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

Same sex marriage debate an insult
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - What sort of a crazy country do we live in, where our political leaders can dodge important issues and get themselves all tied up in knots over same sex marriages?
The current noisy, confused and pointless debate should anger most Canadians.
Health care, that's a serious issue. Child poverty, First Nations' problems, softwood lumber, massacres in the Congo, jobs, economic competitiveness - they're all serious issues.
But whether two people can get a sheet of paper that says they're married, that's not a serious issue.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled this month that same sex couples have a legal right to get a marriage licence, the same conclusion that B.C.'s Court of Appeal reached last month. The B.C. court - following the lead of earlier rulings in Quebec and Ontario - gave the federal government until next year to fix the law. In this latest ruling, the Ontario court just tossed the law. Same sex marriages are legal there today.
Scary stuff, apparently, though I can't see why. The ruling doesn't mean churches have to accept same sex marriages. It doesn't change the legal or economic status of the couples; the economic rights of people living together have already been established.
Nothing changes, except that now two people of the same sex can take get a marriage certificate, which has the all the meaning and significance they choose to give it.
It's a piece of paper, issued by a government department. In B.C. you go down and apply for the licence, giving your name, birthday, marital status and address. You have to be over 19, or have your parents' consent. You can be married by a religious representative, or a marriage commissioner. And away you go.
You don't have to pledge to go forth and multiply. You don't have stick together until death do you part, as many opposite sex couples have demonstrated.
I usually get a little teary-eyed at weddings. It's wonderfully hopeful, two people saying that they're taking on life together. It seems to me more wonderfully hopeful in many ways if they're both men or women.
But a marriage licence doesn't mean anyone else has to share that goodwill. Many people believe that real marriage involves a man and a woman. Some people believe it's not a real marriage unless they share the same religion, or are committed to having children. Some people believe that it's not a real marriage if you've been married before.
Which is all fine. But they don't get to impose their definition on others.
Just because same sex couples can get a marriage licence doesn't mean anyone else has to approve, or even recognize the marriage. (''Meet my daughter and her friend. . . they've got a marriage licence but I don't think it counts.")
Some have argued that the real issue is whether laws should be made in the courts or Parliament.
But the courts are just saying that Parliament has to make laws that don't conflict with each other. Parliament passed the charter of rights, and a marriage definition law that conflicts with it. That had to be sorted out somewhere; government wouldn't do it; so the court did.
The courts weren't keen on deciding the issue. The first rulings gave the federal government time to revolve the conflict by changing the law, either to legalize same sex marriage, or with some creativity to preserve the current definition.
Now Ottawa is in an uproar, MPs on both sides of the issue are raging, and Ralph Klein is promising to use the notwithstanding clause to block same sex marriages. (The B.C. Liberals, are ignoring the issue.)
I figure that if two men or women want to take a try at marriage, as they define it, more power to them. It's something to be celebrated when anyone finds a person to share their life.
If you disagree, I respect your view.
But with all that faces us today, the fact that is preoccupying our politicians is just crazy.
Footnote: The real villain here is the Liberal government. On this issue, and marijuana possession, the Liberals have been told by the courts that the law won't stand up and must be changed, but the government has been too paralyzed to act.

Children and families cuts to take terrible toll
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Things are in a nasty mess in the ministry of children and families as it struggles with a reckless plan to chop spending by almost 25 per cent.
Slashing spending on our most vulnerable children and families is an obviously bad idea, one that is unsupported by the facts and betrays Premier Gordon Campbell's past promises to increase funding for the ministry.
But despite warnings and pleas the government has pressed on with its irresponsible plan. It has refused to admit how dangerous the cuts would be, how much damage they would do to children and vulnerable adults and how great the long-term costs.
That changed this week, sort of. The Vancouver Province's Mike Smyth reported on a government document that outlined the kind of cuts that would be needed to chop $350 million from the ministry budget, as the government plans. The report, prepared for Treasury Board, said the cuts would be deep and damaging. The Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre for mentally handicapped youth would be closed, with no place for those kids to go. The province's fetal alcohol syndrome strategy would be scrapped, foster parents - already in short supply - would face a 10 to 15 per cent pay cut and support for troubled families would be cut, with the result that more children would end up in government care. The seven-page list went on.
Finance Minister Gary Collins tried to downplay the concerns this week. The government would likely ease the depth of the cuts, he said, and a decision should be announced within the next week or so.
But the leaked report is only one document, he said, submitted before Treasury Board - the cabinet committee that reviews budgets - had a chance to grill ministry staff about the impact of the cuts.
The children's ministry is exaggerating the risks, Collins said. Some ministry staff have a "rubber stamp" that says 'health and safety risk,' he said, and they use it any time there's a proposal to change the way services are delivered.
Maybe. If you're job is to protect children from abuse, or keep troubled families from exploding, you likely care about the work and recognize that you'll get yelled at if something goes wrong. And you will likely fight budget cuts that make it even a little bit harder to keep kids safe.
And Collins is right. In government, or any organization, someone has to push back and test claims that all the spending is necessary.
But the suggestion that the problem in making these cuts is a stubborn bureaucracy unwilling to change is goofy.
The Liberals used to say the ministry needed more money to do its job, and complained about constant re-organizations. Now they want to cut spending by one-quarter, eliminate one-fifth of the staff - while they completely re-organize the ministry.
It is a formula for disaster. And despite the Liberals' vaunted three-year business plans, this was based on hope and the need to pay for the tax cuts, not a realistic assessment of the needs of children and families. That's why the plan is unraveling.
Collins said one of the problems in assessing the risk involved in making the cuts is that the ministry hasn't been well-managed and doesn't have the needed information. "They put together a plan based on the best data they had, which we now know wasn't very good data," he said.
But that's not something that would suddenly be discovered now, when the cuts are running into trouble. Competent managers would never have accepted a plan for a 23-per-cent budget cut that was based on bad and incomplete information.
The Liberals are putting children and families at risk. They're betraying their promises. And they're trying to save money now at the cost of much greater human and economic costs in future.
Footnote: Don't expect much of a change in the Liberals' plans. Collins said the budget might be increased, but the ministry will still be left facing massive budget cuts and major problems. Which raises an interesting question: why was it important to protect health and education spending, but acceptable to cut services to the most vulnerable children and families?
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Softwood deal closer, but it won't be a good one

VICTORIA - Two years into the softwood battle, and it looks like we're
heading toward a deal that will leave Canada worse off than we were under
the old agreement.
The U.S. side unveiled two important documents this week, one a response to
Canada's proposals for a temporary deal and the other a blueprint for the
forest changes needed to bring the days of border controls to an end.
In terms of the temporary deal, we're down to a process that will be
familiar to anyone who has ever tried to buy a used car or a house, or
negotiated a union contract.
