James' platform aims to move NDP to middle

VICTORIA - The NDP's platform launch got the party's campaign off to a pretty good start this week, despite one major goof.
The broad thrust was clear. NDP leader Carole James wants to persuade people that she's moved the party to the middle. No more deficits, no tax increases and no turning back the clock to undo Liberal changes.
"My platform is pragmatic and achievable," James said. "It promises what can be done within our ability to pay." It's kind of an 'NDP lite,' compared with the government that ran the province through much of the '90s.
So James pledged to hire 1,500 more teachers, but she also ruled out any new taxes on business. She promised 1,000 new long-term care beds this year, but said an NDP government would still make sure to end the year with a surplus. Teachers would get the right to bargain class size, and to strike, but hospital workers shouldn't expect to get back their jobs, or pay cuts.
And perhaps most importantly, the platform includes a clear explanation of how the NDP will pay for any new spending it does plan.
An NDP government, the platform says, would come up with $32 million for the children and families ministry, and to restore the Children's Commissioner. It would find $40 million more for aid for communities hit with the pine beetle disaster. And it would come up with $103 million to open long-term care beds and cut surgical waiting lists.
The money would be found by reducing the contingency fund, and trimming bits and pieces from government.
But - and politically this is a stumble - most of the money would come from "deferring or cancelling" money for projects the Liberals are funding from their election slush fund.
That probably sounded reasonable in a planning session. The Liberals set aside a $250-million election fund this year - the same budget category was $18 million last year, and will be less than $50 million next year. Surely the public shouldn't be keen on blatant vote-buying?
But $100 million of the money has gone to create two locally directed $50-million economic development funds, one for the Southern Interior and one Vancouver Island and the mid-Coast. The NDP supports those, and has pledged not to touch them.
So far the Liberals have promised another $73 million from the fund. Smithers gets $1.7 million for a rink, Kelowna $6.5 million for a pool, Victoria $19 million for a sports complex, and so on. And another $70 million worth of announcements are planned for the next few days.
Crass vote-buying, perhaps. But the people in Nanaimo probably like the idea of an $8-million contribution to a better arena. They won't be keen on James taking the money away.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen was the designated government guy to dump on the platform. (He is effective.)
He naturally jumped on the threat to promised projects.
And Hansen raised a couple of other themes you can expect to hear from the Liberals through the campaign.
The NDP may promise no new taxes, Hansen reminded, but in government they raised tax rates in B.C. above our neighbours.
And an NDP government would give too much to organized labour, Hansen suggested, tipping the Labour Code in favour of unions and allowing teachers' strikes. (James has promised teachers the right to strike, a strange and empty commitment. No government will allow more than the briefest disruption to schools. It's a sham, and the Liberal proposal to reform bargaining makes sense.)
Still, a good start for James. There are credibility issues, a terrible party record and candidates who may have an entirely different policy view.
But James, after 17 months on the job, got the party to produce a platform that made sense, added up and could attract support from the voters who matter - the people in the middle.
It's not a bad beginning.
Footnote: The Greens got stomped on by the NDP. Adriane Carr had scheduled the party's platform launch, but the NDP put out a release saying their platform would be unveiled at the same time. An accident, said James. The Greens are not convinced.

Timing political, but Cariboo highway a good project

VICTORIA - It's election time. Break out the highway construction equipment.
Gordon Campbell's pre-election road show rolled into Prince George this week, and out of pretty much nowhere the Liberals unveiled a $200-million plan to begin a big upgrade of Hwy 97, the critical route from Cache Creek through the heart of the province.
Just part of the plan, the premier said. That came as a big surprise to people in Prince George, expecting a $33-million commitment to twin a highway bridge. Instead they got the downpayment on a $2-billion highway megaproject, albeit one that will unfold over decades. The first phases - $200 million over five years - barely starts the job of turning the highway into the promised 'Cariboo Connector,' a 460-km four-lane route through the Interior. About 37 kms are currently four-lane. By 2010 the government hopes to have added another 45 kms, with most of the initial work near Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House and Cache Creek, where congestion is a problem.
The announcement - eight days before the official election campaign starts, and the big spending stops - is obviously political.
But improving the highway, and branding it, is a good investment in the region's future. That would be valuable in any case. It's critical given the coming economic crisis, when the pine beetle wood is harvested and allowable cuts are slashed across much of the region. Economic diversification will be part of any potential solution, and improved transportation is a critical part of the puzzle.
A Progress Board report last year urged governments to make transportation improvements a priority. Communities across the province can already be brought together electronically, removing one barrier to economic development. Better transportation networks can make a large difference in removing the physical barriers, effectively moving cities hours closer to each other.
 "A key strategic consideration should be establishing a workable timeframe for improving - to the greatest extent possible - key segments of east-west and north-south highways to 'shrink the distance' between major centres and to enhance external market connectivity," said the report, written by UBC prof Michael Goldberg. Goldberg said improving the Trans-Canada Highway in the Rockies, removing Lower Mainland bottlenecks and four-laning parts of Hwy 97 should be top of the project list.
The report released by the Progress Board also suggested more tolls to pay for the roadwork, and get the projects moving more quickly.
And four years ago, that might have been in the Liberals' plans. Remember the effort to sell the Coquihalla, letting a private company collect the tolls and take over the maintenance? The cash from the deal was supposed to pay for more road improvements. The principle was that users should pay for better highways.
But people hated the idea. Their response seems to have finished off not only that privatization scheme, but also plans for other private, toll projects in the Interior.
That might be a mistake. If a toll road, or private partner, allowed much faster progress on the project the benefits might outweigh the obvious public dislike for paying directly to use highways.
There are other options for moving more quickly. Campbell said federal money could help advance the work schedule. That should include money from Ottawa intended to help deal with the pine beetle crisis. The improvements should help the region. Highway travel issues are critical across much of the province, where large distances and sometimes difficult conditions cause delays and safety issues. Travel problems cost individuals and companies money, hurt the prospects for economic growth and create conflicts between users.
And highway issues are a critical barrier to tourism development, keeping travellers away from the Cariboo and locked into the southern quarter of the province.
Sure, the timing is obviously linked to the election, and to winning seats for the Liberals.
But the Cariboo Connector makes economic sense. On with the work.
Footnote: The project makes sense; the Cariboo Connector name doesn't. The highway’s new name should be aimed at persuading tourists that a trip to Prince George - and then to Prince Rupert - should be part of their plans. The route's name should sell the region's history and beauty, and lure tourists down the road.

Liberals’ star candidates bring big changes

VICTORIA - It’s tricky bringing star candidates like Wally Oppal and Carole Taylor into the Liberal ranks.
Take one issue. All those new stars shining so brightly - Oppal, and Taylor and Virginia Greene and even Daniel Igali - are from the Lower Mainland. If they end up in cabinet, as they all expect, then the government focus inevitably shifts further towards Vancouver and its sprawl. It’s not something anyone intended, but it’s the reality. After all, Gordon Campbell hasn’t shown up to welcome new high-profile Liberal candidates in the North, or the Kootenays so far.
Star candidates can add value. Oppal’s decision to run for the Liberals in Vancouver-Fairview generated a week’s worth of speculative news stories, and drew a pack of reporters and TV crews to the big announcement. He’s seen as bright and fair and the kind of person who can make things better - and he can get on the evening news.
Star candidates can also bring needed freshness and independence. It is easy for any group of people who work together - a union executive, or corporate management group, a cabinet or even journalists - to slide into ‘groupthink,’ a shared vision of the world and the way it works. (And it is especially easy when power is concentrated in the hands of a strong leader.)
But a new person, with stature conveyed by recruitment as a star candidate, can safely challenge the common view, and propose new responses or solutions. They bring fresh ideas, a different background and independence. Those are critical elements if groups are to reach the best decisions.
For the Liberals, the benefits are even greater. The party needs to look a little more moderate, not mean, or too far right. Oppal is a socially progressive judge; Taylor the ex-chair of the CBC; Igali an Olympian who cares about kids. They are made-to-order.
Still, the arrival of the chosen has to rankle, and brings some problems for the leader who has done the recruiting. Chilliwack MLA Barry Penner, a lawyer and hard-worker, had been mentioned in reports as a potential attorney general. Oppal is now on track for that job. Taylor, Green and Igali may all dash someone’s hopes for a cabinet post.
A lot of MLAs have worked hard for the last four years, and believe they deserve a chance to be in cabinet. The odds are still good - if some 50 Liberals are elected, more than half will get cabinet positions - but some of the best jobs are going to the new stars.
The arrival of ambitious people who have not been part of the long Liberal march to power also changes the group dynamic. This government has been noteworthy for its unity. Only two MLAs out of 77 - Paul Nettleton and Elayne Brenzinger - have walked away, and there’s been no public bickering. One factor is a shared history. These people saw Campbell build the party, and lead it to a huge victory, and remain grateful.
But the newcomers don’t have that experience. Instead, they have a vague sense that perhaps they could do a better job of leading the party. Given the chance, they may be quick to offer their ideas for the government.
And suddenly things get much more complicated. Because then the people already in cabinet who think they might be good leaders decide that maybe they should be working a bit harder to get into the right place to challenge - just in case. The willingness to stay in the message box begins to slide.
All of which are good things for the public. The best cabinet, or caucus, would be one with a wide range of experience and expertise, with each person prepared to speak their mind. Bringing in independent newcomers helps any government move closer to that ideal.
But for the party, and the leader, things can get bumpier along the way.
Footnote: The prospect of Oppal as attorney general, working alongside Solicitor General Rich Coleman, is intriguing. Oppal is seen as more interested in the social roots of crime; Coleman in enforcement and punishment. The two - an ex-Mountie and ex-judge - may well be be sharing responsibility for law and order in B.C.

