The bad thing isn’t necessarily that so many people are dying after being tasered by police.
What’s really worrying is that police forces - at least officially - don’t see any connection between zapping people and their almost immediate deaths.
Robert Dziekanski is the latest victim. His mother, who lives in Kamloops, worked two jobs and saved for years to bring her 40-year-old son to Canada. He flew into in Vancouver, but there were delays in getting into the terminal. She missed him at the airport.
He wandered for 10 hours, unable to get anyone to understand him. Then Dzienkanski started acting aggressively in the airport, alarming people. RCMP officers subdued him with a Taser. He died. His mother is wondering what happened.
The official police position is that Tasers are safe. But at least 17 people have died after being shocked with the devices in Canada in the last five years, six in this province. That seems more than coincidence.
And it’s significant. In B.C., police have only had to shoot more than three people in a year than once in the past decade. Officers are remarkably restrained in their use of weapons, no matter how great the personal risk.
Tasers were proposed in B.C. in 1998 as an alternative to deadly force. They were to be used when officers were ready to draw their guns.
That seemed a very good idea. Anything that gives police an alternative to shooting someone - without putting themselves at increased risk - is good.
But it’s impossible to know if that’s how the stun guns have been used in B.C. The impression is that Tasers have been used as a convenient way to subdue people.
When Victoria police studied Tasers for the B.C. Police Complaints Commissioner in 2004, they found that about one-third of the cases in which it had been used in Canada involved people who were resisting arrest - perhaps pulling an arm away from an officer, or ignoring an order. They weren’t hitting or kicking.
There’s certainly been no evidence that the RCMP had any reason to consider shooting Dziekanski. He had no weapon; there was no imminent danger in the largely empty airport. At least three RCMP officers were there to deal with one angry man.
Don’t get me wrong. Long ago, as a reporter, I did a ride-along with an RCMP officer in Alberta. She stopped a beat-up car full of men on the highway. I sat there with my notebook, wondering what I’d do if things went sideways and we were suddenly fighting five big guys. A Taser would have been reassuring.
The issue here is not the value of the weapon. It’s the need for an accurate assessment of the risks, so that the Tasers can be used to ensure police safety while not subjecting civilians to the risk of death.
Police and the manufacturer argue Tasers don’t kill. But their use has been part of a sequence of events that does. The person being zapped is generally in state of excited delirium, often due to cocaine use. They are then restrained on their stomachs, with hands and feet tied behind their backs. And then they stop breathing and die.
The 2004 report made several recommendations around police training and the need for mandatory reporting anytime a Taser is used. It called for specific training for all officers in excited delirium and an end to “maximum restraint” positions that sees suspects hogtied on their stomachs.
Some of the recommendations have been adopted; others are still not in place. But the continuing toll be taken by Taser use indicates that more needs to be done.
And the greatest concern remains the reluctance of police to acknowledge the risks or that Tasers can kill.
When people are belligerent or violent, there is no easy solution for police. All the alternatives, from pepper spray to baton to talking, carry risks.
But Tasers have proven particularly dangerous. It’s time to ensure their use is treated almost as seriously as discharging a gun in the line of duty.
Footnote: The Dzienkanski case raises once again another problem. The investigation into his death is being conducted by the RCMP, just as the force investigated its officer’s actions when Ian Bush was shot and killed inside the Houston RCMP detachment. The public interest demands an independent investigation.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Slow progress on coming pine beetle disaster
The news is getting and grimmer on the pine beetle front. Yet the crisis still doesn't seem to have really captured the political and public attention it deserves.
It's difficult to grasp the scale of the economic problems ahead. B.C. has never experienced anything like it. Only the collapse of the east Coast cod fishery offers a comparable disaster.
The province has released its latest report on the update, with yet more bad news.
The timber killed by the pine beetle appears to be losing its value as lumber faster than expected, reducing the amount that can be salvaged. And there is some evidence the beetle is attacking more of the younger trees that were considered safe from destruction.
Here's the problem.
The Interior forest industry is running flat out now to harvest pine trees before they're dead and worthless. The government has offered cheap stumpage and bumped the annual allowable cut.
Last year, about 46 million cubic metres of timber were harvested for saw logs. That's about 25 per cent more than before the beetle disaster. The Forest Ministry report said that rate could last about four years, until the timber is gone. The annual allowable cut will be reduced to about half the current levels.
And the harvest will be one-third below the amount of timber being cut down and sawed into two by fours and other lumber back in "normal" times.
There will still be forestry, using other species, pines that survive and young pine trees reaching maturity. But for 50 years -- almost two generations of workers -- the traditional industry will be at half its current levels.
The impact will vary by region. But in the Quesnel area, for an example, the timber supply will be cut by some 35 per cent. About 75 per cent of the 12,000 jobs in the region are linked in some way to the forest industry. That means about 3,100 jobs at risk -- one in four employed people in the community. A similar economic disaster in the Lower Mainland would mean a loss of more than 400,000 jobs within a period of a few years. (And, I expect, it would mean a lot more government action.)
That kind of job loss creates a chain reaction. People have to leave town, so stores and other businesses suffer. The forced sale of houses hurts property values. Schools lose students. It's a nasty spiral.
At the same time the government released its forests report, it issued a progress report on efforts to come up ways to help the affected communities deal with the economic crunch.
So far, the province has been more successful at ensuring the wood gets logged than at dealing with the long-term crisis.
The progress report isn't that reassuring.
There's a big replanting push. The report talks about funding for research on ways to use the damaged wood and efforts to find new markets. Bizarrely, it goes on at length about the fact that pine-beetle wood will be used for the roof of the Olympic speed skating oval.
The government is also gathering geological information to try to lure mining companies into the affected areas. It hopes the wood can be burned to generate power and is looking at encouraging farmland.
But the rate of progress is slow --the report talks about a six-parcel agricultural pilot project. And the report's section on "Maintaining strong communities" is a little surreal. It talks about the LocalMotion program to fund bike paths and about Spirit Squares -- hardly at the centre of economic renewal.
There is more going on.
The federal government has put up $36 million for economic diversification. The Northern Development Initiative Trust has set aside $32 million for economic renewal programs and community and regional groups are at work.
But the crisis is just a few years away and the challenge enormous. And so far, the urgency of the crisis just doesn't seem to have hit home.
Footnote: The other big questions are around what will happen with the massive reforestation effort. There's concern about the threat the beetle might pose to trees as they mature and concern about the effects of global warming on the forest during the 50 years the trees will take to mature.
It's difficult to grasp the scale of the economic problems ahead. B.C. has never experienced anything like it. Only the collapse of the east Coast cod fishery offers a comparable disaster.
The province has released its latest report on the update, with yet more bad news.
The timber killed by the pine beetle appears to be losing its value as lumber faster than expected, reducing the amount that can be salvaged. And there is some evidence the beetle is attacking more of the younger trees that were considered safe from destruction.
Here's the problem.
The Interior forest industry is running flat out now to harvest pine trees before they're dead and worthless. The government has offered cheap stumpage and bumped the annual allowable cut.
Last year, about 46 million cubic metres of timber were harvested for saw logs. That's about 25 per cent more than before the beetle disaster. The Forest Ministry report said that rate could last about four years, until the timber is gone. The annual allowable cut will be reduced to about half the current levels.
And the harvest will be one-third below the amount of timber being cut down and sawed into two by fours and other lumber back in "normal" times.
There will still be forestry, using other species, pines that survive and young pine trees reaching maturity. But for 50 years -- almost two generations of workers -- the traditional industry will be at half its current levels.
The impact will vary by region. But in the Quesnel area, for an example, the timber supply will be cut by some 35 per cent. About 75 per cent of the 12,000 jobs in the region are linked in some way to the forest industry. That means about 3,100 jobs at risk -- one in four employed people in the community. A similar economic disaster in the Lower Mainland would mean a loss of more than 400,000 jobs within a period of a few years. (And, I expect, it would mean a lot more government action.)
That kind of job loss creates a chain reaction. People have to leave town, so stores and other businesses suffer. The forced sale of houses hurts property values. Schools lose students. It's a nasty spiral.
At the same time the government released its forests report, it issued a progress report on efforts to come up ways to help the affected communities deal with the economic crunch.
So far, the province has been more successful at ensuring the wood gets logged than at dealing with the long-term crisis.
The progress report isn't that reassuring.
There's a big replanting push. The report talks about funding for research on ways to use the damaged wood and efforts to find new markets. Bizarrely, it goes on at length about the fact that pine-beetle wood will be used for the roof of the Olympic speed skating oval.
The government is also gathering geological information to try to lure mining companies into the affected areas. It hopes the wood can be burned to generate power and is looking at encouraging farmland.
But the rate of progress is slow --the report talks about a six-parcel agricultural pilot project. And the report's section on "Maintaining strong communities" is a little surreal. It talks about the LocalMotion program to fund bike paths and about Spirit Squares -- hardly at the centre of economic renewal.
There is more going on.
The federal government has put up $36 million for economic diversification. The Northern Development Initiative Trust has set aside $32 million for economic renewal programs and community and regional groups are at work.
But the crisis is just a few years away and the challenge enormous. And so far, the urgency of the crisis just doesn't seem to have hit home.
Footnote: The other big questions are around what will happen with the massive reforestation effort. There's concern about the threat the beetle might pose to trees as they mature and concern about the effects of global warming on the forest during the 50 years the trees will take to mature.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Lobbying allegations get legislature off to stormy start
It's going to be a crabby 18 months until the next election, at least based on the first week of the fall legislative sitting.
The MLAs have only been back four days as I write this, but things are already pretty rowdy.
The New Democrats have been hammering at two issues - seniors' care and the alleged lobbying activities of former cabinet minister Graham Bruce.
And the government has been fighting back, especially on the Bruce affair. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mike de Jong, a scrappy performer in the legislature, has led the defence.
It's a changed tone. After the 2005 election, both sides made a real effort to maintain basic civility in the legislature. Things appear to be heading, sadly, back to the bad old days.
The questions about Bruce's activities raise the kinds of issues that are always going to heat things up.
The Vancouver Sun kicked things off, with a report that Bruce had been lobbying the provincial government on behalf of the Cowichan Tribes since 2005. But, the paper reported, he had never signed up with the province's lobbyist registry.
The activities also raised potential problems under conflict-of-interest rules, the report noted. Former cabinet ministers are barred from paid lobbying at the provincial level for two years after they leave office. Bruce started working for the tribes within months of being defeated in 2005.
The lobbyist registry was a part of the Liberal election platform in 2001. They said that the public should know who was lobbying politicians and bureaucrats and what they were seeking. That way, people could judge for themselves whether anything questionable was happening.
It seemed a good idea. Lobbying has become increasingly big business. A lot of the consultants are people with close ties to the political parties - ex-politicians or political staff.
There was a perception that paying for access was part of doing business. Gordon Campbell said that should stop, and the lobbyist registry was the solution.
Bruce initially said he met with Campbell and two ministers to seek funding for the Cowichan Tribes' effort to host the 2008 North American Indigenous Games.
By midweek, the Cowichan Tribe issued a news release criticizing the NDP for raising the issue. Bruce was hired to raise money from local governments, corporate sponsors and others, the band said.
But in the legislature, the NDP cited minutes of tribal committee meetings in which Bruce is quoted as saying he was calling in favours from his former colleagues to get funds released. He was paid $121,000 for work for the tribe.
De Jong said there couldn't have been any lobbying, because B.C. had agreed in 2003 to provide $3.5 million to the games.
But that's not exactly what the government said in announcing the funding in June 2006. It acknowledged the 2003 federal-provincial agreement, but the deal wasn't quite the same as de Jong now claims. "It was agreed Canada and the host province/territory would each contribute 35 per cent to a maximum of $3.5 million," the news release said. Note, up to $3.5 million, not a promise to provide that much.
Bruce hasn't done any interviews since the first Sun story. He released a statement, saying he didn't have to register as a lobbyist. The act doesn't cover lobbying activities by First Nations or their employees, he said, and he spent less than 20 per cent of his time lobbying, the threshold for registration.
James has asked the conflict commissioner to investigate. The information and privacy commissioner, who has responsibility - sort of - for the lobbyist registry.
The whole affair - following similar controversy over former deputy minister Ken Dobell's failure to register - adds to doubts that the lobbyist registry is working.
And the Liberals' defence in both cases rests in part on the notion that the projects were worthwhile, so everyone should just ease up. That's an attitude that eventually gets governments in trouble.
Footnote: There's a whole other aspect to this affair. Much of the information has come from tribal committee meetings released by unhappy band members. The minutes suggest treaty funds borrowed from the government were used to pay Bruce until he could get the provincial grants.
The MLAs have only been back four days as I write this, but things are already pretty rowdy.
The New Democrats have been hammering at two issues - seniors' care and the alleged lobbying activities of former cabinet minister Graham Bruce.
And the government has been fighting back, especially on the Bruce affair. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mike de Jong, a scrappy performer in the legislature, has led the defence.
It's a changed tone. After the 2005 election, both sides made a real effort to maintain basic civility in the legislature. Things appear to be heading, sadly, back to the bad old days.
The questions about Bruce's activities raise the kinds of issues that are always going to heat things up.
The Vancouver Sun kicked things off, with a report that Bruce had been lobbying the provincial government on behalf of the Cowichan Tribes since 2005. But, the paper reported, he had never signed up with the province's lobbyist registry.
The activities also raised potential problems under conflict-of-interest rules, the report noted. Former cabinet ministers are barred from paid lobbying at the provincial level for two years after they leave office. Bruce started working for the tribes within months of being defeated in 2005.
The lobbyist registry was a part of the Liberal election platform in 2001. They said that the public should know who was lobbying politicians and bureaucrats and what they were seeking. That way, people could judge for themselves whether anything questionable was happening.
It seemed a good idea. Lobbying has become increasingly big business. A lot of the consultants are people with close ties to the political parties - ex-politicians or political staff.
There was a perception that paying for access was part of doing business. Gordon Campbell said that should stop, and the lobbyist registry was the solution.
