Fixing the pension crunch before it's too late

Canadians are worrying about pensions these days.

But for the most part, the worrying isn't translating into much constructive action. The B.C. government deserves credit for leading a push to change that.

The concern is understandable. Once people could count on workplace pension plans and basic government pensions to cover a relatively short retirement.

But companies have been getting out of the pension business and trimming benefits. Private pension plan coverage peaked two decades ago; today, only 25 per cent of British Columbians have a workplace plan.

RRSPs were supposed to encourage people to save on their own. But personal savings rates have been falling since 1982. (Although home equity is a source of retirement income for many.)

The core problem is that our system of retirement incomes hasn't evolved with these changes.

Canada's current pension system rests on three pillars.

Basic public pensions are paid from tax revenues and are intended to keep people from the grimmest poverty.

Old age security and the guaranteed income supplement together provide about $1,170 a month for people with no other source of income. (Which is, it's worth noting, about 30 per cent more than a disabled person is supposed to survive on under B.C.'s income assistance program.)

The Canada Pension plan is the second pillar. It provides defined benefits for people who have worked based on their contributions over their careers. The highest benefit is about $935 a month.

Those public pensions are relatively poor compared with other developed countries. But that mattered less when working Canadians could count on a plan through their employer or union and their own savings.

An analysis done last year found middle-income Canadians face the greatest retirement crunch. Poor people experience a relatively small drop in post-retirement income because they already don't have much. Rich people tend to have savings and workplace plans.

Those in the middle face the steepest decline in income.

Time is running out for action. The big bulge of baby boomers is heading toward long retirements.

This is not just a problem for them.

Remember, for example, that the basic old age pension is paid from current tax revenues.

Back in 1971, there were 6.2 British Columbians of working age for every person over 65. Today, the ratio is 4.3 to one. And by 2034, there will be 2.4 people of working age for every person over 65.

So in 1971, six people of working age shared the cost of providing the basic pension for one retiree. In 2034, just 2.4 people will be sharing the cost. That's a greater burden. And the political clout of the baby boom gang could lead them to pressure politicians to bump up pensions at the same time.

Premier Gordon Campbell has promised improvements. In October 2008, he made pension reform the second item in his 10-part plan to respond to the global economic crisis. B.C. was prepared to push ahead on its own if a national agreement couldn't be reached, he said.

Progress has been slow, but that's not surprising. The issues are complex.

Campbell's proposal would see a new voluntary pension plan created. There would be no tax benefits and employers could choose whether to contribute. Pensions would be based on the amount of money contributed.

Which sounds much like an RRSP without the tax breaks.

But there would be advantages. The fund would be managed by existing public sector pension management agencies. That would mean participants would avoid management and sales fees, which can eat up RRSP and mutual fund returns.

And there would be safety and security for people contributing to the plan.

But it's far from the only option. And deciding on the plan is not even the first question. The starting points should be what kind of retirement income are we striving for and how we believe responsibility should be shared.

I'll look at that in a future column - but not until after the budget.

Footnote: The provincial government has started consultations on pension reform. It has useful background here and people have until the end of March to offer comments.

Inside the decision to kick miners out of the Flathead

One of the big throne speech surprises was the promise to ban mining and oil and gas development from the Flathead Valley in the East Kootenay.

The valley is north of the Montana border, beside a U.S. national park. It's the headwaters for the Flathead River, a big deal in Montana. For decades, there has been cross-border wrangling. B.C. wanted the area open for resource activities. Montana wanted it protected.

Now Montana has won.

There are several interesting aspects to this.

First, the decision undermines critics who say the Liberal government is pro-industry. The Mining Association of B.C. called the ban "dismaying," claiming it was unfair political interference. The environmental assessment process should determine whether companies could go ahead with coal, gold and coalbed methane projects, it said, adding that the decision will cost jobs and tax revenue.

Second, it offered a glimpse at how decisions are made. Environmental groups in Montana have been active in calling for a ban. And there has been some high-profile political pressure. U.S. Sen. Max "Blame Canada" Baucus went to a meeting in Fernie in 2005 to oppose coal-mining plans and got a hostile reception from Liberal MLA Bill Bennett.

You can get the tone from Bennett's subsequent legislature speech when he wondered what "unscrupulous, traitorous twit" invited Baucus, who was a big antagonist in the softwood lumber dispute.