Brault bombshell will reach into B.C.

VICTORIA - We're jaded out here, accustomed to seeing Ottawa as some strange distant land, kind of like the Emerald City in Oz.
There are gatekeepers, and shiny buildings, and men behind curtains pulling at levers to create the illusion of the great and powerful wizard, and it's all surreal and far away.
Then along comes Jean Brault, tugging on the curtains.
Brault is the first blockbuster witness at the Gomery Inquiry, naming names and dates and amounts. His testimony was at first secret, then public. It's very bad.
Brault ran Groupaction, a middling ad agency in Montreal. He wanted work from the federal government. So Brault says that in 1995 he hired Liberal fundraiser Alain Renaud, who promised federal contracts for Groupaction.
Over the next five years, Brault paid Renaud $1.1 million. More than $200,000 a year for part-time consulting, with no specific duties.
It worked. Federal contracts, big ones, came to Groupaction. Renaud introduced Brault to the big guys, including Jean Chretien advisor Jean Carle. Renaud spent most of his time working for the Liberal Party, Brault says, but who cared. Everybody was making money. Brault was told to buy some tickets for fundraisers, then hire some Liberal workers and write some big cheques, he testified. Big wheels from the Liberal party’s Quebec organization kept asking Brault for money and favours in return for federal government contracts. He kept saying yes.
So he paid the salaries of three Liberal party workers, gave $4,000 to Jean Chretien’s brother, hired Chretien's niece and agreed to pay $100,000 to get a contract to promote the gun registry. (Albertans faint in indignation here.)
It was sordid. Brault said Benoît Corbeil, the executive director of the party's Quebec wing, asked for a $400,000 donation and promised a $3-million sponsorship contract in return. Jacques Corriveau, a Chretien confidante, got $500,000.
"When it comes to sponsorships, it's clear in my mind. If it wasn't for the investments of all types that we made towards the party, despite our abilities, our share of the pie would have been very small," he testified.
His actual share was very large. From 1995 to 2001 he got $112-million in advertising contracts and $60-million in sponsorship contracts from the federal government.
It all has a Sopranos quality to it, lots of cash and mystery and nods and winks, an envelope of money left on a restaurant table while Brault goes to the washroom, gone when he gets back. The Liberal Party got $1.2 million in all, Brault says.
None of this is ancient history. It was all going on up to three years ago, when the news of the scandal broke and everyone went to ground.
None of this is proven either. Maybe Brault, facing criminal charges, is lying. Maybe, as the Liberals claim, they're the victims, unwitting dupes of clever, bad men who took advantage. Maybe other evidence before the Gomery Inquiry will provide a different view.
But today Canadians are left with the image of sleazy governing party that enriched friendly businesspeople and channelled tax dollars to itself. And they are wondering how an operation of this scale could be invisible to those at the top - why they didn't wonder, for example, about those operatives who seemed able to work full-time for the party without ever expecting a salary.
The New Democrats and Conservatives face a decision. Will people be more upset by the scandal now, or in the fall when Gomery reports? (The Bloc Quebecois does not have to worry. The anger in Quebec is lasting.)
The fairest course - and the best one - would be for them to wait until all the evidence is in before sending us back to the polls.
They don't have to worry about memories fading. Even for jaded British Columbians, this all seems too grand to be waved off as just one of those Ottawa things.
Footnote: The scandal is devastating to Liberal prospects in Quebec, and ironically - given the sponsorship program's stated aim - a boon to separatists. But the question figuring heavily in the parties' calculations is whether even this kind of damaging evidence can persuade Liberal voters in Ontario - or B.C. - to vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Waits still longer for most surgery, future still vague

VICTORIA - I guess it's good news that the government has discovered that 11,000 of the 80,000 names on surgical waiting lists shouldn't be there.
At least the problem has been identified, and is apparently being fixed.
But that's the extent of the good news, and there's much that's discouraging in the discovery, and in the fact that waits for many procedures are still up over the last four years.
The number of names on a wait list shouldn't matter much. Most of us care about how long it takes for us to get the procedure done, not how many others are on the list with us.
But wait lists matter to people who manage the system. If the list for one procedure keeps growing, then managers devote more resources to the treatment. And if the decisions are based on bad information, then money may be misspent.
The health ministry says it's identified the problem, and will have a new wait list system within the next year that will offer patients and managers accurate information. But it's 2005, long into an era when health care and waiting lists are supposed to be a priority, and basic management information isn't available. (A situation that is true across Canada.)
The news is also gloomy on the wait time front.
Deputy health minister Penny Ballem stresses the progress in providing treatment. The system provided 33 per cent more knee replacements in 2003-4 than it did three years earlier, and 41 per cent more angioplasties.
But the system has not kept up with demand.
The latest data shows that median waits have increased for 11 types of non-emergency surgery since the election, and fallen for five procedures. The wait for cardiac surgery has been cut by about four weeks, to two months.
But other waits have increased substantially. People are waiting one-third longer for knee replacements, with the media wait now 28 weeks. Since the median wait measures the time it takes for half the people to get surgery, that means that many are waiting much longer. The median wait for hip replacements has increased by a month, to almost 22 weeks. Both waits are shorter than in Ontario, acording to a new review; both are much longer than the standard recommended by the Canadian Orthopaedic Association.)
Lots of factors have driven the increased demand. The most significant, Ballem says, is an increase in the rate at which most procedures are being performed. Surgeries hurt less, require less rehab time and provide more consistently successful results. More people are candidates. In 1990, about 1,300 people had knee replacement surgery in B.C.; the annual number is almost three times that today.
The procedures work, so people in pain or with other problems expect treatment.
And since we are not paying for enough surgeries to meet the need, waiting lists grow. In the long term, we can find ways to keep people healthier and reduce demand, and increase efficiency. But now, either governments provide more money or waits increase.
That decision deserves much more open public debate, starting with a clear statement of how long it's reasonable for people to wait for different types of treatment, based on the severity of their condition and the impact on their overall health and lives.
The Wait Time Alliance of Canada, a doctors' group, has just released its proposals. Health Canada is supposed to have a list of acceptable wait times by the end of this year as part of the last health accord signed with the provinces.
We are fumbling with the issue of wait times, with too little information - as the wait list problems showed - and too little honesty.
People need to know what their governments are prepared to deliver, and at what cost.
Only then can they decide if that is enough to meet patients' needs.
Footnote: The model that has worked in at least some other jurisdictions is wait guarantees - knee replacement for moderate case within nine months, for example, of the government pays for surgery outside the system. The process forces an open, honest debate on what we are prepared to promise, and pay for.

