Great Bear deal shows B.C. adapting to a new world

VICTORIA - Nine years ago it was called the Midcoast Timber Supply area, and the government's interest was in seeing it logged.
Environmental groups were a nuisance, or in the words of then premier Glen Clark, "enemies of British Columbia."
And First Nations were pretty much irrelevant to any land use discussion.
Flash forward to this week for a reminder of just how extraordinarily things have changed.
For starters, it's now the Great Bear Rainforest, the clever name coined by the environmental groups back in 1996 when they wanted to win support for protecting the area.
And when Premier Gordon Campbell proudly announced a new land use deal for the region he shared the platform - and lots of praise - with First Nations and the same environmentalists who had been so maligned.
The new reality has arrived. First Nations have established a legal right to a say in decisions that affect land they are claiming as traditional territories.
Environmental groups have built political clout within the province, and shown a consistent ability to marshal international support to put economic pressure on industry and government.
After a bumpy start - especially with First Nations - the Liberal government has accepted the new reality, and showed with this announcement an ability to make the most of it.
On the day Campbell announced the new plan, it got big favourable news coverage across North America and around the world. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times International Herald Tribune and hundreds of others ran stories. Britain's Channel 4, in a typical coverage, ran film of beautiful scenery and playful bears and hailed "a major blow for preserving the planet's wildlife."
In terms of tourism promotion, figure a multimillion-dollar PR coup. The government's communication shop - with big help from the environmental groups, who have excellent press contacts - made the most of the opportunity.
The local impact of the land use plan is tougher to sort out.
The plan completes a process begun under the NDP. It covers a huge stretch of the coast, from just north of Powell River to Alaska. About one-third of the land will be protected from development. The rest will be open to commercial activities, including logging, but under a new Ecosystem Based Management regimen. Committees will review plans for each area, balancing environmental protection and the economic benefits and losses from any planned activities.
The forest industry was represented in the land use talks, and at the announcement. For the companies, any move towards certainty is valuable after all this time.
There are costs to his kind of agreement.
For starters, B.C. has put up $30 million for a new First Nations' economic development fund, and hopes the Harper government will match it. Environmental groups have raised another $60 million, mostly from U.S. foundations, for a First Nations fund to help with environmental issues.
All in, it will be $120 million. A lot of money, but less if it's considered a payment for allowing resources to be removed from lands claimed by First Nations while the treaty process continues.
The increased protection areas will also cost money. The annual allowable cut for the region had been estimated at four million cubic metres. The new land use plan will see that fall to about 3.1 million, a potential loss of jobs and government revenue.
There are benefits too. Certainty means more investment on a range of fronts.
And the reality is that there was no alternative. Everyone involved recognized a compromises would have to be reached or nothing would happen, and government brokered the deal.
It's not likely a model that will be repeated across the province. Most land use issues are less complex and polarized.
But on the big issues, things like coalbed methane, offshore gas and fish farms, expect some similar resolution of the inevitable conflicts.
The world has changed. B.C. has no choice but to acknowledge the new reality, and make the best of it.
Footnote: The government's announcement didn't make any mention of the $120-million fund for First Nations, or the province's contribution. Lands Minister Pat Bell said the government didn't want to highlight the fund until the new federal government had a chance to consider the $30-million request. Expect new Liberal David Emerson to deliver a fairly quick yes.

Emerson, Harper deal democracy another blow

VICTORIA - Pragmatically, David Emerson's jump into Stephen Harper's cabinet is probably good news for B.C.
But it still stinks.
This is a politician who only three weeks ago was telling voters in his riding that he believed deeply in the Liberal Party, and that they should believe in him.
They did. He was elected with 43 per cent of the vote. And now he's betrayed them.
Emerson didn't just campaign as a strong Liberal. He warned that a Stephen Harper government would plunge Canada into a "black hole."
The Conservative party was made up of "angry" and "heartless" individuals who would destroy Canada's social programs and don't like immigrants, Emerson said. "They're uncomfortable with ethnic minorities," he said. "They try to dance around it and create partisan attempts to win those votes, but I think everybody sees through that."
The Conservatives were even too dim to understand the importance of the Pacific Gateway transportation project, he said.
On election night Emerson was passionate about the need to battle the Conservatives. "I'm going to be Stephen Harper's worst enemy," he vowed.
But all it took was a phone call from a Conservative agent, the offer of a top cabinet job and Emerson jumped into bed with the angry, heartless Harper. So much for keeping promises, or principles.
After almost two years of saying there were clear and important differences between the parties, Emerson now says that wasn't true. He was misleading anyone who listened.
Especially the people in Vancouver Kingsway. Two weeks ago they elected Emerson as a Liberal to represent them in Ottawa. New Democrat Ian Waddell came second, with the Conservative candidate a distant third.
Despite their overwhelming rejection of the Conservatives, the voters in that riding are being represented by one.
There is nothing wrong with people changing parties on matters of principle. If an MP is deeply disturbed by the direction his party has been heading, he has the freedom to cross the floor, or more honourably to sit as an independent.
But that's not what happened here. Faced with the gloomy prospects of life on the opposition benches after two years in cabinet, Emerson jumped to keep a cabinet job.
Emerson says he can do more for his constituents if he's on the winning side. "If I'm going to dedicate another two years to public service, how can I have the most impact," he asks. "I think I can be more effective in helping them in cabinet than in opposition."
Practically, this is probably good news for B.C. Emerson is in a position to get action on B.C.'s priorities, from the Pacific Gateway project to pine beetle aid, an as international trade minister takes on the softwood file. He's also responsible for the Olympics, so expect a quick yes to the organizers' request for an extra $55 million to cover early cost over-runs.
But it's very bad news for democracy. Emerson and Harper have subverted the electoral process for their personal goals. The voters - the people who are supposed to be at the centre of all this - have been treated with contempt.
It's also a bad stumble for Harper on his first day. Instead of setting a new tone and new direction, he's looking much like the Liberals, welcoming Emerson just as eagerly as Paul Martin embraced Belinda Stronach when she abandoned the Conservatives.
At the same time Harper named Conservative campaign co-chair Michel Fortier to cabinet, even though Fortier didn't run in the election. He'll be appointed to the Senate, Harper said, and then run in the next election.
A Senate appointment and a seat at the cabinet table for a key party organizer, even though voters had been given no chance to judge his abilities.
And a big prize for an MP ready to denounce the principles he championed only weeks ago, and abandon both his party and the voters of his riding.
It was a dubious start for a government that had promised to do things differently.
Footnote: B.C. got three other seats at the cabinet table. Stockwell Day gets public safety, Chuck Strahl agriculture and Gary Lunn is the new minister for natural resources. The 27-member cabinet is down 12 people from Martin's version; B.C. should have the representation to advance the province's interests.

Knee, hip plan a step forward for health care

VICTORIA - There’s much to praise in the government’s plans to reduce the wait for knee and hip surgery.
The problem has been terrible. Every time I write about the issue, I hear from people with stories of suffering, economic hardship and physical deterioration as they wait for surgery that keeps getting pushed farther and farther away.
Now the government has announced a plan that should make a significant long-term difference.
And at the same time it offers a model that can be used to deal with other, similar problems.
The plan has five elements.
At the centre is a new Centre for Surgical Innovation at UBC, with two operating rooms dedicated to knee and hip work. The centre will be able to do about 1,600 operations a year. That alone should take care of the wait problem for the next few years.
The problem, on one level, is simple. Wait lists grow because the government won’t pay for treatment for people who need it. The health care system has received enough funding to allow about 7,000 knee and hip procedures a year. About 7,300 people require the operation each year, so wait times grow. The extra capacity at the new centre should reverse the trend.
That’s not the only advantage. The new centre is a kind of ‘Hips and Knees R Us.’ That’s all the centre will do, so it will become very good at prepping people, operating on them and sending them on their way with a good rehab plan. As it learns better ways of sticking in a new hip and helping people recover, it will pass them on to hospitals around the province.
It makes imminent sense. Mr. Muffler finds efficiency in doing one thing; so can hospitals.
The government has also come up with $5.5 million more for the Research Centre for Hip Health at Vancouver General Hospital, the first institute in the world that’s looking at ways of avoiding hip problems and improving outcomes.
And another $5 million will be spent to set up a proper waiting list, or ‘provincial surgical patient registry.’
It’s discouraging that only now is government starting to try get a handle on the basic task of managing the wait for treatment. Only by 2007 will patients be ranked by urgency, and given some idea of how long they can expect to wait. Only then will the health authorities have basic wait list data. It’s a confession of mismanagement, but at least the problem is being addressed.
Finally, there’s $25 million to be split among the health authorities to fund extra operations in an effort to cut into waiting lists.
Again, one could argue - I certainly would - that the province could and should have provided that funding years earlier. Fixing knees and hips, relieving peoples’ suffering, getting them back into life seem both a good investment and a moral imperative. But at least it is now happening.
The other encouraging element is the way this whole initiative was developed.
The idea of a knee and hip centre was tested at Richmond Hospital by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. By running two operating rooms and other measures, the pilot project was able to double the number of operations surgical teams could do in a day, from three to six. It knocked a day off the average four to five-day hospital stay, and cut waiting lists. (The UBC centre is now supposed to take those lessons across the province.)
The chance to learn from small, regional experiments - on wait times, and addictions and employment training - is too rarely seized.
It’s amazing how unmanaged our health care system really is. Despite an extraordinary number of bright people looking at the issues there is almost no useful data for making decisions and setting priorities.
The knee and hip project is a step towards smarter, better managed, more effective public health care.
Footnote: Give some credit to the departing Paul Martin for this effort. The First Ministers' agreement to address wait times in five critical areas in return for more money helped drive this initiative. B.C. does well in cardiac, cancer and cataract care, but was spurred to deal with orthopedic wait problem by agreement.

