Liberals betray past by rushing labour bills through
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals want to cut the amount of money going to injured workers by $100 million per cent - and they don't want to talk about the effect of the cuts.
It's almost as if they don't quite get this democracy thing, the notion that debate in the legislature is a way to ensure that new laws have their desired effect without causing any undue hardship. The Liberals are abusing the legislature - their own backbenchers more than anyone - by ramming through major bills without any meaningful debate.
The government introduced three major labour bills - changing the Labour Code, the Employment Standards Act and the way the Workers' Compensation Board works - with only days left in the session. That means each will receive only the most cursory reviews.
And that is a loss.
Our system usually requires ministers, supported by staff, to show up and answer detailed questions on the bills they introduce. The MLAs plod through them section by section, raising concerns or questions about why the changes are being made, how they'll work and what the consequences will be.
It's the chance to make sure that the purpose is on the record and that the public's questions are answered. And it's a chance to make sure that the government has not overlooked an unintended effect of a new law, or misjudged the effect on people.
The Liberals used to think that was important. When the New Democrats choked off debate on the Nisga'a treaty the Liberals were outraged. Premier Gordon Campbell called it "an absolutely disgraceful attack on the integrity of the legislature."
He was right. And now his government is doing exactly the same thing.
The labour bills are important. Changes to the Employment Standards Act and Workers' Compensation are significant and affect almost everyone in the province.
Take just one example. The WCB now increases wage loss benefits for someone disabled on the job with the rate of inflation. Under the new rules - which will only apply to new claims - benefits will increase at one per cent less than the inflation rate.
No big deal in the short term. But for a worker disabled at 25, the change could mean a loss of $600,000 by the time he reaches 65. Now his real income is maintained. Under the new rules, he would lose more than one-third of his purchasing power to inflation.
It's not necessarily a bad change. Few private disability plans are fully indexed; it costs too much and it's assumed peoples' needs decline over time. But debate would allow MLAs to question the minister about how many people will be affected and how much the average loss will be.
The WCB changes also end the practise of continuing pensions after age 65. Now the WCB will in effect contribute five per cent of benefits to an RRSP, and that money will fund the disabled workers' retirement. That's a major change; its effects should be explored in the legislature.
The ESA changes are just as significant, ending such provisions as overtime after eight hours of work and allowing employers to call in staff for two-hour shifts, while slashing enforcement.
The changes are supportable, bringing flexibility for companies and employees. But they are complex and far-reaching and the public interest would be served by a proper legislative review.
The Liberals say the rush is the price to be paid for having fixed dates for the legislative sittings. Some bills will be introduced late and rushed through at the end of each session.
But a government that respected the role of MLAs would not have waited until the last minute to drop three major bills.
The Liberals were clear about the importance of proper legislative review when they were in opposition. It's too bad they've forgotten now.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca



A glimmer of treaty hope (no, it's not the referendum)
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If you're among the 30 per cent who voted in the treaty referendum, you'll remember Question 4, the one where the government wants you to say yes, parks should be maintained for the benefit of all British Columbians.
Here's a surprise. Even while Elections BC staff were starting to count through 700,000 ballots, the Liberals were getting ready to hive off a piece of park to help clear the way for a treaty deal.
It's the right thing to do. But it also underlines one of the many problems with this referendum. You're being asked to support principles which the government can ignore.
So while it wants a mandate to make parks off limits in treaty talks, the Liberal government feels free to hand over 11 hectares of Hesquiat Peninsula Provincial Park, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Hesquiaht First Nation will get the small piece of foreshore for a shellfish farm, a key economic opportunity for the tiny band. No roads will be built; the impact on the park will be minimal. A treaty one step closer, the band better off, no one hurt - and the Liberal treaty principle broken.
Good on them, of course. How can it be wrong to give people the chance to earn a living, on land they once owned, with no real damage to our interests?
But if the referendum is real, what are they doing defying the principle? And if it's not real, what's the point?
The referendum aside, there is at last some encouraging news on the treaty front.
Since last year a task force with representatives from First Nations and federal and provincial governments has been trying to find ways of making the process work better, building on recommendations from the the B.C. Treaty Commission.
It's an overdue step. After some $500 million and nine years, no treaties have been signed. First Nations have borrowed about $150 million.
The working group's plan has been reviewed by Attorney General Geoff Plant, federal ministers Robert Nault and Stephen Owen and Kathryn Teneese and Bill Wilson of the First Nations Summit.
And since April three different teams - each with representatives from First Nations, federal and provincial governments and the treaty commission - have been working on practical plans to push things forward. Their reports are expected next week.
One of the key proposals is to move some of the bigger issues to provincial and regional negotiations.
Right now there are about 40 different negotiating tables. Rather than trying to reach agreement on certainty or First Nations' government at each, the parties would try for a province-wide solution.
It won't be easy. Individual First Nations have been reluctant to give up bargaining authority to a central group and the issues are difficult.
But the alternative is gridlock. The task force noted the waste in having 40 First Nations paying for accountants' studies on complex taxation issues, when the principles could be addressed on a provincial level.
And right now, at each table, all three parties are aware that they may be setting a precedent on key issues. The fear of reaching a deal that could alter the course of all future negotiations - and be widely criticized - is blocking agreement.
The task force has other ideas that will be tougher to put into effect. They argue that more effort should go into building treaties incrementally, seeking small agreements en route to a settlement.
The principle makes sense. But turning the idea into reality at the bargaining table will be difficult.
The report won't magically fix talks. In fact one useful recommendation is that all the parties look hard at whether agreement is possible, given their goals and mandates.
But the task force has taken a realistic look at fixing the process. Its proposals should be put to the test.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Poll first warning of big trouble for Campbell
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The first anniversary poll results should scare Gordon Campbell.
Oh, the Liberals still have the support of enough voters to win re-election handily.
But the Ipsos-Reid poll results show the Liberals are seen as mean, uncaring, reckless and untrustworthy by many voters. Give voters who feel that way an option, and they'll bolt.
The poll, taken in early May, found 62 per cent of British Columbians were disappointed with the Liberals' performance, with an even higher percentage feeling let down by Campbell. About half British Columbians think the province and its economy are in worse shape now than it was when the Liberals were elected. Only 20 per cent believe things have improved.
It gets worse. About 70 per cent say health care has deteriorated under the Liberals; 60 per cent say education has declined.
And despite things like the softwood lumber dispute, about 60 per cent blame the Liberals for the worsening situation.
Fixing the economy and protecting education and health were the cornerstones of the Campbell campaign. And they're getting failing grades on all three.
That should worry the Liberals plenty, especially as almost half the voters believe health care will be in even worse shape in three years. It will be tough to convince those people to stick it out through the tough times, especially if things haven't turned around in less than three years, when the next election campaign begins.
But that's not the really bad news.
Two out of three British Columbians think "the BC Liberals don't care about the people who are most affected by the changes they make" and the same number agree the government is making decisions without "really thinking them through."
Those are damaging findings. Voters will tolerate mistakes. And they'll accept short-term sacrifice for long-term gain, if they believe that the pain is shared fairly and truly necessary.
But they won't accept a government that doesn't care about their suffering, or that they can't trust.
Why do people feel that way?
Here's Campbell, in an anniversary interview with the Vancouver Sun, in his second try at answering a simple question - what would he say to someone whose life has gotten tougher under the Liberals, who has been laid off or lost benefits or is paying more for prescriptions?
"I say that we're doing our best to make sure we create an opportunity in the future for them that they can build on," Campbell offered.
What ever happened to sorry? What ever happened to thanking those who are losing out for making the sacrifice?
The poll also found almost half those surveyed said their trust in the Liberals has faded since the election. That's not surprising, given the gap between what the Liberals promised and what they have delivered. Few job losses, they promised, before eliminating one-third of government jobs. Contracts would be honoured, they said, before ripping them up. Health and education would be protected, they said, before approving funding that has forced cuts.
The LIberals have been quick to dismiss criticism, blaming poor communication or slagging opponents as "special interests."
But health care wait times have grown. School classes will be larger and support for students reduced. The economy is worse now than it was a year ago, with unemployment up and B.C. sliding lower in the economic growth forecasts. And the $4.4-billion deficit is the largest in history.
If an election were held today, the Liberals would get 45 per cent of the votes. That's enough for a big majority, especially as the opposition support is split between the Greens and the NDP. And about 60 per cent of voters still think the harsh actions now will pay off in the future.
If the Liberals want to hold that support, they need to look closely at the poll results, and acknowledge both the reality behind peoples' perceptions and the real pain being caused by some of their changes.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