Liberals shovel money off their own campaign truck

VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell showed why he’s everybody’s favorite visitor this week, rolling into Kelowna for a 30-minute speech and showering some $65 million on the region before guests finished dessert.
Kelowna, you get $6.5 million for a pool, complete with 1,000 spectator seats. Penticton, $9.7 million for an arena with two ice hockey surfaces - one Olympic size, and one for good old Canadian hockey. Vernon got its share a day earlier - $1.4 million for the cross-country ski club.
And, the big one, $50 million for an economic development trust for the Southern Interior, largely locally controlled.
Of course the premier can’t be everywhere. So while he was in Kelowna others got to announce that Smithers would get $1.7 million fo a second sheet of ice at the arena, Kimberley $1 million for a mining museum, Surrey $500,000 for YMCA improvements, Chemainus $350,000 to fix the wharf and Saanich $120,000 for a climbing wall.
All in, figure $70 million in spending and just another day on the unoffical pre-election campaign tour. Last week, the total was about $200 million - including a similar $50-million economic development fund for Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.
There’s lots to be enthusiastic about in the spending announcements. The government has the money. And most of the spending, I think, offers long-term benefits.
But there is lots that’s troubling too.
Start with the fact that this was supposed to be a New Era. It was in Kelowna, back in 1996, that the Liberals staged their own campaign stunt to mock the NDP’s pre-election spending spree. They had a guy in a bad Glen Clark mask slinging gold coins off a dump truck. Campbell was there with a shovel, scraping the coins up off the pavement and throwing them back.
There are differences, of course. The NDP didn’t actually have the money they were tossing around. They said the budget was balanced, and it wasn’t.
Still, the claim was that the Liberals would be different, and they look much the same.
Then consider the fact that none of this spending has been approved by the legislature. The MLAs could be sitting now, conducting the usual detailed review of spending plans, including all these projects. Instead the Liberals shut down the house.
Consider also that much of the spending being announced now could have been provided months ago. The government had an assured surplus. If a $50-million economic fund for the Southern Interior was a good thing - and it likely is - the work could have begun last year.
Finally, consider that all this electioneering is at taxpayers’ expense. Once the official campaign starts, the Liberal party will have to send out the press releases and fly the premier and company into places like Kelowna. Right now, it’s your dime.
Campbell’s position is that the Liberals are just following their plan. Tough decisions, service cuts, improving economy, chance to spend. The proximity of the May election, he says with a small wink, is a coincidence.
Not many people will buy that claim. But it probably doesn’t matter that much politically. If the only way a community can get funding for priority projects is to wait for an election campaign, it will wait and be glad of the money. (This kind of behaviour - especially the contrast between the way the Liberals pledged to do business when they were in Opposition and the current same-old style - likely does increase general cynicism about the political process. That’s good news for the ‘yes’ side in the STV referendum.)
And all this spending activity - and the taxpayer-funded announcements - have let the Liberals control the agenda, and keep the NDP largely out of the news during this unofficial campaign.
Meanwhile, you might as well hope the premier drops by your town for lunch over the next two weeks. He brings nice gifts, even if you ultimately pay for them.
Footnote: The $50-million development trust will be spent by a board including eight municipal representatives and five provincial appointees. The idea is that people in the region can make their own decisions on investments to develop the local economy without going through the process of winning provincial approval each time.

B.C. wins Ottawa’s attention on beetles, tourism

VICTORIA - Score two for the federal Liberals’ B.C. Dream Team, just as the Conservatives are looking like stronger rivals.
Ottawa has come through with a pair of important initiatives for B.C.
Industry Minister David Emerson has announced $100 million in pine beetle aid, an amount that at least can be called a downpayment on what is needed.
And Prime Minister Paul Martin has confirmed that the Canadian Tourism Commission will move to Vancouver from Ottawa, an important shift both practically and symbolically.
The commission's mandate will still be national. But the move means the attractions, issues and opportunities will be top of mind when the commission staff head to work in the morning.
Practically, it also recognizes that B.C. offers the greatest opportunity to increase Canadian tourism. The province is the gateway for visitors from Asia - and soon from the booming Chinese market.
Ottawa was a bizarre location for the commission, with its 100 employees and $80-million budget. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver could each reasonably claim they were good choices - centres for tourism and marketing. Vancouver’s selection acknowledges the greater potential on this coast. (The shift also give B.C. marketing firms a chance to grab a larger share of the commission’s budget. The federal government and the provincial government both need to look more aggressively at functions and departments that can be moved outside the usual centres.)
The $100 million in pine beetle aid is also welcome, and enough as a first instalment. But the province, and communities, need a clear multi-year commitment so they can plan for the coming crisis, not a one-time chunk of cash.
Neither the province nor Ottawa has responded adequately to the pine beetle crisis. The federal government provided $40 million in 2002; the province has allocated $89 million for reforestation efforts over the next three years. The provincial government knows much more is needed, but wanted Ottawa to step up first.
The problem is huge. The beetle-killed trees will retain their commercial value for five to 10 years. But in about 15 years, those trees - 80 per cent of the lodgepole pine in the province - will be dead and worthless. The replacement trees, even with stepped up silviculture, will be decades from harvest. Communities will see the annual allowable cut reduced by up to 40 per cent for decades. No trees, no mills, no jobs.
In Quesnel, the timber supply is expected to be cut by 30 per cent. About three-quarters of the local jobs are linked to the forest industry, so figure about 2,500 out of 12,000 jobs are threatened. (That’s the equivalent of a single issue that would cost 300,000 jobs in the Lower Mainland.)
The challenge is immense, and government response needs to be sweeping. Reforestation is important, and finding ways to add value to what timber remains. But equally important is planning for a very different economy, and giving people the maximum time to prepare. That means consistent support, over the next 10 years.
All that aside, both the tourism commission move and the pine beetle aid money are welcome, and an indication that B.C.’s concerns are being heard by the Liberals in Ottawa.
It’s an opportune time. A Liberal minority government means closer attention to the province’s issues.
Especially as Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives seem on a bit of a roll. They emerged from their national convention without any major self-inflicted injuries. A weak bragging point perhaps, but bringing together the former Conservative and Alliance partisans without a public brawl is an achievement.
Still, the party emerged from the convention united. Members resisted the temptation to run one of the favorite social conservative causes up the flagpole so they could watch potential supporters run away. And Harper's leadership won strong backing.
A rising opposition, minority government, an imminent close election.
It is one of those moments when B.C. matters. And that’s an opportunity to be seized.
Footnote: The chance to tap some of the windfall provincial government revenues from a booming forest industry for pine beetle aid may have passed, The Conference Board of Canada is predicting industry profits will fall by 50 per cent this year - even with a settlement in the softwood dispute.

