A split decision for B.C. coalbed methane

The politics of coalbed methane in B.C. are a lot more complicated even than getting the stuff out of the ground.
Just look at the government's latest news release on the resource, headlined "Leadership shown in unconventional gas development." Not too informative in itself.
The first paragraph - the lead, as they say - was surprising. Leadership in development in this case meant not going ahead with a coalbed methane project: "Shell Canada will take a break in exploration activity in the Klappan and have more discussions with First Nations and the community, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Richard Neufeld announced."
The government was "facilitating this" by barring activity for two years, Neufeld said.
Only then did the release get to the actual development part. The government announced it was awarding a coalbed methane tenure to BP Canada's Mist Mountain project in the East Kootenay.
Even there, the government treaded carefully. It excluded land in the Flathead Valley, near the Montana border.
The Flathead is a revered river in Montana. The state's politicians, and even Barack Obama, were opposed to any coalbed methane development on our side of the border.
So in southeast B.C., near Fernie but away from the U.S. border, coalbed methane is OK.
In the northwest, north of Terrace, not so much.
How come? Partly because environmental groups have targeted the Shell project. They have called the area the Sacred Headwaters, an even more market-savvy name than Great Bear Rainforest.
The opposition, along with First Nations concerns, scared Shell and the government. What oil company or government wants to be blamed internationally for despoiling the Sacred Headwaters?
There are other reasons for the split decision. The Shell project is in a relatively pristine area that includes the headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine rivers. There's little local support.
The project in the East Kootenay is in an area that's been used for mining and forestry. Many people in the region, and some local governments, supported the development.
But there is still going to be significant opposition. Neufeld says the BP project won't go ahead unless the company can meet the environmental requirements.
The B.C. government has been promoting coalbed methane development for more than a decade. So far, all the province has to show for it is a scattering of test drilling programs, including efforts in the Campbell River area and around Courtenay. The Island’s coal-mining history has attracted considerable interest.
The Mist Mountain project might bring the first real producing wells.
Coalbed methane is the equivalent of natural gas. It's found, as the name suggests, in coal seams, which B.C. has in abundance. But there are some big differences when it comes to getting it out of the ground.
Conventional natural gas is typically found in big pockets, under pressure. Companies drill a couple of holes, the gas rushes out and is sent off in a pipeline. When the deposit is gone the well is capped and that's that. It's relatively tidy and we have a lot of experience with it.
But coalbed methane is found in smaller pockets within the coal seams, so companies need to drill a lot more wells.
And the methane gas is usually trapped beneath underground water. That has to be pumped out before the gas will flow.
Sometimes, the water is of good quality. But often it's contaminated with salt or other pollutants. It has to be pumped back underground to avoid environmental damage.
It's all doable. But the industry's 20-year history has been marked by some environmentally damaging episodes. The government believes those days are behind it - about five per cent of U.S. gas production comes from coalbed methane deposits.
With some estimates putting the coalbed methane reserves at the equivalent of 100 years of current natural gas production, the government sees a lot of jobs and big royalty cheques.
It will still be a tough sell. But picking one project as a test might be the best way to establish whether the coalbed methane industry should have any place in the province.
Footnote: The exclusion of the Flathead Valley from the Kootenay lease makes sense. Why get into a fight with the U.S. as a new administration takes over. But expect B.C. gas opponents to ask why the risks are too great for a watershed that flows into Montana, but acceptable within B.C.

The real greatest

Gretzy was great, Rocket Richard ferocious and I've always had a great fondness for Frank Mahovlich.
But no one I've seen came close to changing games all by himself like Mr. Orr.