Both sides accept that a negotiated deal is the way to end the dispute.
Canada still talks about letting WTO and NAFTA appeals go forward, but the
reality is that resolving the dispute that way could take years, only to be
thwarted by new American trade barriers.
Negotiations have barely begun. But it looks like Canada is heading towards
a deal that will be bad news for the forest industry for the next several
years.
You can have interesting debates about whether Canadian producers are
subsidized, or B.C. rules force companies to dump lumber when the market is
weak.
But right now this is just about bargaining and relative power, not who is
right or wrong.
The goal for the American producers is to allow as little Canadian lumber
into the country as possible. Less Canadian wood means greater demand for
their products, providing both more sales and higher prices.
Canadians want an open border. Without access to the U.S. market, our forest
industry is wrecked.
Canada's opening proposal, delivered earlier this month, called for an end
to the 27-per-cent duties being collected by the U.S. They would be replaced
with an export tax that would go into provincial coffers. Under the Canadian
proposal, there would be no export tax on the first 17 billion board feet
shipped to the U.S. each year, $25 per thousand for the next billion and
$100 for any additional shipments.
What does that mean? Canada was effectively saying we'll hold our shipments
to about one-third of the wood consumed in the U.S., more or less our
traditional share. Canada doesn't want any significant trade barriers below
that level.
The U.S. proposal was structured differently. But basically, they proposed a
tax of about $35 per thousand board feet on all shipments up to 17 billion
board feet, and a tax of $175 on all wood above that amount. Since the
lumber is only selling for about $250 these days, that level of export tax
would kill any shipments above the quota.
And that would mean Canadian exports would actually be knocked back below
traditional levels, forcing producers to cut their output by about 10 per
cent.
The settlement likely lies somewhere between the two proposals, and Canadian
industry people seem confidence common ground can be found.
But it's a good bet that the final deal will involve some tax on all
shipments to the U.S., unlike the softwood agreement that expired in 2001
and allowed Canadian producers some free access. It will also involve a
substantial tax on higher volumes, to deter Canadian firms from shipping
more wood when markets and prices are strong.
Reaching a deal is just the first problem for Canadian companies, which have
been summoned to Ottawa for a meeting Wednesday to consider options.
Graduated tax levels mean some sort of quota system needs to be in place, or
companies will just rush to get as much wood into the U.S. as quickly as
they can to avoid rising duties. And allocating that quota among companies,
and provinces, is going to produce winners and losers.
The bottom line is that after two years of uncertainty and lost jobs, Canada
is likely to end up with a softwood agreement that is worse than the one
left behind in 2001.
Footnote: The news isn't much brighter on a long-term solution. B.C.'s
planned forestry changes address some of the ground rules the U.S. sets out
for ending any trade barriers. But it's unlikely that they will go far
enough, fast enough, to satisfy U.S. producers. Log exports, and the extent
of the new auction market in timber, will remain stumbling blocks.

Liberals liquor privatization plan a business flop

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Governments are in a tough spot when it comes to our legal vices.
On the one hand, our collective fondness for drinking, smoking and gambling creates a rash of problems for individuals, families and communities.
But our sins do rake in the cash for government. The B.C. government will take in more than $2 billion from our tobacco, drinking and gambling this year, almost twice as much as it earns in revenues from the province's forests.
We're not likely to give up our vices. And governments aren't likely to give up the chance to extract a largely voluntary tax.
But they still have to do it efficiently.
Which leads to the B.C. government's shaky march towards privatizing the liquor business.
The theory is sound. There's no reason why the government has to own liquor stores.
But based on the government's own numbers, the current privatization plan is going to cost taxpayers between $75 million and $150 million over the next three years, with no big benefits in service, selection or price. And that doesn't make sense.
B.C. is following in the path blazed by Alberta, still the only province with a private system 10 years after it made the switch.
But the path looks bumpy. A review of the Alberta changes released this month found that they have cost the government $500 million in tax revenue over the last decade.
Before the change Alberta's revenue from liquor sales increased as population and prices rose. But the shift to private stores also involved a change in the way taxes were levied on liquor sales. The result has been basically flat revenues and a large loss for taxpayers.
The savings weren't passed on to consumers. Prices have increased more quickly in Alberta than they have in B.C. over the decade. The study, done by the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute, found prices in the two provinces are now almost identical.
And the study found no great benefits to offset the lost revenue. There are three times as many liquor stores now, but most are small, with limited selection. More people are working in them, but they're being paid about half the old rate. Some liquor-related crimes are up, but not much.
B.C.'s privatization initiative involves a more immediate cost to taxpayers. The Liquor Distribution Branch plans to close about half its 223 stores over three years, as private stores open. The LDB projects its operating profit - the money government takes in - will show no growth over the three-year period.
If the system was left alone, with revenues rising at the same rate as they have in recent years and costs controlled, the take for government would be $150 million higher.
It's not just alcohol. The Liberals used to rail against the "reckless expansion of gambling." Last month they quietly lifted the 300-slot limit on casinos, setting a province-wide cap of 5,400 machines. No increase, they say, because that's the maximum if all 18 approved casinos ever put in the maximum 300 slots. But the reality is that there about 3,300 slot machines in B.C. today and the change ensures there will be a lot more. The BC Lottery Corporation plans to increase profits by almost 50 per cent in the next three years, thanks mainly to the explosion in slots.
Meanwhile, the government quietly released a major study of problem gambling last month. It found that 4.6 per cent of British Columbians are problem gamblers, about average. But the gambling expansion is having consequences: 11 per cent of the population are "at-risk gamblers," the highest level of any jurisdiction that has done a similar study.
And expanding gambling - especially slots, the gateway drug for casino players - adds to the problem.
There's nothing wrong with making money off our vices. But governments need to recognize the risks. And they certainly need to avoid initiatives, like the liquor privatization plan, that cost taxpayers money and offer little in return.
Footnote: The liquor plan is under review. Responsibility for the whole initiative has been moved from Competition Minister Rick Thorpe to Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who is reviewing the entire project. The plan was flawed from the beginning, and needs a major rethink.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Liberals liquor privatization plan a business flop
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Governments are in a tough spot when it comes to our legal vices.
On the one hand, our collective fondness for drinking, smoking and gambling creates a rash of problems for individuals, families and communities.
But our sins do rake in the cash for government. The B.C. government will take in more than $2 billion from our tobacco, drinking and gambling this year, almost twice as much as it earns in revenues from the province's forests.
We're not likely to give up our vices. And governments aren't likely to give up the chance to extract a largely voluntary tax.
But they still have to do it efficiently.
Which leads to the B.C. government's shaky march towards privatizing the liquor business.
The theory is sound. There's no reason why the government has to own liquor stores.
But based on the government's own numbers, the current privatization plan is going to cost taxpayers between $75 million and $150 million over the next three years, with no big benefits in service, selection or price. And that doesn't make sense.
