Why you should care that Christy Clark quit

VICTORIA - Set the conspiracy theories aside.
Christy Clark says she quit because she found it just too hard to balance politics and the challenges of raising a three-year-old. And that is a very good reason.
Speculation on hidden reasons for the resignation started flying as soon as Clark pulled the plug as children and families minister and said she won't run in the next election.
But I was in the middle of a brief stretch of looking after two boys, four and one, when Clark quit. And charming as Zachary and Gage are, I have no trouble buying her explanation.
There were two main alternate theories. One held that Clark was worried about the fallout from the legislative raids. Her husband, Mark Marrisen, and brother, Bruce Clark, are both high-profile federal Liberal wheels in B.C., and were named in the search warrant information. But neither are under investigation or accused of wrongdoing, and the raids are hardly a sudden development. Don't look there for the reason.
Others mused about a rift between Clark and Gordon Campbell. The theory is that she was more left-leaning, and frustrated with some of the government's policies.
The problem with that theory is the total lack of evidence. Clark has been in cabinet for more than three years. As education minister she left school districts so short of money that they closed schools, increased class sizes and went to four-day weeks. As children and families minister, she's implemented budget cuts to a ministry the Liberals used to say was starved of needed money.
I've never heard a peep that would indicate she disagreed with any of the government's policies. Anyway, I would say Clark's interest - and perhaps skills - lie more in politics than policy.
Trying to raise a preschooler while working at any job is difficult.
For Clark, the challenges were greater. Cabinet jobs are demanding and time-consuming. Building and maintaining political influence - something she values - demands more time and commitment. Evening meetings, drinks after work with colleagues, schmoozing at conventions - those are all part of the deal, and they don't fit well with a child at home.
The resignation isn't great news for the Campbell government, which has fared badly among women voters in most polls. Clark wasn't really as bright a cabinet star as many expected - she was one of those politicians more effective in opposition than in government. But she was the only woman of apparent influence in a cabinet dominated by a few men from the Lower Mainland.
Her resignation also should be worrying news for the rest of us, because of the wider implications.
After a few decades of earnest discussions and conferences about the importance of diversity in our elected officials, not much has changed. When the premiers and the prime minister got together last week to talk about health care, for example, there were no woman at the table. That's a loss.
It's not a question of political correctness. Women and men have different experiences in our society. Women remain the primary caregivers, for children and for the kind of seriously ill or dying family members who were a focus of the home care discussions at the prime minister's health summit.
But they are not part of the top-level political discussions about health care, education or other critical issues. And the decisions will be poorer as a result.
This argument is all based on generalizations.
But it's not really just about gender.
Politics as we practise them today - and this applies at least in part to all parties - tend to be most welcoming to a relatively small group of people, especially at the top. They play an important role in the big decisions. And their judgments are based in part on their life experience as middle-aged, successful males.
Valuable, sure. But it's also ferociously limited. And we're all a little worse off as a result.
Footnote: In the interests of full disclosure, I note that not only am I a middle-aged white guy, but so are my colleagues who write about B.C. politics. Aside from the CBC's Justine Hunter, the legislative Press Gallery is made up of a wonderful insightful pack of middle-aged men.

Big hopes, small results from health summit

VICTORIA - I try to be positive, but Paul Martin's health summit strikes me as a dumb exercise.
Not that the people are stupid. B.C.'s delegation is probably typical, and the politicians and senior staffers are dead bright and fully committed to making health care better.
But I started to write this Wednesday evening. I had spent the day looking after two boys, four and one, reading stories, frying up cheese sandwiches and wreaking minor havoc in the local Toys'R'Us.
This meeting was supposed to be all about those boys. The goal was to fix health care for a generation.
It didn't.
The result - useful enough - is a little more money from the taxes you pay to Ottawa, so the taxes you pay to Victoria don't have to rise. Martin succeeded in getting the provinces to offer a nod towards accountability, for which we should be thankful.
But fixing health care for a generation? Not a chance.
The bare bones of the deal are pretty simple. Ottawa will come up with about $3 billion a year more as its share of health care funding. That translates into about $400 million a year for B.C., or enough to fund a 3.3-per-cent spending increase.
That's welcome, although hardly revolutionary. If $400 million a year was enough to fix health care for a generation, the B.C. government had half-a-dozen ways to raise the money. (Just dedicating the extra cash from the Liberals' gambling expansion to health care would produce a similar amount.)
Martin talked a lot about accountability in the unproductive run-up to the summit.
But based on the sketchy details released so far, the deal did little to ensure greater accountability to you - the consumer of the services, and the one who pays for them.
The premiers did promise that by the end of next year they would come up with standards for the wait time for key treatments, and begin reporting on how they are doing at meeting those standards. The idea is that British Columbians may be able compare their wait for hip surgery with people in P.E.I. Provinces making their citizens wait for long times will have to explain why.
But the promise is still vague, and premiers didn't commit to "meaningful reductions" in waits for critical health care like cancer treatments and knee and hip replacements until March 31, 2007.
Health ministers are going to talk about a national prescription drug strategy and report on their progress in June, 2006. The premiers say they'll phase in some sort of minimal guaranteed home care standards, if they can afford to, and report on their progress by the end of 2006.
It's all useful. But it's also the kind of thing Canadians have heard before, in the same context of federal-provincial financial wrangling.
The summit highlighted just how bizarre the health care model remains. You buy home insurance, and you know what you get. Car insurance, the same. But you pay for health insurance - about $2,700 each year per British Columbian - and you're promised nothing.
You pay, and the government makes up the coverage rules on the fly. Maybe hip replacements will be a political or medical hot button, and you'll wait three months. Maybe tax cuts will be the priority of the day, and you'll limp for a couple of years.
There is generally little information about how well, or poorly, the system is working, partly because health care providers have remarkably little useful data about what they do and what it costs.
Martin and the premiers took some small steps to improving accountability.
But mostly the meeting seemed like another federal-provincial money wrangle. Despite the promise of an open meeting, with Canadians able to see the issues being discussed, the real deal was done behind closed doors in the usual last-minute round of dealmaking.
And that will not fix health care for a generation.
Footnote: The premier's idea for a new federally funded national pharmacare plan - credited in part to Premier Gordon Campbell - never made it out of the starting gates. Campbell was one of four premiers - along with Ontario's Dalton McGuinty, New Brunswick's Bernard Lord and Quebec's Jean Charest - who represented the provinces in behnd-the-scenes talks.

Big surplus big good news for Liberals

VICTORIA - Yes, that is a real $1.2-billion surplus the Liberals are suddenly projecting for this year.
And it makes both the job of governing and their re-election campaign a lot easier.
Finance Minister Gary Collins unveiled the latest financial update Tuesday. Five months into the fiscal year things are going a lot better than he predicted. Instead of a skimpy $100 million surplus - not much in the context of $30 billion in government spending - B.C. is on track for a $1.2-billion surplus.
Things look even better for next year's election budget. The Liberals had been projecting a $275-million surplus. Now Collins is projecting $1.3 billion.
That leaves the Liberals with some enviable choices. They can spend more money, cut taxes or pay down the debt. Or, most likely, do some combination of all three.
It is good news.
Government revenues have are on track to jump about 9.5 per cent over last year. Lumber prices - in part due to a couple of hurricanes in Florida - are nearing record levels, which means both a bigger harvest and higher royalties. Natural gas prices are also high, pushing royalties about $200 million above plan. And low interest rates and a strong economy have pushed up tax revenues.
You can decide how much credit - or blame - any government can take for economic performance. No government policy change can cushion B.C.'s export-based economy from big weakness in our major markets. But the Liberals' tax cuts and move to more business-friendly policies have helped encourage investment in the province.
However before you get too fired up about plans for the money, recognize that even $1 billion isn't all that much in the government scheme of things.
Collins has already set aside $200 million as a cushion in case things take a turn for the worse.
And the Liberals are already under pressure to undo the sales tax increase they imposed in 2002. Knocking the rate back to the original seven per cent - the Liberals raised it to 7.5 per cent - would cost another $280 million.
That leaves $520 million, enough for a 1.7-per-cent overall spending increase. (The Liberals' budget for this year called for a 1.3-per-cent increase, not enough to keep up with population growth or inflation.)
Still, the Liberals can now talk about spending, not cutting. Collins unveiled the background pamphlet for a legislative committee heading out to get input on next year's budget. Should we spend, or cut taxes, or pay down the debt, it asks? How much more for schools, or health care? Those are good questions for a government to be putting before voters.
The Liberal campaign will talk about the shared sacrifice, the tough decisions and the benefits to come, with the larger-than-expected surpluses as the first big example. (And, of course, about the New Democrat's dismal record.)
That still leaves NDP leader Carole James with opportunities. She was quick off the mark in responding to the surplus.
James argued that the Liberals had simply benefited from a strong global economy. And the surpluses had been produced by shifting the tax burden on to middle and lower-income families - a fair charge - and unreasonable spending cuts, she said. Health care and education have been starved of money.
And the issue, says James, is trust. Who do voters trust to make decisions about dealing with the surplus in an effective and equitable way?
That is a pivotal question in the campaign. But there's no way of knowing yet how voters will answer.
James is lugging the NDP's past baggage, her own fiscal plans are still fuzzy and she has no track record.
But trust isn't exactly Campbell's biggest asset either. He's profoundly unpopular, according to the polls, and has already broken trust on BC Rail and other campaign promises.
Both leaders have the next eight months to persuade voters that they can be trusted.
Footnote: The government's numbers look sound, although there always risks froma volatile global economy. GIve the Liberals full credit for consistent openness in setting out the state of the province's finances, and the assumptions underlying them. They have set a high standard for transparency and - aside from a consistent conservative lean in the budgeting - for accurate forecasts.