No gambling donations, says Campbell – you decide

The B.C. Liberals don't accept donations from gambling companies, Gordon Campbell said last week.
You decide if the premier is being straight.
Because it looks like some $270,000 went into Liberal coffers between 2002 and 2007 from people and companies linked to the growing gambling business in B.C.
This column rests entirely on the fine work of Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
Holman was curious about gambling companies and political donations. They didn't show up in the financial reports the parties filed with Elections B.C.
But he decided to dig deeper and checked out the people behind the numbered companies and businesses or individuals with unfamiliar names that contributed to the Liberals.
He found some $265,000 in contributions had come from people connected with the industry - current or former gambling facilities owners or operators. But the donations had not come through the gambling businesses, but indirectly as individual donations or through other companies controlled by the same people.
For example, there was $23,000 in contributions from B-11 Holdings Ltd. and 7779 Ventures Inc. The companies' presidents were Patricia and Gary Hart; Patricia Hart is also president of the service provider to Chances Kamloops, one of the mini-casinos being rolled out in smaller communities.
There was $6,500 from Kings North Development Corp. Its president Mark Ekraut, is also president of the service provider for Bingo Bingo Esquimalt.
The list went on.
Holman called the donors to ask why the contributions were made in that way.
No reason, most said. They just happened to have a chequebook handy from the other company when they contributed, or there was more money in its account or they just couldn't remember.
But then Holman talked to John Becher, who owns the Lucky Dollar Bingo Palace in Terrace.
He said members of the Registered Gaming Management Companies of B.C. - which represents a majority of B.C.'s bingo halls and community gaming centres - were told not to make their donations through their gaming service provider company.
Otherwise, the public might have concerns, he added. "People will say, 'Gee, what's going on here. We can see why the government wants all these slots put in because they're being supported by the gaming association,'" Becher said.
Becher said the request for donations, and the suggested method of donation, came from Tom Nellis, president of the association.
No way, says Nellis. He never suggested members donate to the Liberals in any fashion.
Holman found another interesting fact in the Elections B.C. documents.
Almost one-quarter of the donations came into the Liberal party on the same day, three months before the last provincial election.
Seven different donations on the same day, from people and businesses linked to gambling.
And not one through a company readily identifiable as a gambling interest.
Now that is a coincidence. The odds against all those people in one industry independently deciding to write a cheque to the Liberals on the same day have to be up there with winning a lottery.
Yet Campbell says the party won't accept money from "gaming" companies. (In opposition, the Liberals called it gambling.)
That suggests he believes taking the money would be improper. So if it's happening. . .
The other thing Holman revealed was the emptiness of Campbell's defence of unrestricted political donations. In B.C., unions, businesses, individuals and interest groups can give any amount. Federally, only individual donations are allowed and they're limited to $1,100.
As long as donations are disclosed, Campbell argues, the public can tell if big contributors are getting special treatment from government.
But how are most people to go through hundreds of pages of forms, note a donation from 7779 Ventures Inc., check the officers and directors and cross-reference them against gambling companies or people who get government contracts?
B.C. is an anything goes province. Rich special interests can give what they want. And the public has to wonder how badly political parties come to depend on that support.
Footnote: The backdrop for all this is the Liberals' abandonment of their campaign promise to halt the expansion of gambling because of the damage it does to individuals, families and communities. Campbell has never explained why the principled pledge was forgotten in a massive expansion of slots and casinos and the introduction of online betting.

Harper, Dion need to go now

Stephen Harper has to go.
That's the biggest message I'd take from the one-week political crisis that was eased Thursday when Gov. Gen Michaelle Jean agreed to Stephen Harper's proposal to shut down the Commons until Jan. 26.
If she had required him to face the House, the government would have fallen. That would have meant a Liberal-NDP coalition or an election, depending upon Jean's judgment about the next step.
Harper and the Conservatives won a seven-week reprieve and some manoevuring room.
But at considerable cost.
Harper provoked this whole crisis stupidly and unnecessarily. Elected with a minority, he promised an end to partisanship. And then at the first opportunity, he launched attacks on the financial supports critical to the other parties, while leaving intact the subsidies that benefit the Conservatives. He moved to take away federal employees' to strike and to limit pay equity provisions. (And tabled a budget surplus forecast that no economists believed credible and offered no actions to address the economic crisis.)
The measures were so important, Harper said, that the government would include them in a confidence vote. If they were defeated, there would be an election.
The moves were so outrageous, even the disheartened Liberals were roused. Harper actually united the centre left way more quickly than he was able to unite the centre right.
Harper defended the measures, then retreated, first saying it wouldn't be a confidence vote, then dumping them.
But the damage had been done; the coalition train was rolling. The Liberals and New Democrats agreed on an economic plan. The Bloc Quebecois didn't join, but agreed not to vote against the next two budgets. As long as those passed, the coalition could survive until early 2011.
A smart leader wouldn't have created this mess. Once in it, he would recognize the need to admit error and move on.
Harper, perhaps because of all those years on the outside fighting governments, went on the attack. He was dishonest about the Bloc's role and seemed to suggest the 38 per cent of Quebec voters who supported the party were somehow second-class citizens. He re-opened the separatism debate, for short-term political gain, a shamefully reckless act.
When the smart - and right - thing would have been to reach out, Harper started punching. Even Thursday, after Jean allowed the government to survive, he wouldn't acknowledge any error.
What should happen between now and Jan. 26 is a new start. The Conservatives should be talking with the opposition, and offering a real chance to be involved in budget preparation. It's a minority government; compromise is needed. Harper seems unable to do that. And at this point, he wouldn't be trusted anyway.
If the Conservatives want a chance to govern for a couple of years and then win a majority, they need a new leader, someone like Environment Minister Jim Prentice. (While Harper was picking fights, Prentice had invited the opposition environment critics to come with him next week to a climate change meeting in Poland on the successor to the Kyoto accord.)
There's a lesson here for the Liberals too. What is Stephane Dion doing as party leader until May?
He resigned Oct. 20. Taking seven months to pick a new leader suggests you don't just care. Canadians were supposed to embrace the idea that he would be prime minister for a few months and then whoever the Liberal party delegates choose would take over.
That's irresponsible. The party should have a leader by Jan. 26. Let MPs and riding associations choose, or move to one vote for every party member, instead of the tainted delegate system. Webcast candidates' debates and provide central locations if members want to watch them together. Allow online voting. Choose.
It's been a destructive, ugly episode. Without real change, it will be replayed at the end of January, to the detriment of Canadians.
Footnote: This might mark a turning point. If neither party can address its immediate leadership problems, that will suggest MPs and party members have lost any influence and power is firmly held by whoever can win the leader's job. The leader was supposed to serve at the pleasure of the party's MPs. No more.