So-so grades for Liberals' first year
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - So how are they doing, one year after the election?
The Liberals unleashed a flurry of activity in the first months after their win, ticking through their 90-day commitments and coming up with shockers like the massive, and it has to be said, reckless tax cut.
The problem in trying to assess just how well this government is doing is that there are few quick fixes in this world. Changing a health care system, for example, doesn't happen overnight, and the benefits come much more slowly than the pain.
But British Columbians are entitled to assess the government's performance in much the same way a wise shareholder would judge management. The new team deserves deserve time. But they also have to be held to account for performance so far.
On the economic front, that performance hasn't been good. The Liberals ran on a promise to restore prosperity. They introduced about $2 billion worth of tax cuts, promising they would stimulate the economy.
But since the Liberals were elected the unemployment rate has climbed almost two points, to 8.7 per cent. About 8,000 fewer people are working.
The broader economic outlook doesn't look much better. The most recent economic forecast, from the Bank of Montreal, predicts B.C.'s growth will fall from sixth in Canada to last this year. It will only climb to ninth next year.
And the deficit has climbed to a record $4.4 billion, thanks in large part to the tax cuts' effects on government revenue.
Shareholders would be getting mighty nervous about that kind of performance, even given the Sept. 11 and softwood shocks.
The standard management response is that it takes time to fix the mess left by the last guys, the economy has been rough and that things have to get worse before they get better.
Should we buy it? Probably. The Liberals have slowly been making the province more appealing to investors. The tax cuts will help, although not nearly as much a Finance Minister Gary Collins claimed. They have worked to reduce the barriers to investment for mining, aquaculture and energy companies, and the employment law changes introduced this week should also please business.But those moves have been undercut by the government's inability to develop an effective softwood lumber strategy.
The challenge for Premier Gordon Campbell is to turn the changes into more jobs and investment. So far that has not happened.
What about other areas?
The Liberals' promised new era in health care looks like the old era, only worse. When the Liberals were elected, you waited 17. 5 weeks for a hip replacement. Now you wait 18.9. When the Liberals were elected, doctors had engaged in sporadic regional protests. Now they're taking job action across the province. Communities are losing local access to health care.
Despite the problems, give them higher marks here. The Liberals have at least tackled the job of reforming the system.
The story in education is the same. The Liberals, by choking off the money supply, have brought larger classes, school closures and cuts to support for students - hardly what they promised. But again they have started a process that may lead to a more effective, affordable school system
There is a theme here. Governments making big changes are asking citizens to make a leap of faith, trusting that the changes will pay off and the government is competent and honourable.
And that's a problem for the Liberals. They promised improved education, and brought major cuts. They promised no significant civil service cuts, and then set cut one-third of jobs. They promised to respect contracts, and then ripped them up. It's not a record that inspires trust.
The bottom line?
Much has gone wrong, some things have gone right, interim results are poor.
But the direction, despite some major concerns, is both right and consistent with the election campaign.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Chretien mocks B.C's tough times
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Pierre Pettigrew thinks the softwood lumber dispute hasn't cost jobs in B.C., Jean Chretien thinks it's a joke and the provincial government has no solutions.
And forest communities are abandoned, the ultimate losers from this trade dispute.
First Pettigrew, the international trade minister. When the U.S. formally approved the 27 per cent duty on Canadian softwood lumber last week, opposition MPs asked Pettigrew what Canada would do to help communities and workers who have lost jobs.
No need, everything's fine, he said. "There was no direct job losses linked to the situation with the U.S.," Pettigrew said outside the Commons. "The government can't intervene every time there is a natural (restructuring) in one industry's market. We have to sort things out."
This is the guy who is supposed to be championing our cause, who sat through the softwood summit only days earlier and heard there would be another 35,000 lost jobs on top of the 15,000 already gone. He didn't offer that theory then.
Pettigrew's position isn't crazy. The industry's tough times didn't start with softwood duties. The government's own studies - most recently a review of the coastal sector by resource economist Peter Pearse - indicate more mills will close because the industry needs greater efficiency, no matter what the outcome of the dispute.
B.C. even had a small increase in the volume of softwood exported in the first quarter of this year, while job losses were mounting.
But Pettigrew's comment still defies common sense.
Canada exports about $10 billion a year worth of softwood to the U.S., with about half of that from B.C. The duty will add $1.5 billion to the costs of doing business for firms ij this province. Since industry profits in B.C. were $200 million last year, there is no chance they will be able to absorb that cost, and that means lost jobs and mill closures. Pettigrew is living in an economy fantasyland if he doesn't accept that reality.
It's hard to know what fantasyland is home to Chretien. He considered the dispute good for a cheap laugh line at a Montreal fund-raiser, saying maybe the Americans are imposing duties because they're mad that we beat them at hockey.
Even in the House of Commons, Chretien brushed off the seriousness of the threat and ruled out special aid. "We don't need to create new programs to deal with the problem," he said.
So no hope from Ottawa and no indication that they even get it.
Meanwhile, back in B.C., it's hard to feel significantly more confident in the government's handling of the issue. Think back to the premier's televised state of the province address in February. The speech was about 3,500 words long. Softwood was dealt with in only 10 words. "One way or another, we'll resolve the softwood lumber dispute," he said. That's not much attention, and it's no strategy.
The softwood summit - attended by industry and unions and government, including two federal ministers, was supposed to produce a "comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy." It didn't.
There are no easy answers. Canada will fight the duty at the World Trade Organization and under NAFTA, a process that could take several years. Forests Minister Mike de Jong promises that we will win. Canada has always always won the legal battles over whether we subsidize forest companies, he says. But that raises the obvious concern that those past victories meant little, or we wouldn't be in this mess.
In the meanwhile workers will get some help under existing employment insurance plans. The Liberals will finally launch the PR campaign in the U.S. that they have talked about since last year. Some companies will sue the U.S. Some will try to cut a deal, accepting a lower duty and giving up the idea of free trade.
And forest communities and the workers who live in them will face ruin, while their federal government refuses to take notice or provide meaningful help.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Canadians have betrayed their troops
By Paul WIllcocks
VICTORIA - The funerals are over for the four Canadian soldiers killed by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan. The flags have been raised again, the media has moved on and the families are left to face the hole left in their lives. In Ottawa, they're deciding whether to commit troops for another six months.
Now it's time for us to look in the mirror. The sorrow Canadians shared over those deaths was genuine. But it was also hypocritical, and our national shock at their deaths on the dark Afghan plain only compounds our shame.
The worst part is that the shock is genuine. Canadians collectively were stunned that our soldiers had been killed. We didn't think about what we were asking them to do when we joined this war. War is about killing and being killed in a chaotic environment. When we decided to join this odd war, we were condemning some Canadians troops to death.
Our shock shows that we did that without any real thought. The deaths were cruelly pointless. The soldiers of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were training when an American jet dropped a 250-kg bomb in their midst, killing four young men and wounding eight others.
But so-called friendly fire is a major cause of death in today's high-tech wars. About one-quarter of American casualties in the Gulf War were self-inflicted. About one-fifth of coalition casualties in Afghanistan have been linked to the same kind of errors. American and Afghan soldiers have been killed by U.S. bombs. Canadians should have known this would happen; certainly the government did.
And does it really matter how the men died? Would their families' loss be much different if they had been shot by the tattered remnants of al-Qaeda troops?
Our hypocrisy deepens. Many Canadians have expressed disappointment, even anger, at the American's response. The deaths were a non-event in the U.S., buried deep in the newspapers. President George Bush was slow to offer condolences. They just didn't matter.
But about 3,600 civilians have been killed in this war, people simply going about their business while bombers fly overhead and troops roll around the countryside. And we have paid no attention to their deaths. Those deaths, the families killed in their homes, the children run down in the street, are part of the price we agreed was necessary when we sent troops to Afghanistan.
War is about killing, although we don't like to acknowledge that reality. The U.S. military wants to honour four Canadian soldiers who fought alongside American units. They're extraordinarily skilled sharpshooters; one killed an enemy gunman 2.4 km away, a likely record. Canadian defence officials were hesitant to allow the recognition and David Bercuson, director of the University of Calgary's Centre of Military and Strategic Studies thinks he knows why.
"Canadians don't kill - they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem," he said. "I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact. . . that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people."
It is an extraordinary thing to ask someone to do on our behalf. To stare through sniper sight at another man, take a deep breath, squeeze the trigger. . .and then two seconds later, watch him fall down dead.
I've given too little thought to the mission our troops, some 900 on the ground and 1,700 in supporting roles, have been sent on. I haven't written anything about it.
I didn't even think much about that the decision to join U.S. combat troops, instead of a British-led peace-keeping force. (Canadian troops have an extraordinary peace-keeping tradition, at a high price. More than 100 Canadians have died on peace-keeping missions, more than any other country.)
Our casual indifference, sending our soldiers off to war with no real thought about that that means, was an insult to our troops. We should be ashamed.