Too little information on the way we treat kids in care

VICTORIA - The Gove Inquiry, looking at the horrific death of a little boy who should have been saved, was clear.
"Death and serious injury reviews should proceed promptly. . . "  The Liberals and the NDP both supported Judge Thomas Gove's recommendations for children and families' reform.
Now it's ten years on, and a little girl is dead. Sherry Charlie was only 19 months old when she was placed in a Port Alberni foster home. Weeks later she was dead. Her foster father, Ryan George, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Sherry was battered to death.
It's not just another sad story. Because before Sherry was sent to the home, there were warning signs. George had a long and violent criminal record, and was still on probation for spousal assault.
Sherry died in September, 2002. Two-and-a-half years later, no review of her death has been completed. The public hasn't been told if any avoidable errors were made, or if it could be happening again as you read this column.
It's a big commitment, taking on the responsibility for children. On any given day that's the role the government - on your behalf - takes for some 9,000 children in British Columbia. It is difficult, but necessary. And it creates obligations.
We aren't honoring those obligations, according to three people who should know. Former children's commissioner Cindy Morton, children's advocate Joyce Preston and former B.C. ombudsman Dulcie McCallum wrote Gordon Campbell nine months ago because they were worried that British Columbians no longer know how well the ministry is serving the people who desperately need its help. They wanted a confidential meeting, to talk about solutions.
But they never got a response, despite three follow-up calls over several months, and decided to release their letter publicly.
The Liberals eliminated the offices of the children's commissioner, and children's advocate in 2002.
Nothing would be lost, they said. The BC Coroner’s Service would take over investigating and reporting on children’s deaths. But the coroner's budget was cut, and pressures mounted.The service hasn’t released a single review of child deaths, which were prepared every three months by the children's commission.
A new position, the child and youth officer, was established to replace both the children's commission and the youth advocate.
It hasn't been an adequate replacement. Officer Jane Morely may be active behind the scenes, and raised important concerns in her last annual report. But the public accountability has almost vanished.
It's a serious loss. The children’s commission's last annual report, in June 2002, found the ministry had acceptable care plans for only half the 9,700 children in care. It examined 107 cases in which children in care suffered critical injuries, and found half didn't have adequate care plans, and many had been poorly placed in foster homes and moved frequently.
Are we doing better, or worse by those children today? We don't know.
Gordon Campbell used to support the role of the children's commission and the children's advocate. He championed their work, and used their findings to hold the NDP government to account.
The Liberals have, by any reasonable standard, mishandled the ministry. Their initial plans for a 23-per-cent budget cut - obviously unrealistic - had to be abandoned, and the cuts scaled back (but not eliminated). A restructuring plan went wildly off-track, with the deadlines missed by years. Only in the last year has some stability emerged.
Those problems make it more critical that the public receive complete, independent reports on how the ministry is doing. It's not a question of second-guessing frontline workers, or finding fault. It's simply fulfilling our duty to children and families.
We - you and I - have taken on responsibility for some children in very tough circumstances. The evidence over the last decade is that government has great difficulty in meeting the huge challenge of offering the life and hope.
We need to know the job is being done right. And that means independent, public reporting.
Footnote: The coroner and ministry both say they will soon complete reports on Sherry's death. Advocates have been pressing for answers for at least a year, including information on whether the pressure to reduce costs affected her placement, and whether her foster home was appropriate to her needs and adequately supported and supervised.

B.C. needs to plan for a non-white future

VICTORIA - It's time to shed our Canadian politeness and talk a bit about how immigration and demography are changing our society.
StatsCan has just offered a sharp reminder of how big the changes are, forecasting that by 2017 one in three British Columbians will be members of visible minorities. In Vancouver, more than half the population will be visible minorities -they will be the visible majority.
We're lousy at talking about these developments in Canada, for fearing of sounding unwelcoming or even racist.
But the kind of changes are sweeping, and affect every aspect of life in every community in the province. As a society, we need to be making more of an effort to make sure the new Canada works for everyone. Communities and businesses need to do some thinking about what the changes mean for them.
Immigration is a good and necessary thing. Given our aging population, and declining birth rates, we need more people to maintain our workforce and to continue to develop our economy. And given that we are almost all the descendants of immigrants, it would also be churlish to slam the doors shut now.
But the changes are still momentous, and reach across every area of our society.
StatsCan set out to look at the face of Canada in 2017 -only 12 years away. The coming changes are huge, and their impact far-reaching.
Consider one aspect, the impact on the labour force and employers.
In barely a decade, one-in-three people in the province will be members of visible minorities.
But the percentage in the workforce will be much higher. StatsCan notes that by 2017 the median age of the visible minority population will be 36, compared with 43 for the rest of the population.
Thanks to immigration, youth and higher birth rates, the minority communities will supply tomorrow's workers. By 2017, for every 100 visible minority people old enough to retire, there will be 142 ready to start working. For the rest of the population, for every 100 people retiring only 75 will be reaching working age. The base is shrinking.
We're looking ahead to a very different workforce, in terms of first language and cultural values, and smart employers will be preparing.
Businesses need to consider the potential changes in their market. Today about 20 per cent of British Columbians are members of visible minorities. Substantial, yes, but not necessarily critical. But in barely a decade the number will double, from 870,000 to 1.7 million. Business that don't understand the market, and respond effectively, will lose out.
Communities face their own issues. StatsCan projects almost all the visible minority population growth will be in Vancouver. Across B.C. the visible minority population will increase by some 900,000. About 80 per cent those people will be living in Vancouver. (That's understandable. My grandparents came here from England, and settled in parts of Toronto where they felt comfortable, where red, white and blue bunting appeared on doors for important holidays.)
So if, as StatsCan predicts, one in four Vancouver residents will be of Chinese descent in 2017, it;s to be expected that newcomers from China will settle there.
But the implications for the rest of the province are significant. Communities need people, to start businesses and fill jobs and shop in local stores. If towns and cities outside the Lower Mainland are missing out on the largest source of population grwoth, they need to address the problem, stressing the quality of local schools, or cultural diversity or economic opportunities.
We're skittish about all this, we polite Canadians. We have a vague, laudable commitment to multiculturalism and unity, but we don't often pay much attention to the details of the lives of people who come here, and how they change the country.
But our society is changing, in dramatic and exciting ways. We have a chance to look ahead and make the very best of this opportunity.
Footnote: The reluctance of visible minority members to settle outside Vancouver should be a major issue for discussion. StatsCan projects that Vancouver will gain almost 800,000 new visible minority community members between 2001 and 2017. The province's regions will gain 32,000 people. That's not enough to revive communities already facing population losses.

How do be sure you don’t end up like Terri Schiavo

VICTORIA - I’ve never met Terri Schiavo, her husband or parents. She’s 41 now, and has been in what doctors call a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. in a Florida hospital bed.
Through most of that time the woman with a tube in her stomach has been at the centre of a legal tug of war. Should she be left to die, or kept alive? Who knows her best, loves her more? What would she want?
Schiavo’s husband says she always told him that she didn’t want to be kept alive artificially under these kind of circumstances. He’s asked the courts to approve ending life support.
Her parents want Schiavo kept alive, arguing that is what she would want.
It’s a terrible situation. But the courts, in 2000, and 2003 and again sveral times this year, heard from everyone involved and decided the feeding tube should be removed. That is what Schaivo would have wanted, given her condition. Barring a miracle, that would mean she would die within two weeks.
I pray I never have to face that kind of decision.
But I also pray that others will have the courage and love to honour my own views about when life has so little meaning that it is no longer worth preserving through heroic medical efforts. When it is time.
Schiavo is not being granted that kind of respect.
As the courts and family wrestled with this difficult decision, the U.S. politicians rushed into action. They knew little about Terri Schiavo, or what she wanted from her life and death. But they were undeterred by their ignorance.
The U.S. Congress rushed to Washington for a weekend session. President George Bush cut short a Texas vacation to sign a bill ordering another legal review of the court’s decision. Everyone involved made their case on CNN, and the extremists grabbed their media moments. Schiavo as an individual was forgotten; she mattered only as a symbol.
It couldn’t happen here, ethics experts maintained.
But it could. Look at Evelyn Martens, who was arrested, tried - and acquitted - for aiding a suicide. The issues are much the same.
Or listen to the public discussions about the Schiavo case. A nice-sounding woman called into the CBC, to offer her view - based on nothing - that Schiavo would have wanted to be kept alive.
She went on. Even if Schiavo had specified in advance that she did not want to be kept alive, her wishes should be ignored, the caller said.
Some people believe suffering is part of God’s plan, and should be embraced. Some want every medical measure taken to prolong life. Others have decided where they want to draw the line; where pain or emptiness or loss of meaning outweigh the drive to remain alive.
I’d never presume to make this decision for anyone else. But many people would, here as well as in the U.S.
You have an option. Decisions continuing life support, or undertaking desperate medical interventions, are complex. If the patient is uable to make the decisions - like Schiavo - B.C. doctors are required to turn to family members. But as the Schiavo case shows, that does not always provide clear answers. (And it also places family members in a difficult position.)
You can help help. B.C.'s Representation Agreement Act allows you to make a legally enforceable living will, setting out what kinds of treatment and life support you want, given different medical circumstances. You can also specify who should make the decisions on your behalf - a family member, or perhaps a friend if you wish to spare family the pain. (The Representation Agreement Resource Centre - www.rarc.ca - is a good information starting point. In some cases you may also need a lawyer’s help.)
We’re not keen on contemplating our own deaths. But Schiavo’s plight - and the pain for all involved - shows that it’s important to decide on the way we choose to die, just as we choose the way we live.
Footnote: There’s something quite obscene about the rush by U.S. politicians to capitalize on this case. Thousands die and suffer needlessly every day without attracting their notice. The death of one woman who offers political advantage matters a great deal more, apparently.