Ready report delay ramps up risk of fall school strike

VICTORIA - Some sort of teachers' strike this fall has just become more likely.
Sorry to be negative. But Vince Ready's inability to come up with proposals for a new bargaining structure is not good news, at least in the short term
Ready was supposed to report by Jan. 31 on a better way of bargaining teachers' contracts. But instead he told Labour Minister Mike de Jong that the problems were too serious, and he needed more time. He now has until March 31.
That creates big problems. The government used legislation to shut down talks with teachers last fall. Their contract was extended, unchanged, until June 30.
The law was supposed to head off any disruption in the schools. If teachers defied the legislation, the government expected the public would turn against them.
It was a miscalculation (one that I shared). Teachers launched an illegal strike, the public supported them and the union won a partial victory. Teachers got more money, and acknowledgment that class size and support for special needs students were legitimate bargaining points. The government had refused to negotiate those issues.
And Ready was tapped to find a better way of negotiating teachers' contracts.
But the one-year contract extension hasn't bought enough time.
Ready will likely meet the March deadline, but the parties will then need time to decide if his proposals are workable.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. In an effort to encourage speedy negotiations, Finance Minister Carole Taylor promised a $1-billion bonus fund for public sector groups that signed new agreements before their contracts expired March 31.
She's prepared to tap next year's budget contingency fund to offer a similar bonus for teachers - a $130-million carrot..
But it's hard to see how that money can play a useful role. Assume Ready reports March 31, and both sides take time to respond. Legislation would then likely be needed to change the bargaining structure.
That means late-April at best for a start on talks under the new model. Given the complexity of the issues, the chances for a deal by June 30 look slim.
Especially because Ready is considering big changes. His interim report didn't have much substance. He emphasized how dysfunctional the bargaining relationship has been for more than a decade, since province-wide bargaining was introduced.
And he highlighted the teachers' union proposal for a two-round bargaining process - with the right to strike available each time.
First, the union and government would negotiate the total amount available for teacher compensation, to be divided among school districts.
Then, union locals and school districts would bargain about how best to apply the money. One district might decide to hire more special needs support staff. Another might choose to pay teachers more. An isolated district might need incentives to attract teachers.
It's an interesting model. Certainly the existing bargaining structure is a failure, with the problems made worse when the Liberals outlawed negotiations on workload issues like class size.
The BCTF proposal would allow real bargaining on money, between the union and the actual decision-makers. And it would restore more local flexibility.
But it brings new problems. The union could target the weakest districts, win concessions and then demand parity. School districts and local unions lack the experience and skills to bargain effectively after a decade away from the table.
The public is unlikely to be keen on two chances for a strike in each set of talks.
And the fundamental problem remains. Teachers do not have a real right to strike. No government, left or right, will allow education to be disrupted for more than a brief period. An alternate way of resolving deadlocks - like the final offer selection proposed in the Wright report - needs to be adopted.
Realistically, that is not going to happen in the next few months.
And that means a risk of more conflict - and job action - as teachers and government bang heads in the same old way.
Footnote: The union is meeting in early March to develop its bargaining mandate, and expects talks to start soon after. The union is looking for significant wage gains, arguing teachers here have fallen behind. The government mandate suggests it expects a settlement at around 2.7 per cent a year. Add class and composition issues, and the stage i set for tough talks.

Thorpe should bail on bid to invade B.C. shoppers' privacy

VICTORIA - Rick Thorpe's bid to make Costco to hand over the shopping records of thousands of British Columbians should be dead by the end of this week.
The B.C. government has been trying to force the retail giant to hand over eight years' worth of information on British Columbians who shopped in the companies' Alberta stories - name, address, what you purchased.
The government is worried that too many people who live in communities near the B.C. border are heading into Alberta to shop so they can avoid the seven-per-cent provincial sales tax.
That costs B.C. tax revenue, perhaps $12 million a year. But the larger aim is to placate businesses on this side of the border, who complain they're losing more than $200 million in sales a year.
Thorpe's revenue ministry has been quietly pushing Costco to hand over the files for three years. The company has just made the dispute public, heading to BC Supreme Court to get an injunction blocking the government's bid.
The court ruling likely won't be necessary. Once the government's plan became public it was slammed by everyone from the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation on the right to the NDP on the left. Liberal MLA Blair Lekstrom first defended the plan, then joined the critics.
And B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis reminded Thorpe that provincial law requires a privacy impact assessment before government launches such surveillance programs. That hasn't been done.
Thorpe initially defended the plan. But he received a report from the deputy minister of labour on the issues last week, and was to announce a decision on the plan by Friday. Expect him to back off.
The Costco gambit fails on a number of levels.
Governments have powers it can use to go after people suspected of illegally avoiding tax.
But this is a huge, intrusive fishing expedition. The data being demanded is enormous. It forces Costco into a major effort, and more importantly to violate the trust of its customers. People gave their names and addresses to Costco for its use, not to share with government.
And British Columbians' privacy - even people who paid all appropriate taxes - would be violated. The government would get a list of what they bought, and when, going back almost a decade.
The problem is real enough, especially for businesses in border towns. The chance to save $200 in provincial sales tax on a big-screen TV makes the drive to Alberta worthwhile. That's bad news for the local electronics store. (British Columbians are supposed to fill out a form and pay the sales tax voluntarily when they return home.)
But the solution is arbitrary - no other stores have been targeted - and an unwarranted attack on personal privacy.
The border communities have proposed an alternate solution. They want a special lower sales tax for border communities, reducing the benefits of cross-border shopping.
The government - after waffling for a year - rightly rejected the proposal, saying the plan would just shift the problem. If border towns had a discount sales tax rate, soon businesses in communities just a little further into B.C. would be complaining that they were losing sales.
There are bold options. The government could reverse its 25-per-cent personal income tax cut, which would bring in about $1.8 billion a year. It could then cut the sales tax to four per cent for all British Columbians, returning the same amount of money. The implications, for tax fairness and business competitiveness, would require a lot of study.
But don't expect any such major changes. The cross-border shopping problem just isn't that high a priority.
Expect more studies, as that's always a safe bet for a government in a tight spot. The province could also usefully fund local campaigns aimed at reminding people of the consequences for the local economy of shopping in Alberta.
But don't expect Thorpe to push on with the ill-conceived attack on the privacy rights of thousands of British Columbians.
Footnote: The Liberals' own past anti-tax rhetoric is part of the problem. In opposition Gordon Campbell suggested taxes steal money from peoples' pockets, and Geoff Plant likened taxes to extortion and said people were driven to evasion by excessive taxation. Not exactly the way to encourage people to obey the tax laws.

Few long-term beds, growing waits, especially for Interior, North

VICTORIA - If you’re worried about about two-tier health care, take a look at the plight of seniors outside the Lower Mainland.

The average wait for a long-term care bed in the North and Interior was almost three months in December. That’s four times as long as the wait in the Lower Mainland.

The cause is simple - the government’s failure to honour its original promise to add 5,000 new long-term care beds by the end of this year.

Only 440 beds were added in the entire province last year, according to Health Minister George Abbott. Since 2001 only 607 beds have been added.

That's a 2.5-per-cent increase in the number of spaces over almost five years. In the same period the population over 75 has increased by 16 per cent.

The result is predictable, the consequences often devastating for the seniors and their families. People who need long-term care beds wind up in hospital acute care beds, causing cancelled surgeries and jammed emergency rooms.

The problem is worst for the Interior Health Authority, where the average wait was 88 days. The Northern Health Authority was little better, at 80 days. Vancouver Island seniors faced an average wait of 56 days.

But in the Fraser Valley Health Authority, the wait was barely three weeks. In Vancouver-Coastal, it was 19 days. (It is easier to place people in densely populated areas, where there are several options within a reasonable distance. In much of the province the nearest alternative is hours away.)

Abbott said the times are better than four years ago, when seniors could spend more than a year on a waiting list.
Unfortunately that’s a meaningless comparison. The old system encouraged people to put their names on a waiting list long before they required care. Under the improved model, the wait begins when a doctor has agreed care is needed.

So how do the waits in December compare with a year earlier? The health ministry says it doesn’t know right now.

But last February Interior Health Authority chairman Alan Dolman reported that the wait was down to 60 days. Since then it has climbed by 50 per cent to 88 days.
That’s not surprising. By the end of last year the Interior Health Authority had seven-per-cent fewer long-term care beds than it had in 2001.

Have things improved? The government will say 440 beds were added across the province last year, but the number for each health authority is another secret. The health ministry wants to release that next month, when it can provide “context.”

The government’s explanation for its broken promise is that the existing long-term care beds was in worse shape than it expected. Improving those spaces used up the money that would have gone for new beds.

And Abbott says that by the end of this year there will be 2,900 additional spaces, and the government is on track to keep its new promise of 5,000 beds by 2008.

But it’s been a cruel delay, and the shortage has meant great hardship.

Some seniors can manage while they wait. Others receive the best support that sometimes overwhelmed families are able to provide.

And others end up in acute care hospital beds, where they often do very badly. They don’t get needed care and activity, their sleep and living patterns are disrupted and their conditions worsen far more quickly than if an appropriate place was available. It is a a terrible thing for a family to watch.

And since 10 to 20 per cent of hospital beds are occupied by people who have nowhere else to go, surgeries must be cancelled and emergency rooms fill with patients who can’t be admitted. Most communities across B.C. experienced the problem firsthand at some point last year.