Da Kine follies a fine symbol for our pot policies

VICTORIA - It's hard to see the people who run the Da Kine pot shop as criminal masterminds.
The little store on Vancouver's Commercial Drive has been the city's most famous site for the last two weeks. Hundreds of hours of police time, lots of media coverage, police and politicians running to and fro, all for a small store that's committed the crime of openly selling marijuana.
No doubt it was a good business, especially once the media told everybody about the opportunity. When police - some 30 of them - finally raided Da Kine they scooped up $63,000.
But despite the cash, Da Kine looks mostly like disorganized crime. If the goal was big profits, they could have quietly kept on selling. Instead, the store operators embraced the publicity, and pretty much dared the police to do something.
Which, or course, they did.
The whole weird saga says something about our doomed war on marijuana.
The story broke that Da Kine was selling over-the-counter marijuana about two weeks ago. Customers had to say they needed the drug for medicinal reasons, but the rules were, shall we say, relaxed.
So the reporters asked police what they knew, and what they were going to do.
We know they're selling marijuana, said Vancouver police. And we're not going to do anything, because - in case you haven't looked around lately - Vancouver has bigger crime problems.
Vancouver city councillors mostly expressed the same ho-hum attitude. As long as nobody gets too upset, they had other issues to worry about.
But then Da Kine kept making the news. Solicitor General Rich Coleman said he was sure police would act. Vancouver politicians started getting a little more worried.
Instead of quietly skirting the law, the Da Kine operators were making police look like they weren't doing their jobs. So they did, scooping up half-a-dozen people.
The next day the store was open for business again. If it keeps making news, the police will probably have to arrest some more people.
It's a bizarre little story, and one that shows just how muddled our approach to marijuana has become. Marijuana possession is a crime, sort of, at least until Paul Martin changes the law. Selling marijuana is a crime, but not one ordinarily of high police interest unless you work at attracting their attention.
The confusion is understandable, since police and prosecutors are in an impossible position. One in six B.C. adults, according to StatsCan, used marijuana in the last 12 months. That's more than half-a-million people, too many to arrest.
Those people are also a significant market, one that is virtually certain to attract people keen on supplying it. The tougher enforcement efforts against them, the higher the profits for those who are successful, the more people who enter the business, and the more likely organized crime becomes involved. (See the U.S. attempt at alcohol Prohibition, and the rise of big-time gangsters.)
Arresting the staff of the Da Kine cafe didn't even shut down the store, let alone make a dent in the marijuana supply.
There was no real alternative to raiding Da Kine, given the operators' provocations.
But there is an opportunity to rethink our overall approach to marijuana.
In a perfect world, few would choose to use a drug to alter their reality - not marijuana, or alcohol, or crystal meth.
But we do, and that leaves three challenges. We need to make sure people, especially young people, get an accurate understanding of the risks of all drugs. We need to have adequate support for people who are dealing with drug problems.
And we need to come up with an effective enforcement approach.
Rushing around ripping up grow ops - or raiding a store - accomplishes nothing. The marijuana supply isn't reduced; organized criminals are only inconvenienced; drug use is unaffected.
And what is the point of that?
Footnote: What are the alternatives? If the aim is organized crime, then come up with more money for law enforcement. The now defunct Organized Crime Agency of BC has complained that a budget freeze left it unable to do its job. For a more radical approach, simply legalize possession of a few marijuana plants. The commercial grow op business would wither away.

Search warrant opening good news for Liberals

VICTORIA - The latest information on the raids on the legislature doesn't make the Campbell government look great, but it's far from political bad news.
Supreme Court Justice Patrick Dohm ruled the public could see a small portion of the search warrant applications in the raid on legislature offices last Dec. 28.
The information was still heavily censored, with nothing about the other searches linked to the drug investigation that was the start of the entire exercise.
And - this is important - all the information represents are the police suspicions that led to the searches. Nothing is proven. No one has even been charged in connection with the legislature raids.
The documents show police suspected Dave Basi, the former top aide to Finance Minister Gary Collins, was secretly helping Omnitrax, one of the bidders for BC Rail's Roberts bank line, and Omnitrax lobbyist Erik Bornman.
Police alleged that Robert Virk, the senior aide to former transportation minister Judith Reid, was helping Basi, and passed on documents about the BC Rail deal.
The police theory was that Virk and Basi were helping Bornman because he was a mover and shaker within the Paul Martin wing of the federal Liberal party. The duo believed he could help them get good jobs after Martin won the coming election, police told the court in justifying the search warrants.
Police said they suspected that both Basi and Virk illegally accepted a benefit and committed breach of trust.
Remember, nothing is proven and only Basi and Virk remain under investigation.
It's still a messy cloud to have hanging over the government, for a couple of reasons.
Ministerial assistants are senior staff members, who in most cases work very closely with the minister. They attend most meetings, often decide who gets to see the minister and are involved in policy discussions. Hiring them should be a pretty careful process. The police are suggesting that the Liberals may have got it very wrong. (Basi was fired after the raids; Virk has been on paid leave for more than eight months. The government has never successfully explained the different treatments.)
And the information in the warrants is a reminder of just how tight the ties are between the federal Liberals and a core group within the provincial Liberals. (The investigation included searches and interviews with several senior B.C. federal Liberal insiders.)
It's not a welcome reminder. The Campbell Liberals are a coalition, and one issue that could split them apart is the question of ties to a federal party.
Many provincial Liberals are federal Conservatives. If they believe that the provincial party is dominated by federal Liberals who are working closely with the federal party in a partisan way, those federal Conservatives will be angry. They will be even angrier if they believe the association has brought trouble down on the provincial party. And they will have an option if the new Conservative provincial party gets off the ground.
But those concerns aside, the provincial Liberals can mostly see the release of the information as good news.
There are no suspicions or allegations of broader involvement, nothing that links any politicians in any way with the raids or investigation, and nothing that suggests negligence or inattention.
Nobody apparently benefited or lost from the scheme, except for the taxpayers who were out about $1 million when the sale of BC Rail's Roberts' Bank spur had to be cancelled because of the charges.
Even the timing of the release of the information is helpful for the Liberals. Voters have the chance to consider the search warrant material, and form whatever opinion they will, long before next May's election.
In terms of voter support, it's not likely that this information changes a great deal.
People predisposed to dislike or suspect Gordon Campbell will have another reason for their position. Supporters will be buoyed. and most voters will be considering other issues.
Footnote: The Liberals made the odd decision to announce $20 million in health care funding in the day the search warrant information was released. The timing was likely aimed at setting the stage for the Martin health summit, but it meant less media attention to a good news story.

