and chair of the BC School Trustees Association. She now lives in Prince George. James lost a Victoria seat by 35 votes in the last election. She has decent credentials, but it remains to be seen if they are the right preparation for political leadership.
And Craig Keating, the North Vancouver councillor, also tends to be in the new directions camp.
It's a decent field, competing for what is a pretty bad job. No seat, little budget, bleak electoral prospects, a millstone-like record to lug around. It's hardly a golden opportunity.
Maybe that will turn out to be a plus. In the last NDP race, when there was the chance to be premier - even briefly - thousands of instant New Democrats signed up and the contest approached farce.
This time, about 13,000 core members have the chance to give some thought to what kind of party makes sense for the province.
Footnote: Unions are still going to be big players in this process. About 30 per cent of the delegate slots at the November leadership convention will be reserved for union-appointed voters. The rest will be selected at constituency association meetings.


It's doomed, but offer to Haida still a good move
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Just because the Haida immediately dumped on the province's surprise treaty offer doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Attorney General Geoff Plant caught everyone off guard when he called reporters down to his office to offer the Haida control of 2,000 square kilometres in the Queen Charlottes - if they come back to the treaty table.
It won't happen. The Haida broke off talks eight years ago. Last year they launched a suit in BC Supreme Court claiming all the islands and resources around them. The head of the council of the Haida Nation quickly rejected the offer as "mischief."
Plant says it's a serious offer, and a generous one. The 3,700 Haida would get ownership of 100,000 hectares and partial control of a further 100,000 hectares.
That sounds good, especially given the Haida's current land base of about 1,700 hectares. But the Haida are claiming five times as much land as the government has offered. And they're not in a bad position, legally and politically, to be optimistic about the eventual results of their lawsuit.
Meanwhile, most of the pressure is on the province. The BC Court of Appeal ruled last year that the government hasn't been fulfilling its duty to consult and accommodate the Haida on logging issues. Licence-holder Weyerhaeuser has agreed to cut its timber harvest in half, until a long-term plan is in place.
That's a lot of lost jobs. Add in the investment chill created by the uncertainty over ownership, the province's inability to get land use decisions made, and the Haida's ability to create problems for existing operators, and you have a major headache for the government.
That headache escalates to four-alarm status when you start considering the Liberals' big hopes for an offshore oil and gas industry by 2010. Oil companies have made it clear that a resolution of First Nations issues has to happen before they even look seriously at the offshore potential.
The province is appealing the B.C. ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that's likely one factor in this surprise offer. The courts have said that negotiation is the preferred way to resolve treaty disputes. If the Supreme Court decides either side hasn't been willing to make a reasonable effort at negotiation, that could hurt their case.
This offer probably counts as a reasonable effort. It's undercut - badly - by the lack of federal participation. B.C. has put up land, but Plant says the government never asked the federal government to put forward any monetary proposal. But the offer still signals a willingness to resume talks.
Why aren't the Haida interested? Guujaw, head of the Haida council, says the offer falls far short of what they're claiming. (That is to say, everything.)
That's an unreasonable expectation - about one-third of the Charlotte land is privately owned. But they have a good claim for a big chunk of land, given that no treaty was signed and most of the land is available. It's a question of ownership, and the Haida have a strong, clean claim.
The province isn't just dangling the land offer as bait; it's also wielding a stick. Plant says the offer is good for six months. After that, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
"If we're not able to get the treaty process started meaningfully with the Haida then we are going to look for ways to more enthusiastically assert our ability to make land use decisions to restore access to the land base," Plant says. If the Haida disagree with the government's actions, they can head back to court. (That's risky, especially for government, which faces the prospect of damaging losses in future court cases, direct action on the ground and international boycotts.)
Plant's offer is still a good move, with more positives than negatives. The government signalled its willingness to negotiate to the Haida, the public and the courts. That can't hurt; there's a small chance it could help. And in the world of negotiations, that makes it worth a try.
Footnote: The latest development is a reminder of how distant the prospect of offshore oil and has development remains. Oil companies looking at the opposition of federal Environment Minister David Anderson and the land claim problems are going to keep B.C.'s offshore far down their priority list.

Learning from the fires: what happens next
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A friend called from Kelowna, 12 hours before the fires swept through more than 200 homes. He is middle-aged, calm; his home was in no danger.
But the awe and fear in his voice came through the phone line. The sight of the flames against the night sky had shaken him.
As I write this the fires have eased, at least briefly. It's time to begin considering what comes next.