Paul WIllcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Liberals botching long-term care
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals have made a botch of launching their long-term care strategy, stumbling through missteps that must leave seniors wondering if there is any plan at all.
The theory is excellent. Provide people with the help they need to stay in their home for a longer period. They'll be happier and taxpayers will save money. But the risks are high, especially if the beds and the support aren't there.
And based on the Liberals' actions so far, that's a serious concern.
The Liberals specifically promised 5,000 new , additional long-term care beds by 2006 in their New Era campaign booklet. The said then that 4,200 beds were needed immediately.
On Monday Kathryn Whittred, the minister responsible, shredded that promise.
She told open cabinet that a bed is no longer a bed; providing support for a senior at home would now count toward the commitment.
And while her cabinet colleagues sat silently, she abandoned the commitment to 5,000 additional beds. She announced 3,500 spaces, but most will replace beds the Liberals plan to close. Whittred didn't know how many beds would close; she didn't know how many beds would be needed in future.
The next day Health Minister Colin Hansen had the missing numbers. The five health regions will close 3,000 long-term care beds, he said, but they will replace them with 4,165 new spaces. That's a net gain of 1,165, far short of the promised 5,000, but Hansen said he felt comfortable explaining the change to his constituents.
The following day the story changed again. Hansen said he was confused. The Liberals will really build 5,000 beds.
That's tough to believe. Remember the Liberals plan to add 1,200 beds over the next three years - and then 3,800 in one year, after the election, to meet their commitment.
It's especially tough to believe when you look into the three-year plans of the health regions. The Vancouver Island region has 3,050 long-term care beds now. It plans a net gain of 180 spaces over three years. The Interior region plans to close almost one-third of the existing 4,700 long-term beds, and won't replace them all. There will actually be fewer spaces.
And where will the money come to provide these promised services? Adding 5,000 beds means something like $200 million more in operating costs, at time when health regions' budgets will be frozen for two years.
The puzzles pile up. Whittred told cabinet that closure decisions would be based on detailed information. "Through BCBC's health services group, a complete inventory has been taken of all residential care facilities," she said. "This information is made available to the health authorities to help them in planning their current and future needs." But the inventory isn't complete, even though the decisions are being made.
Whittred - and Premier Gordon Campbell - also promised no senior would be moved without consultation and a clear plan. But as they made that promise, the Interior Health Authority announced that the residents of Revelstoke's Moberly Manor have received 30-days' notice that their home will close. Residents would be moved into spare beds in the town's hospital, while the search is under way for a better home.
That's not consultation. And it's rough treatment for seniors, often ill, who have already had to give up their homes.
The health region faces its own rough choices. Money is extremely tight, especially given plans for cuts to regional budgets in the third year of the Liberals' plan. Closing the manor will save about $900,000 a year to provide other services.
The gap between the promises and the reality is rightly alarming seniors and their families.
The health care system needs to change, and the results are going to be difficult for some people.
But they should be able to count on sound planning, caution and candor. And so far, the government's handling of the long-term care question falls short on all three.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca



Our shame at sending the young to die
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The sorrow over the deaths of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is heartfelt, but our collective shock is stunningly hypocritical.
Did Canadians really think our troops were going to a war arranged by CNN, with great special effects and a happy ending?
War is about killing people. When we decided to join this odd war, we were deciding that some Canadian troops would die. Sadness is understandable, but shock or surprise means we never really thought about that decision.
The deaths were cruel. Soldiers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were training when an American jet aimed a laser-guided 500-pound bomb into their midst, killing four young men and wounding eight others.
But even that should be no surprise. About 25 per cent of American casualties in the Gulf War were due to so-called friendly fire. So far, about one-fifth of the coalition deaths in Afghanistan are blamed on the same errors. The U.S. has bombed both its own soliders, and Afghan troops. Being killed by the people on your own side is part of modern war. Canadians should have known that; certainly the government did.
And does it really matter how the men died? Would their families' loss be much different if their jeep had rolled over on a dusty road, or they had been attacked by the tattered remnants of al-Qaeda?
War is about killing and being killed, although we don't like to acknowledge that. The U.S. military wants to honour four Canadian soldiers for their work as snipers in Afghanistan. One of them killed an enemy gunman 2.4 kms away, a likely record for that kind of sharpshooting.
But Canadian defence officials are blocking the medals, and David Bercuson, director of the University of Calgary's Centre of Military and Strategic Studies thinks he knows why. "Canadians don't kill - they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem," he said. "I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact. . . that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people."
It must be a strange and damaging thing for both men, the one who stares through the rifle sight, holds his breath and squeezes the trigger. . . and the one who, two seconds later, falls down dead.
It's natural that we should feel a sharp sorrow. And it's natural that we should feel betrayed by the U.S., which treated the four deaths as a non-event - brief stories buried deep in the newspaper, no public condolences from President George Bush for two days.
But so far about 3,800 civilians have been killed in this war, people simply going about their business, trying to survive as bombers fly overhead and troops roll around the countryside. That too is part of the price of war we, as Canadians, have decided must be paid. Their deaths have been buried in our papers, or been ignored. We are no more interested in the people killed in their homes than the Americans are interested in our casualties.
I have given little thought to the mission our troops have been sent on, haven't written about it. Canada had two options - a peace-keeping role under British command, or a combat role under the U.S. Our government chose combat. I didn't even think much about that.
Our indifference was an insult to our troops, the 900 on the ground and the 1,700 in supporting roles. We watched them prepare, stood on the Victoria shore as the ships set off, waving little flags. But we didn't stop and think whether we wanted to send them to kill and be killed.
Now we're shocked that four Canadians have been added to the long list of those killed in this odd war.
Shame on us. We sent people off to kill and be killed with casual indifference. Only when they were dead did we really consider the price we had asked them to pay.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Health care change a needed gamble
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Give the Liberals pretty good marks for their health care changes.
It's not going to be pretty or fun, the next couple of years. The fact is, some people are probably going to die because care is 20 minutes farther away than it used to be. Some people are always going to die, even if a doctor followed each of us around every day.
But the reality is that the system can't keep rolling along in the same old way. Spending increased 6.5 per cent a year for the past five years; it already is about 40 per cent of the total provincial budget. Few of us want to see more and more of our income going to health care.
So the Liberals have frozen health care spending for the next two years, and divided the province into five regions, asking health boards to cut costs.
The regions unveiled their plans this week in a five-hour marathon press conference. It wasn't good news for many communities. The services they have come to expect will no longer be available in town. They will lose part of their economic base.
The new model relies heavily on centralization within the regions. Instead of six obstetricians in four hospitals, they will be grouped in two hospitals. Longer drives, but reduced overhead and a better chance of keeping specialists who can share on-call duties.
It also looks for significant savings from contracting out. Running a cafeteria isn't actually a necessary part of the health care business.
And it cuts back on the space available in the system, with hundreds of acute and long-term care beds being closed across the province.
The result is some 8,000 job losses across the system over the next three years.
The theories are all sound. The health region CEOs talked about how up to one in six hospital beds was being occupied by someone who didn't belong there, who needed lower cost care. Those people could move into long-term care. And up to one-third of the people in long-term care - nursing homes to you - could be in some sort of less costly, more independent assisted living.
Maybe. But most people I know are dragged, kicking and screaming, into long-term care. They might be reluctant to be moved out. And they might be justifiably concerned that the promised help would be clawed back as soon as times got tough. (That has been the pattern, after all.)
The health regions all received funding increases this year, averaging 7.4 per cent. The Island region got a larger increase, a reflection of past under-funding.
But that amount is slated to be frozen for the next two years, despite inflation, high wage settlements and population increases. The pressure on all programs will be intense.
How hungry will the health regions be for revenue? The Vancouver Coastal Region is looking to sell operations to Americans in off hours - Buy a bypass, get a free Canucks' ticket. Other regions are looking to charge for room amenities and sell the rights to be the official soft drink supplier to the hospital.
And that should be a concern. I was jarred to read a financial report on an American private hospital corporation that lauded its success at increasing revenue per patient. That measurement didn't seem to have much to do with health or efficiency.
But still, the Liberals have outlined a plan. Its basic strategic directions make sense. And by freezing funding they've forced change.
It would be helpful if they would simply admit that services will be reduced as a result of the funding freeze. The concept of more with less is beloved of managers, but in life one generally ends up doing less with less. The challenge is to be smart about what you stop doing.
British Columbians likely accept that. On with the experiment.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca



Courthouse closure battle shows Liberal weakness
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The brawl between Attorney General Geoff Plant and judges and lawyers is ultimately a sideshow, but it's one that demonstrates three of the Liberals' critical weaknesses.
Provincial court judges are mad at Plant over his plans to close 24 courthouses, and his failure to consult with them. Lawyers are angry about the same issue, and also about legal aid cuts that they say will deny many people access to justice. Lots of Liberal MLAs, facing anger back home about the courthouse closures, aren't much happier.
The tussle is an important one, even if few people are likely to pay much attention. A wrangle about the independence of the judiciary seems less important than the loss of a hospital.
But it's important to have an independent judicial system; that's one of our protections against abusive governments.
The issue here is what independent means. Chief Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan believes that independence means judges must have a significant say on whether courthouses should close. Plant believes that is a budget decision that is the responsibility of the government of the day.
Baird Ellan has a point. Surely a decision to close courthouses or make the job of judges more difficult or unpleasant could be used to interfere with the independence of the courts. It's tough to imagine that judges can really function independently if the government can choose to close courthouses without consultation.
Plant has a point too. He wants to save money, buy closing courthouses and cutting people off legal aid. He believes the voters gave the Liberals the right to make those decisions.
You get to decide who is correct.
But the whole battle highlights three serious weaknesses of this government.
First , Plant didn't consult with the judges - even in a superficial way - before he made the decision to close the court houses, although he did offer to discuss implementation after the fact.
That shows a government that thinks it has all the answers, that wisdom resides only at the centre. Shouldn't it have been seen as a possible that judges might just have some useful ideas on costs and efficiency? The move to ignore the advice of people in the system makes the government look arrogant and unreasonable. It also makes them vulnerable to big mistakes.
Second, the fact that the cuts were made without consultation indicates that they were made without a real plan. Critics have been fearful that the Liberals have set targets for spending cuts arbitrarily, without really considering the impact of the changes. The courthouse closures support that. A serious review couldn't have been done without consulting the judges.
Finally, the spat highlights the gap between the positions the Liberals took in opposition and their new stance.
The NDP tried to close fewer court houses, and Plant was critical. The chaos that would result wouldn't justify the savings, he said then.
He was an even sharper critic of the NDP's practise of siphoning money from a special tax on lawyers' services - intended to pay for legal aid - into general revenues. Now his government is increasing the tax and diverting about 10 times as much money into its coffers, while cutting more than one-third of legal aid within three years. It's a dramatic flip-flop on what was once a question of principle.
The Liberals aren't likely to retreat. Baird Ellan wrote Plant saying the judges had lost confidence in him as attorney general, but then fell silent. The Law Society of B.C. is suing over the legal aid cuts and closures, and its members will meet May 21 in an extraordinary meeting to vote on censuring Plant. Plant observes correctly that all he needs is the confidence of Premier Gordon Campbell.
But politically and practically, consultation would have been the right course, the one that created the best chance of a good public policy decision.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