Liberals betraying trust with wild gambling expansion

VICTORIA - The Liberals used to think gambling was terrible.
Gordon Campbell said gambling creates addicts and hurts families, back when the Liberals were in opposition. And his position was clear.
"No new casinos," said Campbell. "The only way the government gets money from gambling is from losers. We don't want an economy based on losers. There will be no further expansion of gambling. We'll try to reduce it.''
The Liberal New era platform even promised to "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
But after the election everything changed and the Liberals rushed to ramp up gambling throughout the province, striving to recruit more losers, to use the premier's word.
There were 2,400 slot machines when the Liberals were elected. Now B.C. there are almost 5,000 slots.
The Liberals have opened mega-casinos and are pushing more addictive forms of gambling into small communities by encouraging bingo halls around B.C. to add slot machines. They have allowed drinking in casinos - something it also used to oppose. Alcohol and gambling; a match made in heaven if the aim is to encourage people to lose more.
It's worked. The government's take - its share of peoples' losses - has climbed by 50 per cent, to $850 million, under the Liberals. They plan to push that to more than $1 billion in the next two years.
It wasn't just the premier who used to be opposed.
Children and Families Minister Christy Clark used to speak out against casino expansion. She said gambling destroyed families, and resulted in violence against women. Any government that really cared about women wouldn't expand gambling, she said.
Katherine Whittred grilled the New Democrats about their much more modest expansion plans. "Faced with the avalanche of research into the negative effects of increased gambling on women, can the minister tell the House why she won't stand up for B.C.'s women and oppose the premier's dangerous gambling expansion?"
Kamloops MLA Kevin Krueger opposed gambling expansion on clear moral grounds.
Krueger warned of the dangers of problem and pathological gambling. He spoke sadly about the terrible tragedy in which a man entangled in a gambling addiction was accused of trying to kill his wife and child by setting them on fire.
More places to gamble meant more horrors, he said then. "The people it hurts the most are the ones we have a responsibility to protect, such as the poor, women and abused families," he said.
Please, Krueger urged New Democrat backbenchers. Stand up to your premier. Halt the gambling expansion. It is simply immoral.
Big deal, you may say. Politicians say one thing and do another. Circumstances change, the realities of governing and making tough choices come into play.
But this is different.
The Liberals' objections to gambling expansion were based on principle. They believed it was wrong for government to profit by exploiting peoples' weaknesses, by putting money ahead of the harm to individuals and families.
It's defensible to flip-flop on selling off a government-owned railway.
But how do you walk away from your principles, and not leave something important behind?
Campbell is right.
Government gambling is built on creating losers, and persuading them to lose more and more.
About 1.9 million gamble through some B.C. government lottery or casino or game of chance each month.
The government currently plans to lure 200,000 more people into becoming regular gamblers over the next four years, winning them over with marketing campaigns and by pushing seductive slot machines into neighbourhoods from Cranbrook to Prince Rupert.
And the Liberals are doing it knowing they are hurting people. About 90.000 people are already problem gamblers in B.C. The government's expansion plans mean another 9,000 will slide into that abyss.
What's sad is that based on their past statements, the Liberals know that what they are doing is wrong.
Footnote: Communities looking at putting slots into bingo halls to get the 10-per-cent of revenue that goes to the host municipal governments should talk to University of Nevada gambling expert William Thompson. Gambling sucks money out of the local economy that would have been spent on other goods and services, he says. An average B.C. slot machine rakes in $140,000 a year from losing gamblers. And most of that money leaves town.

New parties of the centre-right threaten Liberals

VICTORIA - Who would have thought that the Campbell government could face a big threat from what most observers would dismiss as fringe parties.
Unity Party leader Chris Delaney grabbed some attention last week by announcing plans to merge with the B.C. Conservatives and adopt their name.
So who cares, you may ask? The Conservatives barely exist and Unity claims about 4,500 members. It doesn't sound much like a big deal.
But it could be.
Because even a small gain in the new party's share of the vote could cost the Liberals closely contested ridings.
It's a little bit weird even to be writing this. After the Liberals' huge 2001 win, it seemed impossible to imagine that they could be challenged in next May's election.
But the polls show the New Democrats and the Liberals effectively tied now. And that sets up a classic B.C. showdown between the evenly matched forces of what we can arbitrarily call the right and the left. If the vote is split within either flank, that side is in trouble. (See the 1991 and 1996 elections, when the right vote split and the NDP won.)
Enter Unity and the Conservatives.
Unity, the child of another unite-the-right marriage, has made a dent in public consciousness, keeping up a steady stream of statements on the issues. The party registers in the polls, claiming seven per cent of decided voters in the southern Interior in the last Ipsos poll.
The Conservatives haven't made much of an impact. But they've got a name, and more importantly they have the potential support of B.C.'s strong federal Alliance-Conservative network. Some federal Conservatives believe the Campbell Liberals are too tightly tied to the federal Liberal party, and that B.C. needs a provincial Conservative wing aligned with the federal party. MP Darrel Stinson has already signed on.
It's a big problem for the Campbell Liberals, because even a small loss of support to another party on the right is serious.
The UBC Sauder School of Business sponsors on-line election stock markets, and to help the punters professor Werner Antweiler has an on-line 'voter migration matrix election forecaster.' The chart lets you model the effects of different vote shifts since the last election. (Google 'ubc election stock market' to try it yourself.)
The most recent poll, from the Mustel Group poll, showed the NDP at 42 per cent, Liberals at 40 per cent, the Greens at 11 per cent and the rest of the parties sharing six per cent of the vote. Plug those values into the model and it predicts a Liberal majority, with 46 seats to the NDP's 33.
But if a new Unity-Conservative party - or any other on the centre-right - takes even two per cent from the Liberals, everything changes. The forecast is for a virtual tie, with the NDP with a slight advantage.
It's not science, but it should be a concern for the Liberals. Unity, which barely attracted more votes than the Marijuana Party in the 2001 election, is poised to play a major role in next May's vote.
And if the merger fails, or Unity proves to be too socially Conservative for British Columbians, then there is the BC Democrat Alliance, another centre-right party looking to capitalize on the Liberals' weakness. Leader Tom Morino is a two-time Liberal candidate and former member of the party's provincial executive who hopes to follow the path blazed by Gordon Wilson and his PDA party.
Come on, you may say. Voters who don't want the NDP back aren't going to vote for some new party. They'll recognize the pragmatic need to unite behind the Liberals. But almost 200,000 people voted Green last time, even though most knew their local candidate couldn't win. They had a message to send.
The new parties of the centre-right offer voters the same chance to send a message. Gordon Campbell should be worried.
Footnote: The Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection - when Campbell finally calls it - will be a good test for the new parties. The Liberals will likely run Mary Polak, known as a 'conservative' school trustee. The Unity-Conservative candidate will likely be Heather Stilwell, Polak's cohort on the board, while Molino plans to run for the new BC Democrat Alliance.