But at the same time, Montana Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer was meeting quietly with Premier Gordon Campbell over five years. They came to trust each other, Schweitzer said. They worked hard to keep the talks secret and out of the news. "We were quietly, methodically always moving forward," he told the Flathead Beacon.

Campbell deserves the credit, he said. He kept coming back to the table, even when times got tough.

Third, the politicians' response to the ban highlights interesting differences between the U.S. and Canada.

After the throne speech announcement, Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com asked Mining Minister Blair Lekstrom if the companies who have leases and had spent money on development would be compensated. At least four companies have provincial permits, leases or claims.

"I'm not at a point where I can speculate," Lekstrom replied.

Which is interesting, Holman noted, as Schweitzer readily confirmed that companies affected by the ban - and similar measures on the U.S. side - would get government compensation.

So did Lekstrom not know about the arrangement? Did the government decide on the ban without knowing if compensation would be paid? Is Campbell the only one who can speak for the government?

Or are they just more open and transparent down there in Montana?

Last week, Campbell said there would be some "minimal" compensation costs.

That too is interesting. Schweitzer seemed to think the costs would be more significant and plans to press the U.S. federal government to contribute to the compensation B.C. has to pay. "The costs are greater on the Canadian side," he said.

Bennett acknowledged some compensation would be paid.

But the companies should have known they were wasting time and money, he said. "So come on, let's be honest about this," he told the Cranbrook Daily Townsman. "There was never going to be a mine in the Flathead Valley and I think people with claims there know it."

But - while stating he didn't think coal mining was a good idea - Bennett had always said the companies' plans would go through the normal approval process.

The government "wouldn't make a simple, unilateral political decisions to just scrap the due process, and to heck with the proponents rights and to heck with the reputation of B.C. to investors from around the world."

Pragmatically the decision makes sense - the opposition to mining in the valley, from both sides of the border, was intense.

And with this action, the government heads off, at least for a while, calls for the Flathead to be included in a park, which would prevent logging, hunting and other activities.

Footnote: Among the companies seeking compensation, reports Gerry Warner of the Daily Townsman, is Teck Corp. The corporation is a major donor to the Liberal party, contributing about $500,000 since 2005. It has eight coal licences in the Flathead and renewed them as recently as 2008.

Watch out � an army of greedy geezers is coming

Are you going to have enough money when you retire? If you�re too young to worry about that, are you prepared to start paying big taxes to pay for better pensions and health care for all those boomers?

Federal budget officer Kevin Page reported this week that Canada isn�t doing enough to get ready for the impact of millions of retiring baby boomers.

I�d been looking at similar issues in B.C., prompted by the government�s pension review.

It�s fascinating � and very worrying � stuff (at least for a numbers geek).

Consider this. In 1971, there were 6.2 British Columbians of working age for every person over 65.

Today, the ratio is 4.3 to one.

By 2034, there will 2.4 people of working age for every person over 65. Basic public pensions � old age security and the guaranteed income supplement for those with little or no other income � come from current tax dollars.

So back in 1971, about six people of working age shared the cost of providing a basic pension for each retired person. (And for their health care.)

By 2034 � which is closer than 1971 � just 2.4 people will be picking the tab for each retired person. That�s a way bigger commitment.

It�s not quite that simple. Back in 1971 children � those under 18 � made up 35 per cent of the population. By 2034 they will be less than 18 per cent. People in the 1970s were paying for fewer seniors each, but more children. (And there were more stay-at-home moms in 1971.)

Still, you can calculate a rough dependency ratio. In 1971, about 56 per cent of the population was working age. The rest were under 18 or over 65.

The percentage of people of working age increased steadily over the last 29 years. That has benefits because people of working age pay the taxes and generate the economic activity that supports the young and the old. (Not entirely, of course.)

That also made the last few decades a good time to be in government.

The working-age population in B.C. is set to peak next year at 65 per cent and then start declining again.

By 2034 it will be down to 58 per cent.

Why does that matter? The more people in the working-age group, the lighter the individual cost of providing services for young and old. Better services are affordable. Or people can choose to pay less in taxes. Or they can choose and encourage governments to borrow against the future.

