The provincial New Democrats continue to have bad polling results in British Columbia. They have been as much as 18 percentage points behind the Liberals in some surveys. That's hardly a place any opposition would want to be. And it certainly wasn't where the New Democrats were during the seventies and eighties. Looking at the numbers, the Liberals have between 46 to 48 percent of the vote, with the New Democrats at 32 to 36 percent and the Greens at 14 to 17 percent. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, I have assumed a reasonable representation of the body politic would put the Liberals at 47 percent, the New Democrats at 34 percent and the Greens at 15.5 percent. Based on these numbers - and the new 85 seat legislature - if an election were held today the result would likely be 63 to 69 seats for the Liberals, 16 to 22 seats for the New Democrats and a possible Green legislator.

In 2005, the New Democrats won more close races than they lost. Of the 13 closest, they won seven. That means the New Democrats have more marginal seats to defend than the Liberals. So even if support for the opposition was rising, those seats would still make it more difficult for the party to win government. But it's not rising. It's falling.

If the opposition loses seven more percentage points of support, the New Democrats will be reduced to less than ten safe seats. And many traditional left-leaning areas will be put into play for the Liberals. That will force Carole James to campaign in party strongholds such as Nanaimo, New Westminster and Revelstoke.

To make matters worse, the Liberals are once again doing a much better job than the New Democrats of finding strong candidates. For example, former Vancouver Grizzlies and Canucks owner Arthur Griffiths may run for the Liberals. But the New Democrat’s biggest get so far seems to be Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan's wife.

Leaving those concerns aside, though, the latest polling numbers suggest the New Democrat will get about 645,000 out of 1.9 million probable votes in 2009. That's 87,000 less votes than they got in 2005 or a decrease of just over 1,000 votes per riding. Meanwhile, the Liberals will get about 895,000 votes. That's 87,000 more than they got in 2005 or an increase of 1,000 votes per riding. And the Greens will get about 295,000 votes - an increase of 133,000 votes or about 1,500 per riding.

And that could mean a victory for the Greens in the proposed riding of Esquimalt-Royal Roads (formerly Esquimalt-Metchosin). In the last election, the New Democrats won the riding by a reasonable margin. This, despite the fact the Liberal candidate was Tom Woods, the founder of Rock Solid. Boundary adjustments will mean the riding gains Vic West and loses Metchosin - changes that should favour the New Democrats over the Liberals.

But, in my opinion, incumbent legislator Maurine Karagianis has been one of the weaker members of the opposition. And she doesn't appear to have a strong base of local support - dampening an already soggy provincial New Democrat vote. And without Mr. Woods, the Liberal vote will also be dampened - creating a competitive environment for Green candidate and leader Jane Sterk.

Admittedly, Esquimalt isn’t Lasqueti Island - the first place the Greens won a Canadian election poll. But Ms. Sterk is being taken seriously by the provincial media. A strong local politician, she topped the township's polls in 2004. Her post as party leader should increase her provincial vote. And that vote will be aided by the influx young professionals into the riding from Vic West - who are more likely to vote for the Greens than the New Democrats. Although her chances could be thwarted if the Liberals run a strong candidate and Esquimalt-Royal Roads becomes a three-way race.

The Greens are unlikely to be serious competitors in any other ridings - notwithstanding the possibility of the party running a high-profile candidate such as former broadcaster and Socred cabinet minister Rafe Mair in a riding like West Vancouver-Sea to Sky. And that means 2009 will mark a continuation of two-party politics in British Columbia, with the Liberals once again forming government.

Bernard Schulmann, a policy and land use consultant, was recently the provincial campaign coordinator for Yes for BC-STV. In 1999, he predicted “the New Democratic Party is looking at four safe seats” in the 2001 election. “A complete shutout is not an impossibility.” Mr. Schulmann is presently a member of the provincial Liberals and federal Conservatives.

Newspaper letters to the editor, web pages and blogs, have all been in receipt of opinions decrying the loss of 207 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve with the ratification of the Tsawwassen Treaty. And these fora are doing a great service in trying to get some public engagement concerning treaty discussions - the lack of which threatens the very legitimacy of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and all that follow. Unfortunately, they have also become a soap box of misinformation and partisanship for those who would oppose the treaty process, the port expansion and its related transportation links or the Campbell government in its entirety. And they use the proclaimed sanctity of the agricultural land reserve to do so.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Tsawwassen First Nation have a memorandum of agreement with Deltaport to permit the use lands within their traditional territory for port expansion. And yes, they will be paid for the use of that land. And yes, that land is in within the agricultural land reserve. But what is not mentioned is that all of these things would happen regardless of the ratification of the treaty.

The memorandum is explicit that the provincial government would remove the land from the agricultural land reserve if this exclusion is not accomplished at the treaty table. There is no conspiracy here, no double dealing, no hidden agenda. Everything that has been proposed for the use of the Tsawwassen First Nation lands for the port has been in the public domain for years (including when the New Democrats were in power).

Indeed, the very reason for the memorandum is that the Tsawwassen First Nation was heading to the British Columbia Supreme Court to prevent the port authority from expanding Deltaport into their traditional territory without consultation or compensation. To claim otherwise is simply fatuous.

The notion that Chief Kim Baird and her people have been duped by Premier Gordon Campbell (with the implicit cooperation of the federal government) or that Ms. Baird has sold out her people is not only disrespectful but is, I fear, thin cover for those who would prefer we fail to find resolution to the historical injustice that is lived daily by First Nations peoples. And while the motivations of those who oppose the treaty are varied - and in many cases their opinions honestly held - the result is the same: the perpetuation of inequality and denial of full participation of aboriginal peoples in our communities, province and country.

So, I say to those who prefer hyperbole to fact and pandering to reasoned debate, oppose the treaty if you must but at least be honest about your motivation. Public discourse is important if, as a province, we are to find common cause in the management and development of our resources and the responsible growth of our communities. But that discourse is undermined when bluster and narrow partisan interests replace our quest for justice.

Don Anderson was the caucus research director for the provincial New Democrats.

Predicting any election based on polls is never an easy task. There are many factors that one can only guess at because there's no easy way to quanitify them. With this in mind, the following is an analysis to determine the most likely provincial election result based on the latest Ipsos-Reid Corp. survey - which has the Liberals at 49 percent, the New Democrats at 32 percent and the Greens at 15 percent.

The first-past-the-post electoral system magnifies a lead into an overwhelming win, as the gap between the top two parties increases. That means the Liberals - who won 46 seats with 45.8 percent of the vote in the 2005 election - would receive a landslide victory if an election were held today, increasing their representation in the legislature to 63 members. Whereas the New Democrats - who won 33 seats with 41.5 percent of the vote - could elect just 16 members. Other than the 2001 election, that would be the most lop-sided legislature British Columbia has seen since the advent of political parties in 1903.

This prediction is arrived at by sorting the ridings presently held by the New Democrats into safe, marginal and write-off seats. Using this break down we get 12 safe seats, nine marginal and 12 write-offs. If the marginal seats split slightly more to the Liberals than the New Democrats, the Opposition will win four more seats to take their total to 16. Based on the Ipsos-Reid numbers, there's no Liberal held riding in danger of being lost by the government.