Premiers, PM fumbling health care summit

VICTORIA - Are these guys kidding, the premiers and Paul Martin, as they stumble towards what's supposed to be some sort of break-through meeting on health care?
The premiers have just wrapped up their final preparations for Martin's televised summit. (Without Ralph Klein, who was too busy to show up.)
The good news is that at least they've come up with an agenda for Martin's meeting, something he apparently hadn't got around to yet.
That seems like a sign. The meeting is barely one week way, and Martin and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh haven't come up with a schedule of what they want to talk about. Nothing wrong with winging it sometimes, but funding and reforming health care seems a little complex to tackle without a plan.
So give the premiers credit for at least getting an agenda done. They propose spending a couple of hours late on the first day talking about accountability; a full day on the big challenges - like wait times and home care ; and the third day on funding.
Give the premiers credit for nerve, too. They're still pushing ahead with their pitch for a new, federally funded national pharmacare plan. And to pressure Martin, they hauled out a giant prop for their closing press conference, a blown-up newspaper ad from the election campaign including health care promises.
Fair enough, although Gordon Campbell and the rest should expect to see blow-ups of their campaign promises popping up. The Liberals pledge to reduce wait lists, which have climbed since the election, springs to mind.
The meeting, which was supposed to fix health care for a generation, is likely going to turn into another federal-provincial squabble over money. By the end of day three Ottawa will have come up with more cash, the provinces will be unhappy with the amount, some sort of new committee or task force will be appointed to look at a couple of high-profile issues and it will be business as usual.
That's not so so terrible really. The health care system works well enough that we're not in any crisis. Health care costs took the same amount of our GDP in 2001 as they did a decade earlier. Cost increases may be worrying; they are not any sort of critical problem.
The extra money - although it's not much - will help. The federal government has offered an extra $9 billion over five years, which would mean about $240 million more a year for B.C. Ottawa is likely to come up with more money at the meeting, probably with some sort of strings on how it can be spent.
But by the time the meeting is over attentive Canadians will likely be wondering what happened to all that talk about reforming the system, and all those reports and commissions.
Every premier deplores long waits for surgery, for example, and Martin has vowed to tackle them. But the immediate problem could be solved with money, if we chose. Eliminating the wait for hip surgery in B.C., one of the most critical, would involve a one-time commitment of $25 million. If personal taxes were increased by one-half of one per cent, or a couple of weeks' gambling revenue dedicated to eliminating the wait, the problem would be fixed.
The underlying issues could then be addressed through a national commitment to prevention, eliminating unnecessary surgery, increased efficiency, wait time guarantees and anything else that will make the system work better.
The premiers apparently think a national pharmacare program is a good thing, and they're right. A single process for approving new drugs, and a national agency could bargain much more aggressively with the drug companies, would reduce costs.
But if they were serious, they could begin work on a national pharmacare plan today, with or without Ottawa.
Those kinds of things aren't likely to get acted on next week in Ottawa. Too bad.
Footnote: The premiers came up with eight issues for day two of the talks: waiting times; a national pharmacare program; home care; human resources; healthy living; information technology; improving services in the north; and aboriginal health. It's a good list, but they've also allotted four times as much of the schedule to talk about funding as they have for a discussion of waiting times.

Time for a BC energy heritage fund

VICTORIA - A BC Energy Heritage Fund makes such good sense I can't believe the government hasn't already set one up.
The principle is simple. Set up a permanent savings account for future generations, and fund it with a set share of oil and gas revenues.
The fund recognizes that the oil and gas will run out someday, and in one stroke preserves some of the money for our grandchildren and ensures governments don't get too hooked on volatile - and ultimately finite - energy revenues.
It's a pretty straightforward idea, with a lot of benefits and no big drawbacks.
And it's already tested and proven workable. Up in Alaska, they started wondering about the flood of revenue that would be coming into government as oil and has fields were developed in the late '70s.
Alaskans knew the money would stop flowing some day. So they passed a law that said 25 per cent of new energy revenues would go into a permanent fund for future generations. It's up to $33 billion now, a cushion against tougher times. The fund has been invested so successfully that it's been able to pay dividends of about $1,300 a year to the public.
Alberta's fund took in energy revenue from 1975 to 1996, and stands at about $11 billion; Norway has more than $100 billion set aside from its energy revenues against the day the gas stops flowing.
Why not here?
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta think tank, proposed such a fund in its recent report on government and the oil and gas industry in Canada. Government shouldn't become dependent on uncertain energy revenues for its basic operations, the institute suggested. (How uncertain? In 1995 B.C. natural gas royalties were just under $98 million; this year they will be $1.2 billion.)
And sooner or later, the oil and gas will be gone. We owe it future generations to set aside some money for them, the institute argues.
It makes sense. And it also provides a useful check on government.
As the Liberals - and the NDP before them - have set out to encourage oil and gas development, critics have been quick to claim that they're in too much of a hurry, eager for quick cash. That's one of the shots opponents of coalbed methane development in the East Kootenay took at the Liberals (unfairly, I'd say).
But it's still a reasonable concern. Governments get as desperate for cash as the rest of us, and will be tempted to sell off resources in a hurry, and not necessarily at the best price.
Requiring that a significant chunk of the money for the future reduces that pressure, and takes one criticism away from development opponents.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld isn't keen on the idea. He says that if the government uses energy revenues to pay down the province's debt future generations will benefit.
But that hasn't happened, and paying down the debt isn't part of the Liberals' current plan.
And without a heritage fund there's no commitment to bind future governments, and no constant reminder that we're providing for the future.
The only real argument against a fund is that government should be able to spend all the money it can take in right away. That's hardly compelling.
It's a good time for B.C. to establish a heritage fund. The budget is balanced, so devoting a share of energy revenues to a permanent fund wouldn't result in deficits. Energy revenues are still on the rise, so there's room to divert some of the cash.
And the Liberals are launching major new initiatives to promote coalbed methane and offshore oil and gas. Setting aside a large share of those revenues for the future will ease concerns that the government is just interested in quick cash to pay for its tax cuts.
How can saving a part of the wealth for our children's children be a bad idea?
Footnote: The Pembina Institute study, which looked at activities from 1996 to 2002, found B.C. governments did a good job of getting the best price for oil and gas resources from the companies. Both Saskatchewan and Alberta, it concluded, left money on the table by undercharging the companies.

Stakes high for all parties in coming Surrey byelection

VICTORIA - The overdue byelection in Surrey Panorama Ridge is going to offer a great chance to judge how the Liberals will fare in next year's vote.
Sure, byelections almost always go against the governing party. They're a safe way for voters to express dissatisfaction without committing to a whole new government.
But the Liberals' success - or failure - is still going to be a good indication of how well they will do next May.
The byelection is needed to replace Gulzmar Cheema, who resigned back in May to launch an unsuccessful campaign as a federal Liberal. Premier Gordon Campbell had six months to call the byelection. He's let three months pass already, depriving voters in the riding representation.
Even if Campbell calls the byelection this week, the results won't be final until mid-October. For the first two weeks of the fall legislative session, no one will speak for the riding. (Campbell criticized the NDP for byelection delays for that reason.)
It should be a fascinating race.
For starters, the riding is a good case study. In the 2001 election its vote closely mirrored the overall results. Across B.C. the Liberals got 58 per cent of the popular vote, and the NDP 22 per cent. In Surrey Panorama the Liberals took 60 per cent and the NDP 20 per cent.
There's the byelection factor to consider, but the results will still give an indication of how much the Liberal support has eroded.
The NDP has nominated Jagrup Brar, who looks a strong candidate. He's lived in the riding for 10 years and runs SEEDS, a federal program that helps people start their own businesses. He's well-known in the large IndoCanadian community, and would be seen as a moderate New Democrat.
Brar's had the NDP nomination since May. The Liberals have yet to set a date for a nomination meeting.
But their only declared candidate so far adds another interesting twist to the race.
Mary Polak is a Surrey school trustee who took an unsuccessful shot at becoming a federal Conservative candidate earlier this year. She was a school trustee - and for part of the time the chair - when the Surrey board spent almost $1 million trying to keep three kids' books depicting same sex parents out of Surrey schools. (The court ruled the ban had been made on excessively narrow grounds, including on the basis of religion. The board then banned the books again citing their quality.)
Polak would be a strong candidate in the riding, but her background makes some Liberals edgy. The party needs a broad base of support; Polak's brand of social conservatism will alienate some voters.
The byelection is also a critical test for the smaller parties who hope to grab votes from people disenchanted with both the Liberals and the NDP.
The newest entrant will be the fledgling BC Democrat Alliance, which leader Tom Morino says will be a moderate alternative to the Liberals. Morino - who will run in the byelection - is a Sooke councillor, two-time provincial Liberal candidate and former member of the party's provincial executive. (Morino had hoped to revive Gordon Wilson's Progress Democratic Alliance, but that got too complicated.)
Morino wants candidates in every riding next May to offer a serious alternative to the Liberals; his showing in Surrey Panorama will show whether that's realistic.
The Unity Party - which took seven per cent of the vote in the riding in 2001 - faces a similar challenge in portraying itself as the credible centre-right alternative to the Liberals.
And the Green Party will be looking to improve on its nine-per-cent support in the riding in order to convince prospective backers that they won't just be casting a protest vote next May.
It's going to be an important byelections for all the parties that hope to play a role in next May's general election.
All that's left is for Campbell to get on with it.
Footnote: Unity head Chris Delaney is promising an announcement Wednesday on efforts to unite centre-right opposition to the Liberals in the next election, with support expected from at least some other parties and municipal politicians. Unity's poll standings indicate the party could be a big factor in some close races.