There's been an obvious financial impact on the government, and the people of the province.
Firefighting costs will top $200 million this week, and have been climbing at up to $7 million per day. On top of those costs, emergency aid has cost about $30 million so far, and is running about $1 million a day.
The government had budgeted $55 million for firefighting this year, so Finance Minister Gary Collins has an obvious problem.
He says the province still has the flexibility to deal with the overruns. There's a $170-million contingency fund, intended to cover all the unexpected spending by ministries. Collins has also set aside a $500-million 'forecast allowance,' a super cushion to let the government come in on budget even if things go wrong.
But the contingency fund, for all ministries for an entire year, is gone before the fiscal year is half over. And a big bite will be taken out of the forecast allowance.
The budget calls for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. Given Collins' conservatism, most observers would have expected the target to be beaten by more than $500 million. That looks much less likely.
The other question is how badly the fires will hurt the economy. Some 3,000 forest workers are off the job already, barred from tinder dry woods. Sawmills are running out of logs, and unless the situation improves the job losses could mount with each week. (The fear of lost production has pushed up prices, so mills in other areas should be more profitable.)
Tourism is taking an immediate hit. People who planned a houseboat trip on the Shuswap are hesitating. Americans considering a trip to B.C. are staying home. That's business that won't be recaptured.
The larger question is whether there will be a lasting impact on tourists who fear that B.C. has become a less attractive destination. A special tourist marketing campaign will be needed to cope with the fallout from SARS and the fires.
So far, the focus has been on fighting the fires and helping the dispossessed. Desperate people have celebrated the efforts of firefighters and the visits by politicians.
But once the smoke has cleared, an independent inquiry is badly needed.
Fires are part of life in a forested province, where people want to live among the trees. But B.C. has been much less active in clearing fallen trees and other wood waste from forest floors than other jurisdictions. The province's auditor general warned two years ago that years of successful efforts to reduce small fires had allowed a dangerous concentration of fuel, setting the stage for much large blazes.
And he warned that B.C. was ill-prepared, offering a number of specific recommendations to avert disaster, or at least reduce its cost.
Progress on his recommendations has been slow. Even Liberal MLAs complained a year ago that too little was being done by the government. (For example, Solicitor General Rich Coleman created a provincial fire department in response to these blazes; the auditor general warned two years ago that such a change was needed.)
Along with the inquiry, there will have to be extraordinary help for the people and communities involved. The federal and provincial governments have a disaster relief formula. But finding homes for hundreds of families and helping communities cope with lost infrastructure will strain the normal programs.
Fires, even terribly damaging fires, may be part of life in B.C. But we need to be sure that we are doing everything reasonable to manage the risk. And independent inquiry will help make sure that happens.
Footnote: The first political pressure point will likely be compensation. Premier Gordon Campbell says the province will ease a policy which denies compensation to people who could have bought insurance, but expect some conflict.

Sometimes people just die and it's not a medical crisis
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time we thought a little harder about how significant it is that 4,000 people died in France during a heat wave, or that eight people died in a Surrey nursing home after a 'SARS-like virus' struck.
People get edgy if you suggest some deaths matter more than others.
But they do.
Take the emergence of a mysterious virus at the Kinsmen Place Lodge in Surrey. Eleven people have died since the outbreak began six weeks ago, out of about 150 people at the home. That sounds pretty serious.
But in a typical month at the lodge, four or five people die. The residents are old, and many are unwell. The number of deaths even potentially linked to the disease is smaller than it may appear.
The normal rate of five deaths a month means 60 people die at the facility in a normal year. The average lifespan for someone admitted to the lodge is thus something like 2.5 years.
And that means that the three additional deaths in recent weeks have resulted in something like 7.5 years of life lost.
That's not a measurement most of us use, although actuaries, insurance companies and public health officials are all keenly interested. But we should. A disease that claims healthy young victims robs them of decades; an infection in a nursing home that strikes the most vulnerable may simply mean death comes a few months early.
I'm not questioning the significance of the loss for the families involved.
But it's a matter of math. Car crashes among 15 to 24 year olds claimed 85 British Columbians in 2000, with an average loss of 55 years of expected life for each victim. Three extra deaths mean something like 155 years of life lost. Those deaths are more significant -- for society, the economy, family.
The equation will be much the same in France, where the government -- and families -- has been much criticized for the deaths of up to 5,000 people in the current heat wave, many of them elderly or sick.
If there has been neglect, or a failure to act, then that is shameful. If there are public health lessons to learn, we should heed them.