Bruce initially said he met with Campbell and two ministers to seek funding for the Cowichan Tribes' effort to host the 2008 North American Indigenous Games.
By midweek, the Cowichan Tribe issued a news release criticizing the NDP for raising the issue. Bruce was hired to raise money from local governments, corporate sponsors and others, the band said.
But in the legislature, the NDP cited minutes of tribal committee meetings in which Bruce is quoted as saying he was calling in favours from his former colleagues to get funds released. He was paid $121,000 for work for the tribe.
De Jong said there couldn't have been any lobbying, because B.C. had agreed in 2003 to provide $3.5 million to the games.
But that's not exactly what the government said in announcing the funding in June 2006. It acknowledged the 2003 federal-provincial agreement, but the deal wasn't quite the same as de Jong now claims. "It was agreed Canada and the host province/territory would each contribute 35 per cent to a maximum of $3.5 million," the news release said. Note, up to $3.5 million, not a promise to provide that much.
Bruce hasn't done any interviews since the first Sun story. He released a statement, saying he didn't have to register as a lobbyist. The act doesn't cover lobbying activities by First Nations or their employees, he said, and he spent less than 20 per cent of his time lobbying, the threshold for registration.
James has asked the conflict commissioner to investigate. The information and privacy commissioner, who has responsibility - sort of - for the lobbyist registry.
The whole affair - following similar controversy over former deputy minister Ken Dobell's failure to register - adds to doubts that the lobbyist registry is working.
And the Liberals' defence in both cases rests in part on the notion that the projects were worthwhile, so everyone should just ease up. That's an attitude that eventually gets governments in trouble.
Footnote: There's a whole other aspect to this affair. Much of the information has come from tribal committee meetings released by unhappy band members. The minutes suggest treaty funds borrowed from the government were used to pay Bruce until he could get the provincial grants.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Time to find out if government is selling your resources too cheaply
There’s a big uproar next door in Alberta, one that could end the Conservatives’ 36-year domination of the legislature. And one that could spill over into B.C.
The issue is oil and gas royalties, and whether the government has been selling the province’s resources off far too cheaply.
Since B.C.’s royalty rates have at least partly been shaped by the desire to be competitive with Alberta, that leaves some questions about whether the public has been shortchanged here.
It certainly looks like Albertans lost out. New Premier Ed Stelmach set up a blue-ribbon panel to review the province’s take from oil and gas resources. It reported last month, and said the government had been failing to get full value, giving the companies non-renewable resources on the cheap.
The panel recommended an immediate increase of about 20 per cent, worth an extra $2 billion a year. (The industry, naturally, is outraged.)
Things got worse for the Alberta government. The province’s auditor general released a report this month that said the government knew it could increase royalties by $1 billion to $2 billion a year without losing any economic activity, but didn’t act.
The numbers are much smaller in B.C., and the resource mix is different. Oil and oilsands aren’t a factor.
But Energy Minister Richard Neufeld has cited the need to compete with Alberta in announcing natural gas royalty cuts here. If Alberta has been under pricing the resource, then perhaps so has B.C.
The people of the provinces own the oil and gas. The government auctions the right to explore and drill on sections of land. The companies then pay a royalty on each unit of gas they produce. Effectively, they’re buying it wholesale from the public and then reselling it.
There’s no science to setting gas royalties. It’s like a used-car deal: The buyer tries to pay as little as possible, the seller strives to get as the highest price.
But there’s a difference. With a used car, the seller is usually just looking to get the best price within a week or two. He doesn’t want to stick the rusty Accord in the garage and wait a few years. (Since buyers know that, they gain some advantage).
But with nonrenewable resources - like natural gas - it’s a different story. The gas will almost certainly get more valuable as the years go by. The government can drive a tough bargain; if the energy companies don’t pay now, they might in 10 years.
And there’s an argument against selling off non-renewable resources quickly, at the expense of future generations.
But governments don’t always think long term. They need to get elected every four years. And for them, it might be worth selling the resource a little quickly to get revenue - and jobs - right now.
There’s no doubt the government has focused successfully on increasing the pace of gas production since the Liberals were elected in 2001. The measures went beyond royalty changes and included reduced regulation, road-building support and other moves to encourage companies.
The energy ministry says it constantly monitors the royalty regime to make sure that the rates are appropriate - at a level that encourages companies to invest here, not in Alberta or some other jurisdiction, but not too low.
Yet last year, when the NDP asked basic questions about the costs and benefits of some royalty cuts, it took the ministry four months to come up with information that should have been readily available if the royalties were being monitored.
Anyway, the Alberta energy ministry said it was monitoring royalties closely too.The two provinces’ royalty regimes weren’t identical, but they were linked in the name of competitiveness. If Alberta is leaving money on the table, B.C. might be too.
Fortunately, it’s easy enough to check. B.C.’s auditor general just needs to do the same kind of review his counterpart in Alberta did.The public would be well-served by the answers, whatever they reveal.
Footnote: The whole issue raises - once again - the idea of directing a share of nonrenewable-resource revenues to a heritage fund. That would reduce the incentive for governments to sell of the resource for short-term benefits and leave future generations with a pool of money to cushion the blow when the boom years are over.
The issue is oil and gas royalties, and whether the government has been selling the province’s resources off far too cheaply.
Since B.C.’s royalty rates have at least partly been shaped by the desire to be competitive with Alberta, that leaves some questions about whether the public has been shortchanged here.
It certainly looks like Albertans lost out. New Premier Ed Stelmach set up a blue-ribbon panel to review the province’s take from oil and gas resources. It reported last month, and said the government had been failing to get full value, giving the companies non-renewable resources on the cheap.
The panel recommended an immediate increase of about 20 per cent, worth an extra $2 billion a year. (The industry, naturally, is outraged.)
Things got worse for the Alberta government. The province’s auditor general released a report this month that said the government knew it could increase royalties by $1 billion to $2 billion a year without losing any economic activity, but didn’t act.
The numbers are much smaller in B.C., and the resource mix is different. Oil and oilsands aren’t a factor.
But Energy Minister Richard Neufeld has cited the need to compete with Alberta in announcing natural gas royalty cuts here. If Alberta has been under pricing the resource, then perhaps so has B.C.
The people of the provinces own the oil and gas. The government auctions the right to explore and drill on sections of land. The companies then pay a royalty on each unit of gas they produce. Effectively, they’re buying it wholesale from the public and then reselling it.
There’s no science to setting gas royalties. It’s like a used-car deal: The buyer tries to pay as little as possible, the seller strives to get as the highest price.
But there’s a difference. With a used car, the seller is usually just looking to get the best price within a week or two. He doesn’t want to stick the rusty Accord in the garage and wait a few years. (Since buyers know that, they gain some advantage).
But with nonrenewable resources - like natural gas - it’s a different story. The gas will almost certainly get more valuable as the years go by. The government can drive a tough bargain; if the energy companies don’t pay now, they might in 10 years.
And there’s an argument against selling off non-renewable resources quickly, at the expense of future generations.
But governments don’t always think long term. They need to get elected every four years. And for them, it might be worth selling the resource a little quickly to get revenue - and jobs - right now.
There’s no doubt the government has focused successfully on increasing the pace of gas production since the Liberals were elected in 2001. The measures went beyond royalty changes and included reduced regulation, road-building support and other moves to encourage companies.
The energy ministry says it constantly monitors the royalty regime to make sure that the rates are appropriate - at a level that encourages companies to invest here, not in Alberta or some other jurisdiction, but not too low.
Yet last year, when the NDP asked basic questions about the costs and benefits of some royalty cuts, it took the ministry four months to come up with information that should have been readily available if the royalties were being monitored.
Anyway, the Alberta energy ministry said it was monitoring royalties closely too.The two provinces’ royalty regimes weren’t identical, but they were linked in the name of competitiveness. If Alberta is leaving money on the table, B.C. might be too.
Fortunately, it’s easy enough to check. B.C.’s auditor general just needs to do the same kind of review his counterpart in Alberta did.The public would be well-served by the answers, whatever they reveal.
Footnote: The whole issue raises - once again - the idea of directing a share of nonrenewable-resource revenues to a heritage fund. That would reduce the incentive for governments to sell of the resource for short-term benefits and leave future generations with a pool of money to cushion the blow when the boom years are over.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Session should end electoral boundaries mystery
One of the interesting things to come in next week's fall legislature session will be Gordon Campbell's plan for new electoral boundaries.
The premier over-ruled the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission last month. He rejected the ridings the commissioners created under legislation intended to prevent political interference in the process. So far, the response to the Campbell's intervention has been mostly positive.
The commission's recommendations included adding five new ridings - four in the Lower Mainland and one in the Okanagan - to reflect population growth.
And it proposed reducing the number of seats in rural B.C. by three to offset the increase in growing areas. The legislature would have gone from 79 to 81 seats.
The proposal to cut the number rural seats didn't go over well.
So Campbell said he was intervening to over-rule the commissioners. The government would pass new legislation this fall, ordering the commission to protect the three rural seats.
The commission didn't do anything wrong. Its mandate under the law was to look at the province's changing population and come up with boundaries that would ensure each MLA would represent about the same number of people. The act
requires ridings to be within 25 per cent of the average population size, although there is an opportunity for larger deviations in exceptional circumstances.
With populations falling - or growing slowly - in some areas, the result would be fewer, larger ridings in those regions.
That meant the Kootenays representation would go from four to three; Cariboo-Thompson from five seats to four; and the north from eight to seven ridings.
Over all, the Lower Mainland and Okanagan would gain power; the rural areas would lose. But that's the nature of representative democracy.
The political kickback was strong though, and Campbell reacted. But exactly what he has in mind remains mysterious.
Remember, the commissioners only proposed adding five new seats to urban areas. So even if the instructions are to protect the three rural seats that faced elimination, the legislature would only need to go to 84 members.
Campbell says the commissioners will be ordered to include a total of eight additional seats, taking the legislature to 87 MLAs.
Campbell didn't say where the extra three seats would go, or how that would be decided.
But it looks like the intent is to add not just five seats to urban areas, but eight.
And that has NDP leader Carole James - who supported protecting the three rural seats - crying foul. She says Campbell is trying to create more safe Liberals seats in the Lower Mainland and in the process reducing overall rural
representation.
It's a bit of a mess. The Electoral Boundaries Commission worked for 18 months and spent $3 million working on new riding boundaries under the law. It had hearings set for this fall.
Campbell turned that upside down and it's not yet clear how it will be put back together. The legislation this fall will have to answer the questions about how much freedom the commission will have under his new plan.
One way or another, it's going to cost more money. Eight more MLAs means millions more in salary, support staff, constituency offices and the rest. (That's all a bit ironic given Campbell's 1996 campaign "Pledge with taxpayers"
that promised the number of MLAs would be reduced to less than 60.)
And it's going to make time tight. The new boundaries have to be in the hands of Elections BC within the next eight months. There could be a lot of work to do and little time for public consultation.
The biggest worry is the precedent Campbell is setting. The Electoral Boundaries Commission was established to prevent the party in power from setting boundaries that would improve its candidates' chances. In the U.S., congressional seats
have been so distorted that incumbents have a huge advantage.
Now Campbell's intervention is raising questions about a return to politically influenced electoral boundaries.
Footnote: The changes should be good news for proponents of the single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation. A referendum will be held on the system at the same time as the 2009 election. The increased number
of seats makes the system more representative, particularly in rural areas.
The premier over-ruled the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission last month. He rejected the ridings the commissioners created under legislation intended to prevent political interference in the process. So far, the response to the Campbell's intervention has been mostly positive.
The commission's recommendations included adding five new ridings - four in the Lower Mainland and one in the Okanagan - to reflect population growth.
And it proposed reducing the number of seats in rural B.C. by three to offset the increase in growing areas. The legislature would have gone from 79 to 81 seats.
The proposal to cut the number rural seats didn't go over well.
So Campbell said he was intervening to over-rule the commissioners. The government would pass new legislation this fall, ordering the commission to protect the three rural seats.
The commission didn't do anything wrong. Its mandate under the law was to look at the province's changing population and come up with boundaries that would ensure each MLA would represent about the same number of people. The act
requires ridings to be within 25 per cent of the average population size, although there is an opportunity for larger deviations in exceptional circumstances.
With populations falling - or growing slowly - in some areas, the result would be fewer, larger ridings in those regions.
That meant the Kootenays representation would go from four to three; Cariboo-Thompson from five seats to four; and the north from eight to seven ridings.
Over all, the Lower Mainland and Okanagan would gain power; the rural areas would lose. But that's the nature of representative democracy.
The political kickback was strong though, and Campbell reacted. But exactly what he has in mind remains mysterious.
Remember, the commissioners only proposed adding five new seats to urban areas. So even if the instructions are to protect the three rural seats that faced elimination, the legislature would only need to go to 84 members.
Campbell says the commissioners will be ordered to include a total of eight additional seats, taking the legislature to 87 MLAs.
Campbell didn't say where the extra three seats would go, or how that would be decided.
But it looks like the intent is to add not just five seats to urban areas, but eight.
And that has NDP leader Carole James - who supported protecting the three rural seats - crying foul. She says Campbell is trying to create more safe Liberals seats in the Lower Mainland and in the process reducing overall rural
representation.
It's a bit of a mess. The Electoral Boundaries Commission worked for 18 months and spent $3 million working on new riding boundaries under the law. It had hearings set for this fall.
Campbell turned that upside down and it's not yet clear how it will be put back together. The legislation this fall will have to answer the questions about how much freedom the commission will have under his new plan.
One way or another, it's going to cost more money. Eight more MLAs means millions more in salary, support staff, constituency offices and the rest. (That's all a bit ironic given Campbell's 1996 campaign "Pledge with taxpayers"
that promised the number of MLAs would be reduced to less than 60.)
And it's going to make time tight. The new boundaries have to be in the hands of Elections BC within the next eight months. There could be a lot of work to do and little time for public consultation.
The biggest worry is the precedent Campbell is setting. The Electoral Boundaries Commission was established to prevent the party in power from setting boundaries that would improve its candidates' chances. In the U.S., congressional seats
have been so distorted that incumbents have a huge advantage.