It’s good to support seniors in their homes, and provide a range of care.

But when they need a place and more support, they should know that it will be there.

Harper’s tough job gives B.C. an opening

VICTORIA - Now the hard part starts for Stephen Harper.
He’s starting an audition today. The Conservatives can’t rest comfortably on this victory, and not just because they only managed a minority government.
The Conservatives’ success owes much to the public’s anger at the Liberals. That will fade, with the only question how long that process takes. And without that factor, the Conservatives may be another doomed government.
Harper and the Conservatives have to convince Canadians that they can govern effectively. He has to prove to skeptical centrist voters that the Liberal attacks ads about same sex marriage and reckless tax cuts were false.
And his biggest problems will be the 124 MPs sitting behind him on the government benches.
It’s been 13 years since the Conservatives were in power. For the Reform/Alliance side of the party, this is their first taste of government.
And many of the MPs elected Monday are getting ready to fly into Ottawa with great expectations. Some have accepted the need for unity and party discipline in order to win the election. They learned that lesson painfully in 2004.
But now they are going to want action. They have waited in the wilderness, and they are bound for Parliament to make big changes.
Which creates a problem for Harper. Go too far, and the public’s fears will be confirmed and the road back cleared for the Liberals.
Don’t go far enough, and the MPs who believe the Conservative party should denounce gay relationships, or launch any number of more extreme policies will get grumpy and fractious. (These are people, don’t forget, quite willing to form new parties with little chance of real political success for years.)
The successful campaign gives Harper more clout in the party. And the minority government may be a blessing. Harper can remind MPs that getting too radical could mean a brief term in government, and a long wait on the outside.
The minority government is also a good thing for British Columbia. In the 15 elections since 1958, this is only the fourth time that B.C. voters have been on the winning side and had strong representation in government.
But even in this election the Conservatives lost seats in this contrary province. Their share of the popular vote rose, but it appears that strategic voters in key ridings were just too nervous to allow Conservative wins.
Harper must do better in B.C. next time, and that means paying attention to British Columbia’s issues.
There will be some quick tests. The Conservatives promised $1 billion over 10 years to help deal with the pine beetle disaster. They said they would halt the sale of Ridley Terminal in Prince Rupert. After some fumbling they agreed to support the Kelowna Accord to assist First Nations, although they want a clearer spending plan.
Failing to deliver on any one of those would indicate B.C. is being forgotten.
And the number of cabinet seats from the province, and the jobs given to MPs like Jay Hill, Stockwell Day and Chuck Strahl, will signal Harper’s attention to B.C.
Paul Martin is right to resign. The party did better than expected, especially in B.C. But Martin is not the man to give the party a needed new start it.
His decision buys Harper time. The Liberals will now be looking inward. They will be in no rush to topple the Conservatives.
I expect many British Columbians will see these results as the best of a bunch of bad options.
The Liberals are out, the Conservatives in check.
And if Harper wants a majority next time, he has to look to B.C. The Conservatives expected a better performance in the province. Their share of the popular vote actually rose slightly, but they lost five seats.
They need to find out why so many British Columbians were still not ready to trust them in government if they ever expect a real victory.
Footnote: It will likely take until recounts are complete to determine a critical question. The NDP and Conservatives are on the edge of having a combined majority in Parliament. That would open the door to a more stable coalition, and free Harper from dependence on the Bloc Quebecois. It won’t be an easy partnership, but there are near-term advantages for both parties.

A B.C. election prediction

My best guess is that the Conservatives will win 21 seats, the NDP 10 and the Liberals five in B.C.
But there are so many close races - and strategic voting is such a factor this time - that the Conservatives could end up anywhere between 16 and 22 seats, the New Democrats between seven and 11 and the Liberals between four and 12.
Now that's a margin of error.
The prediction is based on the Conservatives winning every seat in the North and Interior except Skeena and the Southern Interior, which should both end up in the NDP column.
Here on the Island, I'm expect Keith Martin to squeak through in Esquimalt, but the NDP to take Victoria and Vancouver Island North. No changes in the other seats.
I'm expecting Bill Siksay and Peter Julian to hold Burnaby-Douglas and Burnaby-New West for the NDP, and Dawn Black to add New West-Coquitlam to the party's tally. Penny Priddy looks strong in Surrey North.
Nina Grewal will likely hang on in Fleetwood, and Phil Eidsvik will keept Newton for the Conservatives. North Van and Richmond will likely go their way.
But please don't consider this as anything other than a guess. Many of these races are incredibly close.

The $1-billion union carrot creating some worries

VICTORIA - The race is on for public sector unions hoping for a share of the $1 billion the government has set aside as an early signing bonus.
Or at least the government would like it to be.
Everyone is still being mostly positive, but the early indications is that the $1-billion bonus could prove to be a problem.
Finance Minister Carole Taylor, responsible for public sector bargaining, is trying for a new, more co-operative approach. The benefits would be both political and practical.
But the very early indications are that the way ahead is going to be bumpy.
Taylor is hoping to convince the unions that bargaining needs to be more flexible. Money shouldn't be the only issue, she says. Perhaps union members would also be interested in training, or time off or improvements in workplace conditions.
And she's abandoned official province-wide wage mandates. If some employee groups are being paid below market value - trades workers in hospitals come to mind - they could expect a larger increase than other members of their union.
It's not an easy sell. Unions like the idea of common increases, in part because they don't want to get yelled at by the members who do less well.
And it's especially tough when there is significant pent-up wage demand across the board after pay was frozen, or even cut.
Taylor has attempted to ease the way to a new style of bargaining by coming up with a reasonable amount of money. The government has allocated $4.7 billion over four years for contract settlements. That's about 2.6 per cent a year, enough to cover inflation and provide employees with a small catch-up increase.
In a bid to get faster settlements, there's another $1 billion for unions that sign before their current contracts expire - March 31 for almost all unions. That's about $3,400 for each of the 260,000 employees involved.
Taylor says the money will vanish at midnight on March 31, when the fiscal year ends. Accounting rules mean the money, from this year's surplus. has to be spent by then or it goes to debt reduction, she says.
So far unions aren’t buying the deadline. They're worried that the offer is an attempt to encourage them to rush to inferior deals, or pit one union against another.
And they warn that negotiations will be more difficult if the $1 billion is taken off the table March 31 even if an agreement is near.
It's too early to say how this will play out. The BCGEU had its first bargaining session last week, and issued a sharp criticism of the government's position on job security and contracting out. But the two sides are scheduled to meet three days a week until March 31, a sign of serious intent. (The BC Nurses Union doesn't expect to be ready to start talks until March.)
The government has added staff to support bargaining, and hired Lee Doney as a special advisor. Doney is a recently retired deputy minister, whose long career included a stint working close with unions as the head of Forest Renewal BC.
This is a big issue for the government.
Politically, the Liberals have recognized that the public has run out of patience with union-bashing and imposed contracts. The teachers ' strike was a turning point, especially the public support for the union even after the strike was declared illegal.
And practically the government has recognized that bad employee-management relations are costly. Organizations that are seen as inferior places to work either fail to attract the best candidates or pay a premium to compete with better work environments.
So far everyone involved sounds at least a little hopeful, but the practical challenge of doing deals by March 31 is enormous.
Taylor should be looking for a way to keep the $1 billion available if there is real bargaining progress as the deadline nears.
Footnote: The BC Teachers' Federation doesn't expire until June 30, and Vince Ready is still preparing a report recommending a new bargaining structure. The union will get access to an equivalent pool of money - about $130 million - to encourage a quick settlement. The money will come from the contingency fund in next year's budget.

Sad voters show need for proportional representation

VICTORIA - The email arrived from a friend with a question about voting in this election. She wanted to make sure one particular candidate was defeated in her riding.
Given that, she said, she was prepared to put aside her own first choice in favour of pragmatism. Which party has the best chance of toppling the bad guy, she asked, because that candidate would get her vote.
It’s a grim reality this election. Too many people are not happy with the choices they have been offered and are casting votes out of fear, not hope.
They are fearful that a Harper government would reduce individual rights, or launch some destructive law-and-order crusade that would make things worse in communities. They are worried that the Liberals would take electoral success as a sign that corruption and cronyism are acceptable practices. These voters see the NDP mostly as a spoiler in a few dozen ridings.
Ipsos Reid went beyond the usual questions in a late campaign poll and asked how people felt about the parties. The poll found 60 per cent of British Columbians agreed with the statement that Stephen Harper “is just too extreme to be Canada’s prime minister.” And 59 per cent agreed that “the federal Liberal party is fundamentally corrupt and doesn’t deserve to be re-elected.” The New Democrats didn't escape unscathed - 42 per cent agreed that voting NDP is just a wasted vote.”
The choice, for a significant number of Canadians, is which is the least offensive - corruption, extremism or irrelevance.
I’m sure there are voters out there looking forward to the election because they will have the chance to vote for a party offering a vision that really excites them.
I just haven’t met many of them.
There are practical problems with the kind of strategic voting that’s aimed at defeating a candidate or party. There are too few reliable riding-level polls to provide useful information about which candidate is in second place. Even with that information, it’s impossible to anticipate how other voters will react to the changing circumstances.
One obvious solution is a shift to some form of proportional representation, so that voters can be confident that their ballot will count for something more than $1.75 in government funding for the party of their choice. Supporters would be able to vote Green without wondering if they have wasted the opportunity to help chose a government. Proportional representation would ensure that Parliament more closely reflected the popular vote.
The New Democrats and the Greens support a change to proportional representation. Conservatives say - somewhat unenthusiastically - that they are willing to look at the option. Liberals say no to change.
If there is a minority government, NDP leader Jack Layton is likely to make some action on electoral change one of his conditions for offering support. (It's an issue the New Democrats could have exploited more effectively in the campaign, given public dissatisfaction with the way politics are working now.)
But right now, we have the first-past-the-post system. Many voters are struggling with the idea of strategic voting. Some are wondering how to block a party from forming government, or defeat a candidate they find objectionable.
Others are going farther. The same Ipsos poll found nine per cent of British Columbians would change their vote if they thought a Conservative majority government was in the offing.
Again, those are risky and uncertain calculations. If enough people who fear a Conservative majority government shift their votes, the unintended result could be a Liberal minority.
The real answer is reform, from the way parties nominate candidates to the way voters elect them. Voting is supposed to make you feel good - like you're choosing a future for Canada that makes you proud, and hopeful.
Too many Canadians are going to instead feel sad as they vote on Monday, and too many aren't going to vote at all.
Footnote: Voter turnout in the 2004 election was a record-low 60 per cent of registered voters. Given that many people who meet the criteria aren't registered, that means participation was around 50 per cent. The last winter election, in 1980, saw 69-per-cent turnout. That was the lowest participation level in 27 years.