Safe New Democrat seats

Nanaimo
Nelson-Creston
North Coast
Surrey-Green Timbers
Surrey-Newton
Surrey-Whalley
Vancouver-Hastings
Vancouver-Kingsway
Vancouver-Mount Pleasant
Victoria-Beacon Hill
Victoria-Hillside
West Kootenay-Boundary

Marginal New Democrat seats

Alberni-Qualicum
Columbia River Revelstoke
Cowichan-Ladysmith
Esquimalt-Metchosin
Malahat-Juan de Fuca
New Westminster
Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain
Powell River-Sunshine Coast
Surrey-Panorama Ridge

Write-off New Democrat seats

Burnaby-Edmonds
Cariboo North
Cariboo South
Coquitlam-Maillardville
Delta North
Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows
North Island
Saanich South
Skeena
Vancouver-Fairview
Vancouver-Kensington
Yale-Lillooet

Close races in 2005

There were 20 ridings where the winning margin was less than five percentage points. Eleven of these were won by the New Democrats and nine by the Liberals. The recent drop in support for the New Democrats means all the close ridings will change hands to the Liberals.

Incumbency

Incumbency matters and gives an edge to some legislators. An attempt has been made to factor the chances a sitting New Democrat MLA will win re-election. It's assumed a strong incumbency gives a five percentage point boost in support, while a moderate incumbency gives a 2.5 percentage point boost.

Strong incumbency bonus

Adrian Dix
Carol James
Corky Evans

Moderate incumbency bonus

Harry Bains
Jagrup Brar
David Chudnovsky
Gary Coons
Mike Farnworth
Guy Gentner
Sue Hammell
John Horgan
Charlie Wyse
Bob Simpson
Bruce Ralston

Vote concentration

In theory, the New Democrat vote could fall even further in strong Liberal ridings. Between 2001 and 2005, the party has shown much stronger results in ridings that are winnable than ones where it has no hope. There's very little space to allow this trend to continue. Within the context of this analysis it is assumed the New Democrat vote won't become more concentrated.

Unique local factors

A local issue - the closure of a school or hospital, for example - can have a major effect during in an election. In this analysis, the New Democrats been given a small boost in some ridings in British Columbia to reflect these issues. All other ridings absorb this boost to ensure the New Democrat vote total remains at 32 percent.

Can the Greens win a seat?

Miracles do happen. But the recent Ipsos-Reid poll numbers indicate it's still highly unlikely that the Greens will be able to win a seat - with one caveat. A very strong Green candidate in Powell River-Sunshine Coast could be a contender. This is the only riding where the gap between the winner and third place was less than 20 percentage points. Otherwise the best results for the Greens are in ridings where there is no danger of the Liberal losing. West Vancouver-Garibaldi - where the Green was second but still miles behind the winning Liberal - is a good example.

Bernard Schulmann, a policy and land use consultant, was recently the provincial campaign coordinator for Yes for BC-STV. In 1999, he predicted “the New Democratic Party is looking at four safe seats” in the 2001 election. “A complete shutout is not an impossibility.” Mr. Schulmann is presently a member of the provincial Liberals and federal Conservatives.

Earlier, we reported on children and family development deputy minister Lesley du Toit late night musings - specifically her feather-ruffling suggestions concerning the preparation of briefing notes. But, commenting on Public Eye, freelance columnist Paul Willcocks applauded her proposal that ministry correspondence should be written "with more insight, compassion and a sense of individuality." Wrote Mr. Willcocks, "The idea that people who write to government should get a real response from a real person is smart and overdue. They care enough to have spent time trying to address a problem; the usual defensive, empty form letter destroys their confidence in government."

Earlier, we reported the provincial Liberals would soon be hosting a number of regional forums - one of the few ways the party waters its grassroots. But, in a comment posted on Public Eye, a long-time member and former Victoria-Beacon Hill constituency association policy representative wrote those discussions are "a complete joke and waste of time" - an opinion that seems to be, at least antecdotally, shared by many party members. The representative notes "policy ideas are not welcomed with the people in charge of the party completely ignoring any and all policy advice that is not their own making....It is a complete waste of time since the party chucks the convention policies into the trash immediately following convention. And does not even acknowledge the policies they pass at convention." The representative also confirmed the party will be holding its Vancouver Island Regional Forum on April 1 at the Coast Discovery Inn and Marina in Campbell River.

Earlier, we reported on Greg Elzinga and Jeff Melland's plans to "improve democracy, accountability and transparency" within the Non-Partisan Association by introducing a package of bylaw amendments at the civic party's upcoming annual general meeting.. Those amendments were inspired by the brouhaha that broke out in January when Doug Leung and Colin Metcalfe were appointed to that august body via email. Those appointments happened without directors waiting for comment from then president Paul Barbeau. But, in an email sent to Public Eye, Alex Tsakumis takes issue with our characterization that Mr. Barbeau wasn't consulted. And he goes onto note "the notion that the appointment of two excellent (sic) Directors like Messrs. Metcalfe and Leung was done to usurp the President's authority by not concuslting (sic) him first, is a bold faced lie." The following is a complete copy of that email.

From: A.G. Tsakumis
Sent: 23 March 2006 10:26
To: editorial@publiceyeonline.com
Subject: Operation Enduring Correction(s)!

Sean:

You continue to do a disservice to your readers by allowing the lie to continue that Paul Barbeau was not consulted regarding the appointments to the NPA Board of Colin Metcalfe and Douglas Leung.

1) Paul Barbeau received every single email that everyone else on the Board received regarding Director appointments and was thus notified appropriately and according to the rules governing the Board.

2) Paul Barbeau knew of the movement to appoint Doug Leung and Colin Metcalfe to the Board as early in the process of doing so as November 22, 2005. He was informed by a member of the Board accordingly, on that date, that this was a motion that would be then forthcoming sometime in the new year.

3) Paul Barbeau, himself, during the election had sent "last minute" motions by email to the Board, some of which passed and some which did not. The idea that this was done as a "new" method of passing motions between Board Meetings is incorrect. The genesis of these email motions was Greg Wilson, our previous Secretary, who quite correctly tried to streamline the business of the Board. Not one member of the Board, either at that time, nor since, raised any problems with that process (until it didn't suit one former member politically and she resigned because of it). A very few members raised this issue as a problem in the aftermath of Paul Barbeau's resignation as President of the NPA. The vast majority were comfortable in their decision(s).

Therefore, the notion that the appointment of two excellent Directors like Messrs. Metcalfe and Leung was done to usurp the President's authority by not concuslting him first, is a bold faced lie.

Please refrain from repeating that lie. You have done so in various postings, several times since January, and it does no good to the credibility of what you write, nor does it honour what I assume you should still covet, the truth.

I wish you continued success.

Kind regards,

A.G. (Alex) Tsakumis
Director,
Civic Non-Partisan Association

The back and forth between Councillor Peter Ladner and Senator Larry Campbell continues! Earlier, we noted Councillor Ladner had accused the former mayor of mismanaged preparations for an international peace conference - a claim disputed by Senator Campbell in an email leaked to your humble organ. But, in a comment posted on Public Eye last night, Councillor Ladner stood by his accusations, again noting that there was "no official invitation (for the conference) sent out during the ensuing nine months, no budget prepared, no sponsor sold, no work at all done on the project." And he added Mayor Sam Sullivan's staff telephoned International Association of Peace Messenger Cities president Alfred Marder after it became apparent the even cost would balloon to $200,000. And, during that call, staff "offered him a scaled-down project that would fit the $50,000 budget (approved by the city). He refused." That funding has since been cancelled by Non-Partisan Association councillors. The following is a complete copy of Councillor Ladner's posting.