Now Campbell's intervention is raising questions about a return to politically influenced electoral boundaries.
Footnote: The changes should be good news for proponents of the single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation. A referendum will be held on the system at the same time as the 2009 election. The increased number
of seats makes the system more representative, particularly in rural areas.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Fuzzy battle plans in B.C.'s climate-change war
There’s likely one question on most peoples’ minds after Premier Gordon Campbell’s big climate-change speech.
What’s he talking about?
At the Union of B.C. Municipalities last week Campbell said the climate-change battle is as significant as the two world wars Canada has fought. But when it came to our marching orders, he didn’t really have that much new to offer.
The premier promised laws to set tough limits on emissions in B.C. — far stricter than the targets set by the Harper government or Arnold Schwarzenegger. But he had announced the same limits in the throne speech in February. And the how of it all is still mostly a mystery.
Here are the basics. By 2020, B.C. is committed to reducing missions to 33-per-cent lower than today’s level. (Even as the population grows to more than five million.) It’s an ambitious target that reflects our desire to see a real action on global warming; interim targets will be set for 2012 and 2016. But how we get there is still pretty vague.
A “blue-ribbon” Climate Action Team, with representatives from environmental organizations, business and industry, the scientific community and First Nations will set interim targets by next summer, Campbell said.
He promised regional meetings on reductions in forestry, mining, energy, landfills and agriculture. Municipalities will get more power to give incentives to green developers and B.C. will adopt California standards for vehicle emissions. (The only money attached to any of the activities was a $50-million commitment for new buses.) And Campbell announced that the government would become “carbon neutral” by 2010.
That doesn’t mean that the government is going to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions — or carbon-dioxide emissions, to use another term — to zero. Instead, the government’s solution will be found in Campbell’s announcement of a new B.C. Carbon Trust.
The trust will sell emission credits to government, business and individuals. The theory is that it will then use the money to support projects that achieve an equivalent reduction in emissions.
Take an example. The premier announced B.C. would immediately be carbon-neutral in its government travel. When Campbell hops on a float plane or Helijet to spend the day in Victoria, and then flies back to Vancouver, he generates about one-sixth of a tonne of greenhouse gases in the round trip.
The trust will sell emission credits at $25 a tonne. So if the premier sends it a cheque for $4, his trip will be carbon neutral. The trust will then spend the money in a way that results in a one-sixth of tonne reduction in emissions somewhere else. It will plant some trees, improve transit or subsidize a windmill so less natural gas is burned to generate power.
The carbon-credit trading deal Campbell has entered into as part of the Western Climate Initiative takes a similar approach. B.C., Manitoba, California and five other states have set emission limits and agreed to establish a carbon-credit trading system by next summer. Jurisdictions that are under their limits will sell the credits to those that can’t cut emissions enough.
It’s a reasonable approach. Organizations know they have to pay for each tonne and have an incentive to reduce their emissions. And a similar market in the European Union — after some initial difficulties, mostly around setting emission caps fairly — has by most accounts worked well.
But these kinds of exercises are also tricky. For example, the B.C. Carbon Trust might not achieve real reductions with the money it takes in.
And setting the cost of credits, in non-market versions like the trust, is a challenge. If the cost is too high, the economy could be hurt; too low and it becomes a cheap licence to continue business as usual. At $25 a tonne, B.C. could achieve half its goal for 2020 by writing an annual cheque for $500 million. (Though $25 is in the ballpark of the emission value set by the active markets.)
There are questions about other aspects of the province’s plans. Campbell has set up both a cabinet committee on climate action and a $4-million climate secretariat within the premier’s office. The committee has had 177 presentations from industry, green groups, scientists and ministries, he said. But not one has been made public.
The secretariat, with six senior managers, hasn’t produced one report on its work. And although Campbell said the government has already identified ways to meet up to 80 per cent of the 2020 goal, the public is still in the dark about what’s ahead — the costs, the opportunities, the industry issues.
None of this is to criticize the commitment. Campbell has grabbed the climate-change issue and set some tough goals. But setting targets without telling the public anything about how they’ll be achieved raises concerns about the soundness of the government’s plans.
What’s he talking about?
At the Union of B.C. Municipalities last week Campbell said the climate-change battle is as significant as the two world wars Canada has fought. But when it came to our marching orders, he didn’t really have that much new to offer.
The premier promised laws to set tough limits on emissions in B.C. — far stricter than the targets set by the Harper government or Arnold Schwarzenegger. But he had announced the same limits in the throne speech in February. And the how of it all is still mostly a mystery.
Here are the basics. By 2020, B.C. is committed to reducing missions to 33-per-cent lower than today’s level. (Even as the population grows to more than five million.) It’s an ambitious target that reflects our desire to see a real action on global warming; interim targets will be set for 2012 and 2016. But how we get there is still pretty vague.
A “blue-ribbon” Climate Action Team, with representatives from environmental organizations, business and industry, the scientific community and First Nations will set interim targets by next summer, Campbell said.
He promised regional meetings on reductions in forestry, mining, energy, landfills and agriculture. Municipalities will get more power to give incentives to green developers and B.C. will adopt California standards for vehicle emissions. (The only money attached to any of the activities was a $50-million commitment for new buses.) And Campbell announced that the government would become “carbon neutral” by 2010.
That doesn’t mean that the government is going to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions — or carbon-dioxide emissions, to use another term — to zero. Instead, the government’s solution will be found in Campbell’s announcement of a new B.C. Carbon Trust.
The trust will sell emission credits to government, business and individuals. The theory is that it will then use the money to support projects that achieve an equivalent reduction in emissions.
Take an example. The premier announced B.C. would immediately be carbon-neutral in its government travel. When Campbell hops on a float plane or Helijet to spend the day in Victoria, and then flies back to Vancouver, he generates about one-sixth of a tonne of greenhouse gases in the round trip.
The trust will sell emission credits at $25 a tonne. So if the premier sends it a cheque for $4, his trip will be carbon neutral. The trust will then spend the money in a way that results in a one-sixth of tonne reduction in emissions somewhere else. It will plant some trees, improve transit or subsidize a windmill so less natural gas is burned to generate power.
The carbon-credit trading deal Campbell has entered into as part of the Western Climate Initiative takes a similar approach. B.C., Manitoba, California and five other states have set emission limits and agreed to establish a carbon-credit trading system by next summer. Jurisdictions that are under their limits will sell the credits to those that can’t cut emissions enough.
It’s a reasonable approach. Organizations know they have to pay for each tonne and have an incentive to reduce their emissions. And a similar market in the European Union — after some initial difficulties, mostly around setting emission caps fairly — has by most accounts worked well.
But these kinds of exercises are also tricky. For example, the B.C. Carbon Trust might not achieve real reductions with the money it takes in.
And setting the cost of credits, in non-market versions like the trust, is a challenge. If the cost is too high, the economy could be hurt; too low and it becomes a cheap licence to continue business as usual. At $25 a tonne, B.C. could achieve half its goal for 2020 by writing an annual cheque for $500 million. (Though $25 is in the ballpark of the emission value set by the active markets.)
There are questions about other aspects of the province’s plans. Campbell has set up both a cabinet committee on climate action and a $4-million climate secretariat within the premier’s office. The committee has had 177 presentations from industry, green groups, scientists and ministries, he said. But not one has been made public.
The secretariat, with six senior managers, hasn’t produced one report on its work. And although Campbell said the government has already identified ways to meet up to 80 per cent of the 2020 goal, the public is still in the dark about what’s ahead — the costs, the opportunities, the industry issues.
None of this is to criticize the commitment. Campbell has grabbed the climate-change issue and set some tough goals. But setting targets without telling the public anything about how they’ll be achieved raises concerns about the soundness of the government’s plans.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Subs look like very expensive lemons
I mostly write about provincial issues, but every now and then something comes along that's too bizarrely interesting to ignore.
This time, it's Canada's submarines. I've made some misguided purchases in my day, but never anything that looked quite so dramatically flawed.
HMCS Victoria is in drydock here and the Victoria Times Colonist's report on the state of the sub had a decidedly surreal quality.
The Victoria is one of the four used submarines Canada bought from Britan in 1998, taking delivery in 2000. The plan was to spend six months getting it ready for service in Halifax and then set out to sea.
But the six months stretched into three years, The sub sailed for Esquimalt, its home base, arriving with flags flying and a band waiting dockside to celebrate.
Then it went straight into 10 more months of repairs for new problems.
It sailed for a few months at sea, and then a fire on a sister sub, the Chicoutimi, killed a sailor on its voyage from England. The Victoria was pulled from service for another seven months.
The sub was ready to sail again by May 2005. But by the fall it was into drydock here for what was supposed to be a two-year repair program. It should have been back at sea by now.
But the Times Colonist reported the navy is now hoping for a 2009 launch. Making the submarine usable and safe is going to take almost four years - twice as long as planned.
The submarines cost almost $790 million when Canada bought them. There's no ready tally of the money sunk into them since, but the Victoria repairs have more than equalled the purchase price.
Since Canada took possession in October 2000, the HMCS Victoria has actually been in service for 115 days.
For every day of use, there have been three weeks of repairs and refitting.
By the time the sub is ready to go - if it meets the new deadline - it will have been out of service 96.5 per cent of the time since delivery.
It doesn't seem like a success story. In seven years, the HCMS Victoria has actually been used for its intended purpose for four months. The rest of the time the repair bills have been mounting.
What's weird is that no one seems particularly perturbed that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on submarines that mostly haven't worked.
The Victoria is not an anomaly. Only one of the three other submarines is functioning. The Chicoutimi has been tied up since the fire; work will start on a major overhaul after the Victoria is done in 2009.
And these repairs and delays weren't part of the plan. When the navy bought the used submarines - which had been mothballed by Britain for four years - officers talked about them being in service by the end of 2001.
But the politicians, the public, seem remarkably understanding about what looks like a bad deal.
What makes it even more worrying is that the Canadian forces, in part because of the new combat role in Afghanistan and in part because of the supportive Conservative government, appear about to go on a shopping spree. They're looking at new fighters, a $4-billion purchase. New transport and search-and-rescue aircraft, $3.2 billion. A long list from the Navy. Drones,artillery, trucks tanks - again, a second-hand deal.
All in, the price tag is something like $22 billion and counting. Given the experience with the submarines, that should make a lot of Canadians nervous.
Especially because there seems some confusion about just what the equipment is for - whether the government is preparing Canada for a succession of overseas wars like the one in Afghanistan.
I'm sure buying used subs is tricky. But by any objective standards - including the ones the government and Canadian forces brass set when they bought the ships - this has gone wildly off the rails.
Footnote: So why submarines, anyway? Are we going to be sinking interlopers in Canadian waters? Or heading off to countries unknown to spy on their fleets? "Submarines excel at defending, surveillance and intelligence gathering," Sen.
Colin Kenny offered earlier this year. "Even with modern technology, submarines are difficult to detect. The mere presence of submarines defending Canada's coasts is a deterrent to potentially hostile vessels."
This time, it's Canada's submarines. I've made some misguided purchases in my day, but never anything that looked quite so dramatically flawed.
HMCS Victoria is in drydock here and the Victoria Times Colonist's report on the state of the sub had a decidedly surreal quality.
The Victoria is one of the four used submarines Canada bought from Britan in 1998, taking delivery in 2000. The plan was to spend six months getting it ready for service in Halifax and then set out to sea.
But the six months stretched into three years, The sub sailed for Esquimalt, its home base, arriving with flags flying and a band waiting dockside to celebrate.
Then it went straight into 10 more months of repairs for new problems.
It sailed for a few months at sea, and then a fire on a sister sub, the Chicoutimi, killed a sailor on its voyage from England. The Victoria was pulled from service for another seven months.
The sub was ready to sail again by May 2005. But by the fall it was into drydock here for what was supposed to be a two-year repair program. It should have been back at sea by now.
But the Times Colonist reported the navy is now hoping for a 2009 launch. Making the submarine usable and safe is going to take almost four years - twice as long as planned.
The submarines cost almost $790 million when Canada bought them. There's no ready tally of the money sunk into them since, but the Victoria repairs have more than equalled the purchase price.
Since Canada took possession in October 2000, the HMCS Victoria has actually been in service for 115 days.
For every day of use, there have been three weeks of repairs and refitting.
By the time the sub is ready to go - if it meets the new deadline - it will have been out of service 96.5 per cent of the time since delivery.
It doesn't seem like a success story. In seven years, the HCMS Victoria has actually been used for its intended purpose for four months. The rest of the time the repair bills have been mounting.
What's weird is that no one seems particularly perturbed that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on submarines that mostly haven't worked.
The Victoria is not an anomaly. Only one of the three other submarines is functioning. The Chicoutimi has been tied up since the fire; work will start on a major overhaul after the Victoria is done in 2009.
And these repairs and delays weren't part of the plan. When the navy bought the used submarines - which had been mothballed by Britain for four years - officers talked about them being in service by the end of 2001.
But the politicians, the public, seem remarkably understanding about what looks like a bad deal.
What makes it even more worrying is that the Canadian forces, in part because of the new combat role in Afghanistan and in part because of the supportive Conservative government, appear about to go on a shopping spree. They're looking at new fighters, a $4-billion purchase. New transport and search-and-rescue aircraft, $3.2 billion. A long list from the Navy. Drones,artillery, trucks tanks - again, a second-hand deal.
All in, the price tag is something like $22 billion and counting. Given the experience with the submarines, that should make a lot of Canadians nervous.
Especially because there seems some confusion about just what the equipment is for - whether the government is preparing Canada for a succession of overseas wars like the one in Afghanistan.
I'm sure buying used subs is tricky. But by any objective standards - including the ones the government and Canadian forces brass set when they bought the ships - this has gone wildly off the rails.
Footnote: So why submarines, anyway? Are we going to be sinking interlopers in Canadian waters? Or heading off to countries unknown to spy on their fleets? "Submarines excel at defending, surveillance and intelligence gathering," Sen.