But we should also be open to the possibility that for many victims, already weakened, death within months was almost certain. The heat wave may have advanced the end, but not by much.
That doesn't mean, again, that we should do nothing about the illness or environmental problems that kill the old and the sick. Life has value, at 90 or at nine.
But it doesn't have equal value, especially given the limit on available resources and the apparently inexhaustible supply of new, costly treatments.
We are all going to die. By the time we are somewhere like the Surrey lodge, we are going to die fairly soon. And it's time to shed the notion that all deaths, or illnesses, call for the same response.
We aren't close to coming to that realization. A major U.S. study found that 27 per cent of health care expenditures in California and Massachusetts went towards patients in the final 12 months of their lives.
The figure for B.C. is similar, which means about $2.7 billion will be spent on 28,000 people who will die in the next year, or $100,000 each. The average expense for the rest of us will be about $2,100 each.
That's not necessarily wrong, if the spending is wise, bringing comfort to a person's final months or a real chance of success.
But the same study found one in eight patients over 85, with cancer unresponsive to chemotherapy, had received the costly and unpleasant treatment in the last three months of their lives.
To what end?
It's not our job to consign people to death once they pass a certain age.
But it is our job to make intelligent, rational decisions about how we try to deal with the real world of health challenges, whether it's in a Surrey nursing home or a Paris apartment.

Liberals' new care rates for seniors fair
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' implementation might be a little harsh, but there's nothing wrong with their plan to increase the cost for seniors in residential care.
Not everyone sees it that way. Some seniors organizations have reacted angrily to fee increases that will hit more than 7,000 people in long-term care, dinging them for an average increase of $2,360 a year.
About 1,000 people at the top end of the income scale will see their costs jump by 30 per cent. The accommodation, board and care that have been costing $1,520 a month will suddenly jump to almost $2,000.
That is too big a jump, even given the five-month notice the government has provided. It would have been fairer to cap the increases at 10 per cent, and phase them in. Few of us could cope with a 30-per-cent increase in our living costs, at a time when our income is fixed. (Though fees haven't increased since 1997.)
But the basic principle behind the increase is sound, and the new rates don't seem unfair.
About 25,000 people live in government-supported residential care facilities, which provide more support than an assisted-care facility and less than a hospital. They pay a fee based on their income, and get 24-hour nursing care, room, board and recreational programs.
About three-quarters of them won't face any increase. People with gross income under $18,000 pay $825 now, and most have very little left over for any other expenses. They won't pay more until 2004, when the government plans to start levying annual hikes based on the consumer price index.
Everyone else faces increases.
Residents pay on a sliding scale. The higher your gross income, the higher your monthly bill.
For all residents, the rates represent a pretty good deal. People pay between $825 and $1,975 a month. But the government estimates the cost of providing residential care at $4,500 a month. Taxpayers - some facing their own tough times - are already subsidizing the cost. (That $4,500 cost isn't inflated. Ask any family that despaired of long waiting lists and had to go out and find a private facility for an aged relative.)
The taxpayer subsidy is money well-spent. Affordable residential care doesn't just mean a better quality of life. Helping people live with lower levels of support is far more cost-effective than the alternative, which too often ends up being much more costly acute care.
Is the government charging too much? Someone with $12,000 a year in income pays $825 a month for food, shelter and care. That's more than 80 per cent of their income, but it still leaves about $175 a month for other expenses.
At $25,000, a resident would pay $1,080 a month, about half their income, leaving about $1.000 or other monthly expenses.
And at $65,000, a resident would pay a little over one-third of his income - about $1,975 - and have $3,430 for other expenses.
It's easier to make the case that some residents should be paying more than it is to be critical of the government's direction.
Seniors' irritation is understandable. The Liberals have pushed their cost of living up sharply, reducing Pharmacare benefits and hiking MSP premiums. For those in residential carte, this is another aggressive hit, one that should have been phased in.
And the government should have announced that the $17 million from the increases would be used to used to open new residential care beds. The money is enough to cover the operating cost for about 400; the announcement would have shown that the increases aren't just a cash grab. (To be credible the announcement would have to specify places and communities, instead of offering vague platitudes.)
But those are questions of implementation.
The principle, that people who receive benefits should pay for them, at a fair price that is within their means, is reasonable. The new rates don't appear to place an excessive demand on residents. They are fair.

Liberals can learn a good lesson from Coquihalla mess
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Here's hoping Gordon Campbell and the Liberals learn from the great Coquihalla debacle.