Time for a truce in B.C.'s brewing resource battles

VICTORIA - I've got nothing against Randy Bachman, and I'd be keen to see him and Neil Young in a benefit concert up in Duncan next month.
But the rock stars are a good symbol for a developing problem in B.C. Clashes between the people who earn their money in resource industries and those who have concerns about how those industries operate are becoming increasingly divisive and bitter.
I'm not choosing sides. (Though I acknowledge a consistent partiality to the underdog, which in this case generally means the people involved in resource industries.)
Mostly, I'd argue we have to get past some of the suspicion and close-mindedness and start talking together as people who share an interest in the future.
Bachman and Young are starring in a big benefit concert for the Crofton Airshed Citizens' Group, formed out of a concern about emissions from Norske Canada's Crofton pulp mill.
The mill has been there for almost 50 years, and Norske employs some 1,000 people in the area, at good wages. People have always grumbled about the mill, but complaints have gotten loudest now, when the mill is cleaner than it's ever been.
What's changed? The trigger for the concern is Norske's plan to start burning shredded tires, chipped railway ties and coal in the mill's boilers, which have been fed with wood chips. The company says the shift would reduce emissions; some in the community have concerns. It's an issue of science, and should be resolved on that basis.
But what has also changed is the arrival of people in the area who came for the view, and the climate, and the lifestyle. They don't need to work the mill; they don't have a cousin or son employed there. They don't really like mills, or mines, or logging, or gas wells.
The airshed group members say they don't want the mill shut down; they just want the environment protected.
But Bachman emailed the environment ministry in January, and suggested all manner of dire consequences unless they padlocked the mill doors. “We will not rest until the Crofton mill is shut down permanently,” he pledged.
His publicist later said he's changed his mind, and doesn't want the mill closed.
But his first reaction matters. Bachman lives on Saltspring Island, in a multi-million-dollar environmentally friendly home. He earned the place, and affluence doesn't bar him from being involved in public policy debates.
But when you can call up Neil Young and get him to come to town, you've got a lot of clout. When you threaten to kill 1,000 jobs, you show a willingness to use that clout recklessly. And that will make other people nervous.
Enter First Dollar. It's a new organization, only a few months old, that wants to stand up for resource industries, the communities that depend on them, and the people who work in them. Leanne Brunt, one of the organizers, says the First Dollar will hold its own party outside the big fundraiser, with kids' games, a picnic and maybe some local performers. First Dollar, which has attracted support from across the province, reflects resource communities' need to push back against people who would too casually push them out of existence.
Across much of B.C. two worlds are noisily colliding over resource industries. Suspicions rise, both sides dig in, and the result is usually destructive.
B.C. has been through this kind of conflict before, with the war in the woods. No one should look back on that destructive time with fondness. Effective societies resolve disputes without splitting into hostile camps. And they maintain the ability to recognize the legitimacy - even urgency - of others' concerns.
There are few absolutes in this debate. Rational trade-offs must be made, and too often the opponents of resource industries - like Bachman in his email - show little willingness to recognize the need for compromise.
Unless we recognize that, and work together, we will all lose.
Footnote: This week's auction of coalbed methane leases in the East Kootenay shows the problem. A bitter battle by opponents, which enlisted Montana politicians, meant energy companies simply decided not to bid. The failure to find common ground - a failure shared by both sides - has robbed the region of a chance at good jobs.

Kootenay coalbed methane big headache for Liberals

VICTORIA - B.C. hasn't even tapped into its newest energy resource, and already the province is in a war of words with the U.S.
The government sees big money and new jobs from coalbed methane, a natural gas found in coal deposits. B.C. has lots of coal, and lots of coalbed methane - perhaps enough to equal 100 years worth of current natural gas production.
So the Liberals have been continuing the effort begun during the NDP years to exploit the gas fields. The first auction of leases, covering land in the East Kootenay, ended this week. Within a few days we should learn how much companies were willing to pay.
But there's a problem. Coalbed methane development is untested in B.C., and a relatively new industry in North America. That means some people are bound to be nervous about damage to the environment.
It's easy enough to find reasons to be concerned.
Conventional natural gas is usually found in large pockets, under pressure. Companies drill a well, the gas flows out and when it's gone they cap the well and move on. It's relatively tidy, and familiar.
But coalbed methane is found within the coal seams, so companies need to drill a lot more holes.
And the methane is usually trapped beneath underground water that must be pumped out before the gas will flow. Clean water is no problem. But if it's contaminated with salt or other pollutants, it has to be pumped back underground to prevent environmental damage.
Some early development efforts in the U.S. did significant environmental damage. But coalbed methane now makes up about five per cent of U.S. gas production, and the companies have about 20 years of experience. With care and appropriate regulation coalbed methane can be safely produced.
Not everyone agrees. The Liberals have run into a wave of opposition to their plan to launch the industry by selling drilling rights in the Kootenays.
Many local people - including municipal politicians - are worried about the number of wells that will have to be drilled and potential environmental damage. They've joined forces with powerful Montana politicians who are concerned about cross-border pollution that would affect Glacier National Park. (Montana has big plans for its own coalbed methane development, but relatively little has happened so far, in part because of the threat of environmental lawsuits.)
Things got worse this week when federal MP David Anderson weighed in on the side of the Americans. Anderson, environment minister until he was dropped by Paul Martin, wrote current Environment Minister Stephane Dion calling for a federal review of B.C.'s plans.
The provincial government argues - convincingly, in my view - that it has taken the necessary steps to ensure development will only go ahead if it's safe, setting a string of conditions on the leases and writing stiff regulations.
The problem is that those claims rely on trust - trust that the rules will be enforced, trust that the government will cancel leases if development is risky. And trust is in short supply.
It's a mess. And one that could have been avoided.
The Kootenay leases are the first ones auctioned off because energy companies said they'd like a shot at the area.
But there are other parts of the province with good potential, where local residents are familiar with the energy industry. Any one would have been a better place to launch the industry, even if the initial return was lower.
This kind of brawl is in no one's interests. Uncertainty about the legal threats to development will force down the price companies are prepared to bid for the leases. Future wrangling will damage the province's reputation among resource companies as a safe place to invest.
The government has held consultations in the region, and sent a delegation to Montana.
But it hasn't been able to sell coalbed development.
That challenge will be every bit as touch as the technical hurdles.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld is responsible for coalbed methane. He's been more combative than conciliatory with both local citizens and Montana politicians, questioning everything from their motives to their judgment. So far, it's been an ineffective approach, reinforcing the impression the government isn't listening to concerns.

Notes: Martin's waste, violence and women, NDP doom, hearts and grow ops

VICTORIA - Random notes from the front: Another way to waste your money, keeping women safe sensibly, why NDP candidates could be Gordon Campbell's secret weapon.

Remember Paul Martin's Throne Speech last January?
Of course not. No one pays attention to Throne Speeches because they're ceremonial drones that open new sessions of Parliament or provincial legislatures.
But Martin and company approached his first Throne Speech with a great deal of attention and a fine disregard for your money. Martin spent $49,000 to have the Throne Speech tested with four focus groups across the country - none in B.C. - as if it was some megabudget Hollywood blockbuster.
Martin has a coven of advisors and speechwriters. He has a whole caucus to vetr the speech. But that wasn't enough.
What did he learn? The average Canadians in the focus groups found some themes "vague and often trite." Some sections were incomprehensible. Talking about health care, child care and safe food was good; talking about immigration and First Nations treaties bad.
Research is fine. But a government that can't even manage to produce a Throne Speech without nervously spending tax dollars on focus groups is wasteful and lacking basic competence.