Colin Kenny offered earlier this year. "Even with modern technology, submarines are difficult to detect. The mere presence of submarines defending Canada's coasts is a deterrent to potentially hostile vessels."
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Harper’s vagueness on big issues disappointing
I’m getting the feeling Stephen Harper just doesn’t trust us.
On two critical issues - the war in Afghanistan and climate change – Harper is unwilling to just say what he thinks Canada should do and let us judge whether he’s picking the right course.
It’s like we’re not quite smart enough, and the government needs to coax us along until we see the right way — his way.
Harper headed to New York this week to a United Nations conference aimed at saving the Kyoto Protocol - or at least developing an updated version.
He could have offered a clear vision, even one that argued that efforts to reduce greenhouse gases shouldn’t be allowed to hurt economic growth. That’s a legitimate position.
Instead, his 500-word speech was full of platitudinous generalities. (It’s online at the www.canada.gc.ca. One of the many great things about the Internet is that you don’t have to rely on people like me to assess such things; you can read them yourselves in three or four minutes and form your own judgments.)
The purpose of the meeting was to come up with a successor to the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
But Harper didn’t actually utter the word Kyoto — not to support the agreement, or to say it was too tough, or unrealistic.
The message, basically, was that every country should try hard to reduce emissions and Canada would do its bit.
“There is an emerging consensus on the need for a new, effective and flexible climate change framework, one that commits all the world’s major emitters to real targets and concrete action against global greenhouse-gas emissions,” Harper said.
What does that mean, in the language of real people? Do you pay attention to “flexible,” or “real targets?” Or is it just politican-talk?
At the same time, Harper revealed Canada was joining an alternate climate-change coalition that
t includes the U.S, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. That group has rejected mandatory targets for greenhouse-gas emissions.
It’s a big shift away from a UN-backed climate-change plan with hard commitments, towards a much softer approach. (Canada was also set to participate in a U.S.-led greenhouse-gas conference this week.)
Our government wants a shift from absolute greenhouse-gas reduction commitments to intensity-based targets. If Alberta is increasing oilsands production, then greenhouse-gas emissions should be allowed to increase, Harper says. The goal should just be to reduce emissions per barrel of oil production.
Perhaps the Harper government does not believe a UN agreement to replace Kyoto is necessary, or in Canada’s interests. Perhaps it is opposed in principle to strict emission limits as a threat to the economy.
But in any case, the government — elected in January 2006 — should be ready to set out its position for Canadians.
Harper’s stance on our forces’ role in the war in Afghanistan is just as unclear.
Earlier this month Defence Minister Peter Mackay said NATO had already been told not to count on Canada’s participation in its current role when the mission ends in February 2009. His officials rushed to say he didn’t mean it.
This week, Mackay said the government will tell NATO whether Canada will extend the combat mission by next April.
That would leave the alliance just 10 months to find a replacement or adjust its battle plans. Given the reluctance of any other NATO nations to accept a combat role, that’s irresponsible.
Again, the government must have a position on the future of the mission. Why not trust Canadians, set out its policy and begin the debate?
Certainly, there is likely political advantage in delay. But Harper was elected in part because Canadians were tired of governments that put political advantage ahead of straight talk. He was supposed to be the straight guy, after Mulroney, Chretien and Martin. The one who trusted us.
And right now, it’s hard to feel trusted by this government.
Footnote: One factor in all this is the potential for an election if the opposition parties decide to defeat the government when Parliament resumes sitting next month, with the climate change and the war likely key issues. Vagueness can work well in election campaigns, unfortunately.
On two critical issues - the war in Afghanistan and climate change – Harper is unwilling to just say what he thinks Canada should do and let us judge whether he’s picking the right course.
It’s like we’re not quite smart enough, and the government needs to coax us along until we see the right way — his way.
Harper headed to New York this week to a United Nations conference aimed at saving the Kyoto Protocol - or at least developing an updated version.
He could have offered a clear vision, even one that argued that efforts to reduce greenhouse gases shouldn’t be allowed to hurt economic growth. That’s a legitimate position.
Instead, his 500-word speech was full of platitudinous generalities. (It’s online at the www.canada.gc.ca. One of the many great things about the Internet is that you don’t have to rely on people like me to assess such things; you can read them yourselves in three or four minutes and form your own judgments.)
The purpose of the meeting was to come up with a successor to the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
But Harper didn’t actually utter the word Kyoto — not to support the agreement, or to say it was too tough, or unrealistic.
The message, basically, was that every country should try hard to reduce emissions and Canada would do its bit.
“There is an emerging consensus on the need for a new, effective and flexible climate change framework, one that commits all the world’s major emitters to real targets and concrete action against global greenhouse-gas emissions,” Harper said.
What does that mean, in the language of real people? Do you pay attention to “flexible,” or “real targets?” Or is it just politican-talk?
At the same time, Harper revealed Canada was joining an alternate climate-change coalition that
t includes the U.S, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. That group has rejected mandatory targets for greenhouse-gas emissions.
It’s a big shift away from a UN-backed climate-change plan with hard commitments, towards a much softer approach. (Canada was also set to participate in a U.S.-led greenhouse-gas conference this week.)
Our government wants a shift from absolute greenhouse-gas reduction commitments to intensity-based targets. If Alberta is increasing oilsands production, then greenhouse-gas emissions should be allowed to increase, Harper says. The goal should just be to reduce emissions per barrel of oil production.
Perhaps the Harper government does not believe a UN agreement to replace Kyoto is necessary, or in Canada’s interests. Perhaps it is opposed in principle to strict emission limits as a threat to the economy.
But in any case, the government — elected in January 2006 — should be ready to set out its position for Canadians.
Harper’s stance on our forces’ role in the war in Afghanistan is just as unclear.
Earlier this month Defence Minister Peter Mackay said NATO had already been told not to count on Canada’s participation in its current role when the mission ends in February 2009. His officials rushed to say he didn’t mean it.
This week, Mackay said the government will tell NATO whether Canada will extend the combat mission by next April.
That would leave the alliance just 10 months to find a replacement or adjust its battle plans. Given the reluctance of any other NATO nations to accept a combat role, that’s irresponsible.
Again, the government must have a position on the future of the mission. Why not trust Canadians, set out its policy and begin the debate?
Certainly, there is likely political advantage in delay. But Harper was elected in part because Canadians were tired of governments that put political advantage ahead of straight talk. He was supposed to be the straight guy, after Mulroney, Chretien and Martin. The one who trusted us.
And right now, it’s hard to feel trusted by this government.
Footnote: One factor in all this is the potential for an election if the opposition parties decide to defeat the government when Parliament resumes sitting next month, with the climate change and the war likely key issues. Vagueness can work well in election campaigns, unfortunately.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Another big gift, from you to a forest company
It didn’t take Western Forest Products long to cash in on the big gift the government handed the company earlier this year.
It wasn’t really from the government. Taxpayers and Vancouver Island communities actually paid for the present. Forests Minister Rich Coleman just wrapped it up and handed it over on your behalf.
Western Forest Products has announced it plans to put 4,450 acres of great real estate on the market. The land includes waterfront property along the coast west of Victoria – the kind of real estate that will have people lining up, waving their chequebooks.
That’s just the first step. All in, Western Forest Products has 70,000 acres available for sale, much of it with good development potential. Waterfront lots adjacent to some of the land are selling at $400,000 an acre.
This time last year, the company couldn’t likely have sold a single acre. The land was part of the its Vancouver Island tree farm licence, That meant it was managed as if it was Crown land, with higher environmental and forest sustainability standards. Raw log exports were limited.
And the tree farm licence required that the land stay in forestry, so there would be trees and jobs a hundred years from now.
But in February, Coleman ordered the land removed from the tree-farm licence. The company needed help, he said. The government was willing to sacrifice the public interests protected by the tree farm licence to give a break to the shareholders.
Western Forest Products was quick to take advantage of the chance. It has just put out “for sale” signs on 4,450 acres, including big stretches of the Pacific coast between Victoria and Jordan River, a popular surfing and camping spot.
There’s a good argument that the highest-value use for the land is housing for rich retirees. Certainly that’s what’s WFP has decided.
But there are a couple of problems here. First, the people of B.C. paid a big price to have those lands included in the tree farm licences. Back in the 1950s the provincial government was keen to get companies to roll their private land holdings into their licences. The government thought that way the land would be managed for the long-term benefit of British Columbians and the future of the forest industry would be protected.
And it was willing to pay to make sure that happened. The government figured out what the companies would lose by including the land in their tree farm licences, and awarded them the equivalent value in Crown timber.
But when the current government agreed to release the land from the tree-farm licences, it didn’t ask Western Forest Products for any compensation. Coleman didn’t even ask the company to donate a portion of the land for parks.
There was no consultation with the affected communities, who were not only suddenly facing big development pressures but also a serious loss of jobs. As the forestland based is reduced, the industry has to shrink.
This is the second time the Liberal government has enriched a forest company at public expense. In 2004, Weyerhaeuser asked the government to let it take 220,000 acres out of its tree farm licences, much of it around Port Alberni. The benefits to the company would be huge – an extra $18 million to $24 million a year in extra profits, plus the ability to sell of the land for real estate. Figure a $200-million gain for the corporation.
But what about the public? The ministry prepared briefing notes on the request. The officials assumed Weyerhaeuser would pay taxpayers compensation if the land was removed.
Even with that assumption, the senior ministry staff recommended that the government say no. Communities and workers considered the tree farm agreement a “social contract” that ensured local areas benefited from the forests and that sustainable management would mean jobs for their children, they told the minister. (That concern was prescient; the change allowed more log exports, cost local jobs and has resulted in logging practices that residents say have damaged the environment.)
But the politicians ignored the advice of the ministry professionals and gave the company what it wanted.
Now Coleman has done it again.
It wasn’t really from the government. Taxpayers and Vancouver Island communities actually paid for the present. Forests Minister Rich Coleman just wrapped it up and handed it over on your behalf.
Western Forest Products has announced it plans to put 4,450 acres of great real estate on the market. The land includes waterfront property along the coast west of Victoria – the kind of real estate that will have people lining up, waving their chequebooks.
That’s just the first step. All in, Western Forest Products has 70,000 acres available for sale, much of it with good development potential. Waterfront lots adjacent to some of the land are selling at $400,000 an acre.
This time last year, the company couldn’t likely have sold a single acre. The land was part of the its Vancouver Island tree farm licence, That meant it was managed as if it was Crown land, with higher environmental and forest sustainability standards. Raw log exports were limited.
And the tree farm licence required that the land stay in forestry, so there would be trees and jobs a hundred years from now.
But in February, Coleman ordered the land removed from the tree-farm licence. The company needed help, he said. The government was willing to sacrifice the public interests protected by the tree farm licence to give a break to the shareholders.
Western Forest Products was quick to take advantage of the chance. It has just put out “for sale” signs on 4,450 acres, including big stretches of the Pacific coast between Victoria and Jordan River, a popular surfing and camping spot.
There’s a good argument that the highest-value use for the land is housing for rich retirees. Certainly that’s what’s WFP has decided.
But there are a couple of problems here. First, the people of B.C. paid a big price to have those lands included in the tree farm licences. Back in the 1950s the provincial government was keen to get companies to roll their private land holdings into their licences. The government thought that way the land would be managed for the long-term benefit of British Columbians and the future of the forest industry would be protected.
And it was willing to pay to make sure that happened. The government figured out what the companies would lose by including the land in their tree farm licences, and awarded them the equivalent value in Crown timber.
But when the current government agreed to release the land from the tree-farm licences, it didn’t ask Western Forest Products for any compensation. Coleman didn’t even ask the company to donate a portion of the land for parks.
There was no consultation with the affected communities, who were not only suddenly facing big development pressures but also a serious loss of jobs. As the forestland based is reduced, the industry has to shrink.
This is the second time the Liberal government has enriched a forest company at public expense. In 2004, Weyerhaeuser asked the government to let it take 220,000 acres out of its tree farm licences, much of it around Port Alberni. The benefits to the company would be huge – an extra $18 million to $24 million a year in extra profits, plus the ability to sell of the land for real estate. Figure a $200-million gain for the corporation.
But what about the public? The ministry prepared briefing notes on the request. The officials assumed Weyerhaeuser would pay taxpayers compensation if the land was removed.
Even with that assumption, the senior ministry staff recommended that the government say no. Communities and workers considered the tree farm agreement a “social contract” that ensured local areas benefited from the forests and that sustainable management would mean jobs for their children, they told the minister. (That concern was prescient; the change allowed more log exports, cost local jobs and has resulted in logging practices that residents say have damaged the environment.)
But the politicians ignored the advice of the ministry professionals and gave the company what it wanted.
Now Coleman has done it again.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Coming soon - for-profit social services?
Jody Paterson takes the first look at a big change in social services in B.C.
All programs to help people with disabilities find jobs and get off income assistance are now to be provided by Arizona-based Providence Service Corp., an American company with that runs for-profit operations providing governments with everything from child protection to probation services to reform schools.
It's a good business niche, the company notes, citing stats to encourage investors - more than 40 million Americans now living in poverty; almost five million adults released every year on parole; two million children needing protective care.
All programs to help people with disabilities find jobs and get off income assistance are now to be provided by Arizona-based Providence Service Corp., an American company with that runs for-profit operations providing governments with everything from child protection to probation services to reform schools.
It's a good business niche, the company notes, citing stats to encourage investors - more than 40 million Americans now living in poverty; almost five million adults released every year on parole; two million children needing protective care.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Coalbed methane ups ante in B.C.-Montana mining fight
The big fight between Montana and B.C. over mining in the Flathead Valley is heating up again.
And this time, since coalbed methane is involved, the battle is likely really on.
It's a mistake to dismiss the dispute. Any kind of cross-border spat can get complicated and costly in a hurry. Just look at the big fight over the proposed power plant across the U.S. border from Abbotsford. The mining battle is already starting to get high-level attention in Washington - the U.S. State Department has complained; Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson has been defending B.C.; Premier Gordon Campbell and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer have just exchanged letters on the issue. Now the whole dispute is threatening to get bigger, with the Americans complaining about possible coalbed methane development in the same area. That's even more of a hot button in Montana, in part because of the industry's poor record in the western U.S.