That�s another aspect of all this � the political clout of the baby boomers. It�s not that we�re selfish, necessarily. But there are a lot of us, so politicians pay attention to our interests.

When baby boomers were interested in schools for their children � the late 1970s and early 1980s � governments thought schools were important. When our hips and knees started going, waitlists for those operations became a health-care priority.

And pretty soon we�re going to worrying about retirement incomes and residential care.

Watch out, you young �uns.

Again, consider the numbers. Back in 1971, people over 65 made up 14 per cent of the voting-age population. Today, they�re about 19 per cent.

And in 2034, people over 65 will make up 25 per cent of the voting age population.

Add in the fact that younger voters tend not to bother to cast ballots and the support of geezers is going to be critical to political parties. So if we want better health care and richer pensions, governments will look for ways to provide them. Even if that means higher taxes for those of working age or deficits and debt that will have to be repaid after we�re dead.

The changes are all predictable. Which makes it that much more surprising that we have done so little to prepare for them.

Footnote: Planning hasn�t been so great at the other end either. The number of school-age children has been declining since 2000 and the government pushed for school closures. But in three years, the numbers will begin climbing sharply. Within 13 years, the school population will be the largest in B.C.�s history.

Good care, cheap care and secret decision-making

It seems a simple choice.

If you have an abdominal aneurysm - a bulge and weak spot in an artery - there are two treatment options.

Doctors can cut you open from breastbone to hips, push your organs over and sew in a plastic tube to replace the weak spot. After a week or so in hospital, you face a long recovery.

Or they can make a small incision in your groin and insert a stent - a little compressed metal mesh tube - into the artery and then slide it into place and expand it. A day or two in hospital and you�re as good as new.

Personally, I�d like option two. That�s what Bill Clinton had last week and he was home the next day.

But for health authorities it�s complicated. And a dispute between vascular surgeons and the Vancouver Island Health Authority is opening the door on the world of health care rationing. It�s not pretty.

The surgeons want to do more of the stent procedures. The health authority wants to control costs so it sets a quota on the number on them - 38 this fiscal year.

The surgeons are supposed to manage so that about 100 patients get the traditional surgery and the 38 people at greatest risk of complications get the stent treatment.

The surgeons got so frustrated they went public. Patients who needed the stent surgery were being made to wait because of the quota, they said. Patients said they felt the authority was playing Russian roulette with their lives. An aneurysm can burst without warning.

And, the surgeons said, the costs are the same if you include the extra time in acute care beds required by patients who undergo the traditional surgery.

It gets interesting here.

VIHA costs the traditional open surgery at about $1,500. A nurse, anesthetist and surgeon.

A stent procedure, it figures, costs $19,500. The little mesh tubes, perhaps an inch long, cost about $13,000 each. The surgeons say you can�t just look at operating costs. As well as being better for high-risk patients, the stent procedure means about a week less in hospital, so the real costs are in the same range.

The authority�s response explodes a health care myth. We tend to think care is limited by hard factors � too few beds or nurses, not enough MRI scanners.

VIHA said the savings from having patients spend a week less in hospital aren�t real. Some other sick person would just occupy the bed and the money would still be spent.

The health authority, because of the funding from government, needed that sick person waiting at home, not getting care.

Logically, the correct response would be to do the stent procedure and then leave the bed vacant for a week. The cost would be the same and the patient would be better off.

But that wouldn�t happen. People could accept their child waiting for needed care because there just wasn�t a bed. But not to meet an arbitrary budget quota.

The health authority said the doctors were being unreasonable, perhaps unprofessional, in seeking to use the stent surgery when it wasn�t warranted.

The surgeons said they limited the use to necessary cases and the arbitrary cap was foolish and dangerous. They had tried to work with the health authority to come up with a rational approach and been turned down.

And the public got a jarring look at health care. Even if you don�t know who is right, this process looks ridiculous.

It�s not just VIHA. The Fraser Health Authority went through a similar dispute last year.

And it�s not just stents. A wide range of cuts and rationing are being made without clear rationale, the support of doctors or any public discussion.

Ultimately, that�s the biggest concern. The government sets a funding level and the health authorities make life-and-death decisions about service levels behind closed doors.

And the public is left far on the outside.