Much nervousness over a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision to let a Kamloops man challenge provincial policies on violence against women.
Scott Crockford was charged with assault after an altercation with his common-law spouse. He says she was bigger and stronger and the instigator. And he says Crown prosecutors were guided by discriminatory government policy.
He has a good case. B.C. has a policy designed to ensure that domestic violence is taken seriously. In the past, women have been reluctant to press charges, for a variety of reasons, and cases have often been treated as a private matter.
That allows the violence to continue, so B.C. has guidelines for prosecutors on deciding whether charges are in the public interest. (One of two criteria for deciding on whether to lay charges, along with the likelihood of conviction.)
"Given the incidence of violence against women in relationships in Canada, the prosecution of such offences is almost invariably in the public interest," the policy says. Even minor cases should result in charges.
The government now has two choices. It can fight on, spending more money and putting the policy at risk. Or it can simply change the policy to cover all domestic violence, without reference to gender. Women are the victims in 85 per cent of cases; they will still be well-served by the policy.

Carole James should be having nightmares about some of the emerging prospective NDP candidates. There are faces from the past, like Harry Lali, who complained of a media-RCMP-Liberal conspiracy against Glen Clark, Steve Orcherton, NDP leadership candidate who argued the party was too centrist, and Adrian Dix, Clark's political advisor who drafted an exculpatory memo during the casino scandal and backdated it. And faces from the public sector unions, like former BC Teachers' Federation president David Chudnovsky and former CUPE national head Judy Darcy.
Gordon Campbell must be rooting for every one of them to leap successfully into the race. They would make his campaign speeches much easier to write.

The most striking thing about Campbell's announcement of more money to reduce heart surgery wait times was how easy it would be to eliminate the problem. The government found $3 million to pay for 163 more operations. That's about about five per cent more than last year and enough to reduce the median wait for non-emergency surgery from 15 weeks to 12 weeks. (It was 13 weeks when the Liberals were elected.)
But for just $7 million more everyone waiting could have had their surgery, and the wait time knocked down to a few weeks.
Sure, there are lots of other priorities. But the solutions to some of our concerns about wait times are at hand, and within our ability to pay.

Footnote: It has become a fad for municipalities to pass tough new laws punishing landlords if tenants have a grow op. The province's support for the laws may waver now that the BC Building Corp. - a government agency - has been caught with a 500-plant grow op at a former Riverview Hospital building it manages.

Quit pretending - that beer is a drug

VICTORIA - There's probably lots of good reasons to fret about a machine that lets you inhale your gin instead of drinking it.
But I can't shake the sense that the quick call for a ban is just another example of our reluctance to consider alcohol a drug.
Alcohol Without Liquid machines are already in a couple of British bars, where patrons pay $12 to pull on a face mask and inhale a vapour of oxygen and alcohol. Knock-offs are cropping up on EBay, and the machines are expected to make their U.S. debut soon.
Already, nervous hands are wringing. Critics complain the machines could lead to people getting drunk quickly (though the company says it takes about 20 minutes to inhale the equivalent of one drink). They observe rightly that impaired people would pass breathalyzer tests. And they wonder if users' brains - now protected by the time it takes to process drinks - could be damaged by a rush of alcohol.
Good concerns.
But on the other hand the machines offer some remarkable harm reduction benefits.
No calories, or the risk of obesity related diseases. No damage to the liver, or other internal organs.
That means getting drinkers to switch to vaporizers could prevent about 190 deaths a year in B.C. directly related to alcohol, and another 900 indirect deaths, just by reducing the physical damage.
That's not the way we think about alcohol. We don't see it as a drug, let alone a dangerous one, even though it will kill more people each year than heroin or cocaine overdoses.
Far be it from me to mock peoples' claims that they like the taste. I do too. And I've heard people talk convincingly of the special delight of the latest Okanagan merlot.
But I am prepared to wager that if you banned the sale of merlot - heck the sale of all red wine - in B.C., the overall consumption of alcohol would not fall by one litre. All those people who so loved red wine, or single malt scotch, or strawberry coolers, would find something else to drink if they weren't available.
Because ultimately all those bottles we buy are just the delivery system for the drug. The effects of alcohol - the relaxation, the buzz, whatever - really drive our consumption.
Look at those coolers and flavoured ciders, the hottest growing category of the last several years. We knocked back about 55,000,000 bottles in B.C. last year, some $93 million worth. They're tasty and everything, but not so tasty that we'd be grabbing them up at $2 a bottle if they didn't offer the mood-altering effects of alcohol.
B.C. liquor stores took in almost $2 billion last year. Some that was from tourists and visitors, I suppose, but then British Columbians were also travelling and drinking. The stores sold 347 million litres of beer, wine, vodka and the rest, enough to fill about 300 Olympic pools, and about 110 litres per adult.
Alcohol is by far the most widely used and available drug in our society - and the most heavily promoted to recruit new users.
It's also easily the most damaging, resulting in some 1,800 deaths each year and countless tragedies, from shattered families to lost jobs. Take alcohol out of the mix and our problem of backlogs in the courts would disappear, and our waiting lists for health care would shrink overnight.
Not to be preachy. I did my bit to help the Liquor Distribution Branch to those record sales last year. Sometimes a little mood-altering is just the ticket.
But the quick dismissive reaction to the alcohol vaporizer - gimmick that it may be - showed again our reluctance to acknowledge alcohol as another potentially addictive, potentially dangerous drug that we seek for its chemical effects on our brain.
And that's too bad. Alcohol has huge effects in our society. Our attitude towards it - and public policies - should be based on reality, not a polite pretence.
Footnote: Our biggest failure is not providing youth with accurate information about alcohol. A McCreary Centre Society survey of B.C. high students found 63 per cent of 15 year olds had tried alcohol. About 45 per cent of high school students who reported using alcohol also reported binge drinking within the last month. That's a massive public failure.

Tied poll shows NDP, Liberals face big challenges

VICTORIA - That whooshing sound you hear is Liberals heaving a sigh of relief about the latest Mustel Group poll.
Gordon Campbell and company were pretty confident last month's disastrous poll didn't reflect reality. That poll found the New Democrats had surged to 45 per cent, while the Liberals had skidded to a dismal 33 per cent.
But it still had to be a relief for Liberals to get the new numbers and see that they had climbed back to 40-per-cent support, just below the New Democrats at 42 per cent.
It's a sign of how tough things have got for the Liberals, elected with such huge support, that poll results that show them in second place are good news.
Pollster Evi Mustel says several things may have worked in the Liberals' favour. The economy is improving, and that is an important factor for many male voters, she says. (The Liberal rebound was almost entirely among men.)
And the last poll, which showed the Liberal plunge, came at the same time as the federal election. The provincial Liberals were criticized from all sides during the campaign. NDP leader Jack Layton blasted the government for tax and spending cuts; federal Liberal David Anderson blamed Campbell's unpopularity for the federal party's problems in B.C.
The good news for the Liberals is that the fallout has stopped.
The bad news is that given the minority government in Ottawa, the B.C. Liberals could once again be tangled up in federal politics as we near next May's provincial election. The Martin government will likely last longer than that, but with each passing month the advance campaigning for the inevitable vote will heat up.
Mustel also says the poll results may indicate that some voters are considering the possibility that the New Democrats might actually win, and shifting back to the Liberals. it's one thing to send a message by electing a strong opposition, they're deciding, and quite another to put the NDP back in office after their recent mismanagement.
Those are the fears NDP leader Carole James is supposed to be quelling, with mixed success so far. The party's poll standings represent a remarkable recovery, given that Mustel had them as low as 13 per cent in the months following the election.
But James has yet to make an impression on 50 per cent of voters, according to the poll. They have no opinion on the job she's doing as NDP leader.
James is generally doing OK with the people who have made up their minds - 57 per cent of decided voters approve of her performance, compared to 36 per cent for Campbell. (Sixty-four per cent think Campbell is doing a bad job.)
But doing OK isn't enough. As the election approaches she has to convince people the New Democrats can be trusted. So far, she's made relatively little progress in increasing the number of people who are confident in her ability.
It all makes for a very volatile situation, says Mustel. Asked for reasons for their choices, and voters are saying they aren't really keen on the party they say they support - they just dislike the other guys more. No party has a large committed core vote, and that means things could change very quickly.
There's one more piece of bad news for the Liberals in this poll. People were asked to pick the one issue they consider most critical, and almost 40 per cent picked health care. Government and the economy were the next closest issues, at 12 per cent each.
Health care hasn't been a strong issue for the Liberals. British Columbians are the least satisfied in Canada with their health care, and their satisfaction has decreased since the Liberals were elected.
The poll establishes one thing. The Liberals and the NDP both have their work cut out for before the election, now only nine months away.
Footnote: The Greens were at 11 per cent, down slightly from last month, Reform at three per cent, Social Credit at one per cent and Unity barely registered. The strength of all those parties and the success of a new unite-the-right movement could decide the election outcome in a number of close ridings.