Poll shows Liberals won battle for the middle

VICTORIA - Things are looking brighter for the Liberals.
The latest Ipsos poll found the BC Liberals have opened up a significant lead on the New Democrats. The Liberals have the support of 46 per cent of decided voters, compared with 39 per cent for the NDP.
With the election less than two months away, that's a significant breakthrough. Those kind of poll results suggest a substantial Liberal majority in the May election, with about 50 Liberal MLAs facing some 29 New Democrats.
The results aren't shocking. Voters dumped all over the New Democrats in 2001, and a quick rehabilitation looked unlikely.
But only a year ago the NDP was at 42 per cent support, slightly ahead of the Liberals at 39 per cent. Since then, the polls have found the two parties in a virtual dead heat, until the Liberals pulled ahead.
What's changed? One factor is simply the nearness of the election date. Voters angry at the Liberals who said they would vote New Democrat are now taking a harder look at both parties, and coming down on the side of Campbell and company.
The Liberals themselves have also changed. A steady stream of press releases have announced and reannounced money for health care, education and social services, as the Liberals try to look more like Santa and less like the Grinch. They want voters to see them as a party that's moved to the middle of the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, the New Democrats, perhaps heartened by their poll results over the last year, haven't made the same move. The party's election platform remains under wraps until the campaign starts. The ties to unions, which concern many potential moderate supporters, haven't been loosened. And the party has nominated candidates - like Harry Lali, Erda Walsh and Adrian Dix - who are symbols of the last bad government.
That's looking like a mistake. A year ago, about 20 per cent of voters were undecided or didn't offer an opinion when Ipsos called. That's fallen to 13 per cent in the current poll, and it appears most of the people who formed an opinion have opted to support the Liberals.
New Democrats ae still taking satisfaction in their progress since the last election. In 2001, the party took 22 per cent of the popular vote, as even traditional NDP supporters stayed home or voted for another party.
Getting back up to about 40 per cent is a significant achievement. That level means the party has won back the faithful, and convinced some swing voters that it could form a credible government.
But the New Democrats - despite a lot of public concern about the Campbell Liberals - haven’t come close to the level of support that would allow them to form government.
Maybe climbing out of the political graveyard is enough for many New Democrats this time around. Even that didn’t look like a sure thing barely four years ago.
Still, the poll may be marked as an early indicator of a new era of political stability in B.C. The Liberals, despite alienating a huge chunk of the public, have established a broad enough base to ensure re-election.
And the New Democrats, despite the kind of crisis that encourages cruel self-evaluation, have not done much to win the critical support of swing voters, perhaps counting too much on people angry at the Liberals, and not enough on people inspired by the NDP.
The poll found voters were evenly divided on whether the Liberals have done a good job. But only 13 per cent of the public strongly approve of the Campbell government’s record. More than one-third offer “moderate approval.” Those are potential swing voters. (The resuts are still good news for the Liberals. Their approval rating has jumped in the last six months.)
There are still almost two months until election day, and potential pitfalls for both parties.
But the latest Ipsos poll suggests the Liberals - if they stay in the middle - are on track for a second majority.
Footnote: The poll showed a divided province. In the Lower Mainland - representing more than half the seats - the Liberals are at 51 per cent and the NDP at 37. Across the rest of the province the parties are tied. The NDP has meaningful leads on the Island and Coast and in the southern Interior.

Ottawa refuses to protect children from sexual predators

VICTORIA - What is wrong with the federal government, that it is so unwilling to take ons emall, important step to protect children from sexual predators?
The excuses keep changing, as the federal Liberals twist and turn to avoid making one legal change that would save young girls from sexual exploitation.
For years people have been pleading with the federal government to raise the age of consent, so grown men can’t claim that they have the right to have sex with 14-year-old girls.
And for years, Ottawa has come up with nothing but increasingly lame excuses.
We won’t let a 14-year-old drink, or drive a car, or vote. The reason is that they are children, without the maturity or judgment to consistently make sound decisions.
But Canada does think it’s fine for a 14-year-old to have sex with a man four times her age, and that it is a decision she’s fully capable of making. At an age when she should be thinking about her Grade 8 graduation, a girl is fair game for any man who can persuade her she’s in love, or dazzle her with praise and promises
Provinces, opposition parties, parents and police have been pleading with the federal government to raise the age of consent to 16 for at least nine years. With no success.
I’ve been writing about the issue for at least five years, and have watched - in genuine bafflement - the federal Liberals evade their responsibility.
Former justice minister Martin Cauchon said there wasn’t a clear provincial consensus on the change, so the government wouldn’t act. That was after every province but Saskatchewan and Quebec had supported raising the age to 16. The Liberals also said they were protecting cultural or ethnic groups with "different sexual mores," without identifying the cultures that have a valued tradition of sex with children, or why that is worth protecting.
Now the story has changed, and the supposed defence for inaction is downright insulting. Current Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says changing the age of consent could mean thousands of teenagers could be arrested each year for consensual sex with each other. Instead of protecting children, a new law would victimize them, says the justice minister.
It is patent rubbish. The U.S., Britain, Australia - Thailand, even - have higher ages of consent, without the problems Cotler predicts. Sex between individuals within two or three years of each other in age is exempted from prosecution, avoiding the issue entirely.
Yes, teens are going to be sexually active, no matter what parents or others think about their judgment. A survey of B.C. teens found nine per cent of 13-year-old girls and 14 per cent of boys had already had sex. That’s worrying, and points to other needs, like early, detailed sex education. But it’s no excuse for government inaction on the issue of adult predators.
Police have the common sense to recognize that if they find two 15-year-olds having sex in the park, that’s not a criminal matter. If they find a 15-year-old girl having sex with a 50-year-old man in a parked car, that likely is.
Changing the law would make a huge difference, giving police and parents a new tool to fight against adults who target children for sex or profit.
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, or hired them for sex.
And police would have a reason to intervene before children were lost.
The age of consent was lowered from 18 almost two decades ago, a move that has proved damaging to children’s best interests. The solution is obvious and widely supported.
The federal government’s stubborn refusal to protect children is shameful.
Footnote: The age of consent in Canada was only lowered from 18 in 1987. The move to 14 was clearly too far, and the result has been increased exploitation of children. Liberal MPs need to hear directly from Canadians who think it’s wrong for men to have sex with children.
w

Why you should vote ‘yes’in May’s STV referendum

VICTORIA - Here's two quick, satisfying reasons for voting yes in the referendum on a new way of electing MLAs.
First, the NDP and Liberal party types are against the change, a sign that it would benefit people interested in good government, not party politics.
Second, ask yourself one simple question. Could the new single-transferable-vote system be any worse than the current model?
British Columbians get to vote May 17 on whether to switch to a new way of electing MLAs. If enough of us say yes - 60 per cent overall, and a majority in 60 per cent of ridings - the new system will be in place for the 2009 vote.
If you're happy with the current system, you can quit reading. But I can't imagine how you could be. Barely half the eligible voters cast ballots in the 2001 election. Our legislature is wildy unrepresentative - the 197,000 people who voted Green in 2001 have no one to speak for them. Voters complain that their MLAs seem more interested in serving their party than the communities that elected them. Debate is frequently ugly and mindlessly partisan. And B.C. has swung back and forth between two polarized parties for 30 years.
It seems incredible that anyone could argue that the current system is working so well that we shouldn't even consider whether there's a better way.
The question then becomes whether the single-transferable-vote system, recommended by a citizens' assembly of 160 average citizens, offers a better alternative.
Under the new system, there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on their population.
On election day, you would no longer just mark an X beside one candidate, condemning the rest to the rubbish heap. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference. When the votes are counted, the results reflect the rankings. (I explained the method in a previous column; it's at www.willcocks.blogspot.com.)
Why is that better?
Right now, you get one choice. If you care about which party forms government, then that drives your vote, and the candidate is largely irrelevant. People who run as independents, or for an alternative party, have little chance of being elected. Nomination contests - often undemocratic and flawed - matter more than the election.
But under the new system, you have a number of choices. In a four-candidate riding, a Liberal supporter might rank three of the party's candidates as the 1, 2 and 3 choices. But if he admired an individual from another party, or felt its voice should be heard, that person might become his fourth choice. Your first choice might be for a probably doomed candidate, because you know your other choices will still count.
It should result in a diverse, representative legislature.
But that's not the only effect. Remember, voters will also rank candidates from the same party, and those rankings will determine who is elected. People who want to vote NDP, for example, now take whatever candidate the party offers. Under the new system party candidates will compete with each other for your support.
The ones who show the greatest understanding of local issues, the highest level of competence - and the willignness to work for local voters, and not the party - will be elected.
A more representative legislature, increased attention to voters' needs and less to the parties' needs, more power for MLAs, less for the party leader - those are pretty good selling points.
And then there's the legislature itself. It would be more diverse, in terms of the individuals involved and the number of parties represented. MLAs would have to be focused on the needs of their communities, and not just their party, if they hoped to be re-elected, and would be encouraged to speak out in support of local interests.
It's alarming to leap into something new (although STV is already proven in other jurisdictions).
But our current system serves us badly. This is a rare chance to try a positive change.
Footnote: More representative legislatures might mean more minority governments. But there's no evidence to suggest any risk of instability, especially in B.C. where the two main parties have strong core support. For more information, see the government information site at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info, or call 1-800-668-2800.