B.C. is following in the path blazed by Alberta, still the only province with a private system 10 years after it made the switch.
But the path looks bumpy. A review of the Alberta changes released this month found that they have cost the government $500 million in tax revenue over the last decade.
Before the change Alberta's revenue from liquor sales increased as population and prices rose. But the shift to private stores also involved a change in the way taxes were levied on liquor sales. The result has been basically flat revenues and a large loss for taxpayers.
The savings weren't passed on to consumers. Prices have increased more quickly in Alberta than they have in B.C. over the decade. The study, done by the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute, found prices in the two provinces are now almost identical.
And the study found no great benefits to offset the lost revenue. There are three times as many liquor stores now, but most are small, with limited selection. More people are working in them, but they're being paid about half the old rate. Some liquor-related crimes are up, but not much.
B.C.'s privatization initiative involves a more immediate cost to taxpayers. The Liquor Distribution Branch plans to close about half its 223 stores over three years, as private stores open. The LDB projects its operating profit - the money government takes in - will show no growth over the three-year period.
If the system was left alone, with revenues rising at the same rate as they have in recent years and costs controlled, the take for government would be $150 million higher.
It's not just alcohol. The Liberals used to rail against the "reckless expansion of gambling." Last month they quietly lifted the 300-slot limit on casinos, setting a province-wide cap of 5,400 machines. No increase, they say, because that's the maximum if all 18 approved casinos ever put in the maximum 300 slots. But the reality is that there about 3,300 slot machines in B.C. today and the change ensures there will be a lot more. The BC Lottery Corporation plans to increase profits by almost 50 per cent in the next three years, thanks mainly to the explosion in slots.
Meanwhile, the government quietly released a major study of problem gambling last month. It found that 4.6 per cent of British Columbians are problem gamblers, about average. But the gambling expansion is having consequences: 11 per cent of the population are "at-risk gamblers," the highest level of any jurisdiction that has done a similar study.
And expanding gambling - especially slots, the gateway drug for casino players - adds to the problem.
There's nothing wrong with making money off our vices. But governments need to recognize the risks. And they certainly need to avoid initiatives, like the liquor privatization plan, that cost taxpayers money and offer little in return.
Footnote: The liquor plan is under review. Responsibility for the whole initiative has been moved from Competition Minister Rick Thorpe to Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who is reviewing the entire project. The plan was flawed from the beginning, and needs a major rethink.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

MacPhail does the right thing for NDP
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Joy MacPhail has done the right thing.
Now it's up to New Democrats to come up with a leader who can establish the party as a credible alternative.
MacPhail pulled the plug on her 12-year political career this week, announcing she won't be part of the race for the NDP leadership and won't run again.
She has won respect for her determined effort in opposition.
But she's still the wrong person to lead the NDP into the next election. As she rightly observed, the New Democrats need a fresh start. And she can't give them that.
MacPhail held almost every key cabinet job in the reviled Glen Clark government, and was a senior member of the team. That's a past she can not escape.
She said this week that she made the decision not to run about six weeks ago. But the Ipsos-Reid poll released earlier this month must have also given her a nudge. It isn't so much that the Liberals continue to have the support of 44 per cent of voters - enough for a big majority - while the NDP is stalled at 28 per cent. But the poll also found that half the Liberal supporters said they were backing the Campbell party because they don't see a reasonable alternative. That's a harsh judgment on the NDP two full years after the election.
If not Joy, who?
No one has entered the race yet, but things should start to heat up fairly quickly.
The leadership vote will be held Nov. 23, which sounds a long way off. But candidates will be able to start their campaigns June 15.
And despite the terrible mess and bitter allegations of abuse in the last leadership race, the party has kept its flawed selection process. The leader will be chosen by delegates elected at constituency meetings and union delegates. The number of delegates from each riding will be based on the party membership in the constituency. That creates an incentive for candidates to rush out and recruit as many new members as they can, both to ensure their supporters are elected as delegates and to inflate representation from the riding. (The system also works against rural ridings. It's easier to sign up 2,000 new members in Surrey than it is in a sprawling riding like the North Coast.)
But new members must be signed up 90 days before the delegate selection meeting in each riding. Those meetings can start as early as Sept. 15 and must be held by Nov. 6. That means the cut-off date for recruiting new supporters is as early as June 15.
Of course, that assumes a heated race for a pretty crummy job. The first 18 months will be spent outside the legislature, trying to build support, with no salary beyond what the party can afford to pay. And the next four years will be spent in opposition.
There are no front-runners, or even obvious candidates. The old guard - Corky Evans and Steve Orcherton - have the same liabilities as MacPhail. A high-profile union candidate would be vulnerable to Liberal charges of special interest. And other possible candidates, like Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell, are largely unknown and untested.
On the other hand, the softness of the Liberals' support shows there is an opportunity to rebuild the party. And the same poll showed that almost half of British Columbians think the province is worse off today than it was before the Liberals were elected, and that corporations and the rich had done well, while small business and the middle class have been hurt. Campbell has chosen an extreme approach to cutting services and taxes, and in the process he has created more room in the middle for other parties.
The leadership race will be the first indication of whether the New Democrats are able to take advantage of that opportunity.
Footnote: B.C. New Democrats might want to take notice of the success of their counterparts in Manitoba, re-elected this week with a larger majority. Premier Gary Doer promised modest tax cuts, modest increases in health and education spending, public ownership of key Crowns, balanced budgets and pragmatism. Boring, perhaps, but apparently what voters were looking for.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Voters think Liberals failing, but don't see alternative
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The latest major poll was dreadful news for the Liberals, and not all that much better for the NDP.
After two years of the New Era, almost half the voters say things have gotten worse in B.C. under the Liberals, a remarkable assessment given the public's dismay at the NDP's performance. Only one in four British Columbians think things have improved.
That's a brutal assessment, especially given the hope voters showed in handing Gordon Campbell such a huge majority.
The Liberals are still very much in the driver's seat. The poll found support for the party remains strong enough to give them another big majority if an election were held today. The party has the support of 44 per cent of voters, compared with the NDP's 28 per cent and the Greens' 18 per cent.
But look behind those numbers, and there are big potential problems ahead for the Campbell party.
Start with the regional divisions. Outside the Lower Mainland, Liberal support is fading. On Vancouver Island, the Liberals and NDP are effectively tied for public support. In the Interior and North the Liberals are at 34 per cent, NDP at 28 per cent and Greens 23 per cent. That's effectively too close to call.
And outside the Lower Mainland a majority of voters believe the province has deteriorated under the Liberals, while barely one in five voters think they have improved.
Then move to Campbell's key defence - that turning things around takes time, and we'll all have to go through a tough period before things get better.
That's a fair argument, although it's sure not something the Liberals said during the campaign.