Forget the Conservative surge: in B.C., the parties are right where they were in 2004 vote

B.C. remains the stubborn exception to the Conservatives' big gain this election, a fact that doesn't seem to have been much reported. It's a reality that has big implications for people looking at voting strategically.
Here's a brief news story I did on the issue.


VICTORIA -- Liberal support may have crumbled across the country, but a new poll says the party is holding its ground in B.C. as the campaign enters its last days.

After 18 months of minority government and seven weeks of campaigning, the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats have almost exactly the same level of support in B.C. they had in the 2004 election, according to the Ipsos Reid poll.

The poll found the Conservatives have the support of 37 per cent of decided voters in B.C., compared with their 36-per-cent share of the popular vote in the last election.

Liberal support is unchanged at 28 per cent, and the NDP has inched up a statistically insignificant two points to 29 per cent. The Greens are unchanged at six per cent.

The findings buck a national trend which has seen big gains for the Conservatives and losses for the Liberals.

Nationally, the poll found the Conservatives' 30-per-cent share of the popular vote jump to 38 per cent in the poll, taken on the weekend.

The Liberals' have seen their support plunge from 37 per cent to 26 per cent, while the NDP has gone from 16 per cent to 19 per cent.

The results suggest another tight race in B.C., with close battles expected in up to 20 ridings.

The B.C. results are surprising, said Kyle Braid of Ipsos Reid's Vancouver office. "We definitely seem to be bucking the trend, and it's got me scratching my head," he said.

Braid said Liberal support may be holding because Ottawa has come through for the province in a number of areas, including funding for transportation projects.

British Columbians' social values on issues like same-sex marriage and drug use may put them at odds with Harper's party, he said. "You can do a host of issues where British Columbians are not entirely in line with the Conservatives," he said.

And the allegations of Liberal party corruption may have less of an effect here, Braid said.

"The third theory is that in B.C. we've gotten used to scandals," he said. "That's possibly the best explanation."

University of Victoria professor Norman Ruff said B.C. is still going to be the scene of a number of critical races in Monday's election.

All three party leaders are expected to return to the province over the next few days to shore up support.

The Conservatives captured 22 of B.C.'s 36 seats in 2004. The Liberals captured eight seats and the NDP five. Chuck Cadman was elected as an independent.

The Ipsos Reid poll was conducted from Jan. 13 to Jan. 15. A total of 8,256 Canadians were surveyed, with national results considered accurate within 1.1 per cent 19 times out of 20.

Watching on election night: early indicators, and seats that matter

VICTORIA - Here's a handy guide to watching the election results roll across your TV screen Monday night, including a look at the most interesting B.C. seats.
It looks like a strong Conservative minority government - maybe 135 to 140 seats, a few more than the Liberals won in 2004.  The Liberals should win about 88, a big drop from the 135 in 2004 The NDP should gain ground, ending up with about 30 seats, and the Bloc Quebecois should stay at about 55 seats.
But who knows. This is a volatile election. People disgusted by Liberal scandals have been telling pollsters they plan to vote Conservative. But now that Paul Martin is clearly going to be punished nationally, some may support their local Liberal candidate, or opt for the NDP. The most recent Ipsos poll found nine per cent of those surveyed in B.C. say they would change their vote if a Conservative majority government seemed likely, with the Liberals most likely to gain from such a shift.
When you turn on your TV at 7 p.m., the results from Atlantic Canada should be known. The Conservatives won seven seats last time. If they're on the road to 11 seats this time, then a Harper majority government will be looking likely. Voters in the Eastern provinces have complained that Harper sees them as the slightly slow cousins in the Canadian family; if he has won them over the Conservatives will be on a roll.
The vote-counting starts in Ontario and Quebec 30 minutes before the polls close in B.C., so there won't be many results when you start watching. But if the Conservatives are leading in one or two seats in Quebec, or 45 in Ontario - they won 24 last time - then again you should start thinking majority.
But it's most likely that the outcome will still be in question as the B.C. results start coming in. The latest Ipsos poll shows almost no change in B.C. voter preference since the 2004 election, meaning about 20 close races.
Here's six seats worth extra attention.
- Skeena: The Conservatives own the Heartland's 10 seats, with two exceptions. In the Southern Interior riding Harper dumped the party's candidate over smuggling charges. The NDP will win that seat. And in Skeena incumbent New Democrat Nathan Cullen hopes to beat back a challenge from former Reform MP Mike Scott. Cullen should win; if Scott prevails, it will be a very good night for the Conservatives.
- Esquimalt: Keith Martin jumped from the Conservatives to the Liberals in 2004, and has always had a reputation as an independent MLA. But he's up against credible NDP and Conservative candidates, and has been sabotaged by the lame national Liberal campaign. (The riding has a large Canadian Forces base; Martin said his party's attack ad about soldiers in city streets was idiocy.) The riding should be a key indicator of the tide in B.C.
- Victoria: NDP candidate Denise Savoie has the highest political profile, but Robin Baird should benefit from the Conservatives' strong national campaign. David Anderson held the riding for the Liberals for 13 years, but candidate David Mulroney is much less well-known and can't argue that electing a Liberal could give the city a seat at the cabinet table. The early results could signal whether the Conservatibes or NDP will prevail in the tight two-way races.
- Fleetwood-Port Kells: Nina Grewal is trying to hold the seat for the Conservatives, hampered by the weird courtship between husband Gurmant and Ujjal Dosanjh. The Liberals have underachieving provincial Liberal Brenda Locke, rejected by voters last May, and the NDP is running the often unsuccessful candidate Barry Bell. Whoever wins, the result will signal the party's strength.
- Surrey North: Independent Chuck Cadman's riding. Based on history, it should go Conservative. But Cadman's widow Dona has endorsed former provincial cabinet minister Penny Priddy, running for the NDP. (The Conservative, David Matta, says he voted for Cadman in 2004.)
- Vancouver Centre: Svend Robinson versus Hedy Fry. Theft versus fantasies about burning crosses. I'm not sure what the results will signify, but like a car wreck it is impossible not to look.
There are others, on the Island and in Vancouver.
But focus on these six ridings, and the early returns from the East, and you'll have a sense of how this election will turn out.
Footnote: Close races, as always, could be decided by voters who stay home. The Ipsos poll found 56 per cent of those surveyed thought Harper was too extreme to be prime minister, and 64 per cent believe the Liberal Party is fundamentally corrupt. The sentiments suggest a low turnout.

Thanks, Liberals for discrediting sleazy attack ads

VICTORIA - The Liberals deserve some credit for exploding an irritating myth about negative attack ads.
Savvy political types smile smugly at critics of negative campaigning. Voters may claim to dislike the ads, but they work, the operatives claim.
Not always, as the stumbling Paul Martin campaign showed this week. If the ads are extreme enough, and stupid enough, and so ridiculous that they insult voters' intelligence, they don't work. They backfire.
And that's especially true when the attacking party has gone through a month of campaigning without establishing strong clear positive reasons why people should vote for them.
I have no real problem with negative advertising. It's fair to drag out your opponents' past comments - like Stephen Harper's apparent support for Canadian involvement in Iraq - and demand that they explain them. (Though it becomes ludicrous when carried to extremes; a Liberal candidate in Ontario is being badgered about a comment he made in 1974 as a student.)
And it's legitimate to draw voters' attention to the flaws of your rivals as part of your overall campaign.
But the Liberals have shown that voters will turn on the attackers if the ads are seen as dishonest or unfair.
The lesson isn't new. The Conservatives were hammered in 1993 when, in an effort to salvage Kim Campbell's doomed campaign, the party ran an ad that mocked Jean Chretien's tilted smile, a a product of facial paralysis that struck in childhood.
It shouldn't be hard to know when the ads have crossed the line.
DIshonesty is fatal. One of the Liberal ads claims Harper "admits he'll have to either raise taxes, or run a deficit" to deliver his campaign promises. That is simply untrue, the Liberals have admitted, although the ad continues to run. The :Liberals don't think the Conservative fiscal plan works, but Harper didn't say any such thing. Another ad suggests Harper's rise was funded by powerful U.S. right-wing interests. The Liberals admit they have not a shred of evidence.
Sleaze is also self-destructive. The famous ad that implies jack-booted soldiers will soon be ordering Canadians around at gunpoint fails the sleaze test. The fact that the ad didn't run makes little difference; the party paid for the ad and posted it on its web site along with the others. It can't pretend it doesn't exist.
What Harper actually proposed during a Courtenay campaign stop two weeks ago was to set up army units of 100 soldiers in big cities where there is no military presence. to improve emergency response. It may not be a good policy, but it isn't a step toward a police state.
Attack ads, in this media savvy age, also can't be transparently manipulative. Both parties have stumbled into that trap, using a sinister looking photo of their opponents' leader as the backdrop to their ads.
And the effectiveness of negative ads depends on the public's attitude toward the attacking party. If voters like you, you can get away with more. If they don't, the ads will be seen as desperate efforts to snatch an election after the party has blown its chance to win legitimately.
At this point in the campaign the polls show the public has grown increasingly disenchanted with Paul Martin. That increases the risk that the ads will be seen as unfair and dishonest.
The big losers are Liberal candidates in close races - people like David Mulroney and Sheila Orr and Keith Martin.
Martin, for example, is battling to hold his seat in Esquimalt, which includes a large naval base. It was damaging to have his party paint members of the Canadian military as menacing oppressors. He says the ad was released by "some idiot" within the party. The party isn't sleazy, just incompetent, he's arguing, a troubling position with one week left in the campaign.
The Liberals could have run effective attack ads. A series of quotes from Conservative hopefuls, for example, on abortion, same sex marriage and First Nations, followed with a question about whether voters can believe Harper, or his candidates. Accurate, negative and acceptable.
The ads are bad news for the Liberals, but perhaps good news for the political process. The public reaction has demonstrated to all parties that voters' tolerance for attack ads is limited, and that parties veering into dishonesty or sleaze will pay a price.
Footnote: Some pundits have wondered if the Liberals intended the controversy, especially over the military ad. Perhaps it was a ploy to allow them to have the ad seen on newscasts while still being able to deny any intent to air it, they speculate. Anyone who has talked to furious Liberal candidates would laugh at the conspiracy theory.