Name: Peter Ladner
Email Address: peter.ladner@vancouver.ca
Comments:

I enjoyed Larry Campbell's reflections on his first 60 days spending $600,000 on an Olympic plebiscite, but back to the issue of the Mayors for Peace conference. Council's March, 2005 vote determined it was to be hosted and organized by the mayor's office. It was Clr. Cadman who told a meeting of the Peace and Justice Committee that the previous mayor's office "lost" the file. If it wasn't lost, it might as well have been. Why was no official invitation sent out during the ensuing nine months, no budget prepared, no sponsor sold, no work at all done on the project except one phone call to the Sandman Inn by Clr Cadman?

Mayor Sullivan's staff did call Mr. Marder and offered him a scaled-down project that would fit the $50,000 budget. He refused.

It's very easy for Mr. Marder to tell us we could organize the event for $50,000, when we'd be on the hook for any overruns. Show me how we can host 100 people for five nights, 1,200 meals, 800 coffee-break snacks, 100-plus trips to the airport, a couple of receptions, meeting rooms, A-V, organizer's salary, in-town transportation, security and speaker fees for $50,000. The Wosk Centre alone, listed in Mr. Marder's "budget" at $2,400, rents for around $11,000.

Peter Ladner

If Public Eye's anonymous posters are right, Alison MacPhail isn't the only senior bureaucrat who will be leaving children and family development. Rumours are circulating that embattled assistant deputy minister Jeremy Berland will be replaced by the ministry's Vancouver Coastal regional executive director Donna Knox, who is presently on a secondment in Victoria. Communications director Kelly Gleeson said he wouldn't comment on personnel matters. And those familiar with the ministry add that they would find it somewhat surprising if Ms. Knox left Vancouver. Although, that being said, she would be a good candidate for the position.

Earlier, we reported provincial and federal construction, rental and real estate development interests have long lobbied for rent supplements. But, apparently, they're not the only ones. In a comment posted on Public Eye, Canadian Real Estate Association external relations director James Brennan writes "support for rent supplements and shelter allowances form a signifcant part of our industry's position on federal housing policy, and have been included in each of our Pre-Budget Submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in 2004 and 2005." The following is a complete copy of his comments.

Name: James Brennan
Email Address: jbrennan@crea.ca
URL: http://www.crea.ca
Comments:

Mr. Holman,

Your recent comments on the subject of rental allowances have been drawn to the attention of the Canadian Real Estate Association in Ottawa by one of our British Columbia real estate boards. We appreciate the attention you are giving to this topic in advance of an anticipated debate this spring in your legislature.

Support for rent supplements and shelter allowances form a significant part of our industry's position on federal housing policy, and have been included in each of our Pre-Budget Submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in 2004 and 2005.

We include our own thoughts on the topic as presented to the Government of Canada in our 2006 Pre-Budget Submission last fall:

"Income subsidies: short-term solution, long-term need: REALTORS would welcome a commitment to the use of income subsidies as a permanent tool of federal policy under the new Canadian Housing Framework, including an analysis of the potential effectiveness of subsidization of mortgage payments for low-income homeowners."

"CREA recommends that the federal government ask CMHC to design the most efficient form of income subsidy that can alleviate housing need."

"CREA recommends that the government incorporate income supplements into the Canadian Housing Framework; and that the government allocate a portion of the annual housing budget for income subsidies."

We were subsequently delighted when Liberal Housing Minister Joe Fontanna announced last year that federal monies could be used for this purpose by the provinces.

Sincerely,

James W. Brennan
Director, External Relations
The Canadian Real Estate Association

Earlier, one of our astute readers reported federal Conservative godfather John Reynolds (who is not a lawyer) would be "joining Lyall Knott" - a well-known provincial Liberal fundraiser - at Clark Wilson LLP. A senior Tory operative couldn't immediately verify that report. But he did say Mr. Reynolds has received job offers from a number of Vancouver law firms. In a brief interview with Public Eye, Mr. Knott declined to comment on whether he would be working with Mr. Reynolds, saying "Why don't you talk to John?" The company's more notable clients include Concert Properties Ltd., HMY Airlines Inc., HSBC Bank plc, Methanex Corp. and Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment Corp.

Attention Budd Campbell! David Basi has a message for you. In an interview with Public Eye, the former provincial minister assistant took issue with a posting by the Public Eye regular that seemed to suggest Mr. Basi's drug charges may have been stayed because he made a "deal with the prosecution around testimony." Said the once-upon-a-time Liberal bigwig: "I have not, will not and would never consider making any deal to lie to save my own hide. And the marijuana cultivation and possession for the purposes of trafficking charges were dropped because I was completely innocent."

The provincial New Democrat affiliation committee's majority report continues to be shredded by labour movement members. Yesterday, in a comment posted on Public Eye, United Steelworkers of America research department staff representative Kim Pollock opined that the committee responsible for the report was "a rough, rude railroad job, not a reasonable meeting of (the) minds on a matter of cardinal importance to the future of the party." He also questions the political value of de-affiliation noting "my own analysis of recent BC Fed and NDP polling, for instance, indicates that there is little if any support for a change in the relationship between unions and the party among voters the NDP needs to win." And Mr. Pollock, who is married to New Democrat treasurer Cheryl Hewitt, calls on an elder party statesman "to mediate this matter before we hurt the party irreparably." Mr. Pollock's boss, United Steelworkers of America district three director Steve Hunt, was one of three union leaders on the affiliation committee who opposed the majority report. The following is a complete copy of his posting.

Name: Kim Pollock

Comments:

I think the point that is being missed, not only here but throughout much of the debate on affiliation, is that the NDP was originally formed as a partnership or federation. For instance, there were originally affiliates from the co-op movement and farm organizations as well as labour. That was the basis on which labour became a direct participant in the party.

The reason for this was that the union leaders and other builders of the New Party wanted to give it both the financial clout and enhanced access to the affiliates' members that might flow from a more direct relationship than was in place under the CCF.

Over time, the other affiliates back away. But the unions stayed. So for us, it remains a partnership, not just one more organization which we simply ask our members to join or support. Many union members become NDP members through involvement in their unions and they see their party involvement as part and parcel of their labour activities. They believe they have become members of labour's political party.

Unions are therefore still one of the main recruiting, information and ideology-disseminating and motivating vehicles available to the NDP. And many union workers frankly do not have the time or opportunity to take part in constituency associations. Most constituency organizations have their meetings on work-day evenings. That makes it difficult for shift workers or folks like the logging-truck drivers, loggers, etc. who get up and go to work at 3 a.m. or the growing number of people who work 10 or 12-hour shifts on a four-day rotation to take part. They still want to be involved in the NDP but it is unrealistic to expect them to participate at the constituency level, take it or leave it. Affiliation offers them that possibility.

At the same time, unions want affiliation so that they are not merely a "cash cow" from which the party can access funds without having in return some guarantees of labour involvement and participation in policy development and electoral strategy. We do not want an American-style system in which we bargain or even bid for the support or one party or another. We believe in the concept of a "people's party" which represents directly the interests of unionized workers in addition to its other members. That doesn't mean that we want to control the party -- 25% of delegates at conventions, coupled with OMOV for leadership selection, hardly constitutes control -- but it does mean that we want a significant role in its processes and activities.

All of this tells me that we need to rethink the current process before we create a severely-damaging and irreparable split. The party, as I have noted, is a partnership. If folks want to dissolve this partnership, they should perhaps do it some other way than via a split vote in a party committee in which the affiliated unions voted one way about their future in the party, unaffiliated unions or individuals voted another way. We should be clear, as well, that not one of the affiliated unions wants an end to affiliation. What we see here is effectively a rough, rude railroad job, not a reasonable meeting of minds on a matter of cardinal importance to the future of the party.