But the argument only works if voters think the pain is shared fairly. And they don't.
The poll asked how voters believed life had changed for different groups since the Liberals were elected. And overwhelmingly, those surveyed said the Liberal government had made life better for the rich and big corporations, and made it worse for small business and the rest of us. After two years of Liberal rule, 47 per cent of those surveyed said middle-income British Columbians were worse off, and only 14 per cent thought life had improved for the middle class. But 58 per cent said high-income earners had benefited from the New Era.
That's an especially serious problem for the Liberals because it reinforces the fear or belief that Campbell is governing for the rich and big corporations.
The poll also found that the Liberal support is fragile. Pollsters asked Liberal supporters why they back the party. Half said they approve of the government's policies and actions. Half said they were backing the Liberals because they don't believe there is a reasonable alternative. That means the party's core support is down to about 22 per cent.
The Liberals should be alarmed. Their support - already down sharply from the election - is now based not on the job they are doing, but the lack of an alternative.
But the NDP should be alarmed too. Two years after the election, and voters still don't consider the party as a credible alternative.
It's hard to see that changing before the next election. Joy MacPhail is the only candidate on the horizon for the NDP leadership race this fall. And despite impressive work in the legislature, against huge odds, she remains closely associated in voters' minds with the government they booted out.
The poll paints a bleak picture for both parties. The Liberals are making things worse, and favouring the rich, according to most voters. The NDP still lacks enough credibility to be a serious alternative for most voters. (Though an election today would likely see the party capture 15 to 25 seats; more if the Green support fades.)
The question left is whether the Liberals - perhaps lead by MLAs and cabinet ministers from the regions - are prepared to listen to the message from the voters.
Footnote: The poll asked what the Liberals' greatest accomplishment has been: 54 per cent said "nothing." People were clearer about their biggest disappointment, with 24 per cent picking health care, 15 per cent privatization and 10 per cent education. The poll also showed Campbell faces no challengers. Asked what cabinet minister had been most impressive, the leader was Mike de Jong - with four per cent. Eight out ten had no choice.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Mad cow scare a wake-up call
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Here's three important lessons from the mad cow disaster.
First, it's time to pay more attention to what we eat.
The Alberta rancher who sent the infected cow off to market says he decided to sell her when she got so sick she couldn't stand up anymore.
Inspectors at the abattoir thought the cow - once it was dragged off a truck - looked too sickly to be carved up into steaks. (In that sense the system worked.) And they were worried enough that they sent the head for testing at the Alberta agriculture ministry's lab.
But they approved the sale of the cow for animal feed, and it was melted down. The slurry was used to make chicken feed.
It's been illegal since 1997 - when mad cow disease hit England - to use cow in feed for other cattle, though no one has ever been charged. But unlike Britain, which barred the use of cattle in all animal feed, Canada still allows its use in pig and chicken feed.
That looks like stupid now. Three farms in B.C. were quarantined because they had bought chicken feed made from the infected Alberta cow. Investigators were worried that their cows had licked some up, or that farmers had simply decided to use it to supplement their cattle feed. That's considered a way mad cow disease can spread.
It's not good practice, on any level, to let farmers sell cattle that are so sick or injured that they have to be dragged into the slaughterhouse, a chain looped around an ankle. People don't want to eat those cows, and there are risks if they're used in animal feed.
But we do it regularly. In Ontario a 1999 review found that in three months 639 sick cattle were approved for slaughter. Records only showed what happened to 358 of them. Almost 90 per cent were slaughtered for human consumption.
Those aren't cows people want to eat. When they find out that they are dining on sick animals, the damage is lasting.
It's a tiny number, of course. That's all the more reason for ending the practice, since it means the cost to industry is minimal. If slaughterhouses rejected cows that arrived unable to stand because they'd broken a leg in the truck, the industry would find a way to get them there in one piece.
The second lesson is about government spending and regulation. When inspectors sent that cow head off to the provincial lab in Alberta, it was four months before tests were done. Alberta used to have four animal testing labs; the Klein government closed three to save money.
A quick test would have meant the cow was never made into feed. The B.C. farms and the cattle industry here would never have been involved. The government's savings were false, as the ultimate cost in lost revenue and a damaged industry was much greater.
The case also show the economic justification for effective regulation. For markets to work, buyers need to be able to count on a minimum level of quality. And part of government's role is to be provide that assurance, through regulation and inspection and enforcement. You can argue about who should pick up the cost, but government has an essential role in role in helping make markets work.
The third lesson is that consumers shouldn't depend on regulation. If British Columbians said that they weren't prepared to buy beef until retailers could guarantee no downed animals were being chopped into hamburger, that would happen. If they said they weren't prepared to eat cows fed on ground up pigs or chicken manure (also an ingredient in cattle feed), that would happen.
The reality remains that our beef - and other food - is among the safest in the world.
But the reality also is that we need to to do better.
Footnote: Up to five per cent of the cattle killed in B.C. may not be inspected at all. If the beef is to stay in B.C., regions can opt to rely on voluntary compliance instead of inspection. The Liberals plan to require inspection by the end of the year. Good for consumers; bad for some abattoirs and butchers that will be put out of business because they're too small to allow affordable inspection.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


You decide if Campbell breaking promise to children and families
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Critics say Gordon Campbell's plan to cut 23 per cent - about $300 million - from spending on children and families is a betrayal of pre-election promises.
Campbell denies saying the ministry needed more money.
Here's the legislative record. You decide.
On May 1, 1997:
"My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: given existing resources and given the fundamental need to protect the child, what additional resources will it take to honour our obligation to put children first in the province of British Columbia?"
Penny Priddy, the minister, replies that more money isn't the answer.
And Campbell responds.
"I appreciate the minister's response. I'd also, though, like to say that I think we have to do more. It seems to me, as we look at the issues that we've dealt with over the last number of years, that it is critical and crucial for us all to understand that this is often an issue of financial resources. It's often an issue of new ways that we can provide services. . . "
On May 13, 1997:
"Today the child, youth and family advocate in British Columbia issued her second annual report. From the report and the advocate's comments, it's clear that to do the job of protecting children, more resources are going to be required. The children's advocate said today that the job can't be done with what's on the table: '. . .with what is on the table, something will fall off.' Unfortunately, often that something is a child."
My question to the minister is: is she willing to work with all of us to gather together the concerns of people on the outside, of the young people on the outside and of the children's advocate, and to work with members of the Legislature to allocate the resources that are necessary so that next year we can make real progress with regard to protecting children in the province of British Columbia?
As the minister herself has said, she needs resources. The children's advocate has said we need resources."
On July 3, 1997:
"The minister does not seem to understand that what we on this side of the House have committed to and what people across this province have committed to is to provide the resources that are needed to protect the children of British Columbia."