NDP picks up Southern Interior seat from Tories

OK, that's a little premature.
But Stephen Harper's reasonable decision to dump candidate Derek Zeisman should hand the riding to New Democrat Alex Atamanenko.
The race was already expected to be close.
But then came the news that Zeisman is charged with attempting to smuggle a used Mercedes and alcohol into Canada, and hadn't told the party about his legal problems. Harper said it's too late to drop Zeisman as a candidate, but he won't be allowed to sit as a Conservative if he's elected.
Not much chance of that.
Score a gain for the New Democrats.

Beware the experts in the campaign's last days (Not me, of course, those other guys)

VICTORIA - Most of the experts telling you what's going on in this election are likely no more astute than the average lab rat.
That's the conclusion - perhaps slightly overstated - of an American book that looks at the performance of political commentators, and it's an important thing to remember as the campaign enters its final days. People who plan to vote strategically to block a Liberal or Conservative government are likely relying on the experts' analysis, if only to assess the closeness of the local and national races. Other voters may be interested in pundits' predictions on how the parties would behave if elected.
But Philip Tetlock's' book, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It, shows those voters could be led badly astray. (I haven't read the book, just a fine review by Louis Menand in the New Yorker. At least I confess my knowledge gaps.)
Tetlock, from the University of California, has spent 20 years studying the accuracy and quality of experts' opinions. He's tracked the pronouncements of the academics and pundits who show up on the news offering their analysis - or write columns like this.
The experts are no more insightful or accurate than the average citizen, he found. In fact the more well-known they are, and the more frequently quoted, the less likely their predictions and judgments are to be accurate.
Tetlock set up experiments to test the insight and acumen of 284 experts over a long period, asking for predictions on topics within their areas. Then he measured their success, and found you would do better by writing the options on a wall and throwing a dart blindfolded.
So why do these smart people, paid for their insight and expertise, get it so wrong?
A bunch of reasons. Experts feel pressure to come up with predictions and opinions that are clever and somewhat surprising. You don't get invited back to a TV panel or asked to write more newspaper op-ed pieces if you state the obvious. I do radio and TV commentary from time to time. Often the interviewer winds up the interview by asking what's going to happen next on the topic of the day, and I sense disappointment if I say I have no idea, or state the obvious. No one likes to disappoint.
So experts look for obscure angles, or complicated ideas that are novel, interesting and reinforce their status as smart observers. Because they've studied the issues, they can grab bits of information to support their view. The problem is that the most obvious analysis is often the right one.
That's why lab rats can be better at making predictions. Tetlock writes about a Yale study where rats were placed in a T-shaped maze, with food at the end of one of the arms. The food placement appeared random, but it was placed at the end of the left arm 60 per cent of the time. The rats figured that out, and started going left most often, playing the percentages. Yale students were asked to observe the experiment, and say where they thought the food would be each time. They looked for patterns, and trends, and did worse than the rats at predicting because they ignored the obvious in favour of complex theories.
And experts, once they develop those theories, tend to stick to them and bend the facts to fit their views.
None of this means experts are irrelevant. It simply reminds us to be skeptical, to test the analysis and predictions against our own knowledge as well as the comments of others. It's a good time for that reminder. Many voters will be making complex calculations over the next few days, about the likely outcome of the election and the real agendas of the parties. It's reasonable to look for the experts for help.
But it's important to remember that they are quite likely to be wrong.
Footnote: The other trend is the emergence of the psuedo-expert, the pundits with close ties to each of the parties who gather to engage in predictable partisan bickering under the guise of commentary. The panels have become a media staple, even though they add little fresh or original to the public debate.

Skeena Liberal hopeful stomps out of all-candidates meeting over corruption charges

From the always interesting Smithers Interior News, we learn one Liberal candidate has an unusual way of dealing with the corruption question.
Liberal Gordon Stamp-Vincent has no chance of winning the riding. But his unusual approach to all-candidates' meetings could still matter. The NDP hopes Nathan Cullen can hold the huge riding; the Conservatives have hopes for Mike Scott, a two-term Reform MP for Skeena. Stamp-Vincent's outburst could shift potential Liberal supporters to the NDP.
Be interesting, given his demand for civil debate, to hear how he feels about the Liberal attack TV ads that accuse Harper of being funded by U.S. right-wing extremists and plotting some sort of military coup.


Liberal unapologetic for storming out of Houston meeting
By Thomas Barker
Smithers Interior News
HOUSTON — Skeena-Bulkley Valley Liberal candidate Gordon Stamp-Vincent stormed out of the all candidates forum at the Community Hall in Houston Monday night shortly after the candidates had finished their opening remarks.
The political rookie from Prince Rupert used his rebuttal card after a media question to Green Party candidate Phil Brienese to demand an apology from Conservative Mike Scott for allegations of Liberal corruption.
Stamp-Vincent said the allegations were insulting to him personally and many other honest hard-working people who belong to or work for the Liberal Party.
"I will have an apology, sir," Stamp Vincent said handing Scott the microphone.
Debate moderator Arnold Amonson intervened before Scott could reply but after the very next question, Scott used his rebuttal card to respond.
Scott requested a show of hands from the audience of how many people did not think the Liberal Party is corrupt to which only a few people responded.
"Are you going to demand an apology from all of these people too, Mr. Stamp-Vincent," Scott asked.
Stamp-Vincent immediately stood up and left the hall saying: "I do not have to take that, certainly not from you, sir."
All of the other candidates were dismayed by the disrespect the display represented to Houston voters.
"I'm surprised and disappointed," said NDP-incumbent Nathan Cullen.
On Tuesday, Stamp-Vincent stood by his behaviour.
"I felt I had to make more than a statement, I had to take an action," he said.
"I've knocked on over a thousand doors and most of the people I've talked to are disgusted with the negative campaigning."
During closing remarks, Scott used part of his two minutes to assure the audience that his corruption allegations were directed at the Liberal Party and not at Stamp-Vincent personally.
"I hope you all know that," Scott said. "I hope [Stamp-Vincent] knows that."
Stamp-Vincent, however, was not appeased.
"[The accusation] was directed at Liberals, I'm a Liberal as are many other honest Canadians," he said.
"It's a tactic to broadly smear a group based on the actions of four people.
"Sorry, that's not acceptable and there's a little more explaining to be done."

