Once again, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has decided to nickel and dime the public service - claiming an expenditure of $20,000 apiece for quarterly oath ceremonies "shows a disrespect" to British Columbians. The government defends the expenditure, saying the ceremonies are meant to "make the employment oath a more meaningful experience for public service employees." No doubt, they're attempting to shore up morale in a public service that, like elsewhere, has had to endure years of attacks by taxpayers federation staffers who make their living diminishing it.

I wonder, do these self-appointed arbitrators of the public interest place any value at all in the drinkable water that flows mysteriously from their taps the light that magically comes on with the simple flicking of a switch? Do they cherish the roads they travel while taking their children to a public school or, God forbid, the emergency at a hospital? Are they opportunists just taking advantage of a misguided political currency that government isn'timportant - a currency that other opportunists have, ironically, used to get elected to government? Or do they really believe this stuff and are just that stupid?

Ever since we lived in caves and dragged our knuckles on the ground, we've come together into groups for physical safety, economic security, and to provide a stable environment for reproducing the species. It is an imperative, not a choice. And everything and anything related to this imperative is called politics - which is why Aristotle referred to the study of it as the "master science." Everything government does still relates to one of these three functions. And today, in British Columbia, the people who are entrusted with ensuring the reliable, continuous delivery of these functions are called public servants - who take an oath to do so.

Anyone who thinks these functions and the people who provide them are not important needs to shake their head. But those who claim the type of extravagance exemplified by the Campbell administration's oath ceremonies would never be seen in the private sector are absolutely correct. Private companies instead spend millions and use all manner of perks to make employees feel valued so they hopefully will bond with the entity that employs them. Why? Because studies show a lost employee costs their employer anywhere from 25% to 200% of that employee's annual compensation. The cost is calculated by adding the expense of hiring and training a new employee to estimates of the cost of goods that go unsold, customers who go unserviced and customers who are simply lost in the transition.

Placing a dollar value on the same disruptions in the public sector is a little more problematic as it would involve affixing a monetary value to a public good. How would one measure the cost of a social worker leaving the bureaucracy, for example? In the private sector you can measure the cost of a lost customer. But, in this instance, we might be losing a child at risk, as case files at transferred to other workers. What's that cost? Priceless.

By comparison, $20,000 to give new public servants a sense that they do important work is a pittance. And criticizing that expenditure as anything other than not being enough: well, how does one calculate the cost of ignorance?

Premier Gordon Campbell is to be commended for initiating a campaign to give bureaucrats pride in their work - despite how fashionable in some cricles it would be to do the opposite. Because, in the grand scheme of things, devaluing the public service has a much shorter history than applauding and celebrating it. Any value brought by withholding support for it is far outweighed by what we get in return and might attain if we supported it more. And picking on people who can't defend themselves is bullying. So to the taxpayers federation and others of their ilk, it's time your 15 minutes was up. Kindly take a step back.

Bob Russell, a businessman and former civil servant, was chief of staff for the provincial Liberals in Alberta from 1986 to 1989. In 2004, he ran for the federal Liberal nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Stephane Dion's leadership is unquestionably problematic for the federal Liberals. But the real problem is the party, drunk on its own bathwater, has spent the last 13 years winning elections because the opposition couldn't mount a credible united front. To blame the party's dismal showing in the recent Quebec by-elections on Mr. Dion's leadership - or residual bickering from the last leadership race - is only the most recent example of "inebriated" reasoning. The fact is, with the exception of the 2000 election, the Liberals have not been the majority party of Quebec since the 1980 election.

That's almost 30 years of not being the major federal party in the province. Put in that perspective, the sponsorship scandal can be seen for what it was: less a cause and more an example of why the party has had problems in Quebec. To win votes in that province, federalist parties have always had to do more than simply tell Quebecois to be more Canadian (by giving them flags for example). They've needed to clearly demonstrate why they should be Canadian. And the last politician to do so convincingly was Brian Mulroney. This, despite the amount of time Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin had to prepare for the job.