On March 31, 1998:
"On May 1, 1997, last year, I said to the Minister for Children and Families: 'There is clearly a problem. You need more resources.' The voices from social workers, from front-line workers across this province, have been clear: month in and month out they are overworked. They can't do the job that this government claimed they were charging them with.
I can tell you that people on this side of the House were committed to making sure that they had the resources so they could do it. . .
For two years now we have listened to this government mouth the words, but they have not put in the resources that they need to protect children in this province. For two years we have listened to the Premier of this government pretend that he care about the children of British Columbia and yet not fund the Ministry for Children and Families the way it had to be funded to make sure that children were protected.
The problem with this government is that they don't understand that if your priority is protecting children, that's what your priority is."
On May 5, 1998:
"My question is to the Minister for Children and Families: will the minister admit today that much more, in terms of resources, is required to protect children in need and children in care?"
"Our legislative officer -- the child, youth and family advocate -- has said quite clearly: 'We need to challenge the 'too bad we can't afford it' attitude about essential services for children and youth, knowing that if we don't pay now we will pay more dearly later."
In 1999 the ministry spent $1.48 billion. Next year the government plans to cuts spending to $1.26 billion, $220 million less than British Columbia devoted to the most vulnerable six years ago.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Coquihalla a bad place to start privatization push
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's too early to say if the plan to privatize the Coquihalla is a good deal for the province, but it's sure not good news for the Interior.
And it's a shaky start to the Liberals' effort to come up with a successful public-private partnership.
There's three elements that make the deal attractive to the government.
First, the LIberals get to trade a stream of future revenue for some big cash now, helping to pay for road projects and taking them a lot closer to a balanced budget in one big deal.
Second, they hope that a private operator will see ways to wring more money out of the highway over the next 55 years. The Coquihalla makes about $30 million a year for government now. Tolls are worth $40 million, and maintenance costs about $10 million.
Based on those numbers - and depending on a lot of variables - a private company could probably justify paying $350 million for the right to operate the highway.
But the government hopes the operator will see ways to get higher profits, and bid up to $600 million. There are no services on the highway now; a private operator might cash in with a roadside development that it leases to fast food places, motels and other services. More revenue for the operator, more profits and thus a willingness to pay a higher price.
And third, the government dodges all the heat for the highway's operations. Businesses in Merritt, for example, aren't going to like the idea of a big highway commercial development that captures customers who used to head into town for gas and a burger. They could pressure a government to halt the project; they won't have any clout with a private operator.
The switch to private operation also helps the government dodge the perpetual questions from Interior residents about why they're paying tolls to subsidize highway improvements for other people.
There's nothing wrong with handing highway operations over to a private company. No one should really care whether the person driving the snowplow works for the province or some banking syndicate. The only issue is whether it's a good deal, one that produces more revenue and protects the quality of road maintenance.
And there's nothing wrong with using tolls to pay for new highways, or big improvements, the user-pay approach the Liberals initially outlined.
But the Liberals have made a mistake by picking the Coquihalla for their first big privatization effort.
Tolls were supposed to come off when the highway was paid for. Like everything else about the highway project, the deal was never clear, but the best recollection of key participants is that the Socreds agreed that tolls would be lifted when the Hope-Merritt section was paid off. That section cost about $450 million; tolls have raised about $550 million. The communities have a case.
The bigger issue is the government's failure to establish a real link between tolls and improvements. People in the area aren't getting a new road, or a better bridge. They're being asked to pay tolls - which will rise every year - for the rest of their lives, with few direct benefits.
In fact, communities along the Coquihalla now see the prospect of paying tolls and watching the money being spent on projects in other regions that will be toll-free. Every time people in Kelowna read a story about a road mega-project like the Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements, they will be reminded that they're paying tolls - on top of gas taxes - to subsidize projects for others who don't have to come up with $13 every time they head down the road.
Details are still sketchy. This could turn out to be a good business deal.
But the Liberals are going to have a tough time convincing anyone in this part of the Heartland that it's a fair one.
Footnote: Here's Kamloops Liberal MLA Kevin Krueger in the legisalture in 2000, arguing tolls should come off. "I've got to tell you, on behalf of my constituents and the constituents throughout the Interior, we don't like this at all -- that this government can ride roughshod over all the rules of doing business. The people in Merritt, the people throughout Yale-Lillooet, don't appreciate having to pay a toll on the Coquihalla Highway and having that money sucked out of our local economy and squandered down here."
willcocks@ultranet.ca

U.S. drug czar's get-tough pitch both insulting and wrong
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Taking advice about drug policy from the U.S. makes about as much sense as hiring Saddam Hussein as a foreign policy advisor.
Every aspect of U.S. drug policy has been a costly, stunning failure, wrecking lives and whole cities while achieving absolutely nothing.
And yet here's a U.S. drug czar, flying in to Vancouver to warn that we're heading for major trouble with our drug policies.
David Murray, special assistant in the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said crazy ideas like decriminalizing marijuana possession and opening a safe injection site in Vancouver will lead to no good.
The U.S. will even have to tighten border controls, hurting the Canadian economy, said Murray, whose visit was aimed at persuading police, politicians and media that Canada should copy the U.S. war on drugs.
Murray didn't just use threats of U.S. retaliation. He also warned that we will be stumbling towards disaster.
Decriminalize marijuana, and more kids will use it, police will be swamped and vulnerable minority communities will be turned into dazed potheads, Murray claimed. Safe injection sites will also lead to something bad, he said, although he was pretty vague about what that might be.
Murray couldn't offer any evidence for his claims.
In fact, the reality is that marijuana use has gone down among youth in Holland, which took marjuana use out of the criminal process. And every country that has tried to deal with heroin and other drug addictions as a medical problem has reported fewer deaths, less crime, lower health care costs and fewer addicts.
Compare that with the U.S. record. America has been waging a stupid, costly and ineffective war on drugs for decades. The result has been more addiction, deaths, crime and social decay. Twenty years ago there were about 80,000 drug offenders in U.S. jails; now there are 400,000, at a cost of $16 billion a year. Drugs are far more potent, far more widely available and far more widely used. There is more crime, more shattered families and more death.
The U.S. approach has been tried. And it has failed.
I feel a little foolish even using this space to respond to Murray's nonsense. He claimed that people need the threat of the "sanctions of law enforcement" or they have no reason to give up drugs. As if disease, poverty, despair and the threat of death weren't enough.
He claimed marijuana is the first step on the ladder of drugs, even though a study last year by the U.S. RAND think-tank found that people who are going to use hard drugs will start with whatever is easiest to get - beer, or pot, or glue.
And asked for evidence that the U.S. approach to drugs is better than other approaches, Murray had nothing to offer.