If the workers are messed up, so are we
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Sure, morale stinks in lots of offices. One of the rituals of working life is complaining about the bosses' stupidity.
But the workplace problems in the B.C. government, revealed in the latest report from the province's auditor general, go far beyond the usual grumbling.
And although your first reaction may be a shrug - who cares if other people like their jobs - the problems are serious. They cost you money and hurt the service you get from government.
Auditor General Wayne Strelioff's report didn't come as a surprise to Premier Gordon Campbell, but it should still have given him a nasty jolt.
Strelioff's report was based on a survey of thousands of government workers in January, 2001. The research revealed a discouraged, frustrated workforce, made up of people who don't trust their bosses. They don't believe their leaders have any clear idea about that their departments are trying to accomplish and are afraid to offer suggestions in case they get in trouble.
If the issue was their happiness, you could likely afford to shrug.
But the real issue is organizational effectiveness - how well government works. And the auditor-general's report establishes that the organization is too sick to provide high-quality service.
The report compared the B.C. government ranks with other organizations, and found it failed to come close to the standards maintained by effective organizations.
The biggest problem is leadership. "I was disappointed to discover that employees in the B.C. public service do not trust or have confidence in their leaders," Strelioff found. "This issue permeated all of our findings and stood out overwhelmingly."
Only about 25 per cent of government employees were satisfied with their leaders. Managers were given low ratings for honest and open communications and rated as poor at providing direction or feedback.
And good ideas aren't seen as welcome. Two out of three employees believed that questioning policy or the way things are done would likely lead to criticism or punishment.
"Employees are not likely to suggest improvements or take reasonable risks if successes are unrewarded and mistakes are punished," Mr. Strelioff observes. Sounds like my workplace, you might be saying. But Strelioff compared results with surveys used to assess the best Canadian companies to work for. In those organizations about three our of four employees gave their leaders positive ratings - about three times the level of confidence and trust reported by B.C. government employees.
Young workers are particularly disgruntled. "They perceive a bureaucratic, slow-paced, hierarchal structure unattractive to young workers," the report found. "With the downsizing currently under way, the attraction of the public service as a place of employment is not likely to improve over the next few years."
It's not the Liberals' fault, although it's likely the results would be worse if the survey was repeated today.
But it is their problem. The Liberals plan a big, radical change to smaller, more creative, efficient government. That's not something you order; it's something motivated employees create.
The Liberals have promised some of the right changes, and made a big start by pulling together about 200 "leaders of today and tomorrow," including every deputy minister, for a leadership conference last week, with Campbell kicking things off.
But the Liberals still have to deal with their own broken promises about job cuts and their tendency to dismiss government workers as people not quite good enough to have made their way in the private sector.
It won't make headlines, and it's slow, hard work. But restoring trust to the government workplace may be one of the Liberals' greatest challenges.

Health cuts coming: Liberal MLAs got a detailed briefing on health cuts at a special caucus meeting Sunday. The rest of us will get the word on hospital closures and layoffs next week, with an open cabinet meeting Monday expected to set the stage for detailed announcements Tuesday.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Referendum running into major problems
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Two very bad things happened to the Liberals in the early days of their treaty referendum.
Lots of unpleasant things happened. The Anglican Church called on people to vote no. The B.C. Federation of Labour and other groups representing seniors, women and environmentalists called for a boycott. Attorney General Geoff Plant had trouble making the exercise sound in any way meaningful.
But two really bad things happened.
First, pollster Angus Reid offered his views on the referendum's legitimacy. Reid is no special interest axe-grinder. He is arguably Canada's most respected pollster.
Reid got his referendum package last week, and chose to offer his assessment in the Vancouver Sun.
"The British Columbia aboriginal referendum is one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the public will that I have seen in my professional career. Though we can be justifiably concerned about the cost of this initiative, its deeper harm comes in the false picture it will give of the true state of attitudes on this complex question and, even worse, its pretense that this kind of flimsy exercise is a legitimate way to divine the public will," Reid wrote.
In his polling career, Reid went on, groups had often asked him to do polls on questions that were constructed to produce the desired answer, not find out what people really thought about an issue. "How can we take this exercise seriously when the government distorts the ballot in such a way that the answers they are looking for all involve placing an X beside the "Yes" box?"
It was a devastating critique that portrayed the referendum as an amateurish con.
Reid was also among several observers who raised the issue of the Quebec referendums on separation.
Their questions have become so twisted that in the last vote more than 30 per cent of the people who voted 'yes' thought they were voting for a continued place in Canada; so twisted that the Canadian Parliament passed laws to ensure future sovereignty votes would be based on clear, simple questions.
How would B.C. Liberals react if the Quebec government ran such a twisted referendum and used it to justify breaking away from Canada?
In Quebec, at least a no vote has meaning, even if the result is simply to force the Parti Quebecois to wait a few years until they try again.
In the B.C. referendum, citizens can't tell the government no. Plant has been clear. A yes vote to any of the referendum's eight questions would mean the government will adopt that principle as a starting point in negotiations.
But what if the public says no? What if, to consider one question, the public says no to the principle that First Nations self-government should be restricted to the same kinds of powers that a B.C. village of 900 people wields?
That doesn't mean the government will accept that result, says Plant. The Liberals don't believe in self-government that offers other First Nations the same powers the Nisga'a negotiated. It won't be bound by the referendum if the public has a different view.
Binding if it suits them, not binding if it doesn't. Not a particularly fair hand.
The best result is still a no vote. Take the time to fill out the forms and mark no for all eight questions, sending the message that the referendum is a sham and all three governments should get on with the real work of negotiating treaties.
The referendum has simply delayed treaty-making a year, created more division and deprived all British Columbians of needed economic opportunity.
Vote no. Then tell your MLA you want your government to make an honest effort to reach a fair deal on your behalf.
Because ultimately, that's all we can do.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Kwan bungled, but no harm, no foul