Health care summit looking like a doomed effort

VICTORIA - Things are looking rocky for Paul Martin's big televised health care summit.
Premier Gordon Campbell and the rest of the premiers are heading to Toronto for one last strategy session before they meet with Martin.
The premiers want to firm up their proposal for a federally funded, national pharmacare plan. And they need to figure out how to handle Martin's counter-proposal for a reduction in wait times for surgery.
Martin's health care summit next month has at least got everyone's attention. But it has the potential to be a weird event, as all parties jockey for political advantage under the TV lights.
Martin says he wants to leave the meeting with a new plan for health care in Canada, a ridiculous objective, no matter how much work is done behind the scenes.
The public would be much better served if this became the first of a regular series of public first ministers' meetings on health care, perhaps once a month for six months. That would allow serious work on the kind of health care Canadians want, what and how they will pay, and positive changes that can be made.
There's no fix for health care, nothing that can be cobbled together in a few days that will make a lasting difference.
A national pharmacare program makes good sense. A single buyer - and single approving agency for new drugs - could negotiate more effectively with drug suppliers, and make the best decisions about which new drugs offer enough benefits to offset higher costs.
But so far, that's not what the provinces are mainly talking about. They're concern is shifting the current costs on to the federal government. For the public, that's a bookkeeping change. The same taxpayers pay, and the system isn't improved.
Martin's focus on reducing wait times for treatment in five key areas also makes good sense. Canadians judge the system by how long they must wait for care, and have watched with dismay as wait times increased.
Other jurisdictions have provided their citizens with wait time guarantees - a promise of treatment for major ailments within a set time. If the system can't deliver, the government pays for treatment outside the country or in the private sector.
But a deal on wait time limits or guidelines is not going to be reached in a few days in Ottawa. Health care is a provincial responsibility, and premiers will be understandably nervous in committing to wait time guidelines they can't meet.
And we are a long way from agreement on what sort of wait time guidelines we are prepared to adopt. In B.C., governments have decided that people should wait longer and longer for surgery. Wait lists in most areas climbed under the NDP, and climbed even more sharply under the Liberals. The median wait for a hip replacement has climbed 25 per cent since the election, for non-emergency heart surgery by 15 per cent. Our governments have had other priorities.
In the short term, reducing wait lists is about money, as Campbell showed this week. He announced $3 million more for heart surgery this week, a 5.5-per-cent increase. That's enough to cut the median wait by 20 per cent to 12 weeks, shorter than when the Liberals were elected. And it's a reminder of how relatively small amounts of money can make a large difference in reducing the wait for treatment.
Many Canadians have lost confidence in their governments' ability to manage health care, as this week's Ipsos poll revealed. When the premiers and prime minister sit down next month, those people want to see a commitment to long-term solutions.
Instead, they will see the leaders stumbling toward a meeting with hopelessly complex objectives. One of two outcomes is likely: the meeting will either break-up in recriminations and posturing; or another short-term deal involving extra money to maintain the status quo will be cobbled together.
Neither addresses the real health care issues.
Footnote: The Ipsos survey, done for the Canadian Medical Association, asked Canadians to grade the health care system. More than one in four gave federal and provincial governments failing grades for working together to make the system more accountable. Almost 30 per cent said the federal government wasn't funding health care adequately and 22 per cent said their provincial government wasn't spending enough.

Pharmacare plan about who pays, not better health care

VICTORIA - It sometimes looks like Canadians' brains turn to mush when we start talking about health care.
Take the premiers' proposal that Ottawa create a national pharmacare program, taking over from the provinces. The premiers plucked the idea out of the air when they met to prepare for Paul Martin's televised health care summit next month. At this point, they don't know how it would work or what it would cost - estimates range from $7 billion to $12 billion.
A national plan actually makes good sense. It could help to ensure more efficient and effective drug purchasing and use. But that's not the premiers' focus. They looking at who pays, the provinces or the federal government.
And despite all the talk about sustainability, and controlling costs, and efficiency, that's mostly what we debate - who should pay.
Who cares? Pay taxes to Victoria for pharmacare, or pay taxes to Ottawa for pharmacare - that's hardly a critical health care reform question.
Even the debate about two-tier care or delisting services is about who pays. Allowing some people to pay extra for speedier or higher quality care doesn't reduce the amount we spend on health care by one cent. It just shuffles the cost around.
Right now, people pay taxes for the care we agree is needed. Under a two-tier system, taxes would be less and people would pay more out of their own pockets. Health care spending wouldn't change. (The U.S. has such a system, and health care costs actually consume a larger share of its GDP. If spending was at the same level in B.C., our health budget would be $2 billion higher.)
We're dancing around the problems, not dealing with them.
Take drug costs. They are one of the most rapidly increasing health care expenses. If we can find ways to control those costs - as B.C. has done with reference-based pricing, which ensures that the cheapest effective medication is used - then we'll have more to spend on other areas.
But we don't even really know if drug spending increases are a good or bad thing.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003; the national average was $505. That could mean that we're doing a good job of controlling costs, or our doctors are more careful with prescriptions or simply that we're healthier - all good things.
Or it could mean that we're failing to make effective use of prescription drugs, and as a result more people are requiring surgery. We just don't know.
A national pharmacare plan that focused on effectiveness, not who pays, could help answer those questions. It could ensure that new drugs were only approved when they offered wide, cost-effective benefits. It could bargain effectively with big drug companies. And it would prevent drug companies playing provinces off against one another, winning approval for a new drug in one place and then supporting patients in other provinces pushing for the same thing.
The good news is that we have time to do this right. There is no health care sustainability crisis.
Yes, costs are rising rapidly and that should be a concern.
But despite all the doom-and-gloom, an internal federal finance department review released this year projected that health care spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond. Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP - the critical measure - was the same in 2001 as it was in 1991. There is no crisis.
The premier's pharmacare proposal isn't going anywhere. Prime Minister Paul Martin doesn't want the expense or the responsibility. His new interest is wait times. But shorter waits mean more money, and neither Martin nor most of the premiers want to spend more.
Maybe, under the bright television lights, the First Ministers will give up on arguing about who pays, and start talking about how we can deliver health care more effectively.
Footnote: One challenging in controlling drug costs is saying no. Drug companies regularly offer much more expensive new drugs with relatively small improvements in benefits for most patients. Governments that decide that it's not worth paying for each new drug can face intense pressure from patients, pressure groups and the pharmaceutical industry.