The starting point for all this is a proposed coal mine in the Kootenays about 30 kilometres from the U.S. border. The B.C. government already barred the owner, Cline Mining, from developing a coal property closer to the U.S. It thinks this one is OK.
But Montana's politicians are united in opposition. The mine would be in the headwaters of the Flathead River, which forms the border of Glacier National Park.
There are lots of political angles. The loudest opponent is Max 'Blame Canada' Baucus, a long-time Democratic senator who was a hawk in the softwood lumber dispute.
For any politician, it's a great opportunity to score painless points by talking tough about a foreign country and looking all pro-environment. But the Montana politicians - backed by a pretty sophisticated environmental movement - have already started to turn the spotlight on B.C. environmental approval standards. They note, for example, that the mining operation wouldn't be allowed near the river within Montana. (They don't note that the state is encouraging coal mining and coalbed methane in other areas.) The other big advantage the Montanans have is support from within B.C. And that's going to get much stronger once more people in the province are aware of the interest in coalbed methane.
The provincial is keen on coalbed methane development and has sold more than $25 million worth of drilling rights in the last five years. So far, there are no commercial developments.
Coalbed methane is natural gas trapped in cracks in coal seams and the rocks around them.
It's a good clean fuel. But there's a catch. The cracks also often hold water, sometimes contaminate, and it has to be pumped out and disposed of as part of the process. The industry has left some big messes in its wake. Now British Petroleum wants to start drilling test wells in the Crowsnest coal field next year, an area that includes the upper Flathead. The company believes the waste water can be re-injected into the ground. The Montana politicians are skeptical, and a lot of people in the region will be too. Coalbed methane is already an issue. Shell's effort to drill test wells for coalbed methane in the Klappan Valley was stalled by a First Nations blockade this month. The company applied for an injunction, but abandoned the effort. Wisely, perhaps. As the blockade continued, eight environmental groups spent $20,000 on an ad in the European edition of the Financial Times condemning Shell's plans. The ad referred to the valley as the Sacred Headwaters, source of the Nass, Stikine and Skeena rivers. Shell was portrayed as the despoiler of one of the world's great wildernesses. It's effective stuff. BP can expect a similar reaction, except with a U.S. protest thrown in. Baucus promises ""a massive and unpleasant fight from Montana that will end badly." There is actually a reasonable case that coalbed methane can be produced safely. But the government hasn't been able to make it. And it will get tougher now that the battle has gone international.
Footnote: There's coalbed methane around much of the province. Quinsam Coal and Cornerstone Gas plan to drill test wells in Campbell River as early as this fall, hoping coal fields in the area produce methane.
And this time, since coalbed methane is involved, the battle is likely really on.
It's a mistake to dismiss the dispute. Any kind of cross-border spat can get complicated and costly in a hurry. Just look at the big fight over the proposed power plant across the U.S. border from Abbotsford. The mining battle is already starting to get high-level attention in Washington - the U.S. State Department has complained; Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson has been defending B.C.; Premier Gordon Campbell and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer have just exchanged letters on the issue. Now the whole dispute is threatening to get bigger, with the Americans complaining about possible coalbed methane development in the same area. That's even more of a hot button in Montana, in part because of the industry's poor record in the western U.S.
The starting point for all this is a proposed coal mine in the Kootenays about 30 kilometres from the U.S. border. The B.C. government already barred the owner, Cline Mining, from developing a coal property closer to the U.S. It thinks this one is OK.
But Montana's politicians are united in opposition. The mine would be in the headwaters of the Flathead River, which forms the border of Glacier National Park.
There are lots of political angles. The loudest opponent is Max 'Blame Canada' Baucus, a long-time Democratic senator who was a hawk in the softwood lumber dispute.
For any politician, it's a great opportunity to score painless points by talking tough about a foreign country and looking all pro-environment. But the Montana politicians - backed by a pretty sophisticated environmental movement - have already started to turn the spotlight on B.C. environmental approval standards. They note, for example, that the mining operation wouldn't be allowed near the river within Montana. (They don't note that the state is encouraging coal mining and coalbed methane in other areas.) The other big advantage the Montanans have is support from within B.C. And that's going to get much stronger once more people in the province are aware of the interest in coalbed methane.
The provincial is keen on coalbed methane development and has sold more than $25 million worth of drilling rights in the last five years. So far, there are no commercial developments.
Coalbed methane is natural gas trapped in cracks in coal seams and the rocks around them.
It's a good clean fuel. But there's a catch. The cracks also often hold water, sometimes contaminate, and it has to be pumped out and disposed of as part of the process. The industry has left some big messes in its wake. Now British Petroleum wants to start drilling test wells in the Crowsnest coal field next year, an area that includes the upper Flathead. The company believes the waste water can be re-injected into the ground. The Montana politicians are skeptical, and a lot of people in the region will be too. Coalbed methane is already an issue. Shell's effort to drill test wells for coalbed methane in the Klappan Valley was stalled by a First Nations blockade this month. The company applied for an injunction, but abandoned the effort. Wisely, perhaps. As the blockade continued, eight environmental groups spent $20,000 on an ad in the European edition of the Financial Times condemning Shell's plans. The ad referred to the valley as the Sacred Headwaters, source of the Nass, Stikine and Skeena rivers. Shell was portrayed as the despoiler of one of the world's great wildernesses. It's effective stuff. BP can expect a similar reaction, except with a U.S. protest thrown in. Baucus promises ""a massive and unpleasant fight from Montana that will end badly." There is actually a reasonable case that coalbed methane can be produced safely. But the government hasn't been able to make it. And it will get tougher now that the battle has gone international.
Footnote: There's coalbed methane around much of the province. Quinsam Coal and Cornerstone Gas plan to drill test wells in Campbell River as early as this fall, hoping coal fields in the area produce methane.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Time for some honest answers on Afghanistan
If Canadians are entitled to straight talk from their government on any issue, it's the war in Afghanistan.
Instead, it feels like we are being conned, either misled or kept in the dark to suit the government's political agenda.
It's a poor way to approach such an important issue. Families are sending their loved ones off to war. They deserve clear answers from their government.
The basic question is simple: Does the government support continuing our military mission in Afghanistan once the current commitment ends in February 2009?
Getting a straight answer has proved impossible. It sounded like Defence Minister Peter MacKay was providing real information earlier this month in a television interview. He was asked if Canada should be telling NATO what our plans are - after all, the mission ends in less than 18 months.
"As far as the signal that has been sent already, our current configuration will end in February 2009," he said. "Obviously the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that, and the Afghan compact itself goes until 2011."
Sounds pretty clear. The military mission is almost over.
But within hours, a government spokesman said MacKay hadn't meant to say anything, certainly not that NATO had been told that we intended to end the mission as scheduled. He was just trying to sound like he was saying something.
Which left Canadians in the dark about what the government believes should happen.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a little clearer this week. He says the future of the mission is up to Parliament.
But he added that the Conservatives won't allow a debate or vote on the mission until he's convinced that the Commons will extend the war commitment, Harper says.
Which means an indefinite period of political jockeying.
That's unfair. Canadians deserve a full debate now. NATO deserves to know whether our troops will continue fighting after 2009, so it can plan.
And our troops deserve to know what their futures hold.
The Conservatives could argue that they need more time to persuade Canadians of the progress being made.
But they have had 19 months to make the case for the mission. It's now time for a debate and a decision.
Reaching a decision will be difficult, because the correct course is not obvious.
There are reasons for Canada to be at war in Afghanistan - to support the government, prevent terrorists from using the country as a safe haven and improve the lives of citizens.
But there are also reasons to question the effectiveness of the mission, the chance of success and the high cost in Canadian lives.
Recent months have been discouraging.
Canadians are fighting to regain control of areas they secured earlier this year, which the Afghan police and army were unable to hold. They are battling an insurgent campaign that poses enormous tactical challenges. The enemy can avoid confrontation, harass Canadians with IEDs and wait for the chance to reclaim the territory once the NATO forces have moved on. At the same time, the rising civilian death toll is reducing support for the NATO campaign.
Independent reports suggest Canadian aid - at least in terms of some of the major projects touted by the government - has failed to translate into change on the ground.
And the Afghan government and police remain corrupt and inefficient.
Canadians have weighed the evidence and decided our troops have done enough. A national Decima Research poll this summer found two out of three Canadians want the troops out of the fighting when this commitment ends. About 75 per cent of those surveyed did not believe our effort would produce real change in Afghanistan.
It's time for the Harper government to make its best case for a continued mission, and then listen to Canadians.
Footnote: The issue could come to a head when Parliament resumes sitting in October. Dion has said the Liberals would introduce a motion calling on the government to inform NATO that the mission would not be extended. Harper could choose to consider the vote a confidence motion, which would mean an election if the government is defeated.
Instead, it feels like we are being conned, either misled or kept in the dark to suit the government's political agenda.
It's a poor way to approach such an important issue. Families are sending their loved ones off to war. They deserve clear answers from their government.
The basic question is simple: Does the government support continuing our military mission in Afghanistan once the current commitment ends in February 2009?
Getting a straight answer has proved impossible. It sounded like Defence Minister Peter MacKay was providing real information earlier this month in a television interview. He was asked if Canada should be telling NATO what our plans are - after all, the mission ends in less than 18 months.
"As far as the signal that has been sent already, our current configuration will end in February 2009," he said. "Obviously the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that, and the Afghan compact itself goes until 2011."
Sounds pretty clear. The military mission is almost over.
But within hours, a government spokesman said MacKay hadn't meant to say anything, certainly not that NATO had been told that we intended to end the mission as scheduled. He was just trying to sound like he was saying something.
Which left Canadians in the dark about what the government believes should happen.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a little clearer this week. He says the future of the mission is up to Parliament.
But he added that the Conservatives won't allow a debate or vote on the mission until he's convinced that the Commons will extend the war commitment, Harper says.
Which means an indefinite period of political jockeying.
That's unfair. Canadians deserve a full debate now. NATO deserves to know whether our troops will continue fighting after 2009, so it can plan.
And our troops deserve to know what their futures hold.
The Conservatives could argue that they need more time to persuade Canadians of the progress being made.
But they have had 19 months to make the case for the mission. It's now time for a debate and a decision.
Reaching a decision will be difficult, because the correct course is not obvious.
There are reasons for Canada to be at war in Afghanistan - to support the government, prevent terrorists from using the country as a safe haven and improve the lives of citizens.
But there are also reasons to question the effectiveness of the mission, the chance of success and the high cost in Canadian lives.
Recent months have been discouraging.
Canadians are fighting to regain control of areas they secured earlier this year, which the Afghan police and army were unable to hold. They are battling an insurgent campaign that poses enormous tactical challenges. The enemy can avoid confrontation, harass Canadians with IEDs and wait for the chance to reclaim the territory once the NATO forces have moved on. At the same time, the rising civilian death toll is reducing support for the NATO campaign.
Independent reports suggest Canadian aid - at least in terms of some of the major projects touted by the government - has failed to translate into change on the ground.
And the Afghan government and police remain corrupt and inefficient.
Canadians have weighed the evidence and decided our troops have done enough. A national Decima Research poll this summer found two out of three Canadians want the troops out of the fighting when this commitment ends. About 75 per cent of those surveyed did not believe our effort would produce real change in Afghanistan.
It's time for the Harper government to make its best case for a continued mission, and then listen to Canadians.
Footnote: The issue could come to a head when Parliament resumes sitting in October. Dion has said the Liberals would introduce a motion calling on the government to inform NATO that the mission would not be extended. Harper could choose to consider the vote a confidence motion, which would mean an election if the government is defeated.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A dumb and sleazy controversy on veiled voting
I can't remember a weirder, dumber and potentially more sinister political controversy than the great debate over veiled voting.
To read the papers, you would have thought Canadian democracy was making a desperate last stand. All the way over in Australia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was outraged that Elections Canada said women who chose to wear a veil wouldn't have to show their faces before voting.
Imagine. Women in burkas, voting, in Canada.
Harper sounded angry. He "profoundly disapproved" of the decision. Chief Electoral Officer Mark Mayrand was subverting the will of Parliament. Conservative MPs leaped to the attack.
And so did Liberal leader Stephane Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton, in less overwrought fashion. Both said women should have to show their faces if they want to vote.
Except it's utter baloney. Unless the leaders pay no attention to what's going on in Parliament, they know that the Commons passed amendments to the Elections Act earlier this year.
They know that the legislation does not require voters to show photo identification at the polls.
And if voters don't have to show ID, what's the point of demanding to see their faces? Is it so election workers can see if there is dishonesty in their eyes? Or is it just unCanadian to wear a veil, and grounds for barring someone from voting?
Here's what the Election Act says, after the changes the Harper government introduced and the Commons and Senate passed this year.
Voters can establish their identity in two ways. They can show "one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address."
Those people would logically have to show their faces, so election workers can be sure that they match the photo.
But Parliament also decided voters could show "two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector's name and at least one of which establishes the elector's address."
There's no point in demanding that women who aren't required to show photo ID lift their veils.
You can understand the public getting wound up. The politicians made it sound like Mayrand had gone rogue, creating special rules just for the most extreme - or devout - Muslim women.
But Layton, Dion and Harper, they know better. They know the law allows people to vote without providing photo ID. They know that about 80,000 people voted by mail in the last election, without showing their faces.
So, why are they pretending to be so outraged, when they made the rules?
Maybe they did a bad job, and photo ID should be mandatory to prevent voting fraud. But that's not the law the Conservatives introduced and Parliament passed. (And really, having a bunch of burka-clad women voting under fake names doesn't seem like an efficient way to rig an election.)
It's tough not to smell particularly stinky political opportunism. There are three by-elections in Quebec on Monday. They're being held as the provincial government holds hearings on "reasonable accommodations" for minorities - that is to say, Muslims. A little tough talk might win a few votes.
Even if it is based on a completely bogus issue.