By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - My desk in the legislature is a metaphor, I think.
The Press Gallery is up under the eaves of the third floor, a dead end at the top of the stairs, with a TV room with a battered couch and a couple of good chairs and another room full of desks that look like Bob Cratchit once used them to tally figures figures for Ebenezer Scrooge.
The walls are covered with black and white photos of life in the gallery. On the stairs, there are annual membership photos going back almost 100 years, when five men in black suits and fearsome mutton chops kept watch over the politicians.
My desk is slightly messy, but an iBook - a fairly cool laptop computer - sits in the middle. Small mountains of reports and clipping threaten my safety, but most research is actually done on-line.
I am slightly messy - maybe more some days - but I'm wearing a tie, and my jacket is close at hand, because without both I'm barred from the halls outside the chamber.
The days unfold with an odd combination of ceremony and cynicism. I join the scrums around cabinet ministers, and treat them with some deference while asking whatever questions I think you would like answered, and they generally respond.
It's a strange, even weird, place. People still dress in costume to do their jobs. Rules, written and unwritten, govern most aspects of behaviour, but wretchedly rude and imature behaviour is considered normal inside the chamber, where MLAs squabble like chickens.
But the rules and traditions provides at least some protection for the rights of citizens.
Which leads, by a slightly indirect route, to Jenny Kwan.
Kwan, an NDP MLA, is deservedly in trouble. She's being investigated by a legislative ethics' committee after some of the recommendations of a draft report on the future of education were leaked by B.C. Teachers' Federation head David Chudnovsky. Kwan - a member of the committee until she resigned - has admitted that she showed the draft recommendations to several stakeholders, including a B.C.Teachers' Federation representative. Her explanation is that she wanted to enlist their help in preparing her own report.
Kwan did well initially, acknowledging the error almost as soon as Liberal Reni Masi raised the point. It's a measure of the state of political life that some people questioned her wisdom in 'fessing up, instead of lauding her for doing the right thing. She's backtracked since then, offering up justifications for what is ultimately a breach of trust.
There is a certain amount of strategic leaking around here. The government has given First Nations a report by a committee of MLAs on offshore oil, while keeping it secret from the public. It's not a legislative committee, so they get to make that decision.
But legislative committees are different. The MLAs agree they'll keep the report confidential until its made public. The issue is only partly confidentiality; it's also one of trust. Kwan broke that promise.
She's expressed dismay at the possibility that the teachers' federation rep leaked the information. But if a friend confides in you, in confidence, and you tell someone else who blabs, that's your fault. You, like Kwan, broke the trust.
Kwan's offence now goes to an ethics committee to decide if she should be sanctioned. Punishment can be quite serious.
But the committee shouldn't get overly exercised, or invest too much time.
Kwan's action wasn't damaging, except to herself. She looks inept, a person who can't keep a secret or use good judgment in sharing information, and should be embarrassed, like anyone caught betraying a trust.
Kwan behaved badly, and would do well to acknowledge that instead of making excuses. No serious harm was done. On to some more substantial issues.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Best referendum bet is a careful no vote
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I hadn't really thought how I'd respond to the treaty referendum until last week, sitting in a Victoria courtroom. The details don't really matter. There will be other attempts by First Nations to challenge the referendum.
But the ballots are landing in peoples' homes right now, and it's time to start trying to figure out what to do.
I'm a pragmatist, with experience in labour negotiations. That wasn't always fun, but it was educational.
One lesson was that a clear, simple mandate for negotiators worked best. If my masters said get a contract that allows work flexibility and doesn't add more than $2 million to costs, then I had room to meet the union's concerns. If they tried to define every detail of a contract, then things would likely go badly. And as a pragmatist, that's one of the reasons I think the referendum is a bad, destructive exercise.
Attorney General Geoff Plant says the referendum will be binding on government, sort of, maybe, not really. The referendum asks for support for principles, he said this week. A commitment to being guided by those principles would be binding on the government. But actually acting in accord with them isn't required, Plant said.
And I can't help but think like a negotiator. Right now, if a First Nation wants a couple of acres carved from a park, negotiators can offer that at the table.
But the Liberals' referendum asks for support for the principle that "Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians." If that becomes binding, then negotiators would lose the ability to offer even a tiny plot of land from a park, sort of, maybe.
And for what purpose? Is there anyone who really thinks that negotiators don't know that handing over Pacific Rim National Park to the Nuu-chah-nulth would be cause problems?
Other questions are less benign.
After last week's court hearing Hupacasath Chief Judith Sayers said the referendum could end negotiations. If voters support the principle that "Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia," then First Nations will walk, she says.
First Nations believe their legal right to self-government is clear. If the province, guided by the referendum, refuses to acknowledge that, some First Nations will end the talks, leading to more economic uncertainty and court cases.
There are limits to the governmental powers that can be ceded to First Nations, and a need to ensure equality of all citizens. But negotiators were able to resolve those issues while giving the Nisga'a powers that go beyond any municipal government. Plant confirmed that if the public vote yes, the government would be bound - sort of, maybe - to reject future treaties based on the Nisga'a model.
First Nations are boycotting the referendum. Some opponents have proposed bundling up ballots and sending them off to First Nations. Others plan to spoil their ballots as a protest against the whole process. Details of those plans will become clear.
But there's a strong argument for voting no to all eight propositions, sending the message that the principles that have governed negotiations so far - and the freedom to find creative solutions at the bargaining table - should be maintained.
The treaty process hasn't worked well.
But a yes vote to the propositions put forward by the government will make things worse, ending negotiations and leading First Nations to try to exert economic and legal pressure.
It's tempting to boycott the referendum, or send in a spoiled ballot. (That process takes care - only signed, properly spoiled ballots will be counted.)
But what's needed is strong no votes as a message to government that British Columbians don't want arbitrary, vague questions to lead to a deadlock.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Uneasy truce with doctors, but no peace
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's mixed news for the Liberals.
Premier Gordon Campbell deserves credit for reaching the deal with the B.C. Medical Association, using his personal credibility and powers of persuasion to convince doctors that the government understands and is sympathetic to their concerns.
But it should chagrin Liberals to recognize that the doctors don't think much of the government's integrity. A key element in the temporary truce with doctors was a personal pledge from Campbell that the government wouldn't keep on breaking its written agreements.
The last thing the Liberals needed was a full-scale job protest by doctors. The flashback to the last years of the NDP, as they struggled to deal with protests by northern and rural doctors, would be too vivid.
The specialists who were heading the protest - surgeons, anesthetists and others - have decided to halt the action for 30 days, giving the BCMA and the government a chance to negotiate a lasting peace based on the memorandum of agreement.
There's little new in that agreement. It confirms the extra $392 million for doctors' fees will remain in the budget for the next three years. Doctors had received mixed signals over that issue, but it always seemed to be the government's intention. It also protects extra funding for rural doctors.
And it commits the government to attempt to negotiate some kind of dispute resolution to replace the binding arbitration that the Liberals took away from the doctors with Bill 9. That tough job will be critical for long-term peace.
Campbell says there's no chance the solution will be binding arbitration. That doesn't work, he said again, again blasting former chief justice Allan McEachern for ignoring his mandate. McEachern's award was often murky, but it's inaccurate to say he ignored the question of affordability. He simply came up with an analysis the Liberals didn't like, so the government reneged on its commitment.
It's not going to be easy to ease the deeper anger of doctors.
The province's position is that adding $392 million to the budget for doctors fees is an 11-per-cent increase, about $50,000 for each of the province's 7,800 doctors. That's an increase greater than the earnings of the forestry workers facing layoffs because of the softwood lumber dispute. The government was also prepared to start reminding the public that doctors were big beneficiaries of the tax cuts, to the tune of some $15,000 to $20,000. It hasn't been a bad year for their take-home pay, and if the government took that message to the public it would likely be well-received.
But some doctors are going to argue that they haven't had a real increase in years, and that the $392 million means an increase of about 3.5 per cent a year when averaged over three years, with much of that taken up by increasing use of the system. (Some doctors wrongly believe that the amount will be increased to cover growing demand for service. That's not the government's intention, and once that becomes clear it will be a major issue.)
And based on the ones who were speaking out in Victoria this week, many aren't much concerned about the public's view.
The battle could continue for some time, both inside the BCMA and with the government.
It's still a timely victory for the Liberals, who very much need doctors onside as they move ahead with cuts to health care services across the province. Managing the kind of major change the Liberals hope for, including hospital closings and service cuts, will require planning help and support from doctors. That's at least somewhat more likely now.
And given the inevitable protests, the last thing the Liberals needed was a fight with doctors and growing waiting lists.
Consider it a lull though, not a peace. The hard work of reaching a real truce with doctors still lies ahead.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Little hope for forest communities in Campbell's words
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell offered up all the right sentiments this week, responding to the U.S. duty on softwood lumber.
It was a brutal decision, he said. An assault on families who reached out to help the Americans after Sept. 11. The most serious threat to Canada-U.S. relations in our time.
But families looking for hope had to pick through the words carefully to get more than reassurance that the government feels their pain. There's no quick cure to the problem, no assurance of victory now or in the future.
The effects of the U.S. actions will be devastating. The new duties will average 29 per cent on any softwood sold into the U.S. That's supposed to reflect the unfair advantage Canadian producers gain from subsidies.
B.C. exports about $5 billion a year worth of lumber to the U.S. in normal times, about half the Canadian total. Companies will now have to pay about $1.5 billion in duties if they export the same amount of wood.
They can't afford that. Last year total industry profits were about $200 million. That means that many companies can't export the wood without losing money on every shipment.
Since preliminary duties were introduced, the industry has lost about 15,000 jobs. That toll is likely to double now. And it will felt most sharply by communities already reeling from other economic problems - including government cuts.
Campbell acknowledged that. But the government so far has little concrete to offer.
Canada will press on with appeals to the World Trade Organization and under NAFTA, a process that could take years. Campbell promised that Canada would win those appeals, but families should think carefully before sinking deeper into debt, waiting for those victories to bring their jobs back. This change may be permanent.
The province will hold an emergency summit on softwood, bringing together companies, unions and provincial and federal governments. They'll come up with a "comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy." That's a useful exercise, but it won't much alter today's reality.
B.C. and Ottawa are talking about ways of helping families hurt by the decision. But it's disappointing that five months after Campbell started talking about the need to help families, there's no plan in place.
Those families do deserve aid, to allow them to survive until the victory is won - or to move on to new work in new places.
But B.C. won't support aid to industry, in part because the U.S. would just point to it as another unfair subsidy. While the governments' caution is reasonable, it's too soon to rule out loan guarantees that would let companies hang on until the dispute is resolved.
And the government is finally going to launch a public relations campaign in the U.S., arguing that the duty allows American companies to charge more for lumber, pushing up housing costs.
That's a huge challenge, but it's a measure that should have been under way a year ago. Campbell defended B.C.'s decision to postpone any campaign after the Sept. 11 attacks. That looks now like a bad decision.
And B.C. will continue forest sector reform and looking for new markets.
Not a bad list. But quite a vague one, especially given how long the government has to prepare for this day.
Sadly, Canada and B.C. don't have a lot of options. We need trade with the U.S. much more than they do. And most forms of economic retaliation - like taxing energy exports - would mainly hurt the Canadian industry. Even banning raw log exports would cost needed jobs in the woods.
The only real hope is for a lumber price increase which would allow companies to sell into the U.S. and make at least a small profit.
In the meantime, the government should unveil real plans to help families facing unemployment as a result of a trade dispute that their governments assured them would be resolved.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