The idea of privatizing the highway, and locking rising tolls in place for 55 years, should have been an obvious non-starter for both political and practical reasons.
The Liberals' policy on toll roads pledges that tolls will be introduced to pay for new construction, letting travellers see a link between a toll and improved service. Instead Interior residents just saw that they were going to be paying "temporary" tolls for another 55 years, subsidizing new toll-free roads in other parts of the province (read the Lower Mainland). And despite the government's claims, drivers knew the construction costs that the tolls were supposed to cover were repaid years ago.
It was a cash grab that would hurt the so-called Heartland. And the people reacted accordingly.
The first question for the Liberals is how they got into such a mess. A party in touch with the voters - and listening to MLAs who were willing to speak out on behalf of their constituents - would have seen the wave of public anger heading toward them like an out-of-control semi on the long downhill into Merritt.
Instead, the Liberals stumbled into the disaster and then compounded their problems. They did a lousy job of making the case for the proposal. When people objected, the government's first response edged on insult. The problem, said Transport Minister Judith Reid, is that people just don't understand the plan. The government's solution included spending taxpayers' money on an ad campaign promoting the scheme, a move that just added to the public anger. It galls to have the people elected tell you that you're too dim to see their wisdom; it hurts even more when they use your money to try and sell you on their plans.
Campbell kept pushing the plan when everyone from unions to chambers of commerce to mayors to seniors had made their fundamental opposition clear.
It was a costly mistake.
The government has spent more than $4 million on studies, professional fees and other work preparing for the Coquihalla privatization. A small sum in government, perhaps, but still $4 million that could have been used elsewhere.
It has managed to unite opposition across the Interior, leaving Liberal MLAs in a hole.
And it has undermined its credibility with the international business community. Cabinet has already been warned that companies interested in private-public partnerships have a lot of international options. If B.C. is going to attract companies to build and operate everything from toll bridges to hospitals - a key part of Liberal plans - it has to be competitive.
And a key element in competitiveness is consistency. Killing one of the first major projects for political reasons, after companies spent money preparing to bid, is a black eye for the province.
That's a shame, because both toll roads and public-private partnerships make sense as a way to finance and build new transportation projects. The principle that users should pay, and that costs can be reduced by encouraging competition among private companies, makes sense.
The Liberals have tended towards inflexibility, locked on course whatever the public reaction or the obvious flaws in plans. (Look how long it took the government to acknowledge its plans for children and families were hopelessly compromised.)
But Campbell's decision to abandon the bad Coquihalla plan has been well-received, even though it appears grudging. He'd do well to remember that, and to look to the example of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein who has shown a willingness to walk away from a bad idea. People accept mistakes, from politicians or partners; they just want them to be acknowledged and set right quickly.
For the public, the lesson is clear as well. Get mad enough, and organize a broad enough base of opposition, and governments almost have to respond.
Footnote: The Liberals' transportation problems aren't behind them. Ottawa and the province are fighting over the amount of the federal contribution to a rapid transit line to the Vancouver airport. But Ottawa has also said the choice is between supporting the transit line or improving the highway through the Kicking Horse Pass. It's another decision that will be watched closely in the regions.


Getting tough with drunk drivers by reducing penalties
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA – I learned to scorn mandatory jail sentences when the young guy that I’d seen at church with his wife and two little girls got five years.
He’d taken over the family business - a big responsibility for a young man - and it was failing. And one desperate morning he decided to rob a bank. He was arrested within 25 minutes, after police followed him from the bank back to the shop.
The mandatory minimum for armed robbery was five years, with no flexibility allowed. So that’s what he got.
What he did was wrong. But that was a sentence that did nothing for society, him or his little girls.
It’s still a popular solution to every social or criminal problem that comes along. Make the penalties tougher, and take away the courts’ discretion to consider the benefits of alternatives.
But the get-tough methods don't work. And in fact, they can have quite the opposite effect.
That’s why the Liberal plan to get tough on impaired driving actually includes lighter penalties for people who get behind the wheel drunk.
Politicians have made drunk driving laws tougher. The penalties - especially the provisions for licence suspensions - have grown more punitive and less flexible. The idea was that tough punishment would keep impaired drivers off the road.
But things rarely work out as planned. Economists call it the law of unintended consequences; in trying to accomplish one goal, we actually produce quite different results.
So it’s been with impaired driving. We made penalties tougher, raising fines and lengthening licence suspensions, and took away judges’ ability to be flexible in imposing them.
But the penalties became so severe that more and more people decided it was worth pleading not guilty and going to trial. Even if they lost, they would have 18 months of creeping through the process to prepare for the loss of their licence.