Footnote: Stents are gold for the companies that have the patents. As all this was being reported, Boston Scientific Corp. said it would pay Johnson & Johnson $1.7 billion to settle a stent patent dispute. The two companies sell about $2 billion worth of stents a year; globally it�s a growing $7 billion a year business.

Liberals drifting away from concerns of British Columbians

I figured out why the throne speech worked so badly. It wasn't enough like a magazine cover.

Magazine editors know you have to grab readers with something that promises to make their lives better.

That's why the covers offer "Six ways to cut your grocery bill" or "Five tips to help you child get better grades" or "Four sure paths to business success."

The throne speech didn't tell British Columbians how the government proposed to make their lives better, except in the most abstract ways.

Streamlining the approval process for mines is a worthwhile goal, and could create jobs. But the speech never expressed those benefits clearly. There was no list of "Six ways we're helping you have a chance at a better job."

And what are people to make of a passage like "new emphasis will be placed on parental involvement and on tailoring our education system to each child's individual needs, interests and passions."

It sounds vaguely positive. But it doesn't say anything. There's no chance a parent can hear that and believe the government actually is doing anything to make life better for their child.

Some sections came closer, like the commitment to introduce preschools over the next five years.

But they were so vague it was hard to know if they would actually meet families' needs.

It's not a question of bad writing or a throne speech crafted by committee.

It's a symptom that the government has actually lost sight of the fact that its reason for existence is to make the lives of British Columbians, now and in the future, better.

And that it needs to be able to draw a direct link between whatever it does and the results for us.

Plans for a "comprehensive strategy to put B.C. at the forefront of clean energy development" are fine - if they benefit British Columbians.

There will be some jobs, certainly, and some companies will do well. But if the strategies just mean higher electricity costs for most of us, why is this a government priority?

The problem was on display the day after the throne speech, in the first question period of this session.

Citizens' Services Minister Ben Stewart was asked about a privacy breach that left confidential files on more than 1,400 British Columbians in the hands of an employee convicted of fraud. The people weren't told for seven months they were at risk. Reviews the government failed to protect their information and failed to respond to the breach.

NDP MLA Shane Simpson asked Stewart to apologize to those 1,400 people for the failures that put them at risk of identity theft.

Stewart wouldn't. Surely saying sorry to citizens you have failed is simply recognizing that they are your first concern.

Even more striking was Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid's response to questions about the deep cuts school districts are making.

She noted that funding to districts rose by 1.9 per cent this year, in spite of a declining enrolment. And she pointed to the coming full-day kindergarten and the expansion of StrongStart centres for preschoolers.

But mostly, MacDiarmid talked about how much the government was spending - not about whether children were getting better educations. Why not say districts are being asked to cut to help keep the deficit down and explain why the government believes it's necessary and possible?

The ministry's budget for the fiscal year that starts April 1 is slated to increase by less than one per cent. School districts have to provide a provincially negotiated teachers' pay increase of at least two per cent. Something has to give.

Why not acknowledge that and explain the main things being done to ensure students' educations aren't being compromised?

An Angus Reid poll last April found less than one-third of British Columbians thought Premier Gordon Campbell understood the problems of people living in the province.

The government isn't doing much to change the minds of all those who think the Liberals are unconcerned with their futures.

Footnote: The throne speech made an effort to sell the harmonized sales tax, but stumbled. In the election campaign 10 months ago, the Liberals said the tax would be bad for British Columbians; the speech said "nothing is more important" for the province's economic future than the tax. The flip-flop is too glaring for people to miss.

Not a whole lot for you in this throne speech

The throne speech, written by the premier's office and read by the lieutenant governor in the legislature, is supposed to set out the government�s intentions.

The problem is the speeches are generally vague.

And in the case of Gordon Campbell's governments, they frequently sketch giant initiatives or tout some grand new cause or direction.

But often, not much happens.

In 2005, the pre-election throne speech featured the "five great goals for a golden decade," which sounded like a slogan from Mao-era China. There hasn't been much talk since of being "a Canadian pioneer in support for people with disabilities and special needs, children at risk and seniors."

After the election, the throne speech for the new session focused on the urgent need for a "new relationship" with First Nations. That didn't get far either.

The 2006 throne speech was about health care reform and announced a "province-wide conversation on health." That $3 million effort - as well as Campbell's fact-finding trip to France, Sweden, Norway and the U.K. - produced few real results.