Everything you need to know about the STV referendum

VICTORIA - It would be lame to vote against a new way of electing MLAs just because you couldn’t understand it.
So here, in a few hundred words, is how the single-transferable-vote system works. The issue of whether it’s a good change or not - and I think it would be - can wait for another column.
First, the number of MLAs in thelegislature stays the same at 79. No change there.
But the number of ridings would fall to somewhere around 20 larger ridings. Each riding would be represented by two to seven MLAs. Two current sparsely populated northern ridings with 65,000 people, like Skeena and North Coast, might be combined into a riding with two MLAs. Four urban ridings, with 130,000 people, might be combined into a new riding with four MLAs.
Clear enough so far, right?
So the election rolls around.
Each party can nominate any number of candidates, up to the number of seats in a riding.
So in a four-seat riding, expect the Liberals and NDP to nominate four candidates. But the Greens might decide they just want to have one candidate run, or independents may emerge.
On election day you stride into the polling booth.
Al the candidates names are on the ballot - four Liberals, four New Democrats, Greens, Dr BCers, Marijuana Party, Libertarian.
But you don’t have to mark an ‘X’ beside your single choice, consigning all the others to irrelevance. Instead you rank them - a 1 beside your first choice, 2 beside your next favorite, and so on. You can stop anytime. If you think one candidate is worthy and the rest are scoundrels, you can place a 1 beside her name and leave. If you want the maximum impact, you can rank everyone on the ballot. You can rank Liberal candidates 1,2,3 and 4, if the party is the most important factor in your decision; you can mix and match if you admire certain individuals, or want broader representation in the legislature.
The polls close. And things do become a little more complicated than the current system when it’s time to count the ballots. Right now, whoever gets the most votes wins.
The aim in the STV system is to ensure more faithful representation. The Green Party was supported by one in every eight people who voted in 2001; they ended up with no one speaking for them in the legislature. Many people believe it’s a problem for democracy when some voters feel silenced by the system.
Under the new system there’s an accepted mathematical formula for determining the number of votes needed to be elected.
Elections BC counts the ballots once, and anyone who has that number of first-place choices is elected. Simple.
But all the riding’s seats won’t be filled, so there’s a second count. The candidate who with the lowest support is dropped, but those ballots aren’t tossed away. Now Elections BC counts them again, this time looking at the second choice of those voters
In the same way, the ballots of people whose first choice was elected aren’t tossed, but are counted again. (Remember, four MLAs are being elected and everyone’s preference should be reflected in all four choices.)
OK, this next bit is a bit headache inducing. It would be unfair simply to move to the second choices of all those people. Their views have already been reflected in the legislature with the first canidate elected. So the next count includes their second choices, but on a discounted basis. If Joe Bloggs got twice as many first place votes as he needed to be elected, then all the second place choices of his supporters are counted, but at half their raw value, reflecting the success his supporters have already had in electing him as their MLA.
And so the process continues, until four MLAs have been elected. Each has been the first, or second,or third choice of enough people to emerge as their representative.
And that is how the system would work.
Footnote: It’s still a bit head-spinning, I know. For more detail, if that is your interest, visit www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. Of if you are simply seeking comfort, know that Ireland and other jursidictions have successfully used the system for decades. If you have issues, email me.

BC missed great chance to create pine beetle fund

VICTORIA - The B.C. government had a great opportunity to help communities facing hard times because of the pine beetle infestation.
But it let the big chance slip away.
The Liberals’ pre-election budget did have some significant measures to help deal with the problem over the next few years.
But there was an extraordinary chance to do something much more significant, and lasting. As the Liberals put together the budget, they realized the province was on track to a surplus that could top $2.8 billion in the current fiscal year.
That’s a huge pool of money. Some of the surplus is the result of one-time factors, so care had to be taken in avoiding spending commitments that might not be supportable in the future.
But the opportunity for one-time investments was enormous, in health care, economic development - or a program to help forest communities cope with the coming crisis.
Instead, the government opted to use more than 80 per cent of the money to pay down the debt. About $2.3 billion will go off to the lenders; $450 million will go to meeting today’s needs in the province.
The forest ministry got $112 million extra out of the surplus. But $50 million of that, already announced, will go to help contractors and workers hurt by the province’s industry restructuring plan and tenure takebacks. Another $50 million will go to the big forest companies, because it’s costing more to compensate them than expected. That leaves $12 million for enhanced reforestation.
There’s another $89 million for reforestation in the plans for the next three years.
That’s all welcome.
But what a missed chance to take some of that surplus - say $300 million - and set up a special fund to provide targeted aid to those communities.
Everyone agrees that forest communites across the province will face tremendous challenges. The pine beetles are killing trees today, but that’s not having any significant negative economic impact. The trees still retain their commercial value for five to 10 years.
But in about 15 years, those treees - 80 per cent of the lodgepole pine in the province - will be dead and worthless. The next generation of trees, even with aggressive reforestation, won’t be ready for harvest for 20 more years. Communities will see the annual allowable cut reduced by up to 40 per cent for decades. Mills will close, jobs will be lost, and the face of communities will change.
Take the Quesnel area. The timber supply is expected to be cut by almost one-third. About three-quarters of the 12,000 jobs in the area are tied to the forest industry, which means more than 2,500 jobs will vanish. That's the equivalent of 300,000 lost jobs in the Lower Mainland.
There is other money in the budget which will help the communities. Mining and tourism get more support, and there are transportation and other infrastructure programs.
But those are province-wide programs. They don’t target communities facing the specific problems caused by the pine beetle infestation.
There are no easy answers. Even the current challenge of getting the wood harvested before it loses its value is proving difficult.
But both the Liberals and the NDP have agreed that a legacy or development fund would help communities prepare for the coming crisis. They could improve infrastructure, offer retraining or promote tourism. And they could establish just how bad the situation will be, to allow proper planning by families, and by communities.
There’s still a chance for the legacy fund. But this year’s big surplus offered a great opportunity to providep money for the communities that will be affected. Instead, 80 per cent of the surplus went to paying down the debt, a response out of step with the priorities of most British Columbians.
The government had the chance to take a balanced approach, paying down debt and supporting forest communities facing the pine beetle crisis.
It missed an opportunity.
Footnote: One reason the province hesitated is that it wants a significant contribution from the federal government, and feared that Ottawa would back aay if B.C. seemed to be handling the problem on its own. The federal budget didn’t include any pine beetle funding. Industry Minister David Emerson, ex-Canfor CEO, has the federal responsibility.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

A U.S. wine boycott, weird answers and bashing Baucus

VICTORIA - Notes from the front: A U.S. wine boycott, weirdness in the house and that pesky Montana Senator Max Baucus.