So, are the Liberals ready to do their jobs too?

In the post below I write about the responsibility of Conservative MPs to take control of the party away from Stephen Harper.
Liberals, MPs and party members, have their own test.
Stephane Dion resigned in October. The leadership convention is set for May.
That's simply goofy. If you had a business, and had decided to get rid of a manager for poor performance, would you leave him on the job for seven months - knowing he was going - while you looked for a replacement?
The Liberals should have had a leadership convention at the end of November.
Now they need to find a way to have a new leader before Jan. 26, when Parliament resumes.
That shouldn't be hard. Allow online voting and perhaps move to one vote for every party member, instead of the tainted delegate system. Webcast candidates' debates and provide central locations if members want to watch them together. The failure to treat this with urgency is bizarre.
How can the coalition claim to be credible when Dion - rejected by Canadians - would be prime minister for a few months before a mystery PM would be selected in a process open to abuse?

So, are Conservative MPs ready to do their jobs?

Conservative MPs face the biggest test between now and the end of January. Go along and keep repeating the talking points supplied by the prime minister's office — which will play well with supporters — or bring their own judgment to bear on what needs to be done to govern effectively for the next couple of years, and win a majority in the next election.
The party has a lot of gratitude, rightly, to Stephen Harper for getting it into power.
But he's failed to win majorities in two elections waged under highly favourable circumstances, messed up terribly in the early days of this government and increasingly appears unable to change.
Will Conservative MPs recognize their responsibility and power to share a decision on Harper's future.
It's also a test of our system, I suppose. Have prime ministers and premiers become so powerful that they, barring disastrous defeats or years of plotting, they are unchecked by their supposed peers?

Conservatives' choice: Harper, or a chance to govern effectively

Blame Stephen Harper for the mess in Ottawa.
Faced with a minority government and an economic crisis, his first acts acknowledged neither.
When the Conservatives delivered their economic update last week, they didn't announce plans to help people worried about their pensions or losing their jobs.
Instead, Harper launched a sneak attacks on his "enemies." In the name of spending restraint, he said, federal government employees would lose the right to strike.
And the government would end the five-year-old public financing of political parties. That arrangement, introduced when union and corporate donations were banned, provides parties that get at least two per cent support nationally get $1.95 per year per vote they received in the preceding election.
The move had little to do with saving money. The goal was to weaken the opposition parties to the point that they could not function and consolidate the Conservatives' grasp on power. The Conservatives raise more donations. The change would have left them with about $19 million a year in revenue - four times as much as any other party.
Vote for the measures, he said, or he'd call an election, likely figuring the bully tactics would work.
It was a stunning blunder. The Liberals, who had been dispirited and content to drift along until next May's leadership convention, were fuelled with moral outrage. The New Democrats reacted in the same way.
Harper did the almost impossible in re-energizing the parties, driving them together and giving them a legitimate pretext for action by failing to respond to the economic crisis with a stimulus package. Dumb, vindictive and arrogant - a disastrous combination.
Within 48 hours, the Liberals and NDP had cobbled together an agreement for a coalition government to rule for 18 months, with the support of the Bloc Québécois. Stéphane Dion would be prime minister until May, when the new Liberal leader would take over. The NDP would get about one-third of cabinet seats.
The opposition parties would defeat the government and advise Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean that they had the support of a majority of MPs and should get a chance to govern.
It's a legitimate legal claim, according to most experts, and Jean has considerable discretion.
But a rickety coalition of parties with little in common but a loathing of Harper is not the government Canada needs at this time.
A critical element in dealing with the economic crisis is stability. Investors, already skittish and cash-poor, are going to shun jurisdictions where policy is unpredictable.
And despite the coalition's manifesto, the situation remains inherently unpredictable. The new government, if it emerges, will only survive if all three parties stay onside.
That includes, of course, the Bloc Québécois, a party with no commitment to the national interest.
The coalition government would also result in a profound sense of betrayal by many voters who were elated by the Conservatives' win, particularly in the West, where the party won almost 80 per cent of the seats. There are lots of references to coups on the letters' pages. They're wrong, but the sentiment is still real.
Harper's response has been to fight. He's expected to ask Jean to shut down Parliament before there can be a confidence vote, which she might or might not do. It will reconvene in January and the Conservatives will use the time to attack the coalition proposal.
Harper is showing bad judgment, again. The campaign probably won't succeed.
And it removes any chance for what's really needed - a Parliament that works, where the Conservatives govern like a party that received a minority of seats and the popular vote.
It's hard to see a ready solution. The Conservatives need to persuade the opposition parties - and Canadians - that the bullying and arrogance will end.
Which means, realistically, that Harper needs to go, to give the party a fresh start.
Now that's a test of leadership.
Footnote: What does it mean for B.C.? The bad news would be the focus on Quebec and Ontario and the overall risk of instability. The good news would be some strong cabinet ministers, aid for forest communities and a government that has to work hard to keep MPs and supporters onside.