And 2007 was the year Campbell seized climate change as not just an issue, but also a moral crusade. It's too early to say how much progress will be made.

There wasn't any over-riding theme in this week's throne speech. There was the expected cheering for the Olympics and a defence of the harmonized sales tax.

The speech promised an effort to speed up approvals for big projects like mines. The province hopes to persuade Ottawa that only one environmental assessment is needed for major projects, instead of both federal and provincial reviews.

At the same time the government plans to streamline its own approval process and try to persuade municipalities to look at ways they can make it easier and faster for projects to go ahead.

The speech also promised a review of property tax rates in the province, likely aimed at reducing conflict between municipalities and big industrial taxpayers who claim they are gouged.

The government is also going to push "green energy" projects ahead more quickly, despite concerns about sharply rising electricity rates as a result of that direction. Bioenergy - using wood to produce power or ethanol - is to get a boost.

At the same time, the government announced a ban on mining and oil and gas production in the Flathead Valley on the Montana border in the province's southeast.

What was in it for the average family?

Not much. Families with children under 18 will be able to put off paying their property taxes until their children are older, but there were no details.

The speech talked about "significant reforms" in the education system, but gave no useful information.

More parental involvement, "new forms of schooling," smarter approaches to cut administrative costs were all promised. The latter could mean fewer school districts or elimination of school boards.

The government is still keen on public-private partnerships and the speech promised a P3 dealing with education support services.

And the promised pre-school for three- and four-year-olds is apparently to be delivered by the private sector, not the school system.

The speech sounded another warning about health care costs without offering any clear idea what the government plans to do about them. There was talk of innovation and new choices for patients.

But there was also a warning that health care might become harder to get. "Stemming the unaffordable growth in health costs is essential in meeting our obligation to balance the budget by 2013," the speech said.

Poverty, housing affordability, social issues, employment opportunities - they all got short shrift in the speech.

In fact, told people to expect less. "We must curtail expectations of government," the speech warned.

Given the spending cuts coming in a majority of ministries in next month's budget - and the current shortfalls in health, education and almost every other area - that's probably the critical message from the speech.

Footnote: The green power push will be among the more controversial elements of the policy. The government wants to increase electricity efforts, but major industrial users have warned the plan could double power rates in B.C. with little public benefit.

Children's ministry shunning recommendations to help kids

The ministry of children and families is a competency test for government. The Liberals, like the NDP before them, are failing.

They bungled the ministry in their first four years. As the scandals mounted, the government asked Ted Hughes to review the problems.

He blamed botched restructuring and budget cuts, in part. And he made 62 recommendations, including restoration of the independent oversight the Liberals had eliminated.

Premier Gordon Campbell promised to adopt them all. He appointed Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as Representative for Children and Youth. Oversight and advocacy and complaint resolution were important for children in trouble, the government conceded.

But four years after the Hughes report, the ministry is ignoring the office. And Children's Minister Mary Polak looks badly out of touch.

Turpel-Lafond reports to a legislature committee, which met this month for an update. She told the MLAs most ministries had responded to her recommendations in two reports from last year.

But not the children's ministry, which had by far the largest role. Polak told reporters she was "perplexed." Not once, but 11 times in a 16-minute scrum. (Publiceyeonline.com has video.)

"We have been regularly meeting with her," Polak said. "She's aware of how we intended to be responding. Some of the reports, of course, have yet to be responded to. Some we have responded to."

The representative was clearer.

She told the committee about Kids, Crime and Care: Health and Well-Being of Children in Care, released last February. It found children in the government's care - some 9,000 this year - were more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system than to graduate from high school.

We claim responsibility for these children and then fail them. The report, delivered to the government a year ago, remember, had sensible recommendations.

Take one. After studying the factors that snared children in crime, the representative recommended that each time a child was involved with the justice system, the plan of care would be reviewed within 30 days to include steps to deal with the criminal behaviour.

If your son or daughter got in trouble, Turpel-Lafond told the committee, that's what you would do. You would look at their stresses, their friends, whether drugs are a problem. You would do everything to get them back on track.

And children in care need the same help.

The recommendation called for the ministry to have the first step - a plan to report quarterly on children in care involved with the justice system - by last November.