Forest Minister Mike de Jong’s suggestion that B.C. liquor stores stop selling American wine as one way of fighting back in the softwood dispute makes sense.
De Jong sounded discouraged after a day of Washington meetings with U.S. politicians revealed that the softwood dispute isn’t on their radar screen.
It’s not that they’ve decided U.S. lumber producers are right. The whole thing is just a non-issue for them. it doesn’t matter politically, and there’s no reason for them to pay attention.
Maybe Canada has done a lousy job of pressing the issue. But so far American politicians have no reason to care whether Canadian lumber exports are being blocked. (Canada has funded a lobby group to push the idea that the duties are pushing up U.S. housing costs. It’s hasn’t worked.)
Canada is finally raising the threat of retaliation, asking the WTO for permission to impose $4 billion in retaliatory duties on U.S. imports. But that process is slow - Canadian companies get a chance to argue against any duties that will hurt their businesses - and could take a year. Given the U.S. perception that Ottawa has trouble actually making decisions, it’s a distant threat.
But telling the Liquor Distribution Branch to quit buying U.S. wine is a simple, quick response. American producers - mostly Californian, but some in Washington and Oregon, would lose about $60 million a year in sales.
That’s not much. But it would be enough to get their attention. And if B.C. effectively explained the reasons for the decision, U.S. producers would be on the phone to their lobbyists and politicians to get this fixed.
This dispute is ultimately about political pressure. The U.S. lumber industry has a big incentive to pressure politicians to keep the duties in place. There’s no pressure coming from Americans who want them lifted.
Replacing some of that Washington State chardonnay on liquor store shelves with a nice Chilean white would be a small step towards creating that pressure.

The legislature is a mysterious place. The NDP used Question Period to ask Sustainable Respurces Minister George Abbott about a report to cabinet from the BC Cattlemen’s Association. The report, dated Feb. 24, complained the cattle industry has lost ground in terms of acccess to Crown land. It blamed the government for putting the forest industry ahead of other users, said staff cuts and poor communication have meant issues aren’t addressed and complained that the government has shut down consultation with the industry on critical issues.
Abbott responded, sort of, slagging the NDP record and offering up some general lines about the importance of the catle industry, tossing in a puzzling reference to the pine beetle. Outside the legislature, his answers also seemed a little off the mark.
Finally, light shone. Have you seen the report to cabinet, the minister was asked? Well, no, he said.
Then why not say that in the house, and promise to get an answer?
“I think there’s a reason why it’s called Question Period, and I wanted to give a very good answer to the question that they provided,” Abbott said. With or without any idea of the ranchers’ concerns.

Things got a bit rude, but Montana Senator Max ‘Blame Canada’ Baucus earned his rough ride when he showed up in Fernie as part of his campaign against a potential coal mine near the U.S. border. MLA Bill Bennett led the charge; New Democrats quickly said they don’t like Baucus either.
Dialogue is always welcome. But Baucus has led the fight to close the border to softwood and Canadian cattle, and never found it necessary to come up here to get any information until it suited him to grandstand on the coal issue. He deserved to hear how angry many British Columbians are with his position.
Footnote: De Jong was enthusiastic about his meeting with new ambassador Frank McKenna, in the former New Brunswick premier’s first day on the job. McKenna understands the issue, and politics. He has already cleverly - though dubiously - linked Canada’s rejection of the U.S. missile defence plan to anger over the softwood dispute.

Nothing wrong with teachers' union ads, but they may backfire

VICTORIA - It’s hard to share Liberal outrage that the BC Teachers’ Federation dared to use children in an television ad slagging the Liberals’ education record.
Backbencher Lorne Mayencourt leapt to his feet in Question Period this week, voice raised in indignation at the ads (which he hadn’t seen).
"Carole James and the BCTF have weaseled their way into our school system and are shamelessly exploiting nine-year-old children in their efforts to launch an American-style negative campaign," Mayencourt raged.
The union kicked off their current ad campaign with a commercial during the Oscars that gave Gordon Campbell an award for most devastating performance for closing schools and doubling post-secondary tuition.
The new ad, which had Mayencourt so worked up, uses real students and highlights their concerns about the school system under the Liberals. There’s a kindergarten student who rides the bus because a local school closed, a Langley student who says he no longer has special needs support, a Nanaimo student who says learning is difficult in a class of 35 children You get the idea.
The claim that the BCTF is exploiting children is a bit rich. The premier and education minister - like politicians everywhere - are always popping into schools when they need a good photo op for a new announcement. Nothing says caring like a photo showing you reading to a class of fresh-faced eight-year-olds.
And there’s nothing wrong with the visits, despite what Mayencourt says about politicians weasling their way into schools.
On one level, the Liberals likely welcome the BCTF ads. One of the Campbell party’s early election campaign themes is that James and the New Democrats are captives of the big public sector unions. If elected, an NDP government would put their interests first, the claim goes. Money going into the education system, for example, would improve the lot of teachers. not students.
The BCTF’s active support of the NDP campaign is going to reinforce that message with some voters. (The federation is reported to have $5 million set aside for poltiical advocacy.)
And the fact is that the union’s first obligation is to advance the interest of its members. That’s the reason it exists.
But at the same time the ads will raise legitimate questions about what has happened in the school system under the Liberals.
Education Minister Tom Christensen answered Mayencourt’s question by noting the education budget was being increased this year by $150 million, the largest jump in history.
But even with the increase, the money going to school districts will have increased by a total of 8.2 per cent since the Liberals were elected. The consumer price index, the basic measure of inflationary pressures, will have risen by almost 14 per cent through the same period.
Yes, the Liberals say, but the number of students has gone down, so school districts should expect less money.
That's only partly true. A drop in students doesn't translate into an equal drop in costs - if there are 10 fewer children in a school the heating bill and maintenance costs stay the same.
The real increase in per pupil funding - after the $150 million increase - will be about 3.5 per cent over four years. The reality is that has meant tough decisions on where to cut spending in school districts across the province.
Teachers have a right to be angry at the government. The Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers’ agreement of clauses governing maximum class sizes and other clauses that set staffing level. The union had bargained those provisions, and presumably given in other areas to get them.
And the government has been consistently confrontational, treating the BCTF as an enemy.
But sympathetic or not, most parents are going to believe that issues like class size are best decided by elected officials - MLAs and school trustees - not set in union contracts.
The ads’ effectiveness remains to be seen. The notion that they are in some way offensive is bogus.
Footnote: The impact of third party ads of all kinds during this long unofficial campaign should get a through review after the election. Business groups plan to support the Liberals; unions the NDP. My guess is that the campaigns could do more harm than good for both sides in reaching undecided voters.