But what was even more shocking during the Martin administration was the arrogance that permeated everything and everyone "Liberal" - something Conservative leader Stephen Harper focused on successfully in the 2006 campaign.

If any two phrases from the election are still remembered, they are likely: "I am entitled to my entitlements" and a suggestion parents would spend child care dollars "on beer and popcorn". Combined, those statements said Liberals are special and the public are not. And the fact that neither originated with an elected official reinforced an impression that the Liberals had become the captive of self-interested backroom hacks.

Still, the 2006 election result was interpreted by many Liberals as a mild rebuke, since Mr. Harper was held to a minority government status. But a closer look at the results reveals a different story. The Liberals registered their lowest level of support ever. A popular vote of 30.2 per cent was not as low as their worst popular vote, the 28 per cent recorded in 1984. However, in 1984 voter turnout was 75.3 per cent versus 64.9 per cent in the 2006 election.

So it was surprising, during the Liberal's subsequent convention, only leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy chose to even mention the party's recent defeat - this, to a room full of delegates carrying on as if they were choosing the next prime minister rather than someone able to right a ship that was sinking.

And the arrogance continued after delegates choose Mr. Dion, who was positioned as a ticket to the future because he was so "green." When Canadians listened to him, however, what they heard was a voice from the past: a defence of the environmental record of the previous government. This, being the same government Canadians had just sent to the wood shed. And Mr. Dion's defence suggested the Liberals believed the voter, not the party, was at fault for their recent electoral defeat.

Since then, the Liberals have done little more than counterpunch the government - talking about the Harper administration's agenda because they have none of their own. New ideas only come from new people and the Liberal Party has too few. It is instead the captive of people wanting to preserve or enhance their importance inside a party that is rapidly becoming less and less relevant.

All that's left really is the undeniable strength of the Liberal brand. But that is getting weaker as traditional adherents to it grow older and presumably some of them impatient. And then there's that little matter of money. The new fundraising rules mean party balance sheets should reflect their level of popular support. And the fact that Liberal's sheet is so shoddy means the party has a lot more problems than their man at the top.

Bob Russell, a businessman and former civil servant, was chief of staff for the provincial Liberals in Alberta from 1986 to 1989. In 2004, he ran for the federal Liberal nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police out of control? British Columbians could be forgiven for thinking so. After all, anyone who has ever had to report to more than one boss knows that when accountability lines get duplicated, you quickly become an authority unto yourself. In the case of the Mounties, if it were only a matter of mere duplication! Outside Ontario and Quebec, where the Mounties only handle federal policing, the force reports to provincial solicitors general for provincial policing and municipal authorities where a policing contract is in place. But it also continues to report to the federal government for all management and organizational issues. This is not a recipe for accountability.

But - despite recent claims by force members and Auditor General Sheila Fraser of some possible irregularities in the management of the force's pension fund - it's unlikely this lack of accountability - a core problem for the RCMP - will be addressed.

In the first place, blaming a few "bad apples" is less complicated and for the media, easier to report than attempting to describe the management culture that would inevitably be created by the complex and sometimes convoluted world of intersecting, overlapping and multiple levels of jurisdiction to which the Mounties report.

Secondly, provincial governments (who are constitutionally responsible for policing) don't have the appetite to address the accountability issue - even though they’re aware of its existence. All of them, with the exception of PEI and Nova Scotia, once had provincial forces. But it was much easier (and cheaper) to just contract out to an existing police force another government (Ottawa) takes management responsibility for. And who didn't love the Mounties anyway with their once "clean cut" image and hey, the tourists just love that Musical Ride.

Newfoundland has retained the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, a bit of a cultural icon itself, but contract with the RCMP to police everything outside its urban centres. It, along with all provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, made what was at the time a good "political" decision when they entered into this contractual relationship.

But it's absurd that the order of government responsible for policing, is not also responsible for the "police" and all that entails, like, for example, supervising its management.