But a year after the report, the ministry hasn't responded to the recommendation.

It doesn't have to adopt the measure. The ministry could judge the recommendation not needed or impractical. "It's perfectly fine," Turpel-Lafond said, "to say we reject your recommendation."

But some response is required.

"In order for oversight to work and for change to happen when we do major pieces of work like this, there has to be engagement," she said.

And in her view - not really refuted by Polak - there has not been.

The second report, completed last July, dealt with the terrible story of a baby taken from his parents because they couldn't afford housing. He was injured and permanently disabled while in care. Now he is back with his parents.

The representative's first recommendation said that by Jan. 1 the ministry should have a policy for front-line staff that every effort should be made to avoid taking children from their parents because of poor housing. (Children need their parents and it's cheaper to help with housing than to pay for foster care.)

The ministry, Turpel-Lafond said, has not responded.

Something has gone wrong. If the process were working, Polak wouldn't have been perplexed.

Even days later, when the Public Affairs Bureau released its written statement on the problems, there was nothing about the ministry's actual response to the recommendations.

Polak is to present at the committee's next meeting on March 3. She needs to have real answers.

Footnote: It's unclear why the process has broken down so badly. But Polak or the committee is going to have to find a way to get it back on track.

Once more, the Danes provoke us

We are, once again, on the brink of conflict with the Danes, this time over shrimp.

It does seem a little odd that a country that destroyed the East Coast cod fishery is claiming the high ground on conservation.

But it does give me an excuse to post this column from 2005, when Hans Island loomed as our own Falklands.

A father�s advice, on the eve of war with Daneland

VICTORIA - Son, I know you�re ready to serve your country.
Art school is fine. Perhaps you�ll go back there some day.
But right now, it�s important to stand up to the Danish war machine, before they launch a sneak attack from Daneland and crush the non-existent inhabitants of Hans Island.
No, that�s not near Saltspring. Don�t you students watch the news?
Hans Island is in the north somewhere between Greenland and some Canadian cold place. Defence Minister Bill Graham angered the war-mongering, cheese-loving Danes when he flew over the island in a helicopter and, in a rare carefree moment, said �Hey, let�s land on that rock and take some pictures.'
Provocation, the Danes whined, scoffing their fancy open-faced eel sandwiches. Eel sandwiches, son. These people are barbarians, who have never even grasped the concept that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.
Now the Danes are ready to do battle to try and take away an important Canadian rocky outcrop, which they falsely claim as their own.
Sure, Hans Island is nothing special. A flat rock in a cold ocean, about 100 metres wide and 3,000 metres long. Even birds aren�t dumb enough to live there, and based on that penguin movie they are not picky.
But darn it, son, Bill Graham says it belongs to us. And if we aren�t willing to support a man who has spent a lifetime travelling the world preaching the Gospel in overheated arenas, can we really be Canadians?
Yes, it�s a useless lump of rock today.
But wait a few centuries and global warming will turn Hans Rock into a strategic must-have, our government says. Cruise ships and oil tankers will be booting it through the Northwest Passage as if it was a police-free shortcut home from the bar on Friday night.
Hans Island could be our toll booth, or help us protect the environment, or something. And maybe there�s oil, or kryptonite, waiting to be discovered.
Anyway, that�s not the point, son. This is about sovereignty, and national pride.
Those Danes are laughing at us, an insult made more cruel because of their normal melancholy. They�re taking breaks from watching their beloved women�s handball games to sneer at our way of life, wandering around with their freakishly large dogs, munching their beloved Danish pastries, telling each other Canadian jokes.
They�ve been tormenting us for years, those Victor Borge loving lowlanders.
Consider Ole Kirk Christansen, his company supposedly making ironing boards, stepladders and wooden toys, flying under the radar. In 1955 Christansen struck, unleashing Lego. Three generations of Canadian parents have spent the best years of their lives on their knees each evening, picking up hundreds of tiny plastic blocks, inevitably missing the ones that will later stab into their heels.
The coming conflict won�t be easy, son. It took Germany less than four hours to conquer Denmark in 1940, but we aren�t Germany. Denmark has about twice as many tanks as Canada, and air and sea forces are evenly matched. (Although we outnumber them six to one in population.) We need to negotiate rules of engagement that allow some sort of time-out if anybody gets hurt or one of our submarines catches on fire.
I know what you�re thinking, son.
Is this really your fight? How come I�m talking so tough for somebody who never fought anyone? Where is Daneland? What don�t Graham and his Danish counterpart fight this out on the island, with an appropriate split of the pay-per-view money? What�s with all the question marks?
But ultimately this is simple. The enemy isn�t just trying to take our freedom, or extract some revenge because Aqua was a global one-hit wonder. (Though Barbie Girl was catchy.) No, they hate our freedom, and our liberty.
It�s tough to go to war.
It�s especially tough when the whole conflict would have been ignored if it wasn�t summer and the media desperately short of real news stories.
But life is cruel. Good luck, son. Bring us back some cheese.
Footnote: The Danes have a secret weapon - �hygge.� Hygge is a Danish term for a happy life, suggesting a "warm, fuzzy, comfortable feeling of well-being," a life of good food, good company, wine, nice furniture, good music. The risk, of course, is that our brave young warriors may end up lounging on an oiled teak chaise, knocking back Aquavit and herring. Be strong, son.