Economy needs lowest possible BC Ferries' fares

VICTORIA - What's the big deal about spending a bit more for ferries, anyway?
Quite a lot, actually. Just look at how past ferry rate increases have damaged the economies of the province, and Vancouver Island.
B.C. shipyards should have been giving a chance to bid on construction of three new ships for BC Ferries, a contract that could be worth $500 million. It's just wrong that a government-owned corporation barred the leading local shipyard from even submitting a bid.
But lots of critics have argued that it's worth paying more to buy locally, while remaining vague on where that extra money will come from.
It's not likely the government will write a cheque to cover the extra costs, which leaves ferry riders on the hook.
And that would be very bad news, for Vancouver Island, coastal communities and the province.
Ferry rates matter. BC Stats concluded earlier this year that three decades of big increases are costing Vancouver Island's tourism economy more than $25 million a year in hotel and room revenues alone. Figure on other spending, and you're looking at a $50-million annual loss to the economy because ferry fares went up faster than inflation.
And it's not just a regional issue. Because Vancouver Island is a destination for visitors from outside the province, it's likely that B.C. tourism as a whole has been hurt by the rising rates, the report found.
BC Stats established average fares from the Mainland to Vancouver Island over the last 30 years, factoring in traffic types and the impact of reservation fees. It found fares have steadily increased faster than inflation over the last three decades.
Since 1975 the Vancouver cost-of-living index has gone up by an average 4.5 per cent a year. Ferry rates have gone up by an average 6.5 per cent a year.
Back in 1975 a car and driver could get across to the Island for $5. If costs had matched inflation, then today's fare would be about $17. Instead the average fare for a car in 2003 was $30, a 77-per-cent real increase.
Still a bargain by world standards, some might say.
But that misses the point. The real cost of using the ferries has been steadily rising, and that has inevitable consequences.
For some people, mostly locals who have to use the ferries, rising costs are an irritant, but it doesn't alter their travel plans.
But the basic laws of economics hold that if the cost of a discretionary purchase - like a holiday - increases, then a certain number of people will cancel their plans.
And they have.
The number of passengers on BC Ferries went up 33 per cent from 1980 to 2003.
But B.C.'s population rose 55 per cent. The overall tourism industry exploded. BC Ferries hasn't kept up.
Back in 1989, Vancouver Island had a 20.2-per-cent share of room revenues in the province, a standard measure of tourism activity. But the Island has been steadily losing ground to the rest of B.C., and in 2003 its share had fallen to 18.4 per cent, according to BC Stats.
Sounds like a small drop. But it translates into $25 million in lost revenues, and a whack more in the money those people would have spent. (The study wasn't skewed by picking one rough year; the decline was steady through the period.)
"The trend in Vancouver Island’s share of room revenues has closely followed changes in ferry prices," BC Stats reported. "This suggests that BC Ferries has been, to a degree, pricing Vancouver Island out of the tourism market."
None of this justifies shutting local shipyards out of the building.
But it should be a caution for those who are willing to pay a premium for local ships - and want ferry users to foot the bill.
Higher prices for ferry travel do matter, and their effects reverberate through the economy.
Footnote: BC Ferries own studies confirm the report. In its prospectus filed as part of its borrowing plans the corporation said that for every 10 per cent fares went up on the main routes, about three per cent of travellers cancelled trips. The corporation's last annual report blamed large 1997 rate increases for falling passenger volumes.

Ellard case doesn't make show need for jury system change

VICTORIA - You'd have thought the halls of justice were crumbling around us by some of the reaction to the Kelly Ellard case.
There's been much debate about the jury system since Ellard's second trial for the murder of Reena Virk ended in a hung jury.
The jury system is fundamental to justice. You have the right to have your case decided not by a judge, appointed by the state, but by a randomly selected panel of your peers. All 12 members of the jury have to agree that the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt before you're found guilty.
We should treasure that right.
But the Ellard case sparked a lively, passionate and useful debate. Some people decided that the case showed the jury system doesn't work. A single juror was unconvinced by the Crown's case, and stuck to her position. The result was a hung jury, and the need for another trial.
The critics' arguments around the Ellard case are dubious. They weren't in the court and didn't hear evidence or arguments, but have apparently decided Ellard should have been found guilty, so the system is somehow broken.
But it could be argued that the jury system worked perfectly. The Crown made its case, but couldn't convince all the jurors of guilt. They reported that to the judge. That's what's supposed to happen.
But what if one juror is perversely, unreasonably blind to the facts, the critics say.
Fair argument. Attorney General Geoff Plant said it might be time to look at having smaller juries - perhaps eight people - to allow a greater chance of unanimity.
Or, he said, juries could make their decision on a majority vote, without requiring all to agree. Judges in England can accept a jury decision based on a 10 to two vote.
But the arguments for change are weak, in large part because it's not even clear if this happens often enough to be a concern. B.C. doesn't track hung juries, but the best estimate is that fewer than three per cent of criminal jury trials end up in am mistrial as a result of a deadlocked jury. That doesn't seem like a problem; just part of the checks and balances.
That's another objection to those changes, which Plant says the first ministers will discuss this fall. They are basically designed to make it easier for the Crown to convict people; perhaps it's as important to keep people safe from wrongful conviction. After all the Crown has the chance to try the case again is a jury is split, while a person wrongfully convicted is off to jail.
Plant also suggested simplifying the judge's instructions to juries, which have become increasingly long and complex. The judge's instructions in the Ellard case, delivered after a lengthy trial, ran to 165 pages, all read to the jurors before they started deliberating.
Supreme Court Justice John Bouck agrees. He wrote The Times Colonist in Victoria arguing for a system of simpler, shorter instructions. As appeal courts have overturned verdicts because juries were not properly instructed in the law, judges have been forced to add more and more detail. "Jurors become glassy eyed and unreceptive to the judge's strange legal words as they valiantly try to stay awake," he observes.
The instructions don't just add to jurors' confusion. They also are a fertile ground for appeals, by both Crown and defence. Verdicts are overturned and retrials ordered far more often because of problems with jury instructions than because of hung verdicts.
Bouck studied a useful U.S. alternative. Under the guidance of a high court, judges, lawyers, academics and public representatives agree on what juries need to be told about the law in different situations. The resulting instructions are short and clear, and can not be the basis of an appeal. Some method of simplifying instructions to juries seems a useful exercise.
But beyond that, it's hard to see any dramatic need for change.
Footnote: Plant took a lot of unfair criticism from people who said his comments on the jury system undermined Ellard's right to a fair trial next time around. Rubbish. He was asked about a policy issue and he responded. That's his job, and he did it. The last thing we need are more silent politicians.

Tackling health care wrong way round, again

VICTORIA - The premiers' proposal for a national, federally funded pharmacare plan highlights what's wrong with the way we approach health care.
There's a certain tactical cleverness to the idea, hatched -- apparently with little preparation -- at meetings last week.
The premiers were trying to figure out how to approach next month's televised health care summit with Prime Minister Paul Martin, who had already struck his own pose with an empty campaign promise to cut waiting lists.
The premiers needed a response.
Fundamentally, they want more money from Ottawa. But that demand is wearing thin, not least because the public recognizes that provincial and federal governments tap the same pool of taxpayers.
So the premiers came up with a twist. The federal government should create a national pharmacare program, they decided, and come up with the required $7 billion to $12 billion. (The range indicates just how well this has been thought through.) And, of course, the premiers still want Ottawa to come up with $5 billion a year in extra health transfer payments.
Don't expect any fast action.
The provinces can't even say what sort of plan they want Ottawa to provide. Provincial pharmacare plans now vary widely. P.E.I. covers 30 per cent of total prescription drug costs, with the rest paid by private insurers or individuals; Manitoba's plan covers 53 per cent of all prescription drug costs. Working out a coherent, nationally acceptable model would be a huge task.
The federal government has no interest in taking on all responsibility for the fastest-growing component of health care costs.
And the public recognizes that this proposal does nothing to address the real issues The premiers' rhetoric is about rising costs, greater effectiveness and sustainability. But their pharmacare plan doesn't tackle those tough issues. It simply takes the status quo and shuffles the financial arrangements around.
A real national pharmacare strategy would be useful.
Prescription drugs are taking an increasing share of health care spending, with little evidence on whether the money buys useful results.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003, about $145 less than the national average, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. But there's little evidence as to why we spend less, or whether it's a good thing.
Perhaps reference-based pricing is keeping costs down; perhaps we're simply healthier; or perhaps we're under-prescribing and as a result more people are inding up in hospital. We don't know.
A national strategy, based on the best information available, could improve the assessment and approval process for new drugs and provide better ways of managing costs (including more effective bargaining with the drug companies.) When that is done -- the important work -- the question of who pays can be resolved.
It's difficult work. Deciding not to pay for the latest, more costly drug variations brings pressure from patients who believe they can improve their lives, and drug companies that believe they can improve their bottom lines. But it's the only way to real reform.
So far, once you get past the rhetoric, the talk is all about who pays. Even the advocates of two-tier care acknowledge it doesn't reduce costs or increase effectiveness. The health care expense is the same; the difference is whether we pay collectively or allow people to pay individually for speedier care.
We're not in any sort of health care sustainability crisis. Cost increases are worrying, but Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP was unchanged between 1991 and 2001. A federal finance department review released this year projected that even without changes health spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond.
That means we have time to make the difficult decisions about the kind of health care system we want and are prepared to pay for.
Instead, our politicians are still bogged down on debates about whether the taxes we pay to Ottawa or the taxes we pay to Victoria should be allocated to health care costs.
And that's a debate that has very little to do with better patient care.
- From the Vancouver Sun