Conservatives have to fix Harper's bungling

Stephen Harper has managed, through incompetence, arrogance and hopeless judgment, to create a crisis for the country and his party. Hard to see how long he can stick around.
But a coalition government, based largely on loathing of Harper, is not a useful solution. It will be destabilizing and leave 40 per cent of voters - especially those concentrated in the west - feeling screwed once again.
The Times Colonist offers a useful view of what should happen next here.

Global crisis, but B.C.'s got some breathing room

So what does the big financial crisis mean for the B.C. government - tax increases, spending cuts, deficits?
None of the above, at least for this year and next.
But the budget that will come down in 2010 - the first for the new government to be elected in May - might pose some problems.
It's a mark of the ludicrous conservatism of the Liberals' budgeting that despite the worst economic woes in almost 80 years - and unplanned tax cuts - the surplus this year will still be larger than the government projected.
Tax revenues will be below budget by some $423 million, Finance Minister Colin Hansen said as he released the latest quarterly report. But $350 million of that is because of the cuts Premier Gordon Campbell announced last month in response to the slowdown.
And despite all the turmoil, all other revenue is expected to be up four per cent over the budget forecast. A manager in the private sector would get into trouble for that sort of sandbagging.
Next year is also probably OK. The Liberals, to their considerable credit, provide three-year financial plans. The budgeted revenue figure for 2009/10 is $39.9 billion. There are certainly some risks, but revenue for this year is now expected to be $38.9; a 2.6-per-cent increase next year is within reach
And the plans provide for an overall 2.5 per cent spending increase - and a 5.9 per cent increase in health spending the health budget for this year. There was also a $1.1-billion cushion built into the budget forecast.
All in, the Liberals should be able to table a pre-election budget without significant spending cuts, tax increases or a deficit. By the 2010 budget, things look tighter. Next year, remember, the projection is for a 2.6-per-cent revenue increase. But the budget calls for a four-per-cent revenue jump in the following year. That might be a stretch.
On the spending side, there is a four-per-cent increase for health, education and advanced education. That's tight, given the pressures for more spending. Still, the budget includes $1.1 billion in contingencies and cushions.
There's room for the government to shuffle things around and stay in the black, but it could be tight.
Of course, it's questionable whether we should be quite so fixed on deficits. B.C. has a law that bars deficit budgets (though doesn't have any effect if a government budgets for a surplus, but ends up with a deficit). The rationale is understandable. Spending more than you take in can become a bad habit; the NDP governments through the 1990s showed that. But Stephen Harper is prepared to run federal deficits for a year or two because of the current economic crisis, and he's hardly an ideological bedmate of Glen Clark's.
If things spiral downward, by 2010 or 2011 the provincial government might face some tough choices.
Without tax increases - never a great idea in a recession - serious spending cuts might be needed to avoid a deficit. Who really wants to tell a senior she can't get a hip replacement, or parents of a disabled child that therapy has to wait, because of an ideological opposition of deficits?
There is nothing wrong with borrowing some money in tough times, as long as you pay it back as quickly as possible. The alternative could be a longer recession and more losses for B.C families.
Deficits might not be necessary. But it will be interesting to see if either the Liberals or the New Democrats will acknowledge the possibility. The backdrop for all this is the economy as an issue in the coming election. A Mustel Group poll released this week found the Liberals and NDP effectively tied. It also showed the economy was named as the main issue facing the province by 40 per cent of respondents - a huge jump.
Footnote: A month after Gordon Campbell's pledge to curb any avoidable spending in response to the economic crunch, nothing has happened. Most noticeably, taxpayers are still paying for a massive ad blitz aimed largely at bolstering the Liberal's re-election hopes. British Columbians asked for the ads, Finance Minister Colin Hansen said this week.

Hidden donations from gambling industry to Liberals?

Is there a link between political donations and the Liberals' decision to break their promise to halt gambling expansion in the province?
After all, Gordon Campbell was clear - gambling created "losers" and destroyed families. Kevin Krueger said government gambling was immoral, fuelling crime, violence, suicides and family disintegration.
But once elected, the government went on a gambling spree, including mini-casinos with VLTs in smaller communities across the province, online betting and plans to recruit new gamblers each year and increase the average losses per person.
San Holman reveals some fascinating information about the industry's hidden donations to the Liberals here.