As a result police had to put more time into gathering information before charges were laid, so they would be ready for a trial. The cases crowded the courts, with 25 per cent of provincial court trial time taken up with impaired driving cases.
So police and prosecutors started looking to alternatives to criminal charges, like 24-hour roadside suspensions. And the number of impaired charges dropped.
The get-tough changes actually made the punishment less severe.
Consider the numbers. Last year about 560,000 people in B.C. drove while impaired. Only 50,000 of those were caught by police.
Only 10 per cent of those people were hit with a criminal charge. Police dealt with 90 per cent of impaired drivers by imposing a 24-hour licence suspension.
That means about 4,500 people ended up facing criminal charges. Almost a third weren't convicted. So only about 3,000 people ended up being handed one of those tougher penalties. The changes actually reduced the real consequences for drunk drivers.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman proposes to change that by introducing new provincial offences carrying penalties more severe than a 24-hour suspension, but lighter than Criminal Code sanctions. Fines may be lower, and licence suspensions shorter and more flexible. (You might be allowed to drive to work, for example.)
Repeat offenders or those in crashes could expect Criminal Code charges. But most people would face lesser charges, with penalties much like we used to impose for impaired driving before sanctions were toughened.
The proposed shift to lighter penalties is still a proposal, part of a package of changes proposed by Coleman and now awaiting public comment.
But they will likely go ahead, along with mandatory education or rehab programs for offenders, a requirement already in place in every other province.
It's a useful lesson. Smarter, targeted enforcement and education are what's needed, despite the political appeal of tougher penalties.
Footnote: Most of the proposed changes make sense, but not all. Coleman announced last week that people who receive two 24-hour roadside suspensions within two years could lose their licence for 90 days. Those suspensions are handed out by police, without a court hearing. The longer suspension isn't mandatory, but it remains too severe a penalty to impose without giving the driver the opportunity for a full hearing.

Another tragic case of our indifference to young girls
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A 12-year-old girl goes for a drive with three men. They give her beer, then try to have sex with her. She ends up in the hospital for three days.
And two of the three men are acquitted of sex assault charges, apparently because a jury accepted their argument that the acts were consensual, and they thought she was 14 - and thus legal. Just a liaison, beside a truck, on a Saskatchewan road.
I'm not going to second guess the jury because only someone who sits through a trial is entitled to do that. I am going to note that the girl was native. And that at least six times in his charge to the jury the judge referred to the two accused as "boys," an odd and inaccurate term for men of 21 and 25. And that police failed to videotape interviews with her, her medical examination was inadequate and the prosecutor didn't do a strong job of raising doubt about getting a kid drunk and then claiming consent.
I'm going to blame Jean Chretien.
This case might not have happened - and certainly the verdict would have been different - if the federal Liberals had made one simple change and raised the age of consent between adult and child to 16.
The federal Liberals have decided that sex between a 14-year-old girl and a 50-year-old man should be legal. They are not prepared to let 14-year-olds vote, drive or drink. But at 14 - at a time when she might still be deciding what to wear to her Grade 8 grad - they believe a child should be fair game for any man who can persuade her that she's in love or dazzle her with promises and dreams.
This isn't some new problem. The B.C. government and other provinces have urged Ottawa to change the age of consent, and so have Alliance MPs, child protection groups, police and municipalities. The U.S., Britain, Australia, even Thailand, are among the countries that make the age of consent 16.
But the Chretien government refuses to take a small step that would give parents and police one more way of rescuing a child at risk, and prevent men from arguing that they had the child's consent.
Why? Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says there's no provincial consensus, so Ottawa won't act.
It's a shamefully empty defence of inaction. Eight provinces agree the law should be changed. Only Quebec and Saskatchewan - where this sad case unfolded - apparently remain concerned that police would end up arresting two 14-year-olds having consensual sex.
But all the government has to do -- as do the countries cited above -- is exempt sex between individuals of ages within two or three years of each other.
The Liberals also say they are protecting cultural or ethnic groups with "different sexual mores," without identifying the cultures that have a rich and valued tradition of sex with children, or why that is worth protecting.
Then arguments for raising the age of consent are compelling; the arguments against pathetic. (I am not interested in any arguments that 14-year-olds are mature enough to decide to have sex with adults; if you hold that view, I invite you to attempt to persuade the parents of a 14-year-old.)
Raising the age of consent to 16 would give police and parents a needed tool.