The problem with this kind of misinformation, and U.S. pressure, is that we're talking about a life-and-death issue. Drugs do take a terrible toll. Peoples' lives are destroyed, families are shattered and communities are terribly damaged. Organized criminals profit, and addicts commit countless small and stupid crimes.
But that makes it all the more important that we tackle the problem sensibly, based on what works, not slogans.
If our goal is to reduce the damage done to individuals and communities by intravenous drug use, then safe injection sites and other harm reduction measures have been proven to be the most effective path. They save lives, and offer a gateway to health care services, addiction programs and employment, while reducing crime.
If our goal is to keep organized criminals from an expanding role in the marijuana trade, then perhaps we could make the biggest gains by eliminating the risk of prosecution for people interested in growing a few plants.
We don't need a war on drugs, which generally turns out to be a war on the most vulnerable members of society.
We need education to help people avoid addiction and abuse, support for people who want to quit and harm reduction for people who can't or won't quit.
We need solutions, not rhetoric.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Citizens' Assembly offers a revolution in politics
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Forget the boring name. The Citizens' Assembly is the biggest thing that's going to happen to politics in your lifetime.
Anyone who thinks the system isn't working now- has a chance to radically change the way we elect politicians, the kind of opportunity most voters can only dream about.
The assembly will give average citizens a chance to come up with a better way of electing MLAs. It will bring together 159 people, more or less randomly selected. They will learn about proportional representation and other alternatives to the current system; hold public hearings; and then come up with a recommendation that will go to a binding referendum at the same time as the next election.
It's extraordinary. Governments don't give up this kind of power to ordinary citizens. It's almost never in their self-interest to tamper with the system that got them elected. (Full marks to Gordon Campbell, for fulfilling a promise that many politicians would bury.)
There isn't much argument that the system can be improved. We elect politicians under a winner-takes-all system, with one victor in each riding. Win enough seats and you form the government. The result is that most British Columbians end up feeling locked out of the political process.
Look at the last election. The Liberals captured 58 per cent of the popular vote. But under our system, they won 98 per cent of the seats. More than 20 per cent of voters supported the NDP, but the party only got two seats. And 12 per cent of voters voted Green and ended up with no representation.
The system leaves too many people convinced that their vote doesn't count. We also lose out on new ideas and the kind of debate that produces the best solutions.
There are alternatives, in use around the world. The assembly has to figure out which one will work best for B.C.
Solutions could be as simple as adding a proportional representation component to the current system. We could create 59 geographical ridings, for example, and add 30 MLAs who would be selected based on their party's share of the popular vote.
Based on the last election results, the Liberals would get 18 of those seats, the NDP eight and the Greens four.
That's hardly revolutionary. But it would create a much different legislature, and provide a voice for hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who now feel left out.
And that's just the starting point for change. Our current system encourages polarization. Voters don't select the candidate, or party, that they believe would best represent them in the legislature. They also have to assess the party's chances of success. Pragmatic voters who support the Greens or the Unity Party, but don't believe they can win a seat, have to abandon principle and settle for the party with a chance of winning that comes closest to their vision for the province.
There are hurdles ahead for the reform initiative. The assembly's recommendation has to be approved not only by 60 per cent of voters across the province, but by a majority of voters in 60 per cent of the ridings. And any change won't take effect until the election 2009.
Those are acceptable barriers. The referendum's requirements are high, but it will offer protection to rural voters who fear that changes could lead to their voices being drowned out by the huge population in the Lower Mainland. And the long delay before the system is changed provides comfort to Liberals who wonder how change will affect their current grip on the legislature.
The bottom line is that B.C. is starting an extraordinary process, one that could lead to a political system that is more energized and innovative.
Voters - and the people who have stayed home on election day - will know that their participation matters and will result in their voice being heard in the legislature.
Pay attention. This is a very great opportunity.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell, who had a bevy of Liberal MLAs join him for the announcement in the legislature, highlighted another aspect of the current system. The Liberal landslide was the first time since 1949 that a B.C. government had been elected with the support of more than half the voters.
willcocks@ultranet.ca



Rural education task force fails to meet real challenge
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I'd give the province's rural education task force a C grade, along with those kind of encouraging comments that teachers write on report cards.
There was nothing wrong with the work the task force did on the problems of rural schools.
But there's a crisis out there in education. Rural students aren't getting the same opportunity to learn, and that means they aren't getting the same opportunities in life. And the task force, despite some useful recommendations, hasn't come back with a report that acknowledges that crisis.
Education Minister Christy Clark set up the task force last year, a welcome acknowledgment of a long-standing problem.
And their report was useful enough. The government will put up $225,000 to allow three school districts to experiment with computer-based education, and up to $6 million to improve Internet access. It will set up a program to forgive student loans for teaching grads who agree to teach in a rural school for five years. It will look at letting villages or towns take on a bigger role in running schools. And the education ministry will start measuring how it's doing on closing the rural urban gap
There are a bunch of other recommendations, and Clark says she accepts them all.
But - and this is a very large but - many are mushy, full of phrases like "produce a planning document" and "encourage partnerships" and "facilitate the provision of increased educational opportunities."
In a past life I learned to be very skeptical if a manager came forward with plans that talked about intentions, not actions. It's nice to recommend that government "work with education partners to build a network of rural educators and leaders." But that doesn't commit anyone to any actual action, or results.
A useful recommendation would have included action - perhaps calling for a conference of ministry officials, teachers, rural administrators and parents within 90 days to launch this network.
There are recommendations that can be acted on quickly, like helping teachers adapt the existing curriculum to multi-grade classrooms and improving training opportunities for rural teachers.
But overall this is a very soft report, for a very hard problem, that moves us forward only a small distance.
Clark says parents can send children to rural schools with confidence.
But the reality is that children in those schools are learning less than their counterparts in city schools, as the task force reports. Their parents pay the same taxes; the children have the same potential, and the same needs.
And they aren't getting an equal education.
We're not taking about a small gap, or a little problem. Province-wide tests released last fall showed - again - that if you live in the urban south your children are far more likely to leave school with the basic literacy and numeracy skills needed to give them a good chance in life.
Take reading. In the seven highest ranked districts, more than 80 per cent of Grade 10 students are meeting provincial standards. Those districts were generally in Vancouver and Victoria.
But in the 10 lowest ranked districts, barely half the students are reading at an acceptable level. Those districts were in the north, the Interior and on Vancouver Island. (Results for math and writing showed the same dismal disparity.)
That's a crisis. It's cheating the kids, and cheating the province of its future.
B.C. doesn't have to invent solutions, or launch long planning process. Manitoba has been successful in closing the rural-urban gap. The government there pays for special training opportunities and extra classroom help.
Alberta set aside extra money for rural districts with that wanted to try projects aimed at improving students' success.
The task force report moves us forward. But not nearly far enough, or fast enough, given the seriousness of the problem.