Martin stumbles, and a Conservative government looms

VICTORIA - Paul Martin was terrible in the leaders' debate Monday, and the question now is what that means for the last two weeks of this campaign.
I'm writing this minutes after the leaders have delivered their well-rehearsed closing statements. There is always the chance that I got it all wrong as I scribbled notes for two hours.
But Martin's performance looked sadly desperate and floundering. He appeared to be mentally searching through the key talking points his handlers had insisted he memorize, only to find them all jumbled and somehow wrong, and blurting out some barely relevant line. An actor auditioning, once again, for a role he needed terribly but probably wasn't going to get.
Partly Martin is the victim of expectations. He's been doing this job for almost 20 years, and working towards being prime minister most of that time. That creates an expectation of some skill, and perhaps a performance that could pull a faltering Liberal campaign back on track.
That didn't happen. Martin was semicoherent, off-topic, slightly crabby, offering a stream of obviously pat answers and rehearsed ad libs. There was no sense of the man, what he cared about or what he really would do in the next few years.
And he seemed desperate, among the most unattractive qualities in anyone seeking our love or affection.
Suddenly, from nowhere, Martin proposed changing the Canadian constitution. The federal government should never be able, even in extraordinary circumstances, to use the nothwithstanding clause to override the charter of rights, he said.
It's an obviously clunky effort to get same sex marriage back on the agenda. Maybe, Martin was suggesting, Harper would break his promise not to use the notwithstanding clause to ban gay marriages.
I'm an extremist on individual rights and freedoms.
But this is reckless. In Martin's new world, everything would be left to the courts and Parliament would have no recourse as judges interpreted the charter of rights.
And since Martin has not said one word about this major constitutional change before this week, it also looks terrible. The Liberals are prepared to mess around with the constitution to score a few political points.
The ploy was also ineffective. Stephen Harper brushed off the attack, saying he thought the current constitutional balance between Parliament and the courts was reasonable. He positioned himself as the man in the middle.
Harper and Jack Layton were not brilliant, but they consistently did better than Martin.
Harper's job was to avoid frightening people, and he succeeded. I'm not sure people who watched the debate ended up liking him better, but I don't think they would be scared. Harper seemed a slightly too smart policy wonk, but not terrifying. ("My strengths are not spin, or passion, and you know that," he said.)
Layton and the NDP should be much energized by the debate. He did fine, but that's not the news. Martin's collapse means a Conservative minority government is now looking very likely. Potential New Democrat supporters who were prepared to vote Liberal in order to block Harper can now return to the fold. The New Democrats had faced being caught in a squeeze between the two main parties. Now they can hope for four or five more seats in British Columbia.
We're in a complicated feedback loop now. If the Conservatives look sure to win - a good bet after the debate - will some people who just wanted to the Liberals a lesson have second thoughts? Where they will go?
But people who watched the debate saw the end of Martin's political career. It's strange in many ways. Canadians are working, the economy is strong, the government is paying down debt, yet Martin couldn't make that part of the debate.
Momentum does matter in politics. As the campaign winds down, and on election day, the party with the keenest volunteers will have an advantage.
Today, that is not much likely to be the Liberals.
Footnote: It was a long two hours for viewers looking for B.C. issues. Layton raised raw log exports, and Martin talked about the advantages of having Pacific ports. But that was it in terms of the province's special issues.
willcockcs@ultranet.ca

To solve the gun problem, overhaul our drug policy

VICTORIA - The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats are falling all over themselves to get tough on gun crime.
And both parties are missing the real problem.
To deal with guns, you have to deal with gangs. And to deal with gangs, you need to make the drug trade less profitable. Nothing that has been proposed by the parties will do that.
Despite the Boxing Day killing in Toronto and several gang shootings in Vancouver, the rate of gun deaths has steadily declined over the last 20 years. When the final numbers are in, forest industry accidents in B.C.will likely have claimed more people than gun violence in 2005.
But the concern is legitimate. Gun deaths are down across Canada, but in centres like Toronto and Vancouver they are rising. There were likely about 100 murders in B.C. this year - the numbers are still being tallied - with three-quarters in the Lower Mainland. Vancouver police report they are dealing with about six per cent more gun incidents each year.
Without effective action, the problem will spill into Victoria and Kelowna and Prince George.
Guns aren't a problem across the urban centres. In Vancouver, young IndoCanadian men have been doing much of the shooting, and dying. In Toronto, it is young black men. The common link is an involvement in gangs.
That's who has the guns, police say, gang members and wannabes.
The Conservatives propose longer mandatory minimum sentences, an end to early parole release and more police. The increased policing, if targeted, will help. The other measures are costly and largely ineffective.
That didn't stop the Liberals from joining the 'get-tough' bandwagon this week. (We're no soft Pollyannas, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler proclaimed this week as the party flip-flopped on mandatory minimum sentences.)
This kind of talk may be good politics, but it's lousy policy.
The people who drive into a neighbourhood and spray a house with bullets already risk serious jail time. They are not given to assessing consequences, so longer prison terms aren’t going to make much difference.
The priority in tackling the gun problem should be eliminating gangs, or at least reducing their power and allure.
And without the big profits from drugs, the gangs could not exist. Young men may still hang around together, and do crime. But without the drug money, they would be a nuisance, not a threat. (The deadly Boxing Day gunfight in Toronto was reportedly over drug turf.)
Prohibition in the U.S. created Al Capone and his rivals, who turned streets into war zones over the big profits. We're creating the same kind of problem with our drug policies.
People who need and want an illegal drug - alcohol, heroin, marijuana - will get it. Criminals will take advantage of the opportunity to supply the market; the more difficult it becomes, the higher the prices and the more profitable the business.
The theory that aggressive enforcement can drive suppliers from the market has been proven wrong. Drug enforcement efforts have cost Canadians more than $2 billion over the last five years. And illegal drugs are easier to get, stronger and cheaper than ever. Attacking the supply has failed over decades, in many countries.
Instead governments should be tackling the demand side. Effective education to reduce the number of young people starting drugs. A massive investment in detox and treatment and support so people can quit, and stay off.
And legalization in various forms to end the hunt for drugs and money that consumes many addicts, and rob the gangs of their profits. Provide controlled heroin supplies and addicts can stabilize their lives, while gangs lose billions in profits that fund their enterprise. Allow possession of a dozen marijuana plants, and gang-run grow ops lose their domestic market.
The drug trade drives this problem. It's the reason gangs can form and thrive, and they're responsible for the rise in gun crime.
After years of failure, surely it's time for politicians to start talking about an approach that could actually work.
Footnote: Switzerland conducted a widely reported experiment in which 1,100 addicts received free heroin. During the test there was a massive reduction in criminal activity by the drug users and an increase in employment -- and not one overdose death. More than 80 people quit drugs while using free legal heroin.

B.C. voters will decide if Harper or Martin rules

VICTORIA - There's a good chance that a British Columbia voter is going to decide whether we have a Liberal or Conservative minority government.
A lot can change, but the polls suggest an extraordinarily close election, with the two main parties looking at about 115 seats each. They need 159 for a majority.
That means that Paul Martin and Stephen Harper will have to wait until the polls close in B.C. before they find who will be prime minister. Voters in about 20 ridings here will decide which party forms the next government.
That's why you're seeing the party leaders so often. B.C. only has 36 seats to Ontario's 106, but this time each one matters. And 22 of the races in B.C. are too close to call today, with seven of them so tight that any of the three main parties could win. There are potentially critical races in every part of the province.
The Conservatives have a lock on most of the Interior and North, but even in those regions there are some battles. The New Democrats hope Nathan Cullen will hang on to Skeena-Bulkley Valley, one of their five seats, but the Conservatives have a high-profile candidate in two-term Reform MP Mike Scott.
And the New Democrats are looking to make a gain in Southern Interior, where they lost by about 700 votes in 2004. Their candidate, Alex Atamaenko is running again. Conservative incumbent Jim Gouk is retiring, and Derek Zeisman - hurt in a campaign car crash - is attempting to hold the seat for them.
But the biggest battlegrounds will be in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island.
On the Island, New Democrat Jean Crowder is a solid bet to hold on to her Nanaimo-Cowichan seat. But the other five ridings are up for grabs. The Liberals hope Keith Martin can win again in Esquimalt, and that newcomer David Mulroney can hang on to David Anderson's Victoria seat. But in those ridings and across the Island the races are too close to call.
That's also true for many of the 21 seats in the Lower Mainland. Liberals David Emerson, Stephen Owen and Ujjal Dosanjh are likely safe. The Conservatives are counting on wins in Fraser Valley ridings and the New Democrats can count on Libby Davies winning in Vancouver East.
That leaves 14 Lower Mainland ridings too close to call, with all three parties having legitimate hopes . Former NDP provincial cabinet minister Penny Priddy has a good shot at replacing Chuck Cadman in Surrey North, thanks to an endorsement from Cadman's widow. Conservative Cindy Silver - of Focus on the Family fame - hopes to topple Liberal Don Bell in North Vancouver. Liberal insider Billy Cunningham hopes to knock off one-term New Democrat MP Bill Siksay.
The politicians have seen the importance of B.C. Martin was in Vancouver and Victoria this week, announcing plans to reduce the $975 fee that immigrants are charged, a move entirely aimed at winning back voters in Vancouver's multicultural community.
It's a volatile situation, and one that's hard to read.
Most voters seem polarized between those disgusted with the Liberals, and those afraid of the Conservatives. That means we will see more strategic voting. If voters are not enthusiastic about any party, their goal can be to block the most objectionable one.
That's a challenge for all parties, but especially the New Democrats. Liberal Sheila Orr is hoping to make up a 5,000-vote deficit to topple Gary Lunn in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Her best bet is convince some of the 14,000 NDP voters that they have a chance to prevent a Harper government, simply by voting Liberal. The New Democrats have to battle to avoid being squeezed into irrelevance.
It's good news for the province, which is getting extraordinary attention from all the parties.
And it shifts the pressure on to you. Your vote may well choose the next prime minister of Canada.
Footnote: This will be the year of strategic voting. Candidates have to establish their credibility as serious contenders, or risk seeing their support drift away. If a riding is seen as a two-way race, the third candidate is in big trouble as supporters opt to make their votes matter.

