The most famous line from John F. Kennedy's inauguration speech in January 1961 - "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" - is as true today as it was more than 50 years ago.
The expectations Canadians, British Columbians and Prince George residents have for the quality and quantity of services from all levels of government is only matched by the disdain many of the same people have for politicians and anyone who works in the public sector.
A week doesn't go by without a call to the Citizen from a local resident demanding the paper blow the whistle because government is wasting tax dollars on useless initiatives, isn't doing enough to solve their particular problem, which is always far more urgent than anybody's else problem, or a combination of both.
What they mean is that government should stay out of their business and their wallet but should be quick to respond to their needs at the very moment when they are inconvenienced.
Neither expectation is reasonable but that doesn't stop people from having those expectations.
Yet there is a large grey area, particularly in the arena of workplace and public safety, where it's hard to gauge what the full role and responsibility of government really is.
The protesters who took part in the "march for justice" Wednesday from Parkwood Mall to the courthouse, with stops at the local WorksafeBC office and MLA Shirley Bond's office, are demanding a public inquiry into the Babine Forest Products and Lakeland Mills tragedies. The families of the four dead men, as well as the 40-plus workers injured, are right to demand answers on what happened and how it could have been prevented.
But is it the government's responsibility to provide those answers? Is the government's responsibility to ensure safe working conditions beyond what the employer and the employees should be doing for themselves?
The NDP MLAs who travelled from Prince Rupert to Prince George this week believe it is the provincial government's responsibility to provide shuttle buses along Highway 16 to protect vulnerable women traveling on the Highway of Tears corridor. That's an excellent recommendation from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry but where does the government's responsibility for public safety, particularly for the vulnerable members of society, end and is that responsibility ultimately greater than the obligation of individual citizens to not engage in potentially dangerous behavior like hitchhiking?
Asking these questions shouldn't be seen as trivializing the pain and loss caused by these deaths and injuries, whether they're in a sawmill or along a deserted highway. Rather they should be interpreted as broadening the discussion beyond "the government should do something" to what everyone could do, individually and collectively, to address these problems.
Could area First Nations, rural schools and social agencies be doing more to protect and educate young aboriginal women hitchhiking from one community to another? Could trade unions be making workplace safety a greater priority?
We shouldn't expect government to come up with solutions because their record on that front is spotty at best. Government is much more successful when it partners with individuals and organizations who come forward with ideas and solutions to urgent problems, as well as a plan for the degree of government's involvement in the implementation of those ideas and solutions.
Winston Churchill once famously uttered that the United States could always be counted on to do the right thing, once it exhausted all other possibilities. That approach could be applied to governments in general.
Instead of demanding government fix problems and prevent tragedies, all governments need to be told how to do it by engaged and informed citizens willing to make themselves part of the solution. In the case of sawmills and the Highway of Tears, the provincial government must act but if it wants to success in saving lives, it shouldn't be the only one taking responsibility.