Footnote: The report avoids the question of whether rural schools are under-funded. But Clark said she'll accept a recommendation that municipalities be allowed to come up with cash to keep schools open, as Wells did this year. A solution, perhaps. But also a two-tier approach to education, where some taxpayers have to pay extra - through property taxes - for services that the rest of us receive from the province.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Liberals face regional problems halfway to next campaign
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Two years from today, the campaign buses will be rolling, election signs will be popping up and the sound-bites will be flying.
And despite some big problems in the so-called Heartland, the Liberals have reached the halfway point in their first term with much of their support intact.
The Liberals are sitting at about 45 per cent in the polls, enough to give them a comfortable majority. That's an unusual achievement, given the province's history over the last two decades. By the same point in their terms Glen Clark, Mike Harcourt and Bill Vander Zalm were all in deep trouble, with support for their parties mired below 30 per cent.
It's not all good news for the Liberals. They're are still down sharply from the 58-per-cent support they won in the election. Crunch the numbers, and you find that some 400,000 people who voted for Liberal candidates no longer support the party.
And the overall level of support masks some big potential problems for Liberal candidates - like Dave Chutter - in up to 35 ridings outside the Lower Mainland.
Step outside Vancouver and its sprawl, and the Liberal lead vanishes. Recall campaigns may be failing, but that doesn't mean things are safe for the MLAs.
On Vancouver Island, the NDP and Liberals are in a dead heat. The New Democrats are at 32 per cent, the Liberals at 32 per cent and the Greens at 27 per cent.
In the Interior and North the Liberals have 37-per-cent support, the NDP has 34 per cent and Greens 19 per cent.
The reasons aren't complicated. Under the Liberals, communities like Lillooert have seen much of the pain of the New Era, and few gains. Offices have been closed, health care services reduced and schools closed. Promised economic opportunities have remained just that - promises.
That's one reason the Liberals have been making such a big deal about their much mocked "Heartland" strategy, aimed at helping the rest of the province.
The poll results should alarm the Liberals. The NDP still has plenty of persistent problems of its own. But it's already seen as an alternative across much of the province. If the party can begin to take support away from the Greens as the election approaches, the Liberals will lose a lot of seats.
(The NDP has hired Gerry Scott to as party secretary, the top paid job. He's an experienced fund-raiser and campaign manager, generally seen as a good organizer. And he's been working with the David Suzuki Foundation, so he has an in with Green supporters.)
The Liberals need to be able to show that their plans are working to help the whole provincial economy, not just the Lower Mainland.
That's likely to be a challenge. A new report from the Credit Union Central of B.C. lowers growth projections for B.C. for this year. Chief economist Helmut Pastrick - a member of Finance Minister Gary Collins' advisory panel - says growth will be only two per cent this year and three per cent next. And he predicts continued problems for smaller cities and rural communities. Even if forest exports increase, jobs in the sector could disappear as companies increase operating efficiency, he says.
The Liberals face some tough challenges. Some they can control. It's within the government's ability to find ways to reduce the growing economic gap between Vancouver and the rest of the province. It's possible to give MLAs more opportunities to speak up for their communities.
But others will are difficult to manage. If SARS hurts the already weak B.C. economy, the Liberals will face the challenge of explaining where the promised growth went. If the strong Green Party support shifts to the NDP - that's at least a possibility - then many more Liberal MLAs will face defeat.
The Liberals still face no serious threats on their path to forming the government after the election in May 2005. But unless they address some serious problems, an awful lot of MLAs won't be around for a second term.
Footnote: Pastrick's new growth forecast - two per cent for this year - is bad news for Collins, who built his budget on a growth rate of 2.4 per cent. Slower growth means less revenue for government. The contingency allowance can handle the revenue shortfall, but the cushion is being nibbled away only weeks into the new fiscal year.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Hospital workers wisely trade wage cuts for jobs
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - What do you call a deal that commits hospital workers to opening up their contract and accepting longer hours, shorter vacations and pay cuts?
A success.
Union negotiators representing some 46,000 employees at B.C. hospitals have already accepted the deal, because it offers one large benefit. Some 15,000 layoffs could be avoided in return for the concessions.
Negotiators don't like the deal. But Hospital Employees' Union head Chris Allnutt says it's the best the unions could do while protecting the jobs of thousands of people.
The roots of the dispute are straightforward. The Liberals believe people who provide support services in the health care system - who prepare the food, or keep the hospitals clean, or work in the labs - are overpaid. And they set out to change that.
First the government passed legislation gutting the job protection provisions in the union contracts, making it possible to contract out all their work to private companies which would then hire new people to do the same work at lower wages.
And then they started the process. Already some 5,000 health care employees are set to be fired under privatization programs under way in the health regions.
The Liberals look sleazy on this one. The unions had asked Gordon Campbell before the election if he would rip up their contracts. No, he said in an interview published in the union newsletter. That would be wrong, and it's not something that he believed in. A government's word has to mean something.
And then Campbell turned around and broke his own word.
The unions felt betrayed and angry. And voters can reach their own conclusions about the significance of the gap between Campbell's words and his deeds.
But once the government tore up their contracts, the unions had few choices. They tried, unsuccessfully, to rally support against the privatization plans on the basis that health care would be jeopardized if services were contracted out to inexperienced companies with low-wage staff.
That didn't work.
That left the HEU with two options. Wait, as up to 20,000 jobs were lost, and see if the privatization process would go off the rails.
Or come to a deal that would protect jobs while providing the government with most of the savings it was seeking.
That's what has happened. Layoffs will be capped at the 5,000 already planned. The unions have agreed to extend their current contract by two years until 2006, and accepted sweeping concessions. Employees will give up 6.4 per cent in scheduled pay increases and take cuts of between 35 cents and $1 per hour, while increasing their work week by 1.5 hours and giving up five days of vacation. The government has will limit the layoffs, extend bumping rights and contribute $65 million to improve severance.
It's a painful deal, but it's a pragmatic one.
The reality is that the people who would have lost their jobs are not likely to find work that pays as well or offers comparable conditions. That's not just because jobs of any kind remain in short supply in much of B.C. The fact is that the contracts provided higher pay than the people could expect to earn using their skills in other workplaces, unionized or non-unionized. Protecting those jobs, even at lower wage levels, is important to those people.
For the government, the deal allows health authorities to avoid contracting out efforts that would be disruptive and risky. Health regions have enough to do managing cost pressures and frozen budgets without going through the hassle and risk of entrusting hospital cleaning or food preparation to the low bidder.
The deal still has to be approved by union members, who are divided. Some technical workers, who argue they are already underpaid, are particularly irked. But the people at risk are more motivated to approve the deal; it should pass.
Bargaining is about making the best of your situation, even if you don't like it. This agreement does that, for both sides.