There is a real issue here. Canadian society has accepted the equality of women, sometimes grudgingly.
The burka, or hijab, covering women from head to toe, undermines equality. Their husbands aren't bundled up; just the women. Their work options are limited, lives proscribed. Is it a choice - like wearing a nun's traditional habit - or coerced? That's a big difference, worth discussing. What accommodation is reasonable, for employers, schools and others. When should we care about someone else's choice of dress?
But that's not what the current controversy is about. Instead, the politicians are beating up Elections Canada and a long-time government worker for following their directions.
Unless they're wildly incompetent, they know that's true. And that's sordid.
Footnote: So, what if a burke-clad voter shows up at the polls in B.C. when we vote again in 2009? No worries. The province doesn't require photo ID, so Elections BC says it has no need to see voters' faces.
To read the papers, you would have thought Canadian democracy was making a desperate last stand. All the way over in Australia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was outraged that Elections Canada said women who chose to wear a veil wouldn't have to show their faces before voting.
Imagine. Women in burkas, voting, in Canada.
Harper sounded angry. He "profoundly disapproved" of the decision. Chief Electoral Officer Mark Mayrand was subverting the will of Parliament. Conservative MPs leaped to the attack.
And so did Liberal leader Stephane Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton, in less overwrought fashion. Both said women should have to show their faces if they want to vote.
Except it's utter baloney. Unless the leaders pay no attention to what's going on in Parliament, they know that the Commons passed amendments to the Elections Act earlier this year.
They know that the legislation does not require voters to show photo identification at the polls.
And if voters don't have to show ID, what's the point of demanding to see their faces? Is it so election workers can see if there is dishonesty in their eyes? Or is it just unCanadian to wear a veil, and grounds for barring someone from voting?
Here's what the Election Act says, after the changes the Harper government introduced and the Commons and Senate passed this year.
Voters can establish their identity in two ways. They can show "one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address."
Those people would logically have to show their faces, so election workers can be sure that they match the photo.
But Parliament also decided voters could show "two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector's name and at least one of which establishes the elector's address."
There's no point in demanding that women who aren't required to show photo ID lift their veils.
You can understand the public getting wound up. The politicians made it sound like Mayrand had gone rogue, creating special rules just for the most extreme - or devout - Muslim women.
But Layton, Dion and Harper, they know better. They know the law allows people to vote without providing photo ID. They know that about 80,000 people voted by mail in the last election, without showing their faces.
So, why are they pretending to be so outraged, when they made the rules?
Maybe they did a bad job, and photo ID should be mandatory to prevent voting fraud. But that's not the law the Conservatives introduced and Parliament passed. (And really, having a bunch of burka-clad women voting under fake names doesn't seem like an efficient way to rig an election.)
It's tough not to smell particularly stinky political opportunism. There are three by-elections in Quebec on Monday. They're being held as the provincial government holds hearings on "reasonable accommodations" for minorities - that is to say, Muslims. A little tough talk might win a few votes.
Even if it is based on a completely bogus issue.
There is a real issue here. Canadian society has accepted the equality of women, sometimes grudgingly.
The burka, or hijab, covering women from head to toe, undermines equality. Their husbands aren't bundled up; just the women. Their work options are limited, lives proscribed. Is it a choice - like wearing a nun's traditional habit - or coerced? That's a big difference, worth discussing. What accommodation is reasonable, for employers, schools and others. When should we care about someone else's choice of dress?
But that's not what the current controversy is about. Instead, the politicians are beating up Elections Canada and a long-time government worker for following their directions.
Unless they're wildly incompetent, they know that's true. And that's sordid.
Footnote: So, what if a burke-clad voter shows up at the polls in B.C. when we vote again in 2009? No worries. The province doesn't require photo ID, so Elections BC says it has no need to see voters' faces.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Suicide, mental illness and our neglect
All across B.C., parents sent their children off to school in the last few days, hoping things would go well, worrying about what might go wrong.
Worrying about the wrong things, mostly.
We drive our kids to school, because we fear bad people might hurt them. We support groups like MADD, figuring drunk drivers are a threat.
And of course we worry about drugs and our children.
But suicide, that's not much on our mind. For some reason, we think it's more likely that strangers will kill our children than that will choose to end their own lives.
We're wrong.
In B.C., your child is 13 times more likely to kill himself than be killed by someone else. He's more than three times as likely commit suicide as to die in an alcohol-related car crash.
And while about 250 people will die of illegal drug overdoses this year, about 400 will kill themselves.
More of those little kids starting kindergarten - or older kids starting university - will die of despair than addiction, car crashes or homicide.
But who talks with their children about mental illness and depression?
It's World Suicide Prevention Day today. That's good. But it's still easier to get people to buy a ribbon showing they disapprove of drunk driving than it is to make suicide an issue.
We just don't like to think about suicide, or mental illness; it's still shameful. Since it's shameful, it's easy to decide the people who are ill don't really deserve our help.
And when the choice is whether to replace some 40-year-old's hip or help someone who suffers from schizophrenia, mental illness usually loses. On some level, a lot of us just think those people should try harder.
Maybe that's changing. The federal government has just created the Canadian Mental Health Commission. "It costs our economy billions and our society untold grief," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in announcing the commission.
I'm not so sure. The provincial Liberals rightly attacked the former NDP government for a mental-health plan that was a sham, lots of words but no funding.
But today, there is no funding commitment for mental-health services. The hard-pressed health authorities decide on spending, not the province. And, often, crowded ERs or surgical backlogs are bigger priorities than help for people struggling with depression.
The Health Ministry's performance plan has only one measurement dealing with mental illness - the percentage of people hospitalized who get some help in the month after they're released. It's a pretty sketchy way to measure performance in a fundamental health area.
I'm sure Health Minister George Abbott's staff will bang out a letter for him to sign about spending great new initiatives once this column runs.
But looking around Victoria, it sure doesn't seem like the mentally ill are getting more help today than they were a few years ago. There are a lot more of them on the streets.
It's not just a government problem. We're mostly alarmed by mental illness. The people are often strange. We wonder why they don't just buck up. (Although we don't think cancer patients should try a little harder to cure themselves.)
Here in Victoria, a drop-in centre that's a lifeline for people with mental illness - a place where they're accepted, have friends, a life - is closing. If it was a seniors' centre, or provided the same break for disabled kids, the media and public would be all over the issue. Not for the mentally ill.
Or look at suicides. Every 10 days in Victoria someone will kill himself. But you won't read about it, or see a report on TV. There are reasons for the media hesitancy; some studies suggest a risk of increased suicides if they are reported.
But I'd argue the media just reflect our reluctance to deal with what is, generally, just another effect of mental illness.
And with some authority. My brother killed himself. And I am sure my response, my family's response, was much different than if cancer or a car crash had killed him.
Really, it starts with us. It starts with recognizing that mental illness is fundamentally just another medical condition. And that people suffering from it deserve care and support just as much as any other people battling illness.
Worrying about the wrong things, mostly.
We drive our kids to school, because we fear bad people might hurt them. We support groups like MADD, figuring drunk drivers are a threat.
And of course we worry about drugs and our children.
But suicide, that's not much on our mind. For some reason, we think it's more likely that strangers will kill our children than that will choose to end their own lives.
We're wrong.
In B.C., your child is 13 times more likely to kill himself than be killed by someone else. He's more than three times as likely commit suicide as to die in an alcohol-related car crash.
And while about 250 people will die of illegal drug overdoses this year, about 400 will kill themselves.
More of those little kids starting kindergarten - or older kids starting university - will die of despair than addiction, car crashes or homicide.
But who talks with their children about mental illness and depression?
It's World Suicide Prevention Day today. That's good. But it's still easier to get people to buy a ribbon showing they disapprove of drunk driving than it is to make suicide an issue.
We just don't like to think about suicide, or mental illness; it's still shameful. Since it's shameful, it's easy to decide the people who are ill don't really deserve our help.
And when the choice is whether to replace some 40-year-old's hip or help someone who suffers from schizophrenia, mental illness usually loses. On some level, a lot of us just think those people should try harder.
Maybe that's changing. The federal government has just created the Canadian Mental Health Commission. "It costs our economy billions and our society untold grief," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in announcing the commission.
I'm not so sure. The provincial Liberals rightly attacked the former NDP government for a mental-health plan that was a sham, lots of words but no funding.
But today, there is no funding commitment for mental-health services. The hard-pressed health authorities decide on spending, not the province. And, often, crowded ERs or surgical backlogs are bigger priorities than help for people struggling with depression.
The Health Ministry's performance plan has only one measurement dealing with mental illness - the percentage of people hospitalized who get some help in the month after they're released. It's a pretty sketchy way to measure performance in a fundamental health area.
I'm sure Health Minister George Abbott's staff will bang out a letter for him to sign about spending great new initiatives once this column runs.
But looking around Victoria, it sure doesn't seem like the mentally ill are getting more help today than they were a few years ago. There are a lot more of them on the streets.
It's not just a government problem. We're mostly alarmed by mental illness. The people are often strange. We wonder why they don't just buck up. (Although we don't think cancer patients should try a little harder to cure themselves.)
Here in Victoria, a drop-in centre that's a lifeline for people with mental illness - a place where they're accepted, have friends, a life - is closing. If it was a seniors' centre, or provided the same break for disabled kids, the media and public would be all over the issue. Not for the mentally ill.
Or look at suicides. Every 10 days in Victoria someone will kill himself. But you won't read about it, or see a report on TV. There are reasons for the media hesitancy; some studies suggest a risk of increased suicides if they are reported.
But I'd argue the media just reflect our reluctance to deal with what is, generally, just another effect of mental illness.
And with some authority. My brother killed himself. And I am sure my response, my family's response, was much different than if cancer or a car crash had killed him.
Really, it starts with us. It starts with recognizing that mental illness is fundamentally just another medical condition. And that people suffering from it deserve care and support just as much as any other people battling illness.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Nuclear power debate about to heat up
Nuclear power debate about to heat up
The big push to mine Alberta's tarsands has put nuclear power back on the political agenda in B.C.
There's not likely to be any change in the provincial government's no-nukes stance. Politically, any B.C. party that advocated nuclear power would get stomped. Pragmatically, the province has a lot of other options, from the Site C dam to wind power.
But a proposed nuclear-power plant in northwest Alberta, about 140 kms from the B.C. border, is likely to spark a new debate on the safety of the atomic energy
After all, if the government maintains the position that nuclear power is unsuitable - and too risky - for B.C., how can it quietly accept a plant not all that far away from Fort St. John and Dawson Creek?
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld inadvertently highlighted the problem, reacting to the Alberta proposal with a response that probably wasn't in the talking points provided by staff. Not my issue, Neufeld said. B.C. has no authority over development in Alberta.
Anyway, he went on, the project isn't that close to B.C.. "It's well over 100 kilometres from the border and the wind generally blows from the west," he said.
That's not exactly reassuring. The idea that something might go wrong, but it's OK because the wind would probably carry any radioactive clouds toward Saskatchewan falls short of seeming like a foolproof safety plan.
The Alberta project, with a $6-billion price tag, is still far from a sure thing. (The project would supply energy to allow extraction of oil from the tarsands, as well as other uses.)
But the scheme is likely to start a useful debate on nuclear power, and energy supplies generally. And the Alberta project will likely force the B.C. Liberals to be clearer about their reasons for banning nuclear energy.
If the reasons include safety concerns, then some people in the province's northeast will be asking why the government isn't taking a stronger role in questioning the Alberta plan. NDP leader Carole James has already said B.C. should oppose the plant.
This should be an interesting debate. Nuclear power has some drawbacks. If something does go wrong, the consequences can be bad. Opponents point to Chernobyl, where the 1986 explosion released radioactive fallout over a wide area. The disaster killed 56 people and is expected to cause 4,000 additional cancer deaths.
Chernobyl was a product of the crumbling Soviet state - poorly designed, badly built and negligently managed. But widespread use of nuclear power would risk similar incidents in other failing countries.
Still, there hasn't been a single fatality in nuclear power plants since then, despite some 430 plants around the world. A lot of people have died mining coal and producing oil and gas for thermal plants in the same period.
An immediate nuclear problem is what to do with the 20 to 30 tonnes of radioactive waste each power plant produces in a year. The material remains dangerous for thousands of years, a dangerous legacy.
While nuclear power has some big drawbacks, so do the alternatives, especially given the new focus on global warming. Coal pollutes and produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Oil and gas are cleaner, but expensive, and also major sources of carbon dioxide. Getting the oil, gas or coalbed methane from the ground also creates problems.
There's great potential in wind and tidal and small hydro. Conservation and greater efficiency are important.
But globally, the demand for power is projected to increase by 2.4 per cent per year. That means a doubling of existing electrical production by 2037. Without nuclear power, an awful lot of coal, gas and oil are going to be burned to keep the lights on.
The issue isn't just heating up in B.C. The U.S. has asked Canada to join a new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to encourage nuclear development and manage the risks. The Harper government has said if it will sign on; the next meeting is less than two weeks away.
Expect lots of attention on the nuclear industry in the next year.
Footnote: The other issue waiting to hit the headlines is uranium mining in B.C. The government has banned nuclear power, but is fine with uranium mining. Neufeld says there aren't likely any worthwhile deposits, but several companies have staked claims and are raising money for exploration and development.
The big push to mine Alberta's tarsands has put nuclear power back on the political agenda in B.C.
There's not likely to be any change in the provincial government's no-nukes stance. Politically, any B.C. party that advocated nuclear power would get stomped. Pragmatically, the province has a lot of other options, from the Site C dam to wind power.
But a proposed nuclear-power plant in northwest Alberta, about 140 kms from the B.C. border, is likely to spark a new debate on the safety of the atomic energy
After all, if the government maintains the position that nuclear power is unsuitable - and too risky - for B.C., how can it quietly accept a plant not all that far away from Fort St. John and Dawson Creek?
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld inadvertently highlighted the problem, reacting to the Alberta proposal with a response that probably wasn't in the talking points provided by staff. Not my issue, Neufeld said. B.C. has no authority over development in Alberta.