Tough decisions on rationing health care

A Vancouver Province news story last month indirectly raised one of those health care issues no one wants to talk about.

Cutbacks would mean 2,450 fewer surgeries in the Lower Mainland, the article said. The excuse was the Olympics, but really it's a cost-cutting measure. (Otherwise, the lost surgeries could have been made up during the rest of the year.)

The reporter found people to put a human face to the story.

One woman said she urgently needed a new hip. "I'm in pain, but the medications they give me for pain make me sick," she told the reporter. "I'm confined to a wheelchair when all I need is hip replacement surgery."

She hasn't even been given a possible date for surgery because of the "Olympic slowdown."

Here's what stopped me. She was also 91.

Health care remains affordable; governments have just been reluctant to allocate the needed money, judging lower taxes a bigger priority. With good management and system reform, it will remain affordable. (Though we're lagging on both counts.)

But rationing care is part of the reality in the near term, longer if we don't improve efficiency.

And the notion of a hip replacement for a 91-year-old raises questions about just how we're going to decide who gets care.

Right now, it's informal. Specialists and committees make judgments about who should be treated first based on urgency and other factors.

Some people are constantly bumped down the list. It's tough to have confidence in fairness. (And of course, people with money pay for private care - supposedly illegal - to avoid rationing.)

We need to talk about the process honestly, to improve fairness and cost-effectiveness and to allow informed decisions about the current level of rationing.

The issue is sensitive. But better to discuss the criteria for rationing than to allow it to happen without any public input or assessment.

It doesn't need to be - shouldn't be - entirely arbitrary, based on age, for example.

But take a person of 91 in the queue for a hip replacement. A new hip can last 25 years. So spending the money on a 40-year-old buys many more years of benefit. The risks of complications or an unsuccessful outcome also rise sharply, according to recent studies.

Ideally, we decide both deserve timely surgery so they don't suffer and live shrunken lives.

But if that won't happen, we should be upfront about how and why the decision was made.

The discussion alarms people. For instance, should people who are seriously overweight have the same access to knee and hip replacements?

It's not a moral judgment. The surgery is riskier, outcomes poorer and the artificial joints don't last as long. A few years ago, some British National Health managers faced a budget crunch and quit doing knee and hip replacements for anyone with a Body Mass Index over 30. If you were five feet nine inches tall and weighed 205 pounds, no new hip until you lost weight. (Some doctors in B.C. take the same approach, but the system doesn't.)

The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence looked at one of the most controversial rationing questions. What if the patient's illness is self-inflicted?

Should a child who needs a liver transplant wait in line behind someone whose illness is caused by years of alcohol abuse? After all, addiction is a disease.

The institute decided that what mattered was not past behaviour, but future prospects. A child with a new liver thrives; an alcoholic, statistically, is at high risk of returning to drinking.

This all started with the 91-year-old waiting for a hip transplant. But there are two issues. When do we want to say no treatment for you. It's not worth the money.

And how will make those decisions.

Right now, we pretend they aren't being made. That's cowardly, and it's keeping us from a serious health care discussion.