Liberals flip-flop on urgent need to rescue children
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - What can you do if your 14-year-old daughter skips school, starts using heroin and living in a cheap motel twice her age? What can you do if she refuses all help and takes off for downtown Vancouver?
Just about nothing, right now. And the Liberals have broken their commitment to change the law to allow children in imminent danger to be held for treatment, whether they like it or not.
It's not an abstract issue. Parents confront similar problems every day. And what they find is that under B.C. law no one can help them; a parent who drags a child home could be the one who ends up in court.
That's outrageous, that we can let a child choose to die through reckless and dangerous behaviour and do nothing.
The Liberal used to think so too. They repeatedly demanded the NDP enact a secure care law, one that would allow children at risk, perhaps working as prostitutes or living in crack houses, to be plucked from danger. The New Democrats dragged their feet, finally passing a poor law that they never implemented.
The Liberals were clear: secure care was urgently needed and should be a priority for the New Democrats.
Only one year before the election Gordon Campbell rose in the legislature and demanded the NDP act on a 1998 task force report outlining a sound plan for secure care.
"This is a problem that has been identified for years in this province," Campbell said them. "We know that there are countless families in the province of British Columbia who understand the urgency and the necessity for providing secure care for our children and youth in this province. Again my question to the minister is: what is the holdup? Why is the minister stalling on this matter, which has been so clearly identified as a matter of true risk to the children in the province?"
That was then. Now the Liberals are in power and what once was an urgent matter of life and death has become a low priority.
Childrens Minister Gordon Hogg says the government won't introduce a safe care bill this spring. The Liberals have too many bills to pass, and secure care won't be introduced before the 2003-4 sitting.
Even then, the bill will be much narrower in its focus than the legislation the Liberals supported in opposition.
The Liberals deserve credit for abandoning the NDP's effort. Any such legislation has to balance the rights of the child with the need for protection. The NDP bill, by allowing detention for up to 100 days, went too far.
But their failure to act is shameful.
Hogg offers some justifications, including the cold reality that even if children were plucked from danger, they couldn't get treatment. There's not enough space for seriously troubled youth voluntarily seeking treatment. "We don't have a lot of resources in place," Hogg said. "That's partly why I'm not uncomfortable with not getting on the legislative agenda."
That's not an explanation the Liberals accepted in opposition. Then, they argued the government had a duty to provide services for children at risk. The NDP expected about 10 children at a time would be held under the act - hardly an impossible burden.
Hogg also said the Liberal bill will narrow the focus of secure care to sexually exploited children.
That's not enough. The task force recommendations, accepted by the Liberals, stressed that the plan must include children at risk of serious harm from drug addiction or physical danger, not just sexual exploitation.
Hogg says parents of 13-year-old drug addicts should call the police, have them arrested and hope they'll get help through the courts.
But parents have tried that, and found the courts and over-burdened police are set up to deal with criminals, not lost children.
The Liberals are offering too little, too late.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

B.C. politics look better from 6,000 kms away
By Paul Willcocks
ATHENS - Where are you from, asks the waiter, as we settle into the open air restaurant beside a small square in Athen's old Turkish Quarter.
Canada, British Columbia, we offer, not sure how much detail to provide.
Ah, says the waiter. Fast ferries. You had a very bad government you had to throw out.
So much for escaping B.C. politics.
To be fair the waiter had worked in Vancouver, about 25 years ago. And he had received a news update from another diner a few days earlier.
But the encounter was a reminder that when your work involves thinking about B.C. politics every day, it's hard to turn things off.
The next day we climbed up winding lanes to the Acropolis, where work crews and mobile cranes struggled to preserve the Parthenon from the ravages of time and pollution, it being too late to save it from the damage caused by the explosion of a Turkish munitions store some 400 years ago or the raids of Lord Elgin in the 19th Century. (Which raises the question of whether it isn't time for a boycott of British products until their government agrees to a responsible plan to return the Elgin Marbles - the finest part of the Parthenon existing - from the British Musem to an appropriate home in Athens?)
What I wondered, slightly pathetically, was whether the Campbell Liberals would have privatized the Acropolis, handing management over to whomever can come up with the best business plan. After all, that's apparently the approach to be taken to heritage sites in B.C.
It would be cheaper, but I'm not sure having an amiminatronic Aprhodite greeting visitors in Disney fashion would really add to the experience.
These troublesome thoughts of B.C. politics won't go away. How do private ferry operators in Greece cover greater distances at a much lower cost than BC Ferries? (Though it's only fair to note that this week the former chairman of one company appeared in court in connection with a sinking 18 months ago that killed 80 people.) Why is local wine available in plastic bottles for less than $2 a litre. How can a stay in a hotel room with a kitchen, two bedrooms and a view over a stunning beach cost less than $40?
There are some obvious answers. Greeks have the second lowest per capita income in the European Union. Education is free - including university - but the system is starved for funds and most parents scrap together money for private tutoring to help children win scarce university places. Hospitals are so short of money that families are expected to bring in the meals. And 2,000 Greeks die each year on the roads, about 15 times the Canadian rate, as highway construction and maintenance lags growing pressure.
Are poor schools, health care and sinking ferries the price paid for cheap wine, low taxes, and low costs?
It's not a question can a brief visit can answer.
But in Sparta the man who runs a small restaurant on the main street offers his view. He spent 21 years in Toronto before coming home a decade ago.
He's not sure about that decision now. Health care is so much better in Canada, he says, and things so much more efficient.
Maybe I should have stayed, he says a little sadly.
On a small island the man who runs the waterfront grocery store has a similar story. He went to Montreal as a teenager and worked hard for 20 years before coming home.
It was a mistake, he says. He's working harder now, for less, and sees a tough time ahead.
Canada offered more, he says, looking out at the beach.
Greece has sun, low costs, a thriving culture.
But for the people who live there, Canada seems a very fine place indeed.

Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca

"These ones, I was thinking of."

She holds a plate in front of him, heavy china, shiny under the store's halogen lights, cream with little rust flecks and a band of dark red around the outside.

"It looks fine," he says. It looks like dried blood, he thinks.

She looks at his face, wonders if the china is wrong, feels something stir inside, hears a dry breeze that's not there. She writes down the name of the china pattern in tight square letters in a little notebook, thin paper and brown leather binding. "Come look at some sheets they have."

He limps a little, glad to hang back a step, tasting the pain where he can imagine his bones grinding, watching her back, wondering if he will recognize her in two years, wondering when she started to dress like someone he didn't know.

The sheets are cotton, as fine and smooth as ice. The clerk - young, thin, tall, smooth-skinned - approves, pulls out cream and ivory and ecru, drapes them across the display bed where they shine expensively. He tries to imagine the sheets spread across their bed, but it feels like he's watching a movie.

Across the floor a woman steps from a dressing room. It is as large as a bedroom, a pair of jeans twisted on the floor, one black boot lying on its side. She wears a dark dress, lost between red and black, and stops in front of the mirror to study herself, pulling it down off her shoulders, then sudenly twirling, once, twice, three times, the dress spinning out and her legs flashing, one knee scraped and red. She laughs, starts to shrug off the dress before she is back in the dressing room.

The coat was right. Carson saw it hanging from the ceiling, above the racks, shining blue-black , like the hair of beautiful and dark women.
He edged past a woman with purple hair holding a beaded dress draped in front of her, stretched up to look at the coat. Small neat handwriting on the tag said it was made from monkey skins, in the ‘40s.
But it was $700.
He’d bought her a fur coat three years before, when the company had handed him a surprising $1,100 bonus at the end of the year.
“Good for a fur coat,” the card said, 11 $100 bills in the envelope, propped in the branches of their artificial Christmas tree. That turned out to be not much money in a fur store. The coat was coyote faces, long, to her knees and her tall brown leather boats. When they left the store he lagged a step or two behind on the street. staring at her back., trying to find the features in the patterns of light and dark brown, the sun bright white off the snow.
She had stopped wearing it about a year later.
“Is it because of the fur thing?” he’d finally asked her, pretending to have just noticed.
Liz had switched from wine to vodka then, kept icy in the freezer. She took a sip, licked her upper lip, slid off the counter to move into the living room, so he could half see her through the opening to the kitchen.
“No, it’s not that. I just don’t want to wear it right now.”
Carson had been chopping a yellow pepper into thin strips, the pieces leaving the knife like small twisting animals.
“It looked good, I thought.”
But she didn’t answer and hadn't worn the coat.
He reached high, touched the monkey skin coat, soft, not what he expected, like a child’s hair.
They put the coat in a box for him, folded in a tissue paper nest. He was lighter, the box under his arm, a little bounce in his step when he crossed the street. Standing on the bus he leaned back against the pole with both hands in his pockets, the box tucked under his arm, bending his knees and balancing when the bus stopped or went around corners.
The air even smelled different when he got off outside the condo. Raw earth, like someone had been pawing at the muddy ground, and a softness that came from the ocean, even though they were almost four miles inland.
She was in the kitchen. They had laughed when they bought the place at even calling the narrow space a kitchen, a counter and gas stove on one side, fridge and sink on the other, barely enough room for two people to pass. In the first weeks, Liz had sat on the counter, drinking wine, while he played cook, pasta and rice and seafood, bread from the breadmaker.
Now she was eating an apple cut into small sections. He held the box behind him, watched her dip the apple into the vodka, hold it submerged as if the thick liquid could freeze it.
“I got you something,” he said, and before she could think what to say slide the box towards her.
“What is it?” Liz didn’t move. She was just home from the office.
“A surprise, that’s all. It seemed right.”
Carson set it on the counter beside her, called to her from the next room as he hung his coat up.
“Open it. It won’t hurt you.”
Liz was staring at him when he came around the corner. She hadn’t touched the box.
“It’s a gift.” She kept watching, and he edged past, careful not to touch her, poured a large glass of her vodka.
He leaned against the counter, waited until she pulled the box open.
“It’s a coat. I saw it at Second Chance, and thought of you.”
She touched it, pulled a sleeve loose from the box and held it lightly in her hand, white fingers on blue-black.
“It’s monkey skins.” He took a drink, watched her as she just stared at the coat. “It’s vintage.”
He couldn’t see her eyes. Her head was tilted forward and her hair, a dark brown, hung in front of her face.
“You really shouldn’t have.”
“Try it on. See if it fits.”
“You really shouldn't have,” she said, quietly.
“Please,” he said. “Just try it on.”
Liz walked across the kitchen and touched the switch, making the lights brighter. She got the vodka, poured the glass half full, it coming out like heavy syrup, turning the outside of the glass white with frost. She took a drink, and her eyes shone.
“You don’t want to do this, do you?”
“I just want to see if it fits, if it’s you. Just try it on.”
“And it’s monkey skins?”
He nodded.
Liz pulled the sweater over her head, got it tangled in her hair, threw it over his head into the eating area. She had on a cream bra, and took it off too, then undid the skirt and let it fall to the floor, kicked off her underwear. Her feet were bare.
The coat looked even blacker in the bright light and against her white skin. It came to halfway to her knees. Her thighs were white, with a thin blue vein running under the skin inside her left leg.
“All right?” She brushed her hair back and looked at him, held her arms out from her side, the coat, unbuttoned, stretching open. “All right?”
She turned slowly, all the way around. Her arms were still out, brushed against the wall. He saw the monkey skins, hundreds it must have taken, draped over her, white and black, soft and shiny.
“All right?”
She dropped the coat from her shoulders, let it slide to the floor behind her, and stared at him.
“I’ll be back for my things,” she said, and turned and walked into the bedroom to dress. He folded the coat carefully before he put it back in the box.