Forcing homeless people into shelter

Rich Coleman is musing about finding a way to force homeless people into shelters when the weather makes life on the street dangerous. The media interest was raised after a woman who had declined shelter burned to death in her shopping cart while trying to stay warm.
It's an issue worth considering, but as Coleman notes, there are big legal and ethical issues and nothing will happen soon.
Rather than mess about with complicated legal questions, Coleman could address the issue now. The woman who died chose to stay on the street in part because going to a shelter would have meant abandoning her shopping cart and all her worldly possessions. It would not be hard or costly to have secure outdoor space for carts at shelters, staffed by a minimum wage worker making the transition from the streets. Other homeless people chose a doorway because available shelters won't take their pet or allow couples to stay together, or because the available spaces are just too chaotic, noisy and theft-prone.
Making improvements to address those problems would be fairly cheap and easy.
Also, Coleman talks about forcing people into "beds," when in many cases the reality is a mat on a floor in a large room. That's better than nothing, but more accuracy in language would help in dealing with a complex issue.

From Russian assassins to the Basi-Virk trial

I've been reading about Vera Zasulich, who invented terrorism as we know it when she shot the governor of St. Petersburg in 1878.
And I'm amazed at the straight line between 19th century Russia under Tsar Alexander II, the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and B.C. Supreme Court.
My reading tends to books grabbed fairly randomly from the new arrivals at the library or the well-selected sale offerings at Munro's Book Store here. One advantage is the serendipitous discovery of connections. (The disadvantage is the lack of context that comes with random readings.)
The book is Angel of Vengeance by Ana Siljak. It's about Zasulich and Russia in a time of possibilities - socialism, serfdom, religion, the tsar, a big bureaucracy and youth, mostly well-off, dreaming of change.
Tsar Alexander had a liberal bent, in part because revolution seemed a threat. Legal reform was important, he decided.
"Let truth and mercy reign in the law courts," he proclaimed in 1864. Courts would treat all Russians equally, "from the person of the highest to that of the lowest rank." Juries would decide cases and the system would be open to all.
Then Vera Zasulich shot the governor. A great defence lawyer painted her as a person driven to try and stop state cruelty. (The governor had abused a political prisoner.)
The jury found her not guilty, followed by celebrations in the streets and much official anger, in part because there had been other legal setbacks in the effort to fight subversion.
The justice minister had a solution. No more trials for accused assassins or terrorists. New military tribunals would hear those cases, under new rules.
Alexander initially rejected the proposal as too extreme. But within months, he caved. The military tribunals took over these cases.
Which is exactly what George W. Bush and the U.S. government did after 9/11. A new class of criminals was created, with few rights. A parallel legal system was established. Suspects could be held for years without charges; evidence obtained by torture was accepted; rights were ignored.
Canadian Omar Khadr, captured by the U.S. as a 15-year-old in Afghanistan, is the last Guantanamo prisoner from a western country.
From the tsar's besieged Russia to America today. Who would think?
The line can be stretched a little farther. Alexander's goal wasn't fair treatment of political prisoners. He believed that an accessible, consistent and fair justice system would stabilize society. People might not always like the decisions, but if justice was more or less equitable, they could count on their rights being protected.
Which leads to British Columbia today.
Specifically, to the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, where Dave Basi, Bobby Virk and Aneal Basi and a clutch of lawyers are still arguing over the evidence in the B.C. Rail corruption case.
It has been almost five years since the police raided the legislature and seized evidence. The allegations are serious, for the three men, all former Liberal political appointees, and the government.
But more than five years after the publicly owned railway was sold, there are no answers.
It's obviously unfair to the three accused. (And there is no evidence they or their lawyers have delayed the trial; Justice Elizabeth Bennett has been critical of the special prosecutor for failing to follow disclosure rules. Now a last-minute RCMP legal intervention threatens more delays.)
And it's unfair to the public, heading toward next May's election with no answers about a scandal that began before the 2005 campaign.
The case is a symptom. The courts have become too expensive and too slow to be a realistic option for most Canadians looking for justice. They are left to fend for themselves, unable to count on the right a fair hearing and impartial judgment.
Tsar Alexander would have considered it a broken justice system.
Footnote: If money is no object or a case truly significant, the system delivers sound judgments.
But for most people, seeking redress when they are wronged or facing a minor criminal charge, the costs of presenting the case - say $8,000 a day for a lawyer's appearances in court - tilts the balance hugely to those with the money to wear down the other side.

Province cuts leaky school deal, but leaves leaky condo owners outside

The Globe and Mail reported the government has reached some sort of secret compensation deal over hundreds of leaky schools. But the government's willingness to accept a confidentiality clause leaves leaky condo owners wondering if they should be getting the same compensation. A Times Colonist editorial editorial looks at the issue.