And to what end? My own analysis of recent BC Fed and NDP polling, for instance, indicates that there is little if any support for a change in the relationship between unions and the party among voters the NDP needs to win. The strongest support for the propostion that the party is "too close to unions" comes from the highest income-earners, unsurprisingly -- the folks least likely to vote NDP and most likely to vote Liberal. In other words, it's hard to understand what folks who want a change in the affiliation relationship actually hope to gain from it.

What we desperately need right now is someone to mediate this matter before we hurt the party irreparably. The caucus, which has been put in the uncomfortable situation of either harming their leader or harming the party, can't do it. Almost all the Table Officers and Executive have taken sides. We need some senior diplomats or elder statemen or women, therefore, to take both the affiliated union leaders, the leader of the unaffiliated BCGEU and the party leader aside and convince them how destructive this whole affair is to the party.

The hissing and pissing directed at Gordon Gibson's morning column slamming Christy Clark's bid to win the Non-Partisan Association mayoral nomination continues. Earlier today, an anonymous sniper posted a comment on Public Eye noting "Is that the same Mr. Gibson whose wife Kilby is working full time on the Sam Sullivan campaign, and whose daughter is on the 'youth wing' of the federal Liberal 'machine' that her father calls so 'polluted'? Shurley not!" Picking up the gauntlet, Ms. Gibson wrote back valiantly under her own name "Shurely so! I am a staunch supporter of Sam Sullivan I believe he's the best person for the job - simple."

"I do not work 'full time' for him - I have a job. My daughter to whom you refer is indeed a member of the 'youth wing' of the Party but now lives in Victoria and is not a member of the NPA - and my husband's comments regarding the current state of the Federal Liberals are worth thinking about." Take that! The following is a complete copy of Mr. Gibson's comments.

***

Looks like Vancouver's Non-Partisan Association is getting ready to shoot itself in the foot again.

Back in 2002 we saw a muscular, organized effort that was able to steamroll a proven, popular NPA mayor out of the way in favour of an ambitious successor-in-a-hurry.

This so offended the citizens that they said "no thank you" to the NPA and Jennifer Clarke. "We'll take this Larry Campbell fellow, whoever he might be."

Now in 2005 we see another muscular, organized effort about to steamroll a proven, popular councillor, Sam Sullivan, who has paid his dues on council for 12 years. Curiously, Sullivan's challenger for the mayoral nomination is another wannabe Clark, Christy, this time around.

But the resemblance ends there. Unlike the Christy version, Jennifer Clarke had served on city council and had been planning her takeover for donkey's years. She was a good councillor and the knock on her effort was mostly the callous manner of jettisoning Philip Owen, one of the best mayors we've ever had.

By contrast, Christy Clark hasn't paid her dues. She doesn't even live in Vancouver, though she has graciously agreed to move here if she gets the nomination. Now that, my friends, is commitment.

She's been a provincial cabinet minister, indeed, but is this relevant? Ministers are named by the premier. They are part of a corporate organization, vice-presidents, so to speak. In this capacity they represent the government, not the people, and when push comes to shove, they do what the boss says or leave.

City councillors, by contrast, really do make up their own minds and vote as they think appropriate on local issues. They may not deal with international affairs or energy policy, but they are pretty important to our little lives. Thus it may be worth observing that while Clark is a pretty good talker, Sullivan has proven a pretty good listener.

Sullivan has been working at the council table for as long as most can remember, doing a thorough, steady job. His leadership on the ward system issue last year was of a high order - taking an apparently hopeless cause (though a right one, the preservation of the electoral system that is one of the basics of our great city) from obvious loser to clear victory.

When you can be big enough to go against the flow in the interests of what is right and bring others to that view, that is leadership.

But that is not all. Much more important in political terms, Sullivan is regarded with a good deal of affection in this city - as was, one reminds, Owen. Machine politics can deny such individuals a nomination among machine-dominated party members, but the general voter knows what is going on and will react.

So far, so good or bad - but there is another element here that poses an even greater problem for the NPA as a party and for civic government. That is the question of the takeover of municipal politics by the federal Liberal party.

Christy Clark was a provincial Liberal but that should not confuse anyone. This is a federal deal. Her husband, Mark Marissen, is Paul Martin's B.C. boss as federal campaign chairman. He runs the federal show in this province, has all the lists and is using them. Christy Clark's campaign manager is Mike Hillman, vice-president of the federal Liberal party. The Ottawa Liberal fingerprints are all over this exercise.

Not to say it is not a Marissen-Clark family exercise as well. Of course it is. Whether Clark's eventual ambition is to be premier of British Columbia or a federal cabinet minister, who knows? But it is the feds driving the bus.

The way you win a game like this is signing up tame voting delegates. The Martin Libs are past masters at this, and have lists in the thousands in the Vancouver area. A particular specialty has been helpful membership from the Sikh temples. Federal control of immigration is a powerful tool.

So another issue is whether we want federal Liberal politics imported to our city hall. And indeed - does the federal Liberal party itself want to be seen as a swaggering bully that can win any game it wishes?

This all poses an unhappy conundrum for the NPA, which has worked diligently to open up its previously controlled organization to real democracy. The feds are using the new openness against the civic party, just as of course the Martinites used the Liberal nomination and party election process to ambush the Chretienites.

Will this fly in Vancouver? Maybe at the NPA mayoral nomination on Sept. 24 the federal machine can prevail. It may be able to blow Sam Sullivan out of the water.

What could be a greater pleasure for Jim Green? Because Sullivan is the only one who can beat him.

Last week, in a news release, the provincial government announced the Crown corporation that manages provincial buildings and properties would become part of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. Speaking with the Times Colonist's Lindsay Kines, the minister responsible Mike de Jong explained the continued downsizing by noting the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, aspects of which have already been privatized, "was competing with the private sector for work by managing projects outside government, such as the Whistler library, Whistler municipal hall and the Ridge Meadows Medical Centre. 'That's not something we think it needs to do, and not something that we necessarily want it to do,' de Jong said." But not everyone thinks that's a good idea.

In an email sent to Public Eye, one government insider - who asked not to be named but is familiar with the corporation's operations - identified a number of problems with the Campbell administration's decision to get out of the property management business. Those problems, the insider writes, include increased long-term real estate costs and reduced levels of building maintenance. Also noted: "lay-offs are pending" at the company now responsible for that maintenance. The following is a copy of that email, in which the writer responds to Minister de Jong's statement.

***

Well its true. Guilty as charged. BCBC brought in the lowest bid, completed the projects and saved the taxpayer a pile of money. It seems Minister De Jong is more concerned about the profits of private developers than saving money for the taxpayer. Many believe the highly connected developers who got beat out for these projects never forgot or forgave, and BCBC has been doomed since the Liberal government was elected.

For five years, under direction of the Liberal government, BCBC has been quietly selling off hundreds of provincial properties including prime assets such as 4000 Seymour, Victoria, 865 Hornby St. Vancouver, Woodlands Hospital site, the Vancouver Island Technology Park, and government buildings across the province amongst others. While these sales may have reduced the massive Liberal deficit, valuable long term assets are gone forever. And in many cases, the same properties are leased back long term by the govt. at pre-negotiated, favorable rates. Short term gain (reduce the deficit!) for long term pain (higher future real estate costs). Who benefits? The major real estate trusts, developers and corporations. Who loses? The taxpayer and the public. The justification is that government should not be in competition with the private sector by providing office space. But the end results are higher occupancy costs, lower building standards, fewer provincial assets and a significant loss of control (ownership). Bottom line: in the long term, and especially in the case of public facilities, it simply makes more sense to own than to rent.