Critics of reducing the Mounties to a Canadian "FBI" and "provincializing" police point to the inter-agency rivalries among American police forces made popular in movies and on TV. (holy! read volume one ‘factual background” of arar commission report – csis vs. rcmp! We’ve already got u.s. style problems in spades)

But they might look upon the inherent inefficiencies of balkanization differently if they knew of the number of times a senior RCMP official has told an elected master, "Sorry, but I cannot comment on that." The implication being that they can't discuss a matter in another jurisdiction, or so the political master has to accept.

Dudley Do-Right is no more (and Nell finally ran off with the horse). Time for provincial governments, not the federal government, to take responsibility…for their responsibility. The largest most powerful police force in the Canada roams the country an authority unto itself. The fact that there haven't been more problems is a testament to the many fine men and women that wear the RCMP uniform.

Bob Russell, a businessman and former civil servant, was chief of staff for the provincial Liberals in Alberta from 1986 to 1989. In 2004, he ran for the federal Liberal nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Since Liberal MP Wajid Khan's formal defection to the Conservative frontbenches, there's been much buzz about how the New Democrats now hold the balance of power. But that's only if you can conjure up a scenario where both the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois together want to bring the government down - with Jack Layton and his caucus the only parliamentarians standing in their way. And since that scenario seems increasingly unlikely, the only winner here is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The reason: because he now only needs one party, any party in the house, to support his government in order for it to survive. In other words, the Conservatives now have considerable more wriggle room to keep governing on an issue by issue basis.

Still, New Democrat leader Jack Layton is "hell-bent” on using his party's new strategic value to the Conservatives to take the government to task on the environment. But any belief that the NDP will be rewarded by drawing support away from the Greens will likely meet with disappointment. After all, the Green's popularity is drawn from across the political spectrum - not just the left. And it's the government, not the NDP, who will be judged on the environment file. Moreover, historically, when using the balance of power in minority Parliaments to effect change the NDP usually loses seats in the next election.

True, in the election following the last minority government the NDP was able to make gains because of a combination of a deep seeded contempt for the Liberals and a mistrust of the Conservatives. Since then, however, the Conservatives have made some progress toward appearing if not moderate, at least less scary. And every day the Liberals distance themselves a little further from their previous selves. So come the next election, Mr. Layton is less likely to have success positioning his party as a safe bet for those who have reservations about the alternatives.

In addition, since the prime minister can pick and choose among three parties to keep his government alive, the NDP will not have the power and profile it has commanded in previous minorities. So it will have even more trouble reaping any consequent electoral benefit.

As a result, once Mr. Layton has written the government's new environmental policy - one he will later claim "does not go far enough” - watch for him to do everything he can to stave off an election, claiming that he wants to make the minority Parliament work for "ordinary” Canadians. To do otherwise would bring on an election where the NDP will likely lose seats.

Of course, it's true that, between now and then, Canadians may be able to come up with reasons to vote "for” the NDP as opposed to voting against the alternatives. But that would require the NDP to understand, among other things, that their desire to redistribute wealth might be helped if it were prefaced by a credible plan to create or at least sustain it...and many Canadians don't like to be called ordinary.

Bob Russell, a businessman and former civil servant, was chief of staff for the provincial Liberals in Alberta from 1986 to 1989. In 2004, he ran for the federal Liberal nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

As the first anniversary of the last federal election approaches, let's take stock of the political environment across Canada starting with a party that's been get a lot of attention recently and, apparently, rising rapidly in the polls - the Greens. Despite their best efforts to present themselves otherwise, you have to believe the Greens are still seen by the majority of voters as a single-issue party. The selection of a well-known environmentalist Elizabeth May) as their new leader pretty much ensured that.

That means, under our "first past the post" electoral system, the Green's the best chance for success - like any other single-issue party - would have been during a by-election at a time when their issue is at the forefront of voters' minds and the balance of power not threatened. Such was the case in Beaver River, Alberta in March 1989 when Deborah Grey became the first Reform MP at the height of national angst over the Meech Lake Accord.