Haggard got $81,000 from taxpayers between campaigns

VICTORIA - Dave Haggard turned out to be one of the fainter star candidates on the Liberals' BC Dream Team in 2004, coming third in the election.
But all was not lost. Months after the vote, the federal cabinet government hired Haggard on a $9,000-a-month contract to write a report on apprenticeship. The former IWA union head was paid $81,000 between January and October, and then started to prepare for another run as a Liberal candidate in tis election.
It all shows quite breathtaking contempt for the public.
The Liberals recruit a candidate and parachute him into a riding. The voters reject him, and the Martin team uses taxpayers' money to pay him until it's time to try again, in a different riding.
No patronage or payoff here, says Haggard. Just the happy coincidence that he was the best person in Canada to prepare a report on apprenticeship issues. The pay - $108,000 on an annual basis - wasn't that great, less than he used to make as IWA president, he adds.
Haggard told the Vancouver Sun he did a first-rate job, talking to 275 stakeholders and delivering his report to Human Resources Minister Belinda Stronach. You can't actually judge how useful or necessary the report was, because it hasn't been released. Haggard blames the bureaucracy and Stronach's inexperience for the delay.
The whole affair leaves two questions. Do the Liberals think we're stupid? Or has the Martin team just decided that it doesn't matter what they do, as long as they can convince people that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives would be worse?
It's simply insulting to claim that politics and patronage weren't involved. The study could have been done by government employees. The work could have been awarded fairly, going to the best, most experienced contractor. Instead it went to a failed Liberal candidate, one the Liberal wheels in the province had wooed.
The decision to recruit Haggard for the Dream Teams shows how far out of touch the Liberals are. He's apparently supposed to help them woo leftish voters from the NDP, especially people with strong union sympathies.
But most people interested in a strong and democratic labour movement see Haggard and the IWA as partners with the provincial Liberal government in attacking unionized health care workers.
The BC Liberals wanted to privatize support services in hospitals and care homes. They thought the workers were overpaid, and that the best way to deal with the situation was to fire them - after using legislation to remove all job protection from their existing union agreements - and contract the work out to private companies which would hire new workers at lower wages, with poorer benefits and no protection.
But the health authorities that had to execute the plan were still worried. The private companies might be able to hire people at 30-per-cent lower wages. But then those employees might decide to join join a union -- perhaps even join the HEU -- and seek higher rates.
Haggard and his union saved the day for the employers. The IWA sat down with the three main companies bidding for the privatized work and - before employees were hired - agreed to contracts that provided low wages and few benefits. Job applicants had to sign an IWA membership card if they wanted a job interview.
The IWA got a big jump in dues revenue, including some unprecedented payments. The companies got contracts that they liked.
The employees got the shaft. They were denied the right to decide if they even wanted a union, or which one it should be. They were locked into an agreement they never approved, paying dues to a union they never chose.
Haggard and the IWA, now part of the United Steelworkers, were scorned by most people in the union movement for betraying the employees' rights. It hardly makes him an appealing candidate.
The Liberals didn't get that, just as they didn't get that the $81,000 contract for a failed candidate was simply wrong.
Footnote: Haggard stands little chance of success. He's running against New Democrat Libby Davies, who won by almost 13,000 votes in 2004. Former provincial cabinet minister Joyce Murray is carrying the Liberal banner in New Westminster, where Haggard ran last time and is given a good chance of success.

Test your global cultural awareness

OK, a question for all those who think themselves well up on popular culture around the world.
Which Canadian sporting event made it into the top three for global television audience this year, trailing only the Superbowl and the UEFA Champions Leage football final?
The answer is the Montreal Grand Prix, one of two North American stops on the F1 circuit. About 53 million people tuned into the race, according to Iniative, a media tracking company that follows such things.
I watch F1, although I'm not sure why. Most races involve four minutes of excitement among 90 minutes of routine, and they are often on at weird times. But the sheer scale of the whole thing and the vast technological effort put into such a limited end are compelling.
But what struck me about the item is how few Canadians would guess at the global reach of the Montreal event, and the potential promotional value.

Leak or not, Liberals bungled corporate tax policy

VICTORIA - I don’t know if Ralph Goodale should resign now that the RCMP are investigating whether pre-election leaks from his ministry helped insiders get richer at the expense of the rest of us.
But I do know that the whole income trust saga is a case study of tax policy bungling, and the triumph of politics over sound planning.
Stripped down to its essence, this is pretty straightforward stuff.
Some smart tax lawyers and corporate types found a loophole in Canada’s income tax laws, and drove through it in ever increasing numbers.
The ploy was simple enough. A corporation is taxed on its profits, including the money sent out to shareholders as dividends. But companies found they could create income trusts and funnel their profits through the trusts to shareholders without paying taxes on the money.
They paid less tax, the payouts to investors were bigger and the value of the businesses increased. Happy days.
Except for people who pay income tax. The rush to take advantage of the trust loophole meant that the federal government was losing about $300 million a year in tax revenue. The money has to come from somewhere.
The federal finance ministry started to worry, belatedly, about the losses. Some economists also questioned whether the shift hurt corporations’ ability to innovate and invest to create growth, since the priority would be on keeping up payments to the trust.
None of this should have caught the government off guard. Australia and the U.S. went through similar experiences almost two decades ago, and decided to close the tax loopholes.
But Ottawa dithered. By the time the federal government started talking about changing the rules, Canadian income trusts were worth $120 billion. They had become popular investments, and a reduction in their tax benefits would cut their value. Canadians would see their RRSPs and mutual fund holdings lose ground.
Corporations, the investment community and seniors’ groups were all over the government. And with an election imminent, the Liberals backed down. On Nov. 23 Goodale announced that income trusts would keep their tax status, and that the tax on regular corporate dividends would be cut to try and reduce the rush to trusts.
The news was sure to have a big effect on investment markets. So the finance ministry made the announcement in the evening. That way everyone supposedly had the same chance to consider the implications before markets opened the next day.
Except that trading patterns that afternoon, hours before the information was public, strongly suggest some people knew what was coming. Trading volumes soared, and some buyers started snapping up shares in companies that would benefit from the announcement. BCE Inc., the communications conglomerate, was a big winner as a result of the dividend tax cut. Its shares jumped 3.3 per cent in the final two hours of trading before the announcement. The Yellow Pages Income Fund rose by 3.4 per cent. Other stocks showed similar extraordinary trading.
The people who bought made quick gains. After Goodale’s announcement that evening their holdings were worth even more.
But the people who sold to them lost out. If they had hung on to those shares for one more day, they would have got much more for them.
It could be that the buyers just made a good guess. Rumors of similar action were flying around in the pre-election frenzy.
But the analysts who have looked closely at the trading patterns say it’s much more likely that some investors had advance knowledge, which they used to their advantage - and to the detriment of those who weren’t in on the plan.
That’s what the RCMP is investigating. It’s a serious issue. If information leaked, then people were cheated and Canada’s reputation as a safe place to invest will have been harmed.
But just as serious is the government’s stumbling response to the whole issue of income trusts, ending with the last-minute pre-election corporate tax cut.
Canadians deserve a more considered, intelligent tax policy.
Footnote: Goodale says he asked his staff if there was a leak and they said no; Paul Martin is standing by his finance minister. But newspaper headlines on the RCMP investigation were not the kind of kick-off the Liberals wanted for the second half of this long campaign.

Rights case finds government abandoned special needs students

VICTORIA - It hardly seems revolutionary to declare that students with learning disabilities have the right to an education.
That’s the essence of a BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling that found the government discriminated against children with disabilities. When cash-strapped school districts needed to cut spending, they made kids like Jeffry Moore take the hit.
Moore’s family launched the human rights’ complaint after he was abandoned by the public school system. Jeffry is bright, but severely dyslexic. By the end of Grade 3 he still couldn’t read. The North Vancouver school district had referred him to its centre for special needs students for intensive help, but then closed it in 1994 to save about $290,000 a year.
Find a private school if you want your child to learn, the Moores were told.
So they did. Jeffrey’s father was a bus driver, and his mother a secretary. Private school bills were crushing. But they didn’t see a choice.
The Moores did see a chance to turn things around for other children, and launched their human rights complaint.
Their victory was complete. They get compensation for a decade of private school costs.
And the tribunal ordered the government to mend its ways. The education ministry has a year to ensure that funding for students with severe learning disabilities reflects the number of children who need help, and to set up a system to make sure that school districts are delivering the services.
It’s the kind of ruling - by a court or tribunal - that raises worries about non-elected people setting public policy. The theory is that politicians are elected to make those decisions. They should have the right to deny education to kids with disabilities, or aboriginal children, or whoever else they choose. the argument goes.
But a reading of the ruling shows the tribunal stayed within the laws the politicians created. The school act says “it is the goal of a democratic society to ensure that all of its members receive an education that enables them to become personally fulfilled and publicly useful, thereby increasing the strength and contributions to the health and stability of that society.”
And the Human Rights Code prevents discrimination. Denying a child an education because of a disability is against the law.
The government can still set education funding levels and spending priorities. School districts can justify a lack of services if providing them would cause extreme hardship, the tribunal noted.
But it’s illegal to deny services to people with disabilities as an easy way of saving money.
British Columbians should welcome the ruling on practical grounds.
Jeffry got the help he needed in a private school. He has just graduated from BCIT and is apprenticing as a plumber. He’s achieving what the school act promised - personal fulfillment and a chance to make society stronger.
Contrast that with the outlook if he had continued to struggle, without adequate help, in the public school system, and dropped out or simply graduated without basic literacy skills.
This isn’t a partisan issue. Jeffry’s case started way back when the Harcourt government was in power, and more than decade later students with special needs are still often the first to suffer when school districts face money troubles. In 2001 school districts had identified 47,000 with special needs. Then the Liberals ended targeted funding for those students. Now school districts say there are only 40,000 students with special needs. Either there has been a miraculous drop in students with learning problems, or thousands of children have been abandoned as a low spending priority.
Vince Ready’s fact-finding report on the teachers’ strike confirmed that support for special needs students is inadequate.
Education Minister Shirley Bond isn’t commenting on the tribunal decision. The government has 60 days to launch an appeal.
But the principle seems simple. The government promises children a chance at an education. It’s a commitment that’s worth keeping, for all students.
Footnote: The government faces more problems over the issue. A Vancouver law firm is planning a class-action lawsuit on behalf of dyslexic students and their families, arguing the failure to identify the disability and help students resulted in serious long-term damage to their lives.