When adults target children for sex or profit, society will have a weapon, a law that reflects -- as the child pornography laws do -- the fact that we view sex with children differently than sex between consenting adults.
Parents could use the threat of criminal charges to face down a sexual predator interested in a young daughter, an option that does not now exist.
Pimps and johns would both have to factor one more risk into the equation when they put young girls to work.
And never again would men accused of sexual assault on a 12-year-old be able to escape punishment by saying they thought she was 14.
willcocks@ultranet.ca



The Baker Boy bumps into the Heartland reality
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Anybody still trying to figure out why B.C.'s smaller communities are unhappy about the New Era should look at Prince Rupert's Baker Boy.
Paul Mah's business has been baking bread and treats for the Prince Rupert Hospital for 20 years. It's not a huge contract - about $10,000 a year - but it's significant, especially when times are tough.
But lst month he got a two-sentence note from the Northern Health Authority. The next week's bread order would be the last. The authority was centralizing buying and a bakery in Langley - 1,500 kms away - would be getting the contract. Thanks, and see you around.
It's apparently cheaper, and that's what matters to the health authority. Save $500 on bread, and you can avoid a cut somewhere else. (The authority, citing cost pressures, has also announced layoffs at the hospital.)
I'm sympathetic to the importance of good bottom line management. It's my money they're spending.
But it's also the money of the people paying taxes in Prince Rupert. And they've got a right to be angry when they see it being sucked out of their community, and sent down to create jobs and economic growth in the Lower Mainland or a distant regional centre.
The Baker Boy is a good example of why smaller communities are feeling abused by government policies that have given them much of the New Era pain and little of the gain.
The local hospital - or court house or school or government office - is part of the economy. By using Baker Boy, a local supplier, it kept tax money in the community. It helped create local jobs - the bakery has about 20 employees. Those people paid taxes and spent their wages in the community, sent their chioldren to school.
Some of the money even went back directly to the hospital. Mah was a big supporter - and donor - when the community raised money for a CatScan for the hospital.
Local decisions, local consequences.
But the Northern Health Authority - covering almost half the province - isn't local. Baker Boy never got a chance to bid for the right to supply bread. The health authority didn't return calls from Mah or the Prince Rupert Daily News about the cancellation.
That changed. Rupert Mayor Herb Pond and council expressed their outrage, noting rightly that the hospital is part of the economic base of the community. "Now the money that circulated locally is going down to Langley," he complained. "Is this what what the province calls taking care of the Heartland?"
And finally, the decision was reversed. Bread will come from down the street, not from 1,500 kms away. The money stays in the community. (And the pastries should be a lot fresher.)
Pond still wonders why the community - like others across the province - keeps getting hit with these kind of blows without getting the chance to be involved in the decisions.
Public institutions, like hospitals, shouldn't be used as a cash cows to keep local businesses going. If there are major savings, grab them.
But any private business I've been involved with has recognized the importance of trying to buy locally. It's tough to ask people to support you when you're turning your back on them.
There's no big outrage here, no fast ferry scandal or Coquihalla-scale protest.
But it's a small, good example of why the Liberals' "Heartland strategy" is being mocked across the province.
The people who live in these communities understand their economies and how they work. They know that right now, when a job is lost, it's likely won't be replaced. They know that the ripple effects spread through communities already facing tough times.
They shouldn't expect handouts - money transferred from the rest of the province to sustain them.
But they shouldn't be expected to watch quietly as their tax dollars - and the people and businesses they support - are shipped down the road.
Footnote: Should smaller communities have seen this coming? In the run-up to the election, the Kamloops Daily News said tax cuts would require spending cuts. Liberal candidate Claude Richmond said they were all wet. "In your editorial you say that there will have to be cuts in spending if the Liberals are going to cut personal income taxes as they claim," he wrote. "That is what the NDP wants you to believe and it just isn't so."
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Start fighting for real Olympic gold
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA -- OK, enough celebrating (or moaning).
Now it's time for all British Columbians to figure out how the Olympics can work for them.
That's especially true for communities outside Vancouver and Whistler, both already guaranteed huge benefits from Games spending. But it should also be a key challenge for everyone -- housing advocates, arts buffs, small business, First Nations -- who wants to stake a claim on some of the touted Olympic benefits.
And just as importantly, it should be a priority for the Liberals if they want to reap the hoped-for political and economic benefits from the multi-billion-dollar project.
Nobody was celebrating the victory more than the Liberals, who hope for an economic and psychological boost from the Games.