Footnote: Here's one of the most interesting numbers. Of all the health care costs you occur in your life, 35 per cent will typically come in the last six months. And then you'll die. Beyond efforts to improve your comfort, it hardly seems smart spending.

B.C. Lotteries woos mayor with free Games tickets

Good Michael Smyth column in The Province on what's happening to some of the Games tickets purchased with public money - specifically by the B.C. Lottery Corp.

It has offered free Games tickets and hotel accommodation from mayors in towns with mini-casino gaming centres and casinos. That's money that comes out of the pockets of losing gamblers and comes out of the profits that flow into provincial revenues. And the value is easily in the thousands of dollars.

Chilliwack Mayor Sharon Gaetz said no. It seemed wrong, and it also seemed illegal, she said. Municipal politicians aren't allowed to accept gifts under the Community Charter.

That raises a good question. B.C. Lotteries seeks lots of favours from mayors and councillors, from support for gambling expansion to support for eased liquor regulations (drinking gamblers lose more).

So how is this not an improper attempt to secure future favours, or at the least an effort that raises the appearance of impropriety?

And if B.C. Lotteries doesn't expect any future benefit, why is it giving away taxpayers' money?

Read Smyth's column here.

Class-size ruling means more stress on schools

This was already going to be a tough year for schools in B.C.

School districts have been closing classrooms and cutting costs for years now. Collectively, they estimate that they will be $300 million short of what�s needed to keep education quality at the same level after the March budget.

Trustees, of course, tend to be advocates for education.

But the government�s own numbers indicate a big problem for education in the province.

That was made more complicated by an arbitration award this month on the way class size and composition limits are handled by school districts.

At a time when districts are likely going to be looking at more oversize classes, the ruling means they will be paying more to teachers as a result.

Which will, in turn, lead to more oversize classes.

This all goes back to 2002. The teachers� union and school districts had negotiated contractual limits on class size, with some flexibility.

The Liberal government used legislation to strip the provisions from contracts in 2002 and made it illegal for teachers and districts to negotiate any class size limits in future.

That turned out to be a mistake. Class sizes jumped in schools across the province. Parents weren�t happy.

In 2006, the government acknowledged the stumble and introduced legislation setting limits on class size and on the number of students in a class requiring special assistance.

It was a reasonable solution. For teachers, class sizes are a workplace issue. Unions usually deal with those in bargaining.

But the appropriate class size and composition decisions are also questions of educational effectiveness. Those decisions shouldn�t be made as a result of labour bargaining. Elected school trustees and MLAs have the responsibility and can be held accountable.

The government�s effort was flawed though. It didn�t give school districts enough money to comply with the law.

While the legislation allowed schools to have oversize classes, or more special-needs students in classroom, after consultation with the teacher, the process was poorly defined.

And there was no provision for enforcing the law.

So it didn�t work. In the 2008-09 school year, 3,336 classes had more students than the limits called for. Almost 11,000 classes had more than three students with special needs called for in the legislation.

Not all those were a problem. In many cases, teachers, principals and superintendents agreed the extra students could be accommodated, as the legislation envisioned.

But the arbitration award found that in many cases that wasn�t the case. Teachers weren�t really consulted and the class sizes violated the law.

The districts were ordered to give the teachers paid time off as compensation, which will mean higher costs.

The decision was based on small number of test grievances. The B.C. Teachers Federation said thousands more cases will now go forward.

This all comes as school districts are set to receive a funding increase of well under one per cent; at the same all costs are rising. Teachers, for example, are set for a two-per-cent base pay increase.

The Education Ministry�s response to the ruling has been dismissive. Not our problem, it says. School districts should sort it out.

But arbitrator James Dorsey didn�t see it that way. He noted that when the class size legislation was introduced, the government said it was needed to move toward the first of the province�s five great goals by making B.C. the �best educated� jurisdiction in North America.

If it�s that important, and if government took away school districts� right to negotiate class sizes, then the government must provide enough money to meet the standards. Or it could change the law.

In short, the government can�t make a big deal about the importance of class size in education and then make it impossible for school districts to comply with the law.

It�s a useful ruling. Or it will be if the Education Ministry takes its responsibility seriously.

Footnote: The arbitrator�s judgment offered a reminder of the relevance of legislature debates. His interpretation of the law and its meaning was based in part on the explanation cabinet ministers provided in the legislature.