Since 2001, BCBC employees have been reduced from approx. 870 FTEs to around 260 today. The privatization of its property management division (320 employees) has not shown any great savings. A recent customer survey cited by former CEO Beales at a BCBC employee Town Meeting indicated the level of cleanliness at govt. buildings had declined, and buildings are not as well managed as before. The new property management company (WSI) receives a bonus for reducing operations and maintenance costs by a certain percentage. Less maintenance means minor complaints and repairs often are not attended to, and can result in long term dissatisfaction and major expense. As WSI's contract is for a limited period, their concerns in managing provincial real estate assets are understandably limited to the length of their contract. As WSI has to reduce costs and still squeeze out a profit, personnel are even more thinly spread. And WSI lay-offs are pending...

BCBC has been wrung out, squeezed dry of all its easily disposed of assets, and is now being flung on the scrapheap. Another cutback to government, the cost of which will be seen in the future.

Earlier this week, the Times Colonist's Sarah Petrescu reported the provincial government had fined Maximus Inc. - the American firm that won the privatization contract to administer PharmaCare and British Columbia's Medical Services Plan. The reason: "it's taking about 15 minutes to answer a call, instead of the under three minutes required in its contract." But, according to a former bureaucrat familiar with the plan, there's more at stake than how fast the company answers calls.

In a letter, sent to Public Eye and Times Colonist columnist Les Leyne, 32-year civil service veteran Christine Toucher writes when the medical service plan was first established the government "recruited staff and placed them into a training process which offered six months intensive training followed by a two year "trial" period before the person was considered to have enough experience to operate independently."

But now "The contract holder has hired new workers but those workers have two weeks training." All of which makes Ms. Toucher wonder, "Does it really matter how many thousand calls you answer if you cannot assist the caller, if the information you give is incorrect?" The following is a complete copy of her letter.

***

I am now retired but worked for 32 years for the BC Government, twenty of those in MSP. A point which seems to be missed by many in looking at privatizing government services, such as MSP, is what defines service and how do you measure quality.

BC medical Plan arose out of the amalgamation of the three major medical insurance plans in BC in the early seventies , when the government assumed the responsibility for delivering health insurance to all eligible BC residents. The three were MSA, Cu&C and Government employee medical services.

BC Med was tasked with two responsibilities. To insure all eligible residents and to pay medical practitioners for appropriate services. When we think of MSP we generally think of the coverage aspect as this is where most of the public has direct contact with the public.

As with all things new, there are a great deal of rules and regulations written around the legislation to clarify roles and responsibilities. The early managers of the plan set the style and the objectives for staff at that time. For the registration and premium billing section the purpose of the work became the integrity of the system and the ability to communicate regulations to the public.

To meet this objective the plan recruited staff and placed them into a training process which offered six months intensive training followed by a two year "trial" period before the person was considered to have enough experience to operate independently.

Over the years there were the usual problems with the need to mechanize a paper burdened system, the need to keep up with a changing medical system worldwide. The increased population, move to phone usage for business pressures and an increasingly mobile population all added to the work flow problems. With the advent of the nineties and downsizing MSP fell into the spiral of lack of trained staff resulting in processing delays which led to increased phone call which resulted in processing delays ans so on. Complaints made it to the floor of the house about the time it took to get through to MSP (as it was now called). It can be noted however that the public felt that when they got through they were dealt with courteously and efficiently.

Now we see the government setting the plan out to a private company to deliver the services. The contract, which for matters of privacy, is not a public document and we do not know what the deliverables are. The recent fines would suggest that "numbers" and telephone standards (time taken to answer) are the key. What of the integrity of information received and given? Does it really matter how many thousand calls you answer if you cannot assist the caller, if the information you give is incorrect.

The contract holder has hired new workers but those workers have two weeks training, mostly on the equipment they use. Just prior to MSP being privatized the staff won a classification appeal because "the knowledge required to do the job adequately was not available in a manual, but required extensive use of knowledge, prior experience and decision making"

The private sector thinks of work in a quantifiable way with deliverables and a bottom line of "profit". It has been long recognized that many citizen services need a different approach and thus the need for public service is identified. I note that Mr Abbott clarified that saving money was not the issue. That is just as well as MSP had been noted and commended for running a very cost efficient system. The question is service to the public. But is having the phone answered really the service the public is looking for or do they want their problems resolved, their questions answered and their requests actioned. It is no use answering the telephone in 3 minutes if the information you then give out is incorrect.

Christine Tocher

Retired, Manager, Health Information Line

Earlier, we reported Victoria federal Conservative director-at-large Eugene Parks had criticized fellow director Norm Fiss for circulating his sister's views on aboriginal property issues. Mr. Fiss's sister is Tanis, the director of Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change. And now, Public Eye has received copies Mr. and Ms. Fiss's responses to that attack.

In an email sent to association executives, Mr. Fiss writes, "The fact is my opinions on aboriginals differ from my sister and MY opinions on this topic area are known only to me." He also questions the motives behind Mr. Parks's attack. "Does he want there to be a story on Public Eye about the divisions in the local Tories?" asks Mr. Fiss. "Perhaps he wishes to weaken our local campaign, or perhaps he is still bitter over (losing) the 04 nomination?"

For her part, Ms. Fiss explains, "The letter by Mr. Parks' misrepresented the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's position with regards to native reserve property." Rather than advocating for the dismantling of reserve, she notes "Since 1997, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) has been urging the federal government to implement a system of private property ownership on Indian reserves as a means to empower natives and reduce poverty."

The following are copies of both emails.

***

...The part that irritates me is not that he goes after Tanis. That is fair game he is entitled to his opinion and to express it. I did, after all spend a number of years in her Majesties uniform defending that principal.

What I don't like is the use of my name, I am not a member of the CTF nor have I ever been employed by the CTF, or contracted to the CTF, OR even donated to the CTF. I am no more responsible for Tanis' work than she is of mine, or is Eugene, for that matter. The fact is my opinions on aboriginals differ from my sister and MY opinions on this topic area are known only to me. Unlike Tanis, I am not a public policy advocate.

The other issue to this is why would Eugene attack another EDA board member? Does he want there to be a story on Public Eye about the divisions in the local Tories? Perhaps he wishes to weaken our local campaign, or perhaps he is still bitter over the 04 nomination? Why would he pick this issue in a ED with no reserve? I really don't know what his agenda is. I just want to be left alone, in the same way I respectfully leave Eugene alone. Is that too much to ask?
Regards.
nsf.

***

-----Original Message-----
From: Tanis Fiss [mailto:tfiss@telus.net]
Sent: 30 June 2005 11:02
To: editorial@publiceyeonline.com
Subject: CTF Response to "The Fuss Over Fiss"

Dear Mr. Holman:

Below is in response to the June 29, 2005, Public Eye Online story "The Fuss Over Fiss".

On June 29, 2005, Public Eye Online published a letter by Mr. Eugene Parks. The letter by Mr. Parks' misrepresented the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's position with regards to native reserve property.