Eat badly, smoke and lose your right to health care

VICTORIA - Down in the U.S. companies are getting ready to fire smokers.
Over in England, overweight people are being told they won't get knee or hip replacements.
And here in B.C., the province's chief medical health officer has just warned that diabetes - largely preventable - is already a $1-billion annual cost to the health care system. Within a decade, that will double unless we change our ways.
All three stories point to the need to start a debate on just how we're going to handle self-inflicted illness and injury when it comes to allocating scarce treatment resources.
Provincial health officer Dr. Perry Kendall focused on diabetes in his annual report. About 220,000 British Columbians have been diagnosed with the disease, and the number is expected to reach 390,000 within 10 years. Its complications can be cruel - heart and kidney disease, amputations and death.
And the problems are, Kendall reported, largely preventable. About 90 per cent of the cases are Type 2 diabetes, and people can slash their risk - and the cost to us all - if they eat healthier diets, exercise and keep their weight down.
Which raises a question about individual responsibility and the how we allocate finite health care resources.
U.S. companies, facing a health cost crisis far greater than anything we've seen in Canada, have started to make choices, with smokers the first target. Some are increasing health care premiums for smokers, or offering incentives and support for people who quit.
And some are firing people who fail tests for tobacco use. Scotts Miracle-Gro has told its 5,400 employees they have until next fall to quit, or they'll get the chop. (About 30 states have laws protecting people from being fired for smoking.)
It's not a moral judgment that smokers are flawed. The decision is based on economics. Smokers cost too much.
The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has just reported on the right of people with self-inflicted medical problems to treatment, and taken a similar approach The influential institute looked at the hard practical questions. Is it right to make a child needing a liver transplant wait in the queue behind a person whose illness is caused by years of alcohol abuse?
It's a tough question. Alcoholism is a disease too.
The institute took a cautious approach. Patients shouldn't be penalized for making themselves sick, it said. But if their behaviour reduces the chance of a successful outcome, then treatment can legitimately be delayed or denied. Why spend scarce resources on a liver transplant for someone like alcoholic former footballer George Best, who kept drinking and died within three years?
In reality health care providers have made those kinds of decisions. British National Health Managers in East Suffolk needed to save money this year, and so have stopped doing knee and hip replacements for anyone with a Body Mass Index over 30. If you're five foot nine inches and weigh 205 lbs, for example, no replacement. The surgery is riskier, outcomes poorer and artificial joints don't last as long. Joint replacements for overweight people are an inefficient use of scarce dollars.
A similar approach is take by some doctors in B.C, openly or not.
It's a difficult issue, theoretically and practically.
Type 2 diabetes, for example, is not always linked to diet and exercise. And people do not always have control over their circumstances. B.C.'s welfare rates, according to a new study from the Dietitians of Canada, don't allow a nutritious diet. Children from families on welfare are at increased risk of diabetes, and most people wouldn't argue they should be denied treatment.
But we shouldn't dodge the questions. We're already rationing surgery, often in arbitrary and unreasonable ways.
Demand and treatment options are increasing, while resources are finite. Finding the fairest, most efficient way of allocating those resources means looking at all the factors - even ones that make people uncomfortable.
Footnote: The other obvious issue is prevention. Kendall says a 25-per-cent reduction in the diabetes rate would produce annual savings of $200 million. That justifies a large upfront investment to expand existing programs aimed at increasing our health, and reducing the risk of diabetes and other illness.

STV referendum plan, electoral boundary commission both need work

VICTORIA - Things are looking rocky for the Electoral Boundaries Commission, the panel with a lot to say about how democracy works in B.C.
So rocky - and expensive - that it's time to rethink the path ahead.
The commission is important. It will decide how the province is carved up into ridings for the next election, a process that's complicated and politically sensitive. Rural areas will lose seats, growing urban areas will gain and boundaries will be bent.
And this time the commission has to come up with riding boundaries both for the current system and the proposed single transferable vote proportional representation option. That's part of the preparation for another referendum on STV to be held along with the municipal elections in the fall of 2008.
Premier Gordon Campbell's plan for a second referendum is a clever solution to the narrow defeat for STV in May. The proposed reform just missed the required 60-per-cent threshold. But almost 58 per cent of voters backed the new system. It would be irresponsible for government to ignore that kind of message.
So Campbell announced another referendum for the fall of 2008. This time voters will have more details, including the ridings to be used under the new system.
Under STV there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each. Most of Greater Victoria could be one riding, for example, with four MLAs. On election day you would no longer just mark an 'X' beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked.
When the votes were counted, the results would reflect the rankings. A voter might rank an NDP candidate first, and two Liberals second and third, and a Green fourth. All the votes would matter.
The result should be a more representative and diverse legislature, with MLAs who are more responsive to their communities.
Campbell's proposal makes excellent sense.
But the timing is looking like a problem. Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld told a legislature committee that he is still working out all the planing details. But the tight timeline between the fall referendum in 2008 and the May election in 2009 means Elections BC will have to prepare to run the election under both systems, he says. That could mean a large cost, possibly tens of millions of dollars, to prepare for STV with the money wasted if - unhappily - the referendum should fail.
There are options. Holding the referendum along with the fall municipal elections offers some cost savings. But the overall savings might be greater if a standalone referendum in the fall of 2007 allowed Elections BC to prepare more effectively. Pushing the provincial election back six months to the fall of 2009 would ensure that the budget was debated before the vote and reduce the pressure on Elections BC to spend time and money preparing for two different kinds of elections.
A delay would also allow time to look at controversial appointment to the three-person Electoral Boundaries Commission. The commission was established back in the Vander Zalm days to take the politics out of rejigging ridings. It's always composed of Neufeld, a judge and a third member appointed by the Speaker, after consulting the premier and the opposition leader.
Bill Barisoff picked Louise Burgart of Fort St. James, part owner of Apex Alpine resort and a former school superintendent. NDP leader Carole James backed the choice, knowing Burgart from her own days as head of the BC School Trustees Association.
Burgart is likely an excellent person. But she's also a partisan Liberal, as the always diligent Sean Holman of Public Eye Online has reported. Apex has donated to the party. Burgart campaigned for successful Liberal candidate John Rustad and urged people to vote Liberal in a letter to the Prince George Citizen during the last campaign.
The appointment opens the door wide for future partisan appointments by the party in power, and a graceful way out would serve the public interest.
Footnote: The legislature's finance committee met behind closed doors last week to consider funding recommendations for Elections BC, the auditor general and other independent offices. Their recommendation may include comments on the best way to handle the whole process.

Surrey plan, Alberta test offer health care models

VICTORIA - Anybody wondering about the future of their local hospital should pay close attention to the overhaul of medical services in Surrey.
The problem was crowding at the Surrey Memorial Hospital, in the emergency room and the wards.
But the solution backed by the province wasn't a bigger hospital, or even just a larger ER. Instead the services are being carved up into separate centres, with the aim of reserving acute care hospital beds and high-end emergency care for those who really need them.
So the health region has just opened a "minor treatment unit" for people who don't really need the full emergency service but show up there anyway. Instead of clogging the waiting room and sitting for hours - and creating more delays for people who really need emergency care - they get sent off to the minor treatment centre.
A massive ambulatory care centre is going to be built nearby, sort of a junior hospital. People who need outpatient care, day surgery and other activities that don't require the acute care support can be treated there. It will include a primary care clinic housing family doctors, and people to help with chronic disease management.
The idea is simply. Get every patient into the system where it makes sense. Increased specialization allows cost-efficiencies and wait time management, and you can avoid the high cost of having someone who only needs minor first aid clogging a busy emergency room.
Health Minister George Abbott is an enthusiastic backer of the approach, being tried for the first time in B.C. He expects a similar strategy any time hospitals are built or expanded. "What we're seeing is very much a model for the future," Abbott says.
Hospitals in Salmon Arm, Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo are already under increasing pressure. Abbott says a similar approach will be taken in those communities, although changes will likely be incremental.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a study this month that advocated taking the concept farther. Dr. Michael Rachlis said governments should be building more specialized surgical clinics for minor procedures and low-risk surgery. A clinic that does only knee and hip replacements can deliver faster, better care at lower cost, just like a service station that does only oil changes.
Rachlis also wants governments to pay a lot more attention to "queue management," the science of moving people from start to finish smoothly and quickly. He argues people wait too long for surgery even when enough operations are being done, because the system is clunky. Patients move through a series of tests and specialists visits with little co-ordination and frequent long delays. Simply managing that process efficiently cuts waiting times.
A report on an Alberta experiment this week confirmed that the approach can work. In the first eight months of a new approach to hip and knee replacements, the wait from getting a referral to specialist to surgery was cut to three months. It had been averaging 20 months.
The project included money to keep operating rooms open. But many of the gains came from managing patients' progress through the system, and eliminating needless waits for tests or to see specialists or physiotherapists. A change as simple as scheduling all tests and consultations for each patient for one day cut out long delays.
Any increased costs were recovered. People who wait almost two years for surgery lose income and suffer, and their health deteriorates. Because patients got surgery before their health began to fail, the average hospital stay was cut from 6.2 days to 4.3 days - an enormous cost saving.
Some of the principles may be harder to apply in smaller centres, although the idea of clinics that are also "minor treatment units" may may good sense where a full emergency room can't be justified.
But the new approaches, in Surrey and across the mountains in Alberta, show that health care problems can be solved within the current system.
Footnote: B.C. needs to make improvements. The province is meeting most of the first handful of wait time standards agreed to by the provincial health ministers. But the province isn't close to providing knee and hip surgery within the required six months. More than half the patients wait longer than that. Many wait much longer.