Local elections offer some good news for NDP

Municipal politics are their own world. But last weekend's election results raise interesting issues for both parties with six months left until the next provincial election.
The big news was Gregor Robertson's win to become mayor of Vancouver. A few months ago, Robertson was an NDP MLA, sitting across the red-carpeted legislature from Gordon Campbell.
Now he's the province's most prominent mayor, backed by a council with a definite NDP tilt. Geoff Meggs, one of the new Vancouver councillors, was Glen Clark's communications director for three years.
The NPA - the Liberal-aligned party in Vancouver - lost the mayor's office and captured only one council seat.
So now Campbell is facing Robertson again, this time as a mayor with an agenda that includes pressing the province for action on homelessness.
That doesn't necessarily mean conflict. Robertson is a pragmatic business owner. He knows working with the provincial and federal governments is more effective than fighting.
But where the former Vancouver council opted to hired Ken Dobell, Campbell's former deputy, to influence the government, Robertson will be more willing to turn up the heat publicly if necessary.
And the election came on the same weekend that Angus Reid Strategies released a poll showing the New Democrats ahead of the Liberals in Greater Vancouver. (That poll was challenged by an Ipsos-Reid survey that showed the Liberals with a nine-point lead provincially and a greater margin in the Lower Mainland.)
Even a couple of years ago, the Liberals could be more confident that they would start with a good base of public support if there was showdown between Robertson and Campbell. Now, that's not so sure.
But it's not just Vancouver. In a lot of communities, there seemed to be either an appetite for change, a slide to the centre-left or both.
I pause for a few disclaimers, like in those pharmaceutical ads when they warn that the drug, while great, might make your eyebrows fall out and cause frequent, unpredictable fainting.
For starters, municipal politics shouldn't really be burdened with left-right labels. Deciding whether to put in a sidewalk shouldn't be based on some ideology.
And across B.C., there were two constants. Voter turnout was dismal - 77 per cent of eligible voters didn't bother. And incumbents were overwhelmingly re-elected.
Still, there were signs that voters in many municipalities, large and small, were ready to back change.
Here in Victoria, new Mayor Dean Fortin was backed by a lot of NDP supporters; he replaces a mayor with Liberal ties who chose not to run. Prince George shifted at least slightly away from the Liberal side, Kelowna ended up with a couple of greenish councilors and Grand Forks has a mayor who was the B.C. Marijuana Party leader in the 2001 election.
None of these translate directly into NDP support. But they raise the prospect of more pressure from some municipal leaders on issues like homelessness and crime.
And they suggest some voters are ready to try a new direction.
Times Colonist columnist Les Leyne noted the results also suggest that voters are not as afraid of returning to the NDP, at least municipally, as the Liberals have hoped. (A position affirmed by the New Democrats' two byelection wins last month.)
The Liberals are still strong favorites to win the May election. Most polls have them with a reasonable lead and Campbell - although the surveys show a lot of negatives - outpolls NDP leader Carole James on managing the economy. That's likely to be a big issue.
But the municipal elections, like the Angus Reid poll results, were good news for the NDP. They picked up some potential allies in the important Lower Mainland and got at least a suggestion that some voters see a need for change.
The next six months - starting with the brief legislature sitting now under way - will be interesting.
Footnote: It should be time to declare a democratic crisis in municipal and school board elections. With a few exceptions, voter turnout was terrible and candidates - often in ridiculously large fields - had real difficulty in getting their positions and qualifications before the public. Elections B.C. should be charged with recommending ways to increase meaningful participation.

How to get elected to council or as mayor

I ran into a Victoria council candidate as we launched our kayaks Saturday morning. He was going out fishing.
Which is healthy, but perhaps not the best use of election day morning, when some last-minute phone calls to supporters might help turnout.
Running municipal campaigns is tough, for a lot of reasons. Incumbents have a huge advantage, based mainly on name recognition.
Bernard von Schulmann offers a how-to guide on getting elected here that should be required reading for anyone thinking about entering a campaign next time around.
It's fine to run just to raise ideas, of course, but getting elected takes more work and planning.

Another poll, and the Liberals are on top

Angus Reid Strategies had the NDP five points ahead (see the post below); Ipsos Reid finds the Liberals up by nine with this poll.
Which will make for some interesting debates on polling methods and plenty of nervous types in both parties.