Since 1997, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) has been urging the federal government to implement a system of private property ownership on Indian reserves as a means to empower natives and reduce poverty. Regrettably, this idea has been rejected by a majority of native leaders and activists. They claim that the concept of communally held property is a basic tenet of aboriginal life.

But as Montana State University professor Terry Anderson has shown, this isn't true: Prior to European contact, North American Indians were well-versed in the notion of private ownership. The Machiacan Indians of the Northeast, for example, bequeathed rights to well-defined tracts of garden lands along rivers, and marked beaver-trapping territories by carving family symbols on trees.

These natives understood a basic principle: Economies function best when property is privately owned. Prof. Anderson's work proves this principle applies to modern-day Indians. He has shown that individually allotted Indian lands in the American West are more productive than tribally or federally controlled Indian lands.

To make Canada's native reserves prosperous and self-sufficient, we must take this lesson to heart. Private property rights that are stable and transferable have been the foundation for wealth creation in virtually every society on earth. It is scandalous that we would systematically deny the benefits of a market economy to reserve-resident aboriginals, the poorest segment of Canadian society.

The root of the problem lies with Canada's Indian Act, a vestige of the 19th Century: Aboriginals who live on reserves cannot own their land. Even the tribes themselves cannot own the land. Instead, the land is held in trust by the Canadian government.

It is true that native Canadians aren't forced to live on reserves. But the various incentives offered to reserve residents, such as tax exemptions and free housing, discourage them from leaving.

Reserve land is difficult to mortgage because a mortgagee cannot enforce his or her interest against the land in the event of a default. Section 89 of the Indian Act states: "Subject to this Act, the real and personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve is not subject to charge,pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band." The original intent behind this provision was laudable: to protect native Canadians from exploitation and from loss of land due to seizure. But in today's world, this section only scares off potential investors and business partners, and is based on a view of native Canadians as incapable of participating in our economy as equals. Canada's progressive culture venerates the respect for the land instinctively exhibited by Indians. So why doesn't Canada trust native Canadians to manage their own lands properly?

Aboriginals' inability to own their property affects their private rights. But this private problem has created a very public crisis on reserves. Since economic activity is so severely curtailed, development depends almost holly on public money funnelled through band leaders. The few businesses and jobs that do exist on many reserves are thus beholden to the band council - a recipe for corruption.

It is demeaning to native Canadians for the federal government to continue to hold title to Canada's Indian reserves. If native communities are to become economically self-sustaining, the reserve land which is now held in trust by the Crown should be transferred to individual natives who comprise the native community. We should let aboriginals themselves decide - on a band-by-band basis - whether their long-term interests are to be achieved through the private ownership of land, or the existing collectivist approach. Until we give them this freedom to choose, they are doomed to a life of dependency on government handouts.

- 30 -

Yesterday, Public Eye tried to find out a little bit about the legislature's new interim comptroller Bill Gano. But Mr. Gano himself wasn't very forthcoming. So we asked Public Eye readers if they had any information about the tight-lipped official, who previously worked as the Alberta legislature's director of administrative and information services. And they delivered. Caped New Democrat crusader Rick Barnes ignited his blogger signal and boy wonder Daveberta responded with the following clip from Alberta's Hansard.

"Bill Gano began his career with the public service in 1974, initially working as a programmer in the formative years of the computer age. His career progressed and brought him to the Legislative Assembly Office in 1989 to oversee the development of our computer systems. Bill is the director of two branches: information systems services and financial management and administrative services. He also serves as a senior financial officer and has responsibility for records management, freedom of information and protection of privacy issues. Bill is a founding member of the Canadian Association of Parliamentary Administrators."

If you haven't yet check out the train wreck of comments on the Vancouver-Hastings nomination result, you really should. Because, buried among the scrap, you'll find an interesting bit of punditry from NOW Communications Inc. account manager and former provincial ministerial assistant Maya Russell. According to Ms. Russell, who supported caucus staffer Raj Sihota's unsuccessful nomination bid, "Across the province, in only one race where a woman ran against a man was the woman successful." And that means "This party is sick. Running all these women so we can watch them lose on the podium is close to abusive."

Moments ago, we speculated Premier Gordon Campbell's upcoming reception for the visiting national Conservative caucus would provide an excellent opportunity for the professional protesting classes to demonstrate against two right-wing parties at the same time. And now it seems the effort to organize that demonstration is already underway...sortof. In a comment posted on Public Eye, Young New Democrat Scott Hart reports his federal Liberal counterparts are "trying to organize a 'non-partisan' protest" for January 25.

According Mr. Hart, the Young Liberals approached the New Democrats about joining that protest. But "we laughed at them." He then goes onto observe the Young Liberals "made fools of themsevles" when they organized a similar protest against Conservative leader Stepher Harper during the last election - at least, based on Public Eye's coverage of the event. Fascinating. We would be curious to know whether our informed readership can think of any good political reasons why the Young New Democrats should change their mind and join the demonstration. Give them a bit of a hand folks.

Earlier, Public Eye reported the provincial government's public service agency had paid Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Nerd Tod Maffin $7,500 to educate and entertain 300 bureaucrats earlier this week. Today, in a comment posted on Public Eye, an anonymous civil servant argued in favour of that song and dance routine, pointing out, "Good companies do things like this for their employees all the time." The bureaucrat then went onto complain that the public seems to think "all government employees should just shut up, be glad they have a job and sit in their cubicles being as productive as possible."

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled government must consult and accomodate First Nations before making decisions that impact even unproven land claims. But it also ruled First Nations don't have a final veto over those decisions nor are business groups under the same obligation to consult and accomodate. But what do those rulings, which were part of two seperate cases, mean for the government and business in British Columbia? And where do we go from here? Well, First Nations consultant and political watcher Bernard Schulmann has some ideas. The following is Mr. Schulmann's analysis.

Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada Decisions released November 18, 2004:
Haida Nation v British Columbia and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v British Columbia

Within hours of the decision, a whole lot of rhetoric came out from government, industry and First Nations all saying the case was a win for them. The courts are an adversarial process and realistically you do not get multiple winners.

This multiple winner declaration is simply a faulty analysis and ignores the basic fact that the case was a failure for everyone. At best we maintain the status quo of the last seven years, at worst we have vastly increased this ongoing make work project for lawyers.

The Supreme Court of Canada has once again stated the simple fact that everyone has known for many years - British Columbia First Nations have unextinguished title and rights issues and that this is a burden on Crown title. Yes, government and industry have tried to pretend that the issue was dealt with in the past and that it no longer mattered; but could never answer how the issue had been resolved.

Since the Calder case in 1973, there has been a clear legal history showing that the Crown in British Columbia must deal with First Nations in good faith. These cases are simply the latest ones on that line (and not the last).

So what has this latest decision added to the current situation? More uncertainty. The wording the Supreme Court uses adds little clarity to the previous decisions. The very fact that First Nations and the government can claim the decision as being a victory for them is proof enough on its own that the decision is not clear.

We have a dysfunctional status quo in British Columbia that will simply continue for the foreseeable future. Government does the minimal needed to meet their definition of the court decisions and First Nations will continue to be frustrated at their lack of real input and control over lands. Industry is left as the meat in this dispute sandwich.

First Nations have had their knuckles rapped in this decision - the court has made it clear that they must participate in a consultative process the government creates. The court seems to have been clear that if the government creates a meaningful process that non-participation is not a way to stop a process.

The decision also managed to avoid any mention of compensation for infringing the aboriginal rights but did say that the provincial government could infringe the title and rights. Accommodation of rights remains without any useful definition.