Liberals fare best in poll, but worries for both parties

VICTORIA - The Liberals should be happiest with the latest poll results.
The Mustel Group poll found the Liberals had the support of 46 per cent of decided voters, with the NDP standing at 40 per cent.
It's not a big lead, and pollster Evi Mustel noted that a six-point gap can close very quickly in B.C. politics.
But with less than three months until the election, any lead is good news for the governing party. It is the one getting the closest scrutiny at this stage of the race, and the party in power is most likely to have made voters angry in some way.
That's not the only comfort the Liberals can take. Barely half those surveyed thought Gordon Campbell was doing a poor job as premier.
That may not sound like a great performance rating, but for the last three years Campbell's disapproval rating has been consistently higher. He's still getting failing grades from 51 per cent of British Columbians, but in relative terms that's not so bad.
Which is helpful for the Liberals, who are intent on making Campbell the centrepiece of their campaign despite his personal popularity problems.
The New Democrats can find some comfort in the poll as well. Forty per cent is a solid base for them to build on, and a remarkable comeback when you consider how desperately eager voters were to kick them out four years ago.
And the New Democrats are pleased to see the Green Party stalled at 10 per cent, a level low enough to convince most voters that the Greens won't be a viable alternative in May. (Just as the Liberals are delighted that no right-wing alternative has been able to attract more than token support.)
There's worrying details for both parties in the poll.
NDP leader Carole James continues to be an unknown quantity for most British Columbians. Among people with an opinion, 61 per cent approved of the job James as doing as leader, while 39 per cent disapprove.
But almost half of those surveyed haven't formed an opinion of James' work.
That hasn't been a big problem so far; it may have even helped the New Democrat cause. People weren't in a position to compare the two leaders, so instead they simply judged Campbell. Their views may change when it becomes a choice between two known candidates.
James' fuzzy image, after almost a year, also gives the Liberals a chance to define her in their terms. The Liberals are working hard to paint James as the daughter of the last NDP government, and a captive of the big public sector unions. The longer people go without having formed their own opinion of her competence, the more chance the attacks have of working.
Based on the poll results, an election held today would probably produce a legislature with about 45 Liberals, and 35 New Democrats. (That forecast is confirmed by the UBC Election Stock Market, the only election prediction project that requires participants to stake money on their opinions.)
The election isn't being held today, of course. The poll was taken just before the budget was introduced, to generally positive response. That should produce a boost for the Liberals in the next survey.
But it was also taken before problems in the health system once again became a major issue. The Liberals were criticized for their failure to add any long-term care beds for seniors - they had promised 5,000 by 2006 - and were forced to intervene in the Fraser Health Authority in the face of mounting problems at Surrey Memorial Hospital.
Health is the kind of issue that can produce a big swing in poll results. It is consistently - usually by a three-to-one margin - the most important issue for British Columbians. And it's one that is generally seen as a Liberal weakness.
All of which means that the poll is interesting, but the race is still to be run, and the outcome uncertain.
Footnote: Most of the Liberal gains in this poll came from male voters outside the Lower Mainland, likely because they have seen an improving economy. One-third of Liberal supporters said they favored the party because they prefer its economic policies. One-quarter of NDP supporters said they were onside because they don't like the Liberals.

Budget misses pine beetle aid, other B.C. needs

VICTORIA - It's hard to see much evidence of the federal Liberal's BC Dream Team in this week's budget.
Overall, the Liberals seem to have cobbled together a budget with a little something for everyone, although the fine print shows the impact will be smaller, and slower to come, than you might at first think.
But this was the first budget that should have borne the fingerprints of the Liberals' highly touted Dream Team, the high-profile MPs like Ujjal Dosanjh and David Emerson who were recruited to make sure B.C. matters.
And despite the promises, there were relatively few signs that the province has registered in Ottawa.
There a couple of clear positive developments. The Vancouver-based Asia Pacific Foundation gets $50 million, a one-time chunk of cash that's intended to make it self-sufficient. The foundation should continue to help B.C., and Canada, take advantage of opportunities for trade and other ties with Asia.
And UBC got an extra $50 million for Triumf, the cutting edge particle physics research centre.
But the budget had noting specific for pine beetle aid, as Finance Minister Colin Hansen noted. The infestation is a natural disaster on the same level as the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery. That failure resulted in more than $1.5 billion in federal aid to the communities affected.The situation isn't as dire here, in part because there are other opportunities for forest workers and their communities. But B.C. still faces an immense crisis. Once the infestation has run its course - which will end with the death of 80 per cent of the province's lodgepole pine - forest communities face a couple of decades with very little timber to harvest.
Action is needed now to prepare for the coming crunch in 12 to 15 years.
The province has taken relatively small step first steps, promising $101 million over four years. Only $16 million of that is for economic development work; the rest is for reforestation.
That's not nearly enough, and the province's slow start is in part due to the hope that money will be coming from Ottawa.
Emerson is in a good position to understand the issue. He's industry minister, the top political minister for the province and the former head of Canfor.
Emerson says the federal Liberals haven't forgotten the problem, and is continuing to work with the province and industry on the best way to help.
But words are one thing, and action - and money - are another.
There were hints of more specific news for the province still to come.
British Columbia has been lobbying to have the Ottawa-based Canadian Tourism Commission, an $85-million Crown corporation, move to Vancouver. That wasn't announced, but the commission got a $25-million funding increase, which could help pay for the move. Emerson is the minister responsible, and should be able to deliver.
The federal budget also failed to come up with any of the money Prince Rupert has been seeking to take its port to the next level. There is a big increase in money for border security, and infrastructure. But the emphasis, according to the budget documents, is on security, not money for projects like Prince Rupert's port.
It's not fair to expect the federal government to rain dollars down on B.C. We've seen the huge waste of money in other federal economic development programs, which leave taxpayers poorer and produce few results.
But the pine beetle infestation is a foreseeable natural disaster. It can't be halted, but we can act now to reduce the impact on communities, businesses and families. The federal government has an obligation to act.
And there are other investments needed in B.C. that would benefit not just the province, but all Canadians.
Paul Martin made a personal commitment to recognize legitimate needs in the province, and reduce our feeling of distance from a disinterested federal government.
The budget shows he has much more work to do.
Footnote: The lack of federal help in the pine beetle crisis should have British Columbians questioning the province's decision not to use some of this year's surplus - more than $2.2 billion - to establish a legacy fund to help forest communities deal with the coming crunch.

Health care crisis gets Liberals' attention

VICTORIA - It felt like the days of Glen Clark were back this week as the Liberals thrashed around, trying to sort out the problems - health care and political - in the Fraser Health Authority.
On Monday afternoon Health Minister Shirley Bond was still sounding pretty positive about the health region, and specifically about the problems at the over-crowded Surrey Memorial Hospital. She'd asked for a report on measures being taken to improve things at the hospital's emergency room, Bond told NDP MLA Jagrup Brar, but there was no panic.
But by Tuesday morning, the region's CEO, Bob Smith, had got the axe. The health authority board made the decision, said Bond, but her deputy minister had spent a lot of time over there asking questions. And Bond said she had become worried about the authority's inability to react quickly to emerging problems, and supported the firing.
A few hours later, during Question Period, Bond said she was concerned about problems at the Surrey hospital, but mostly she defended the government's overall health record and slagged the former NDP government.
But then the communications people said Premier Gordon Campbell would be available for a secret scrum. (That's the official Press Gallery term. Past premiers have taken questions from reporters each day on their way into caucus and Question Period. Campbell refuses. Occasionally - twice this session, I think - he takes questions in a formal press conference in his office.)
And while we waited in an anteroom, press releases arrived, hot off the copier. Bond was "calling on" the health region to use its $28-million surplus toward expanding the Surrey hospital emergency room.
It's a flip worthy of one of those 13-year-old Romanian gymnasts.
The Liberals promised independence for the five regional health authorities. The government would expect good plans, and measure performance. But the health region boards would decide how to address the needs of their communities.
Until the political heat got to be too great.
There's nothing really wrong with the politicians leaping into the fray. They're ultimately responsible. They answer to us, and they have the sleepless nights when something has gone wrong.
But we'd like them to be involved because they're worried about us. The problems facing Surrey Memorial, which has the second busiest emergency room in Canada, have been evident for years, Bond acknowledged in the legislature. It wasn't until a New Democrat started raising them, three months before the election, that things got urgent.
And note that the government didn't actually come up with any new money, or offer any estimate of what it would actually cost to solve the problems.
The health authority has a small surplus, about 1.5 per cent of total expenses. Use that, says the government, and do what you can.
It would have been more convincing if the government had been able to cost the needed improvements, and fund them out of the $2.8-billion surplus coming for the current fiscal year.
And the intervention would have been better received if it was clear the health region could afford the improvements, but had messed up. The region has had some big bumps in funding, but is looking at less than two per cent annually for the next two years.
Paradoxically, the actions might not help the Liberals politically. When Surrey was represented by Liberals, nothing happened. After just two weeks of Brar raising questions in the legislature, the hospital gets a big improvement. Not bad work for a rookie.
What will voters make of all this? They'll welcome the action, likely.
But they should wonder whether the failure to deliver 5,000 promised long-term care beds has played a role in hospital over-crowding. The Fraser region has fewer beds available for seniors now than it did four years ago.
And they'll also wonder why the government is only now discovering a problem that everyone else had been worried about for years.
Footnote: Forget about worrying about Smith's severance, likely worth more than his salary for a year - $323,000. He changed his life to take the job, and has been fired without cause - the payout is reasonable. (Although it's the second time he's got severance payments of more than $300,000; the NDP came through with a similar amount when his position was eliminated in 1997.)