They didn’t waste their time in China, although Forests Minister Pat Bell may be guilty of overstating the size of his trade mission’s success in the Far East — and could have spent his time more productively at home.

 Bell declared executives on his mission have signed deals to send 83-million board feet of lumber to China.

It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 12-billion board feet of lumber B.C. sent to the U.S. each year, before its housing market tanked.

 While China is B.C.’s third-largest customer — after the U.S. and Japan — its intake of lumber is microscopic by comparison.

Moreover, China has little appetite for B.C.’s higher-valued wood and is more interested in purchasing our low-grade timber.

 As the forests minister put it, if we could sell 83-million board feet to China every month, it would be enough to keep four B.C. sawmills busy.

Indeed — and if we earned $100,000 a month, we’d soon be millionaires.

Not to belittle his efforts, but Bell might do better on the bottom line by refocusing his efforts at home.

For instance, if he could clear the roadblocks, he’d-cubic metres of timber for proposal from the Whispering Pines Indian Band which, along with timber with other area bands, would give it the secure supply to establish a $20-million wood-pellet plant in Kamloops, funding for which has already been secured.

Cracking the Chinese culture and market for B.C. lumber is a little like climbing Mt. Everest.

There appears to be a far greater chance for economic success by paying equal attention to a proposal at home.

Selective censoring 

 Does the media have compassion?

It seems to depend on whose ox is being gored.

The decision by major news agencies, including Canadian Press and the Vancouver dailies, to suppress the kidnapping of journalist Mellissa Fung in Afghanistan raises the question.

Had she not been a journalist, would the media have complied with the CBC’s appeal not to broadcast or publish her kidnapping?

Would the CBC itself have complied, had this not involved one of its own?

I suspect in most cases the answer would have been no. 

Whether they should censor news in any way is open to debate.

The fact they have in this instance should be compared to their decisions going forward.

The basis of the appeal by CBC was giving the story coverage might endanger Fung’s life, but how often does the media consider the consequences of the stories they publish and broadcast?

For instance, when they gleefully publicize the names of men caught up in john stings, do they care that, invariably, they will ruin marriages and turn ordinary lives upside down?

When people are accused, but not convicted of crimes, or indiscretions, does the media back off?

It’s not exactly life and death, but perhaps the parallel is there.

The late and revered Jack Webster once put a journalist’s role in perspective.

When asked, he said you should report what you know to be true.

Which suggests the gruff but legendary reporter might be spinning in his grave to hear what his colleagues have been up to.

What’s good for struggling goose . . .

Everybody wants the government to do something about the economy. 

They think our elected officials must be smart enough to stop the slide into recession, to pump up our economy and keep our retirement savings from eroding.

Based on the outline in the federal throne speech and the chatter leading up to it, it’s hard to have any confidence there’s much any level of government can do effectively.

It’s good the Stephen Harper government is talking about taking aim at unnecessary or wasteful spending, although that makes one wonder why it existed in a responsible administration in the first place.

The problem with that approach is there is seldom agreement on what constitutes waste or unnecessary spending.

Moreover, the incessant talk about the possibility of slipping into deficit, if warranted, is an open-door invitation to go face-forward back into the red.

If it’s bad advice for most Canadians to spend more than they earn, it should be equally bad advice for government which, once in the glue, we suspect will find it may be difficult to pull itself out.

 The government also says it intends to move ahead with its plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Save the planet, by all means, but this is hardly the time to talk about kneecapping industry.

Moreover, the plan to help the auto sector is not a satisfactory solution, either.

The private sector needs to stand on its own two feet.

What government should do for industry and the individual is set a climate for success, which means cutting spending, cutting taxes, reducing unnecessary regulation and becoming less of a factor in the everyday lives of Canadians.

Jim Harrison is

news director for Radio ’NL