First Nations must also keep in mind that the courts left with government the decision if there is a potential of rights - all First Nations can do if the government acts as it has done in the past is to sue in the courts. The First Nations have gained some power over lands through the need for meaningful consultation but that is tempered with the ability of government to hold the power the over decisions as First Nations do not have any formal way to stop any project.

The government will hopefully look at its own internal processes and see that many of the land based ministries are still operating in manners that are not in accord with these, and other, decisions. While the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Forests can be lauded for their attempt to consult in a meaningful manner, the other ministries are doing a woefully inadequate job.

It is interesting to see that the win by government in the Taku case relates to the environmental assessment process. Several senior people within the environmental assessment office spent a long time developing a process for the Redfern sponsored project, which has now been deemed to be meaningful consultation.

The problem is, with the change of government, it is unclear if the environmental assessment office still has the mandate to do this type of consultation. Certainly the corporate expertise has been lost as several key figures are now retired.

The government has to work very quickly to codify best practices in consultation and then have someone ensure that land based ministries actually do this consultation work. At a minimum, the government is going to have to hire dozens of new staff to run consultation processes; if the staff is not there, land based decisions of the government are going to be bogged down in a quagmire. Timely decision-making will disappear.

Industry is the big loser here. Industry must trust that the government will proactively ensure proper consultation is done: there is no formal role for a project proponent in consultation discussions with First Nations. Industry has to trust that civil servants in Victoria are capable and able to understand their needs and act in a manner that allows them to operate.

In some ministries, government is doing a good job and working well, but in other land based ministries, the government's consultative process has been awful. There are major time bombs left out there by certain ministries that could very likely explode and cost business in British Columbia hundreds of millions of dollars.

Industry has to push the government to consult meaningfully and quickly. In many cases the resource industries have been ahead of the provincial government in relationships with First Nations, there is a danger that these cases will harm this new interaction. Industry must also put government on notice that any failure in consultation must bring financial compensation to industry.

So who benefits from this decision? The lawyers. There are so many areas of ambiguity and such a divergent view of the meanings of these cases that British Columbia and some First Nation will be in the courts on the basis of these decisions before the end of this year.

What do we need now?

Clear Consultation Guidelines

First of all some clear guidelines on the scope and scale of what type of consultation is needed, at what point this consultation has to happen and what are reasonable accommodations of title and rights in the case of infringement. There needs to be a clear test that line ministry staff can apply. The guidelines need to specify if this is a situation in which there is a need for aboriginal consent or not. Without this clarity the process will simply end up back in court.

After major decisions, government often revamps their policy on aboriginal consultation, but never with any input from First Nations and low and behold the First Nations feel disrespected and ignored. These guidelines must be designed with the support of the First Nations of British Columbia and be made part of the regulatory framework as it relates to all activities on Crown land.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

There needs to be a quick and inexpensive way to adjudicate the disputes in the future. We can not afford to have First Nations and government tie land and resources up in courts and waste large sums of their money on more lawyers. We have more than enough mechanisms out there to settle disputes at a fraction of the cost of lawsuits. First Nations need to know that there is an impartial third party tribunal that make and enforce decisions when they feel their rights have been run over roughshod by the government.

The Crown and the leadership of the British Columbia First Nations (groups such as the Assembly of First Nations-British Columbia Region Region, the First Nations Summit, and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs) should set a priority to negotiate a real and independent dispute resolution process as quickly as possible.

Support for Industry - First Nation cooperation

The government has often benignly neglected relationships being built between First Nations and industry. These relationships often run into trouble because of issues that neither party can address; many of these issues are provincial policy. BC needs to support these relationships by insuring that government policy is not getting in the way of constructive relationship building.

Yesterday, Public Eye reported a number of senior public affairs staffers were being promoted from management level eight to nine - putting them in the same pay bracket as some assistant deputy ministers. Commenting on the story, an anonymous civil servant noted, "classification 'creep' has a long tradition in this provincial government" but "the real problem is the antiquated classification system and the pathetically run B.C. Government Public Service Agency."

The bureaucrat went onto to explain "I was astounded to find out (after joining the civil service) that I needed to and was encouraged to hire expensive outside consultants (on taxpayers money I might add) to deal with the dysfunctional personnel management system that pervades this government as well as the previous one."

Unfortunately, any change from the norm "would first require changes to the most senior civil servant management staff - which the premier seems unable or unwilling to do." Although Gordon Campbell was apparently willing to have a "pep rally" with his most senior civil servants at the Empress Hotel.

Last night, an anonymous source posting on Public Eye reported Pat Kinsella, the most powerful Liberal backroom boy in the province, was seated at aluminum giant Alcan Inc.'s table during the Surrey-Panorama Ridge by-election fundraiser. Just to make sure we checked with the company's corporate affairs director Richard Prokopanko. In an interview from Kitimat, Mr. Prokopanko confirmed Mr. Kinsella had invited him to the fundraiser as his guest, where the two were seated together. But he said no lobbying took place, although "one person asked about what the aluminum industry was doing." Mr. Prokopanko also said he was the only Alcan representative at the event.

When asked directly whether Mr. Kinsella engaged in any lobbying on Alcan's behalf at the fundraiser Mr. Prokopanko said, "You'd best ask Mr. Kinsella what he talked about that evening. But we certainly didn't (lobby)." A call placed to Mr. Kinsella has not yet been returned. Mr. Kinsella, who is not listed on the lobbyist registry, has repeatedly denied working as a government relations man for Alcan, instead saying he's been under contract as a communications conusltant for the company. Mr. Kinsella has also denied ever talking to cabinet ministers or their staffers about his clients. Legislation passed by the Liberals requires all lobbyists to register or face a fine of up to $25,000.

Last night, an anoymous source posting on Public Eye gave further details about Wednesday's Surrey-Panorama Ridge provincial Liberals by-election fundraiser. According to the source, the fundraiser was attended by cabinet ministers Pat Bell, Susan Brice, Shirley Bond, Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon, Colin Hansen, Brenda Locke, Joyce Murray and Patrick Wong. Also along for the ride: backbenchers Harry Bloy, David Hayer, Gordon Hogg and Ken Stewart making this "the biggest event" since the party's annual Dinner Under The Sails. That's another indication the provincial Liberals are investing significant resources in this by-election. The source then went onto to add many of those MLAs "were in the Lower Mainland last night for this purpose alone."

In a comment posted on Public Eye earlier today, provincial Young New Democrat co-chair Brianne Duhamel writes that socialist historian Syvlia Russell will not be speaking at the wing's annual convention. Meeting minutes leaked to Public Eye show the youth executive planned to invite her to that convention. And, according to an insider, Prof. Russell's attendance was discussed last Sunday, during an executive conference call. Ms. Duhamel also comments, "I can see why some would try to make an issue about a well-respected scholar of Russian Studies speaking to BC youth" - about the Soviet education system. So can we, especially when those youths are New Democrats. But, we're pretty sure Ms. Duhamel is just being sarcastic.

Yesterday, Public Eye reported controversial school board trustee Mary Polak was considering running in Surrey-Panorama Ridge for the provincial Liberals. Some of those Liberals are concerned Ms. Polak's candidacy could paint the party with a socially conservative brush. After all, they say, Ms. Polak was part of an effort to keep children's books about same-sex relationships out of kindergarten and Grade 1 classrooms. But Ms. Polak wrote in today to say those concerns are unwarranted. In her email she notes it's "absolutely true that I endorsed Belinda Stronach. Interesting, given that I'm supposed to be such a radical social conservative? :-)" The following is an edited copy of her email.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Polak
Sent: Thu 8/5/2004 12:48 PM
Subject: Comment on Public Eye magazine

Hi Sean,

Well, it's a fairly good article, but I need to correct a couple of things.