Campbell looking like a liability for Liberals

Fixed election dates make for a better democracy.
But some Liberals must be wishing Premier Gordon Campbell had been more interested in political advantage and a less in this democracy stuff. (All the more reason to give Campbell full credit for his commitment.)
If the election date hadn't been fixed for next May 12, four years after the last vote, the Liberals would have options. They could have called an election last spring, when the economy was strong. They could put off the election until May 2010, giving them time to rebuild support. Or to find a new leader.
The latest Angus Reid Strategies poll is not good news for Campbell.
The NDP is ahead of the Liberals by five points. It has the support of 44 per cent of decided voters; the Liberals 39 per cent; and the Greens 11 per cent.
The last Angus Reid poll found the parties effectively tied, with the NDP at 41 per cent and the Liberals at 38 per cent. The poll's margin of error is 3.5 points. Now, the gap has widened into statistical significance.
With six months until election day, that's bad news for the Liberals. The party in power often sags in the polls between elections, only to rebound.
But it's not good to be behind with months to go.
The Liberals have a significant problem. They have built their public presence around Gordon Campbell. He's front and centre for good news announcements. His priorities - like climate change, or help for First Nations - become the government's (at least for a while).
Now it appears Campbell might be dragging down his party.
The Angus Reid Strategies poll asked for people's judgments of Campbell and NDP leader Carole James.
The responses raised some fascinating questions about what will matter to votes in May.
Overall, about one-third of people thought James would be the best premier; one-third chose Campbell; and one-third were undecided.
The poll also measured momentum. In the last two months, Campbell fell sharply in respondents' estimation. But people were being over by James.
Here is where gets interesting. The poll also asked about attitudes toward the two party leaders.
Campbell was well ahead on ability to manage the economy, decisiveness and vision.
James was rated more highly for honesty, understanding British Columbians' problems and sharing their values and ideas.
And more highly for caring about the environment; ironic, given the NDP's fight against the carbon tax.
There are very clever pollsters and political strategy types trying to figure out what this will mean next May.
Are people likely to vote for a good economic manager who is out of touch with their concerns and can't be trusted?
Or for a person they trust, with inferior skills.
And how will the economic collapse affect all this. When everything is haywire, will Campbell's perceived strength on the economy win big support?
Or will voters decided that it's easier for a trustworthy person to learn skills than it is for a skilled person to learn how to be trustworthy.
There are a couple of other interesting elements in this poll.
The big one is that the Liberals trail the NDP among Greater Vancouver voters, 46 per cent to 41 per cent. In the last Angus Reid poll, in August, the parties were effectively tied. There are a lot of seats in Greater Vancouver. And the only place the Liberals are ahead is in the northern Interior.
Objectively, this shouldn't be happening. The government has messed up often - on seniors' care, children and families, health care.
But the government's finances are in good shape and there are jobs for more people.
Yet the Liberals are in trouble, if the polls reflect the public's views.
The legislature is back this week, for a few days. What happens could be important for the next election.
Footnote: The poll is available at angusreidstrategies.com. One interesting element in all this is the big shift since 2005. James was considered suspect as a long-term leader. She has ground out a base of support.
Now it's Campbell who faces some tough questions about whether he's helping or hurting his party.

Why not just give confirmed addicts their drugs

The “tough-punishment” crowd came to mind when I heard the Victoria police had caught three people smoking crack cocaine this week. They were parked in the police department lot. The police station is a distinctive - and attractive - building. And the parking lot almost always has some marked police cars in it. So the trio - two men and a women - weren’t confused about where they were. They were bringing something to a friend in cells. But they decided to do drugs before venturing into the police station. An officer noticed a car full of smoke and knocked on the window. They rolled it down to talk to him, he smelled drugs and the men were charged with cocaine possession and driving while impaired.
First, the case shows how frustrating police work must be some days. Instead of fighting crime, officers are social workers and counsellors for the troubled, like people who smoke cocaine in the police station parking lot and are surprised to be arrested.
Second, it reveals the laughable flaw in the argument that tougher sentences will make any real difference.
People who smoke drugs outside a police station don’t think about whether they will get a conditional sentence or jail time. They don’t assess consequences. If they did, the probably wouldn’t be drug addicts. (So, teach your children about choices, consequences and reasonable risk.) They are likely the people smashing their way into your car in a parkade or stealing your bicycle. Tougher sentences are not going to make them change their ways.
That should be the objective. It would be great if, in a moment of clarity, they realized that stealing was wrong and decided never to do it again because it must hurt the victims.
But really, it’s OK if they just stop.
That’s not the approach we take, though. Prescribing an effective heroin substitute for a long-term addict who just can’t or won’t quit makes practical sense. He or she is healthier, safer, less likely to go to jail, more likely to be living an orderly life - and to enter treatment. And less likely to be committing property crimes every day to get drug money. The NAOMI project reported last month on a thee-year trial in Montreal and Vancouver that tested the effect of prescribing both heroin and a heroin substitute for confirmed addicts. (Participants had to have been through treatment unsuccessfully twice; the mean age was 40 and they were pretty much considered impossible to treat.)
By any rational measure, prescription heroin and heroin substitutes made sense. After a year in the program, almost 90 per cent of those prescribed heroin or Dilaudid - the chemical substitute - had entered treatment or weren’t using heroin illicitly. (Only 54 per cent of those on a methadone program succeeded in achieving the one-year clean period.)
Those who stayed on the program spent far less money on drugs of any kind. The median monthly spending fell from $1,500 - or $50 a day - to $400. The number of participants who said they had committed crimes was cut in half, from 70 per cent to 36 per cent.
And the study found no negative effects, for individuals or communities. Other studies have shown similar results for programs offering substitutes for crystal meth and cocaine.
No one is comfortable with the idea of people using drugs. But in health terms, heroin does far less damage than alcohol or tobacco. The problems are mostly related to the struggle to get and use drugs illicitly, not the substances themselves.
It would be wrong to make drug use too easy for people for whom treatment could likely be successful.
But that leaves several thousand addicts in B.C, who could be helped through prescription drugs - and several hundred thousand fewer crimes each year in B.C. and far fewer customers for drug-supplying gangs. How could this be a bad thing?
Footnote: The other remarkable failure is our efforts at prevention. Drug education programs have been out there for almost 40 years, but alcoholism and other substance issues have increased over most of that period. What we are doing doesn’t work, but we seem unwilling to change.