Anyway, he went on, the project isn't that close to B.C.. "It's well over 100 kilometres from the border and the wind generally blows from the west," he said.
That's not exactly reassuring. The idea that something might go wrong, but it's OK because the wind would probably carry any radioactive clouds toward Saskatchewan falls short of seeming like a foolproof safety plan.
The Alberta project, with a $6-billion price tag, is still far from a sure thing. (The project would supply energy to allow extraction of oil from the tarsands, as well as other uses.)
But the scheme is likely to start a useful debate on nuclear power, and energy supplies generally. And the Alberta project will likely force the B.C. Liberals to be clearer about their reasons for banning nuclear energy.
If the reasons include safety concerns, then some people in the province's northeast will be asking why the government isn't taking a stronger role in questioning the Alberta plan. NDP leader Carole James has already said B.C. should oppose the plant.
This should be an interesting debate. Nuclear power has some drawbacks. If something does go wrong, the consequences can be bad. Opponents point to Chernobyl, where the 1986 explosion released radioactive fallout over a wide area. The disaster killed 56 people and is expected to cause 4,000 additional cancer deaths.
Chernobyl was a product of the crumbling Soviet state - poorly designed, badly built and negligently managed. But widespread use of nuclear power would risk similar incidents in other failing countries.
Still, there hasn't been a single fatality in nuclear power plants since then, despite some 430 plants around the world. A lot of people have died mining coal and producing oil and gas for thermal plants in the same period.
An immediate nuclear problem is what to do with the 20 to 30 tonnes of radioactive waste each power plant produces in a year. The material remains dangerous for thousands of years, a dangerous legacy.
While nuclear power has some big drawbacks, so do the alternatives, especially given the new focus on global warming. Coal pollutes and produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Oil and gas are cleaner, but expensive, and also major sources of carbon dioxide. Getting the oil, gas or coalbed methane from the ground also creates problems.
There's great potential in wind and tidal and small hydro. Conservation and greater efficiency are important.
But globally, the demand for power is projected to increase by 2.4 per cent per year. That means a doubling of existing electrical production by 2037. Without nuclear power, an awful lot of coal, gas and oil are going to be burned to keep the lights on.
The issue isn't just heating up in B.C. The U.S. has asked Canada to join a new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to encourage nuclear development and manage the risks. The Harper government has said if it will sign on; the next meeting is less than two weeks away.
Expect lots of attention on the nuclear industry in the next year.
Footnote: The other issue waiting to hit the headlines is uranium mining in B.C. The government has banned nuclear power, but is fine with uranium mining. Neufeld says there aren't likely any worthwhile deposits, but several companies have staked claims and are raising money for exploration and development.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
MLAs figure they need four times as much for housing as the disabled
Everyone knows about MLAs’ big raises and their extraordinary pension plan improvements.
But only Times Colonist columnist Les Leyne, as far as I know, has taken a look at some of the other big benefit increases in the works.
One leaps out. The three-person panel that reviewed politicians’ pay— the panellists were paid $50,000 each for three months of part-time work — also looked at the extra money MLAs get for living expenses when they have to be in Victoria.
Too low, said the panel. MLAs can now claim $150 for days they’re in Victoria on business (if they’re from here, they get $51.50 for food and incidentals). Health Minister George Abbott, who needs to spend a lot of time here or in Vancouver, claimed $19,000 last year.
The current allowance isn’t rich, but it covers a hotel room at government rates and reasonable meal expenses. Anyone who spent a lot of time in Victoria would be able to rent an apartment with that much money.
But the panel said that was too mingy. It recommended, without any explanation, that all MLAs get paid $61 a day for 75 sitting days. If the legislature goes longer, they would get more. If it sat for fewer days, they wouldn’t pay anything back. (The legislature sat for 46 days in 2006.)
And the panel recommended a housing allowance of up to $19,000 a year for MLAs who live outside the capital region and decide to rent an apartment or buy a second home.
That’s $1,583 a month for housing. Not a principal residence, but a place one person — maybe two — would use some of the time.
It’s a big jump. And I can’t help but think about the contrast between what MLAs believe they need to find a place to live and what they think the most vulnerable people in the province need.
A disabled individual — imagine someone with an illness or injury or developmental disability that makes it impossible to work, and no savings or other income — gets $375 for shelter. A couple gets $570.
About 60,000 disabled British Columbians try to live at that level.
You can have an interesting philosophical debate about what the rate should be. It doesn’t seem fair, for example, for people on income assistance to end up able to spend more on accommodation than some of the lower-income taxpayers who help support them.
But the current levels are indefensible. There is no accommodation available for $375 in much of the province. People go homeless or stay with relatives or use the already meagre allowance for food and other basics.
In Esquimalt, four low-rent buildings have just been condemned and all the tenants evicted. Some suites had bare electrical wires, leaky plumbing and roofs. The living conditions were chaotic, with reports of drunkenness and crime.
Rents in the buildings had started at $480 a month. A person on disability benefits couldn’t have afforded even a place in a building that was about to be condemned.
There’s no reason to expect MLAs to live in the same way as those on income assistance. And this not a criticism of MLAs or their dedication to the work. As a group they are extremely diligent and make personal and financial sacrifices with the goal of making their communities and the province better places.
But the gap between the $375 a month they think a disabled person needs for rent and the $1,580 they consider necessary for themselves is huge. It’s hard to see how MLAs can justify leaving others in such hopeless housing circumstances, while improving their own lot so dramatically.
The deal isn’t done yet. The commission’s report proposed MLAs provide receipts to get the housing money. The legislative committee working on the changes is also looking at making the payment a straight $1,000 a month, with no receipts needed.
Either way, the politicians will be treating themselves a lot better than they’re willing to treat the most vulnerable British Columbians.
It caps a sordid period for B.C. politicians. Raises ranging from 30 per cent for MLAs to 50 per cent for the premier; an extraordinary pension plan improvement, and likely soon, a giant jump in living expenses.
Footnote: The changes are being discussed by the legislative assembly management committee, the most secretive of MLAs’ committees. It approves the $50-million budget for the assembly, but doesn’t publish any reports or minutes or plans. Try to find information on the committee on the government website. Current members are Liberals Bill Barisoff, Mike de Jong, John Yap and Randy Hawes and New Democrats Mike Farnworth and Jenny Kwan.
But only Times Colonist columnist Les Leyne, as far as I know, has taken a look at some of the other big benefit increases in the works.
One leaps out. The three-person panel that reviewed politicians’ pay— the panellists were paid $50,000 each for three months of part-time work — also looked at the extra money MLAs get for living expenses when they have to be in Victoria.
Too low, said the panel. MLAs can now claim $150 for days they’re in Victoria on business (if they’re from here, they get $51.50 for food and incidentals). Health Minister George Abbott, who needs to spend a lot of time here or in Vancouver, claimed $19,000 last year.
The current allowance isn’t rich, but it covers a hotel room at government rates and reasonable meal expenses. Anyone who spent a lot of time in Victoria would be able to rent an apartment with that much money.
But the panel said that was too mingy. It recommended, without any explanation, that all MLAs get paid $61 a day for 75 sitting days. If the legislature goes longer, they would get more. If it sat for fewer days, they wouldn’t pay anything back. (The legislature sat for 46 days in 2006.)
And the panel recommended a housing allowance of up to $19,000 a year for MLAs who live outside the capital region and decide to rent an apartment or buy a second home.
That’s $1,583 a month for housing. Not a principal residence, but a place one person — maybe two — would use some of the time.
It’s a big jump. And I can’t help but think about the contrast between what MLAs believe they need to find a place to live and what they think the most vulnerable people in the province need.
A disabled individual — imagine someone with an illness or injury or developmental disability that makes it impossible to work, and no savings or other income — gets $375 for shelter. A couple gets $570.
About 60,000 disabled British Columbians try to live at that level.
You can have an interesting philosophical debate about what the rate should be. It doesn’t seem fair, for example, for people on income assistance to end up able to spend more on accommodation than some of the lower-income taxpayers who help support them.
But the current levels are indefensible. There is no accommodation available for $375 in much of the province. People go homeless or stay with relatives or use the already meagre allowance for food and other basics.
In Esquimalt, four low-rent buildings have just been condemned and all the tenants evicted. Some suites had bare electrical wires, leaky plumbing and roofs. The living conditions were chaotic, with reports of drunkenness and crime.
Rents in the buildings had started at $480 a month. A person on disability benefits couldn’t have afforded even a place in a building that was about to be condemned.
There’s no reason to expect MLAs to live in the same way as those on income assistance. And this not a criticism of MLAs or their dedication to the work. As a group they are extremely diligent and make personal and financial sacrifices with the goal of making their communities and the province better places.
But the gap between the $375 a month they think a disabled person needs for rent and the $1,580 they consider necessary for themselves is huge. It’s hard to see how MLAs can justify leaving others in such hopeless housing circumstances, while improving their own lot so dramatically.
The deal isn’t done yet. The commission’s report proposed MLAs provide receipts to get the housing money. The legislative committee working on the changes is also looking at making the payment a straight $1,000 a month, with no receipts needed.
Either way, the politicians will be treating themselves a lot better than they’re willing to treat the most vulnerable British Columbians.
It caps a sordid period for B.C. politicians. Raises ranging from 30 per cent for MLAs to 50 per cent for the premier; an extraordinary pension plan improvement, and likely soon, a giant jump in living expenses.
Footnote: The changes are being discussed by the legislative assembly management committee, the most secretive of MLAs’ committees. It approves the $50-million budget for the assembly, but doesn’t publish any reports or minutes or plans. Try to find information on the committee on the government website. Current members are Liberals Bill Barisoff, Mike de Jong, John Yap and Randy Hawes and New Democrats Mike Farnworth and Jenny Kwan.
Monday, August 27, 2007
YouTube leaves police facing tough questions
Two years ago, I wouldn't have been writing a column suggesting police posing as anarchists tried to provoke trouble at the North American summit in Montebello.
YouTube.com hadn't made its official debut two years ago. There was no way for someone like Nanaimo filmmaker Paul Manley to share his work with the world.
And without the evidence, most of us would have likely dismissed claims by a union leader that police, dressed us as protestors, were trying to encourage confrontation - and perhaps justify police action against demonstrators.
But YouTube exists. Manley went to the Quebec summit where Stephen Harper, George Bush and Mexican president Felipe Calderon met. He shot video of three aggressive, masked men - pretending to be protestors - clashing with other peaceful demonstrators. One is carrying a big rock. They're belligerent when told to clear off, that it was a peaceful demonstration. One shoves a demonstrator; they won't take off their masks. Then they push through the police lines, and appear to be arrested.
Weird, eh? Protestors who shove through police lines to get taken into custody?
The people at the protest had guessed the three men were police. Manley's video supported that conclusion. When the men were being "arrested," they were laying on the ground. Their boots were clearly shown, and the soles were distinctive and identical to the boots worn by the police officers kneeling beside them.
The star of the video is Dave Coles of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union. He confronts the three masked aggressors, and keeps on questioning them and insisting its a peaceful desmonstration even when he's pushed around. It's impressive.
Coles went public with the claim that police were acting as agents provocateur. The RCMP wouldn't say if the three masked men caught on video were Mounties. The Quebec provincial police said the three men definitely weren't officers from their force.
But that turned to be untrue. After two days of denials, the Quebec provincial police came clean. The three masked men pretending to be hardcore militants were undercover agents. But they weren't doing anything bad, just monitoring the protest, the force said.
It's justifiable for undercover police officers to mingle with protestors if they have reasonable cause to fear some within the group will commit crimes. Undercover officers could help head off violence.
But there wasn't a whole lot of violence at Montebello.
And in the video, the biggest problems, and source of potential conflict, were the actions of the three police officers, masked and pretending to be bad guys.
The police explanations have sounded a little desperate. One officer was carrying a rock because "extremists" had handed it to him to throw and he didn't want to blow his cover.
The option of dropping it somewhere along the way never crossed his mind.
And the Quebec police never explained why the officers were so confrontational and abusive with Coles and others.
Again, two years ago, this would probably have been the end of it. Union leader says police were trying to provoke conflict at a peaceful demonstration. Police deny it.
But today, people with a good Internet connection can watch Manley's video of the incident and make their own judgments. (It's at www.youtube.com; just search YouTube on Montebello.)
At best, viewers would likely judge the officers incompetent; at worst, they could decide police were trying to provoke a violent conflict.
It should be alarming. When people show up to protest, because they're concerned about some public issue, they should be free to exercise their rights. If they break the law, of course, they should be charged.
But the undercover police threatened protestors and created a real risk of violence.
Public Security Minister Stockwell Day has brushed off calls for an independent investigation of the affair. He seems to have forgotten the roots of his party, and the commitment to protecting the individual from the powers of the state.
Footnote: It is noteworthy that the story exists only because of an individual filmmaker, and YouTube.com, the website that lets people share videos. Manley's video has been viewed 243,000 times on YouTube and referred to in reports by every major news media in Canada. (The CBC nightly news attracts about 600,000 viewers.) The age of Citizen Journalists has arrived.
YouTube.com hadn't made its official debut two years ago. There was no way for someone like Nanaimo filmmaker Paul Manley to share his work with the world.
And without the evidence, most of us would have likely dismissed claims by a union leader that police, dressed us as protestors, were trying to encourage confrontation - and perhaps justify police action against demonstrators.
But YouTube exists. Manley went to the Quebec summit where Stephen Harper, George Bush and Mexican president Felipe Calderon met. He shot video of three aggressive, masked men - pretending to be protestors - clashing with other peaceful demonstrators. One is carrying a big rock. They're belligerent when told to clear off, that it was a peaceful demonstration. One shoves a demonstrator; they won't take off their masks. Then they push through the police lines, and appear to be arrested.
Weird, eh? Protestors who shove through police lines to get taken into custody?
The people at the protest had guessed the three men were police. Manley's video supported that conclusion. When the men were being "arrested," they were laying on the ground. Their boots were clearly shown, and the soles were distinctive and identical to the boots worn by the police officers kneeling beside them.