The Greens had a similar opportunity presented to them when in the London North Centre during the by-election held on November 28 of last year. Ms. May, their candidate, was still in her honeymoon period as party leader. The by-election couldn't change the balance of power in Ottawa - so traditional loyalties could be set aside. And every poll was saying the environment - the Green's top priority - was a principal concern for Canadians.

While Ms. May and her party claimed afterward their second place showing (a full nine points behind) was a victory, it was a defeat - plain and simple - given the favorable conditions under which they lost. And this is likely the closest the party will ever come to electoral success.

Yes, the other parties may make a real mess of the environment file. But, despite falling poll numbers, New Democrat leader Jack Layton is showing signs he can steel some of the Green's thunder. The same goes for the Liberals as well who after all, just elected a new leader who has trouble talking about any other issue. And even Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to try to convince Canadians that he takes this issue seriously - especially those living in seat-rich Quebec where the environment ranks highest among voters' concerns.

That means it's likely that, come the next election, the environment won't be a wedge issue. The reason: all the parties currently with seats in the House of Commons will be falling over each other in an effort to ensure they aren't left on the wrong side of the "wedge." As a result, the Greens perceived potential as an electoral force will dissipate. Nevertheless, given the new election financing laws, they can continue to have a presence in Canadian politics as a publicly-funded interest group - something anyone who cares for the environment can take comfort in.

Bob Russell, a businessman and former civil servant, was chief of staff for the provincial Liberals in Alberta from 1986 to 1989. In 2004, he ran for the federal Liberal nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Yes, John Baird moving to environment was important. But, buried amongst the stories covering last week's cabinet shuffle, were a number of other changes - one in particular that may tell us much more about Stephen Harper's long term plans for his party, his government and the face he intends to present to voters when they go to the polls to choose their next government.

The replacement of Vic Toews as justice minister with Rob Nicholson is the most significant shift the prime minister has made since being elected toward assuring Canadians that his is a more moderate Conservative Party then opponents have tried to scare the electorate into believing.

Minister Toews, a well known social conservative, was prone to speculate about things like sending ten-year-olds to jail. His shepherding of what has been a more symbolic than substantive law and order agenda - think gun registry - has no doubt secured the right wing conservative base. But now it's time to get on with governing.

Minister Nicholson, a small town (Niagra Falls) Ontario lawyer, is a moderate with a reputation for reasonableness with all who have ever dealt with him. As the head of the justice department, he will be responsible for a majority of the moral issues that social conservatives hold dear. And there's nothing about the man that is the slightest bit scary.

Other changes of note are the failure to elevate Port Moody-Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam parliamentarian James Moore to cabinet. There is nothing known about this up-and-comer to suggest that a junior portfolio at least is beyond his abilities. And the government needs a face other then David Emerson's to represent it to Vancouver's seat rich Lower Mainland.

While Minister Emerson's sudden switch to the Conservatives does not appear to have tarnished his reputation in the business community, it continues to provoke a wide range of reactions on the "street," where election outcomes are determined. And it is still unclear if he will even seek re-election.

Prime Minister Harper would do well to find a way to elevate Mr. Moore to cabinet and give him a chance to find his legs and show his stuff prior to an election call.

One final comment needs to be directed toward the appointment of Jason Kenney as secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity. Mr. Kenney's entire political career seems to have been based on his success at being the loudest and most obnoxious person in the room - something that gets you noticed as the representative of an interest group or as an opposition MP.

This is not a skill, if we can call it that, that wears well on a government member or especially a cabinet minister - even if just a junior one. As the prime minister's parliamentary secretary he was on a short leash. Now that that leash has been let out a little, Prime Minister Harper may rue the day.

Bob Russell, a businessman and former civil servant, was chief of staff for the provincial Liberals in Alberta from 1986 to 1989. In 2004, he ran for the federal Liberal nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.