Lobbying, and just being helpful

Last month, Patrick Kinsella - among the most influential of Campbell backers and co-chair of the last two Liberal campaigns, drew attention to the emptiness of B.C.'s lobbyist rules when he simply refused to co-operate with an investigation into potential Lobbyist Act violations. The law as written gives Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis - theoretically the watchdog - no authority to ask questions, Kinsella said.
Now the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com, has reported other intriguing activities involving Kinsella.
The consultant sat in on meetings with then solicitor general John Les and gambling industry representatives who wanted to push mini-casinos and VLTs into smaller communities. Kinsella wasn't paid, the industry says. He was just being helpful. The industry has donated more than $40,000 to the party since 2005. (The investigation into land development issues that forced Les from cabinet in April is apparently grinding on.)
The activities, explored by Holman here, raise interesting questions about lobbying, government relations and political donations. in this

FOI cover up, or isolated mistake - your call

Children's Minister Tom Christensen says it was a mistake. Yes, his ministry violated freedom of information law and tried to hide reports that children who had been sexually abused weren't getting needed help.
But it was an honest error, he says, not a cover up or attempt to avoid the release of information embarrassing to the government.
You decide.
Back in June 2007, Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines filed a freedom of information request with the Ministry of Children and Families. There were signs of problems with a program that was supposed to help children who had been sexually abused. Kines wanted to know if the problems were real and what, if anything, the ministry had done about them.
It took three months, but he got a response to the FOI request. The material included a report based on a 2006 review of the sexual abuse intervention program.
The report was heavily censored, with paragraphs and pages whited out. The ministry said it was keeping much of the report secret because it was advice to Children's Minister Tom Christensen. The FOI laws give the government the option of choosing to keep such information secret.
Kines is a persistent reporter. He dug up an uncensored copy of the report. And he found that the censorship didn't appear to involve advice to the minister.
Instead, almost anything critical or that revealed problems in services for children who had been abused was kept secret. Positive comments were left untouched.
The ministry hid the report's finding that agencies working with sexually abused children "were unanimous in their view that program funding is insufficient." It removed the finding that the program is a "critical element" of service children, "deserving of a more explicit focus."
And it censored the passage that reported "pervasive view among providers that the program has been neglected by government decision makers over the past several years."
The ministry also blanked out a list of the main concerns expressed by agencies that deliver the program across the province, including a lack of money, low wages for counsellors and limited support for training.
And it hid some recommendations, including a call to "establish appropriate funding" for the needed services. At that time, budgets had been frozen for years.
Christensen he didn't know anything about the censorship. Kines sent both reports to Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis and asked him to investigate the way his request was handled.
And Loukidelis has just reported.
The censorship wasn't justified, he found.
In fact, the ministry had based its decisions on the claim the report was a draft version. Then it said that was a mistake; the report was really in its final form and the law required it to be released.
Even given the claim, Loukidelis called the ministry's decisions on what to keep secret "perplexing." Information that was critical was generally hidden; the same types of information, if positive, were left untouched. The result was a falsely positive impression of the program.
And Loukidelis also noted that the ministry had failed to fulfil another part of its obligation under the act. While freedom of information law allows government to keep some things secret, it doesn't require secrecy.
Government is supposed to consider whether the principle of openness really needs to be abandoned. That didn't happen.
Christensen it was all a mistake. Staff have been added and training improved. The failure was an aberration.
But how can the public rely on that? If Kines had not pushed harder and discovered the uncensored version of the report, the hidden truth would never have been revealed.
And what impact does a system of flagging "sensitive" requests - from journalists, political parties and interest groups - for special treatment have on the process. Earlier this year, Loukidelis raised concerns that government was discriminating against environmental groups using the freedom-of-information process, charging more and moving slowly on their requests.
Aberration, or a culture of secrecy? You decide.
Footnote: The Liberals were the biggest users of the FOI process in opposition and champions of the principle of openness. In government, they have been criticized by lengthening delays and unnecessary hurdles in dealing with requests.