That can happen, but it's going to take a serious government effort to ensure that the Games aren't another example of the regions paying the taxes, and the big city getting the benefits.
Support for the Olympics is already tepid outside the Lower Mainland. A pre-Christmas poll found that about 60 per cent of those living in the Lower Mainland thought their region would benefit from the Olympics, but only 30 per cent of those in the rest of B.C. thought their communities would see any benefits.
Their concern is warranted. Vancouver and Whistler know what they're getting. Most of the $1.3 billion in Games spending identified by Auditor General Wayne Strelioff last year will go to those communities, for new facilities and improvements to the Sea-to-Sky Highway.
They'll also get a new transit line to the airport and an expanded convention centre.
So far, municipalities across the rest of the province have been invited to apply for a share of $40 million for Olympic Live Sites in their communities. They're grumbling that the money seems pretty mingy compared to the snowstorm of dollar bills settling on the Lower Mainland. It's a legitimate complaint.
Organizers point to intangible benefits --everything from increased tourism to foreign investment. They claim economic benefits of $6 billion to $10 billion.
But the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives -- two groups that rarely agree -- have both questioned the validity of the claims, noting that they are based on unreliable guesses and assumptions.
That doesn't mean spinoff benefits won't exist. But the people of the Lower Mainland and Whistler will be able to point to tangible benefits -- a rink, a road, housing.
The rest of the province is relying on ghostly economic benefits.
Those will have to be fought for.
Strelioff's review of Games planning was generally positive. But he warned that good luck and good management would be needed to keep costs on budget.
And good luck, a favourable economy and excellent management and marketing will be needed to reap the economic benefits. Strelioff quoted a consultant who did the economic impact studies for the organizing committee. "These benefits will not materialize automatically," they said. "They must be earned by a focused, adequately funded and skillfully executed marketing program."
That's the challenge for communities, and the government. It's going to take vigilance, creativity, will, money and political pressure to make sure that every decision taken over the next seven years considers how the Games can have the greatest benefits for all British Columbians. Every activity that can be pushed outside Vancouver and Whistler, should be. Every effort has to be made to ensure that the underlying key message promotes the province, not the city and the resort.
The barriers to tourism and economic growth in the rest of the province have to get the same priority that will now be given to improving the Sea to Sky Highway and the new Vancouver transit line. And some of the leadership has to come from Liberal MLAs, who should be insisting on a formal, public process for driving regional Games benefits.
Enough talking about the Heartland. It will take action and commitment to deliver any benefits from the Games.
Footnote: The Liberals have a lot resting on the Games' success. They're unlikely to be threatened in the next election, less than two years off. The vote after that will be held in 2009, less than a year before the Games. The success of the project could end up being a key issue in the campaign.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

The Liberals are letting down children and families
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's not much to celebrate in the Liberals' decision to cut spending on helping vulnerable children and adults.
The cuts have been scaled back. But it's still difficult to see any real plan behind the decision to cut support by $185 million - about 11 per cent. And that means kids who depend on us, not by choice, are at risk.
Children and Families Minister Gordon Hogg unveiled the cuts at a televised cabinet meeting. Afterwards he defended $70 million in cuts slated for next year, saying his staff assured him that the cuts could be made safely.
But then Hogg made the same claims for the plan abandoned earlier this month, which would have seen a total of $360 million in cuts. That plan turned out to be based on bad information and wrong assumptions, he told cabinet.
That's what virtually everyone outside government has said all along. And it is what they continue to say about the current cuts.
Hogg did little to ease concerns.
The biggest savings are to come from reduced spending on services provided by agencies, including $5.7-million cut to funding for agencies that support vulnerable youth and struggling families. The money is supposed to go to new, better programs. But those programs don't exist, and the change was flagged as a potential health and safety risk in a ministry report to cabinet.
So were other measures that remain part of the government's cost-cutting plan.
Ministry staff may be over-cautious, or the concerns they raised addressed.
But Hogg didn't inspire confidence that a plan is in place. He said no group homes will close, while briefing papers said homes will be close and about 200 long-term residents will be moved. He said money will be saved because communities will develop the capacity to support children in their homes. But asked how capacity would be built while the ministry is cutting 20 per cent of its staff and squeezing contract agencies, he suggested Rotary Clubs and volunteers will play a larger role.
That's a fine goal. But to base a spending cut on the emergence of volunteers is reckless.
it always looks easy on paper, chopping a million here and there and hoping people can cope.