Footnote: Why now, and not a year ago before the privatization push began disrupting the health care system and employees? Each side blames the other. But it remains striking that the Liberal government, unlike Ralph Klein, never proposed public sector wage cuts as a way of reducing government spending.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Beautiful building, and we bring it shame
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A local newspaper columnist suggested Press Gallery types could be considered embedded journalists, just like the TV reporters over there in Iraq.
Just like them, she implied, we lose perspective. We're too close to the politicians, too far from real life and too caught up in the often irrelevant small dramas in this fine old building.
She's probably right.
I watch Question Period every day, and half listen to what passes for debates in the house. I'm used to it, the bickering and pointless insults and steadfast refusal to provide serious answers to serious questions.
Barbara Macaulay brought her Grade 5 and 6 class to watch Question Period. They weren't used to the rudeness and stupidity. The kids were shocked by "ugly behaviour" and a "base tone of baiting and bully-like comments."
"The display of arrogance and infantile name-calling was a terrific non-example for my students," she wrote.
She's right. It happens day after day, and has for years. But that doesn't make it less appalling or destructive. The people in the legislature - smart, caring people - are acting wretchedly.
Not all debate is unworthy. There are some excellent members' statements, some rare useful question-and-answer exchanges.
But too often the debates are pointless posturing.
This isn't a slag against the Liberals. The NDP were equally unable to see the benefits of treating the legislature, and individual MLAs, with respect.
But the minimal opposition gave the Liberals a chance to try something new, to create the chance for real debate. And they've failed.
You could see how badly they failed earlier this month, when NDP leader Joy MacPhail skipped morning debate on the transportation budget after a late-night sitting.
Independent MLA Paul Nettleton took the chance to raise questions about BC Rail.
When he finished, a problem. No MacPhail, so no one to start asking questions. Liberal MLA Blair Suffredine tried to ask about the Francois Lake ferry privatization and other local transportation issues.
Sorry, said Transportation Minister Judith Reid, I'm ready to talk about BC Rail today, with the appropriate staff on hand. Call my office for a meeting.
So Barry Penner rose, to ask about upgrades to a dangerous stretch of Hwy 1 near Bridal Falls. Reid lay her head on her desk in mock dismay, and gave him the same non-response.
MLA Pat Bell rode to the rescue with some BC Rail questions, but admitted he was going back over old ground.
All in all, a lame display. Surely Reid could at least have tried to answer questions from MLAs concerned about her ministry's plans for their communities. And surely those answers would have been better provided publicly.
The Liberals have made big changes in one area, bumping up security. (Maybe that's why I feel more like an embedded journalist.) First it was a cardlock system for all the doors that used to be open to the public, with special ID cards for everyone who wanted to get into the building. Now it's a $200,000 project to put in electronic vehicle control gates and day-and-night surveillance cameras at the driveways.
Current world events helped prompt the new security, the government said.
Please. These old buildings aren't a terror target. In decades, protests have been almost uniformly peaceful, and when things went wrong they have been well-managed by security staff and police.
One security guard was injured in an anti-logging protest in the early '90s. Aside from that one regrettable incident he public has strolled in to meet with their representatives. It's our building, and we've been welcome.
We're going backwards. We don't need tighter security, or crews digging trenches for underground wiring for surveillance cameras.
Instead we need more respect.
These are lovely buildings you own down here. It lifts my heart to see them most days.
It's a shame that what goes on inside the chamber does so little credit to the surroundings.
Footnote: Solicitor General Rich Coleman showed how the legislature could work. Coleman raised the question of alcohol abuse and FAS in an answer to a reporter's question, and was roundly - and wrongly - criticized for a lack of racial sensitivity. But faced with demands for an apology, he offered a clear and unequivocal one.
willcocks@ultranet.ca


Influence of big corporate donors cloud over politics
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Who are you going to believe, Gordon Campbell or your grandmother?
Campbell says it doesn't matter how dependent the Liberals are on donations from corporations, the government's decisions aren't affected.
But my grandmother was fond of proverbs, including the observation that 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.' And whatever Campbell says, most British Columbians believe that's true.
The latest political financial reports are out, showing the Liberals raked in about $4.3 million in donations last year. Most of the money came from corporations making donations over $250. When it came to financial support from individuals, the Liberals actually trailed the NDP.
No problem, says Campbell. The donations are fully disclosed, so everyone knows who has given and can decide for themselves if big givers are getting special treatment. And the Liberals make decisions based on what's best for the province, he says, not what's best for donors like Accenture, which gave $12,000 to the Liberals as it negotiated a contract to take over about one-third of BC Hydro's operations.
But it is a problem.
Campbell's claim that it makes no difference at all if a mining company like Teck Cominco gives more than $50,000 to the Liberal party flies in the face of most peoples' experience. Most of us listen to the people who write the cheques, the bosses or parents or bank managers. We still do what's right, but we aren't blissfully blind to their expectations, or the consequences of disappointing them. That's reality.
And most of us bring our experience to bear when we consider the Liberals' relationships with the corporations that provide more than 60 per cent of the money going to run the party and fight elections. According to a study done in 2000 almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
The perception - no matter what Campbell says about the reality - is that governments are beholden to corporate or big union interests. And that's damaging to our democracy.
It's a tough issue for the party in power. NDP leader Joy MacPhail now wants political finance reform, urging an end to donations by unions and companies and limits on the size of individual donations. But Campbell notes rightly that she had a decade in power, and never found the issue a priority. No government is keen to change the system, because the party in power has a big fund-raising advantage.
Campbell said changing the system would cost taxpayers money. Prime Minister Jean Chretien plans to end corporate and union donations, and replace the lost money with taxpayer subsidies to parties based on their share of the popular vote. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to fund parties any more than they already do, Campbell says.
But there are alternatives, starting with simply leaving parties to trim their spending to fit their reduced revenue.
Liberal party spending has jumped by almost 40 per cent in three years. The budget for paid staff has almost tripled. Is that kind of increase really necessary? A large paid party staff and big central office don't necessarily enhance public involvement in politics; in fact it could reduce the influence of traditional volunteers.
The public doesn't trust the current process. They believe that when a corporation takes shareholders' money and gives it to a governing party, or a union hands over members' dues. there is an expectation of benefit. And they believe that when an organization has given $200,000 to a party, he expects his phone calls will be returned just a little more quickly.
That's corrosive, another damaging blow to peoples' belief that there is a meaningful role for them in our political life.
Campbell can change that, simply by referring the whole issue to the assembly of ordinary citizens that will soon be asked to prepare a plan for electoral reform.
The alternative is growing, destructive cynicism.
Footnote: The political finance reports released by Elections BC revealed a weak Green Party. Despite their strong poll standing, the Greens only raised in $87,000 in donations last year, with an average of 10 donors in each riding. That's nowhere near enough to fund a serious campaign in 2005
willcocks@ultranet.ca