1. The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the decision on the books back to the board with specific criteria including sensitivity to the cultural and religious concerns of parents (consider paragraph 66 of the decision). The Board again declined approval. The Board then approved two books dealing with same-sex families that are of much higher quality and are much more appropriate in kindergarten or Grade 1 classrooms. The central point of departure for the court was the issue of what was intended by the curriculum (remember, the Ministry of Education had approved NO materials dealing with same sex relationships for primary grades). The court determined that the curriculum intended that all lawful family models be included.

2. Also, the motion you describe requiring board approval of books...ALL books to be used to support the currirulum are required by Ministry Regulation to be approved by the Ministry of Education (library books which may be used in the classroom are another matter). Failing that, someone seeking approval can approach a local Board. When the NDP established the Personal Planning and Career and Personal Planning K-12 curriculum in 1995, there was a requirement that Boards develop a local approval process for sensitive resources. In 1997, a committee of parents and stakeholders was completing development of that process. The interim approval process was for resources to be brought to the Board. The motion you refer to was a motion to inform school staffs that a list of books being circulated by the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia was NOT an approved list (they had distributed a list of "recommended learning resources" directly to schools which contravenes Ministry and District regulations). This motion was struck down for being "impermissibly vague!" (which is a tag that would sink many a government action around the country). :-)

3. Re: my federal attempt, I was going to seek the Conservative nomination in the riding of Fleetwood-Port Kells until Nina Grewal (Gurmant's wife) and Gurmant Grewal both filed nomination papers in both ridings. It was quickly apparent that the "fix" was in, so to speak, and so I withdrew my nomination papers rather than lend credibility to that process.

4. Absolutely true that I endorsed Belinda Stronach. Interesting, given that I'm supposed to be such a radical social conservative? :-)

Earlier today, Public Eye reported Clark administration New Democrat insider Adrian Dix would be seeking the nomination in Vancouver-Kingsway - this, according to a leaked email from the riding's constituency association. But apprently, the association didn't have its facts straight. Mr. Dix writes that "The email is wrong. The riding association sent this out to a wide distribution list (though not to me) earlier today...Members of the riding have asked me to consider running. I have agreed to consider it seriously. I have not decided and will likely make an announcement one way or another in late August or September. There is a formal way to submit nomination papers (and get copies of lists and so on). Several candidates have done so apparently. I am not one of them." The association also erroneously reported labour activist Kelly Quinn would be seeking a nomination in their riding.

Public Eye is proud to announce our new, unofficial slogan: "Witty and mostly accurate." That's how Young New Democrat co-chair Miriam Martin described one of our columns in a comment posted on the site last night. In that posting, Ms. Martin, a self-declared "unapologetic radical" who supported former MLA Steve Orcherton's leadership bid, fingers senior party members for leaking information about the infighting between her executive and the New Democrat brass - information that she hadn't yet shared with her own membership.

Meanwhile, Ryan Stewart, who is running to replace Ms. Martin, takes a shot at the sitting co-chair and her communist clique for "their inability to translate a single one of their Trotskyite ideals into anything relevant to the British Columbians who are being hurt by Gordon Campbell." Mr. Stewart also makes a clear that he isn't a "moderate" instead preferring to call himself a "traditionalist" (as opposed to Ms. Martin who is a "utopian"). The following are copies of Ms. Martin and Mr. Stewart's postings.

***

Name: Miriam Martin

Comments:

Mr. Holman,

As the unapologetically radical co-chair of the BC-YND, I am writing to thank Sean Holman for his witty and mostly accurate article "Young NDPers take on the status quo." We only regret that the NDP Provincial Executive leaked our document before our members had a chance to read it. Regardless, we are happy you have publicized our campaign.

We call on all youth who are fighting for an end to war, quality jobs, free quality education, freedom from harassment, environmental sustainability, and all of the points in our Youth Rights Charter to join the Youth Rights Campaign, join the NDP, and join us in our fight for the implementation of these rights. The left wing of the BC Young New Democrats is committed unapologetically to defending the rights of working people. Unlike some young members who seek careers with the party, we will not compromise this position. Considering that the membership of the NDP Youth has tripled since this executive was elected, we'll see at our convention in October just how "unelectable" radicals are.

Workers of the world unite!

In Solidarity,

Miriam Martin
BC YND Co-Chair

***

Name: Ryan Stewart

Comments:

An Open Letter to Sean Holman

Hi Sean:

I just read your TC article re the BC Young New Democrats and their Youth Rights Charter. I don't accept your description of Miriam Martin et al as "traditionalists" and the rest of us as "moderates." Ms. Martin and her clique have utopian ideals that they believe are not shared by other Young New Democrats. This belief fuels their incredible paranoia about the rest of the party (especially the evil 'party brass') being out to get them. However, the paranoia among the lefter-than-thou crowd really springs from their record of inaction at the helm of the YND and their inability to translate a single one of their Trotskyite ideals into anything relevant to the British Columbians who are being hurt by Gordon Campbell.

We so-called "moderates" are in fact strongly committed to social democracy, and some like me self-identify as democratic socialists. We just happened to notice when the Iron Curtain fell. We are also aware that most British Columbians aren't ready to cast off the shackles of capitalism for the revolutionary dream world that Ms. Martin seems to think is a mere rally or two away.

Instead, we put forward ideas that are both principled and practical, and that stand a chance of making a difference in the lives of ordinary people. Instead of fighting one another, we're fighting Gordon Campbell. Unless and until Ms. Martin gives up her moral crusade to join the growing movement to defeat the BC Liberals and elect the NDP, she will remain on the sidelines. As a "traditionalist" New Democrat, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

Sincerely,

Ryan Stewart
Candidate for Co-Chair
BC Young New Democrats

Earlier, we reported North Vancouver incumbent candidate Ted White had threatened legal action against an election commentary Website for posting defamatory emails. Those emails suggested the Conservative MP is a racist. The offending comments were removed by the site's moderator Milton Chan. But that might not be the end of the story. In a comment posted on Public Eye last night, Mr. White's parliamentary assistant George Pringle questioned Mr. Chan's political motivations. He then added his boss, "may have decided that it was a waste of time to take this Milton activist to court for now, but I've saved every post (on his Website)...and I feel very strongly that people like Milton have to be taken through the legal system as an example, so hopefully (the Internet) won't just be full of scumbags like him." The following are exerpts from Mr. Pringle's posting.

Name: George Pringle

Comments:

For quite a while, Milton has "predicted" elections but his real agenda has been a project which attempts to shape the direction of the election through his selective approval of postings. He then changes his predictions at the last minute to claim a success rate and collect money through advertising.

A reporter would investigate Milton's con job rather than refer to and further misrepresent lies that he was legally forced to remove from his site due to his editing of Hansard transcripts.

Hmmm...you want a story...most serious people on the net know the special interest group (not just his federal Liberal connection) that Milton is involved with and thus his political bias and the game he is playing.

Ted may have decided for now that it was a waste of time to take this Milton activist to court but I've saved every post for this case, which includes his editing of Hansard, and I feel very strongly that people like Milton have to be taken through the legal system as an example, so hopefully this medium won't just be full of scumbags like him.