But these cuts affects people who rely on us. The government plans to cut $1.1 million - about 25 per cent - from a fund that helps foster parents with extraordinary expenses. (This was another cut red-flagged as a health and safety risk in the ministry report.) Some foster parents are abusing the system, he says, and some children are getting things in care they couldn't get at home.
But I've talked to too many foster parents about how hard it is to get the money for a grad dress or summer camp. Cutting the amount available by about $100 child just shifts that cost on to foster parents, or penalizes children.
The Liberals have taken positive steps. Moving to a new regional model of service delivery, with separate aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities, makes sense. The concept of emphasizing early intervention and support for troubled families is morally and fiscally sound.
But restructuring while attempting to achieve unreasonable spending cuts is dangerous, and the potential victims are the people who have the least ability to defend themselves and the most to lose. They deserve better.
Gordon Campbell used to think so too, regularly calling on the NDP to increase funding for the ministry, warning that its work is too important to be threatened by short-term, short-sighted spending limits.
The government had options. The best would have been to cancel the next round of cuts, leaving the money in the budget. The ministry and the new agencies could push on with the plans. But if things had taken longer than planned, or the threat to children and vulnerable adults had proved real, the needed funding would be there.
Footnote: The government doesn't have money to maintain services for children in foster care. It does have enough money for an ad campaign, including full-page newspaper ads, offering a misleading defence of its education funding policies. In opposition the Liberals rightly attacked using tax dollars to sell government policies; now they're writing the cheques.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Barkerville needs more time in government hands
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I rolled into Barkerville the fall before last, swooping up the winding road from Quesnel. It was afternoon, with the low sun fighting dark clouds, and winning, and six inches of new snow on the main street.
The place was magic, a window into the incredibly difficult and risky times that shaped this province. I didn't feel like I was looking at the way things used to be, I felt like I was walking through that time.
We never saw more than a handful of other people. Wonderful for us, but even for October an indication that perhaps more can be done to attract people to the heritage site.
That's one of the things the government hopes to achieve by handing about 15 heritage sites, like Barkerville, to contractors, either companies or communities or non-profits.
The bigger goal, critics argue, is to save money by cutting funding for the sites. And in the process regional economies will be damaged and heritage put at risk, they say.
There's no right answer. Some heritage sites can be easily turned over to a private contractor or a local historical society. If the scale is small, the responsibilities relatively straightforward and the opportunity to increase revenue exists then contracting out the operation can make sense. Emily Carr House in Victoria and others across the province have been privately operated successes for years.
But the experience with Barkerville shows how the risks and problems mount when the sites are bigger. And it should be enough to make the government go slow in its plans to get out of the heritage site business.
The Barkerville experiment has the region very concerned, with good reason.
The province called for proposals in May, seeking an operator. No companies were interested - the chance for profit just isn't there. The District of Wells looked hard at taking over, at least in part because Barkerville is vital to the local economy. But the district has also now dropped out, saying that even with spending cuts and admission increases they would lose $250,000 a year on the site.
Now Communities Minister George Abbott says the government will try and reach out to other operators, and may go back to Wells with an offer of more money. The goal is still to have Barkerville off the government's hands by next spring.
The government should abandon that timeline, and the target of short-term savings. The fact that nobody who has looked hard at the potential costs and benefits has been willing to take on Barkerville is a warning. Rushing to find someone - anyone - to take over is too great a risk.
The obvious threat is to heritage values. Barkerville is a remarkable living museum, a chance for us to understand what it was like to risk everything to hunt for gold, or to start a new life in a strange land thousands of miles from home. Its 150 buildings and collection of some 300,000 are a treasure that help us understand who we are.
But the economic risk is just as serious. Barkerville's 100,000 visitors a year are an important part of the local economy. Putting that at risk by rushing forward is too dangerous.
Abbott does say the government will keep running the site if it has to, but with a reduced budget. That too is short-sighted.
This isn't all some new problem created by the Liberals. The NDP launched the contracting out process for heritage sites, and cut heritage spending.
The impact of those cuts in creating a pent-up need for major capital improvements is one of the things deterring prospective operators. (A decade ago half-a-dozen people managed the Barkerville collections; that's now down to two.)
Nothing says the government's plan won't work. A well-organized, well-financed group, with a clear mandate for preservation and growth may be found.
But it's not working now. And the uncertainty being created, and the fears of a rushed and short-sighted decision, are hurting the economy.
Footnote: One problem for the Liberals is the lack of models to learn from It's difficult to find any governments that have given up control of major heritage sites like Barkerville. The experiment is being watched - nervously - across Canada.
willcocks@ultranet.ca