The star of the video is Dave Coles of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union. He confronts the three masked aggressors, and keeps on questioning them and insisting its a peaceful desmonstration even when he's pushed around. It's impressive.
Coles went public with the claim that police were acting as agents provocateur. The RCMP wouldn't say if the three masked men caught on video were Mounties. The Quebec provincial police said the three men definitely weren't officers from their force.
But that turned to be untrue. After two days of denials, the Quebec provincial police came clean. The three masked men pretending to be hardcore militants were undercover agents. But they weren't doing anything bad, just monitoring the protest, the force said.
It's justifiable for undercover police officers to mingle with protestors if they have reasonable cause to fear some within the group will commit crimes. Undercover officers could help head off violence.
But there wasn't a whole lot of violence at Montebello.
And in the video, the biggest problems, and source of potential conflict, were the actions of the three police officers, masked and pretending to be bad guys.
The police explanations have sounded a little desperate. One officer was carrying a rock because "extremists" had handed it to him to throw and he didn't want to blow his cover.
The option of dropping it somewhere along the way never crossed his mind.
And the Quebec police never explained why the officers were so confrontational and abusive with Coles and others.
Again, two years ago, this would probably have been the end of it. Union leader says police were trying to provoke conflict at a peaceful demonstration. Police deny it.
But today, people with a good Internet connection can watch Manley's video of the incident and make their own judgments. (It's at www.youtube.com; just search YouTube on Montebello.)
At best, viewers would likely judge the officers incompetent; at worst, they could decide police were trying to provoke a violent conflict.
It should be alarming. When people show up to protest, because they're concerned about some public issue, they should be free to exercise their rights. If they break the law, of course, they should be charged.
But the undercover police threatened protestors and created a real risk of violence.
Public Security Minister Stockwell Day has brushed off calls for an independent investigation of the affair. He seems to have forgotten the roots of his party, and the commitment to protecting the individual from the powers of the state.
Footnote: It is noteworthy that the story exists only because of an individual filmmaker, and YouTube.com, the website that lets people share videos. Manley's video has been viewed 243,000 times on YouTube and referred to in reports by every major news media in Canada. (The CBC nightly news attracts about 600,000 viewers.) The age of Citizen Journalists has arrived.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Electoral boundaries show STV can work for B.C.
I’m sticking with my slogan for the campaign to shift B.C. to a new way of electing MLAs: “STV – it couldn’t be any worse than what we’ve got now.”
The Electoral Boundaries Commission didn’t just recommend new riding boundaries when it reported last week. It also set out proposed ridings that would be used under the single-transferable vote proportional representation system.
Wait. Don’t quit reading. This is important, and pretty interesting.
You remember STV. The Citizens’ Commission on Electoral Reform — Premier Gordon Campbell’s very fine creation — recommended a shift to that system. It went to referendum in 2005 and 58 per cent of voters supported the change — just shy of the 60 per cent needed.
So Campbell said there would be a repeat referendum along with the provincial election in 2009. This time, proposed ridings would be set out so people could make a more informed decision.
That’s what the commission provided. And all in all, despite some problems, the proposed ridings confirm that the STV system would be an improvement.
Under the system there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to six MLAs, depending on the population.
On election day, you wouldn’t just mark an ‘X’ beside your choice. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference. The results reflect voters’ rankings. (The tallying method is explained well at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info.)
The system’s benefits include a legislature that better reflects the wishes of voters. It’s likely, for example, that the 162,000 British Columbians who voted Green – 9.2 per cent of the total – would have ended up with members of the party representing them under the STV system.
The ranking system means voters can mix their choices – ranking Liberals first and second, and a Green candidate they admire third, for example.
And it means members of the same party have to compete with each other for support.
That’s important. The important contest in many ridings now is the battle for the nomination, not the election itself. And MLAs – especially in government – tend to worry as much about staying on the good side of the party as they do advocating for their ridings. That would change under STV.
But there’s a snag. The greatest benefits from the system come when there are four or five MLAs in a riding.
But that is impractical in some areas of B.C. To have the population needed to justify even three MLAs, the ridings would have to be enormous.
So there are two ridings proposed in the north – Northeast and Northwest – that would have only two MLAs each. There are several ridings with three MLAs — the Kootenays become one large riding with three representatives.
The benefits of the system are reduced with two-person ridings, and there are some risks. In a riding with four or five seats, it’s likely candidates will emerge who target individual communities within the riding to win support.
But in a two-candidate riding, there’s a risk some areas might be ignored. It’s a long way from Tumbler Ridge to Fort Nelson.
Still, tally the pros and cons and the system looks like a major step forward. And the Electoral Boundaries Commission established that across most of the province, its possible to set out ridings that make sense and allow three or more MLAs to be elected from a riding.
Here in the Capital Region, for example, the commission proposes a six-member riding that pretty much conforms to the regional district boundaries. It should offer a great opportunity for voters’ diverse interests and priorities to be reflected in the legislature. They will be able to support the four best Liberals, if they want to see the government stay in power, but perhaps also a New Democrat who understands their local issues and a Green candidate to advance environmental issues.
The STV system isn’t perfect. But it’s better than what we have now, and it’s the only chance for change.
Footnote: The referendum will be held in May 2009. If the change is approved, it would take effect for the 2013 election. Expect passionate campaigns for and against as the date of the vote comes closer.
The Electoral Boundaries Commission didn’t just recommend new riding boundaries when it reported last week. It also set out proposed ridings that would be used under the single-transferable vote proportional representation system.
Wait. Don’t quit reading. This is important, and pretty interesting.
You remember STV. The Citizens’ Commission on Electoral Reform — Premier Gordon Campbell’s very fine creation — recommended a shift to that system. It went to referendum in 2005 and 58 per cent of voters supported the change — just shy of the 60 per cent needed.
So Campbell said there would be a repeat referendum along with the provincial election in 2009. This time, proposed ridings would be set out so people could make a more informed decision.
That’s what the commission provided. And all in all, despite some problems, the proposed ridings confirm that the STV system would be an improvement.
Under the system there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to six MLAs, depending on the population.
On election day, you wouldn’t just mark an ‘X’ beside your choice. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference. The results reflect voters’ rankings. (The tallying method is explained well at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info.)
The system’s benefits include a legislature that better reflects the wishes of voters. It’s likely, for example, that the 162,000 British Columbians who voted Green – 9.2 per cent of the total – would have ended up with members of the party representing them under the STV system.
The ranking system means voters can mix their choices – ranking Liberals first and second, and a Green candidate they admire third, for example.
And it means members of the same party have to compete with each other for support.
That’s important. The important contest in many ridings now is the battle for the nomination, not the election itself. And MLAs – especially in government – tend to worry as much about staying on the good side of the party as they do advocating for their ridings. That would change under STV.
But there’s a snag. The greatest benefits from the system come when there are four or five MLAs in a riding.
But that is impractical in some areas of B.C. To have the population needed to justify even three MLAs, the ridings would have to be enormous.
So there are two ridings proposed in the north – Northeast and Northwest – that would have only two MLAs each. There are several ridings with three MLAs — the Kootenays become one large riding with three representatives.
The benefits of the system are reduced with two-person ridings, and there are some risks. In a riding with four or five seats, it’s likely candidates will emerge who target individual communities within the riding to win support.
But in a two-candidate riding, there’s a risk some areas might be ignored. It’s a long way from Tumbler Ridge to Fort Nelson.
Still, tally the pros and cons and the system looks like a major step forward. And the Electoral Boundaries Commission established that across most of the province, its possible to set out ridings that make sense and allow three or more MLAs to be elected from a riding.
Here in the Capital Region, for example, the commission proposes a six-member riding that pretty much conforms to the regional district boundaries. It should offer a great opportunity for voters’ diverse interests and priorities to be reflected in the legislature. They will be able to support the four best Liberals, if they want to see the government stay in power, but perhaps also a New Democrat who understands their local issues and a Green candidate to advance environmental issues.
The STV system isn’t perfect. But it’s better than what we have now, and it’s the only chance for change.
Footnote: The referendum will be held in May 2009. If the change is approved, it would take effect for the 2013 election. Expect passionate campaigns for and against as the date of the vote comes closer.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
New ridings painful for rural B.C., but fair
There’s going to be some pained shouts from the north and Interior, but B.C.’s Electoral Boundaries Commission has done a pretty good job of redrawing the map of ridings around the province.
The commission has set out two reworked sets of ridings, one for the current system and one for a new proportional representation electoral process.
The basic news is that the commission proposes creating five new ridings - four in the Lower Mainland and one in the Okanagan – to reflect the population growth there.
Instead of simply increasing the legislature by five seats, the commission recommended reducing the number of seats in rural B.C. by three.
The Caiboo-Thompson goes from five seats to four; the Kootenays from four to three; the north from eight to seven ridings.
The end result is that the legislature goes from 79 to 81 MLAs and urban areas get more political clout.
The three commissioners faced a tough task. Their principal mandate was to look at the province's changing population and come up with riding boundaries that would ensure that each MLA would represent about the same number of people.
Sounds easy. Figure out how many MLAs you want, divide that number into the total number of eligible voters and come up with ridings with have roughly that number of people, ones that make sense, where people share a set of interests.
But it's not that simple. Our system, no matter how it's tweaked, is messy. Right now, Lorne Mayencourt represents 75,000 people in Vancouver-Burrard; Gary Coons represents 28,000 people in Prince Rupert and in the North Coast riding. That hardly seems fair.
But Mayencourt's riding is nine square kilometres. In a day, he can cover every corner - walking. Coon's riding is 66,000 square kilometres. It can take three days to visit one community.
There's no real arguing against the commission's recommendations, based on the underlying assumption that ridings should all include roughly the same number of people. On that basis, the Lower Mainland should have 75 per cent of the seats.
And it all makes sense, when you're drawing lines on a map.
But for those regions seeing fewer MLAs, the result is discouraging. The candidates are a little less interested in your concerns. It's farther to drive to the constituency office for a meeting.
When a vote comes up in the legislature, there are fewer people knowledgeable about the local issues. (OK, that is a little idealistic. It often seems that MLAs spend more time promoting their party and leader than their constituents’ interests.)
And, broadly, there's a big political shift under way. In the 1986 election, there were 69 ridings. The Lower Mainland had 45 per cent of the seats, and back then the Fraser Valley barely counted as urban.
The legislature - and the Socred cabinet - was dominated by MLAs from rural and resource communities.
If the commission's recommendations are accepted, Lower Mainland MLAs will dominate the new legislature. Vancouver and its sprawl will have 57 per cent of the seats in the house.
For the first time in the province's history, a party will be able to form government without electing a single MLA from outside the Lower Mainland.
You can understand how that will worry people in the rest of B.C., especially because they feel they have been forgotten for much of the last six years by the Liberal government. Even now, with the economy doing well across the province, many rural communities fear not enough is being done to prepare for the crash when the pine-beetle-damaged wood runs out.
But there’s no avoiding the reality that our system is based on representation by population, and ridings need to be roughly comparable. Given that, the commission did a good job of redrawing the map.
It also took some useful steps to make ridings more appropriate, bringing like communities into the same riding to ensure a set of common interests and concerns. That will help voters, and MLAs.
Footnote: The commission will now listen to submissions before submitting a final report. Expect minor tweaking at most. Then the politicians have to make the final decision, and will face pressure to add a couple of seats in rural areas.
The report also set out proposed ridings for the single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation. That’s a different column.
The commission has set out two reworked sets of ridings, one for the current system and one for a new proportional representation electoral process.
The basic news is that the commission proposes creating five new ridings - four in the Lower Mainland and one in the Okanagan – to reflect the population growth there.
Instead of simply increasing the legislature by five seats, the commission recommended reducing the number of seats in rural B.C. by three.
The Caiboo-Thompson goes from five seats to four; the Kootenays from four to three; the north from eight to seven ridings.
The end result is that the legislature goes from 79 to 81 MLAs and urban areas get more political clout.
The three commissioners faced a tough task. Their principal mandate was to look at the province's changing population and come up with riding boundaries that would ensure that each MLA would represent about the same number of people.
Sounds easy. Figure out how many MLAs you want, divide that number into the total number of eligible voters and come up with ridings with have roughly that number of people, ones that make sense, where people share a set of interests.
But it's not that simple. Our system, no matter how it's tweaked, is messy. Right now, Lorne Mayencourt represents 75,000 people in Vancouver-Burrard; Gary Coons represents 28,000 people in Prince Rupert and in the North Coast riding. That hardly seems fair.
But Mayencourt's riding is nine square kilometres. In a day, he can cover every corner - walking. Coon's riding is 66,000 square kilometres. It can take three days to visit one community.
There's no real arguing against the commission's recommendations, based on the underlying assumption that ridings should all include roughly the same number of people. On that basis, the Lower Mainland should have 75 per cent of the seats.
And it all makes sense, when you're drawing lines on a map.
But for those regions seeing fewer MLAs, the result is discouraging. The candidates are a little less interested in your concerns. It's farther to drive to the constituency office for a meeting.
When a vote comes up in the legislature, there are fewer people knowledgeable about the local issues. (OK, that is a little idealistic. It often seems that MLAs spend more time promoting their party and leader than their constituents’ interests.)
And, broadly, there's a big political shift under way. In the 1986 election, there were 69 ridings. The Lower Mainland had 45 per cent of the seats, and back then the Fraser Valley barely counted as urban.
The legislature - and the Socred cabinet - was dominated by MLAs from rural and resource communities.
If the commission's recommendations are accepted, Lower Mainland MLAs will dominate the new legislature. Vancouver and its sprawl will have 57 per cent of the seats in the house.
For the first time in the province's history, a party will be able to form government without electing a single MLA from outside the Lower Mainland.
You can understand how that will worry people in the rest of B.C., especially because they feel they have been forgotten for much of the last six years by the Liberal government. Even now, with the economy doing well across the province, many rural communities fear not enough is being done to prepare for the crash when the pine-beetle-damaged wood runs out.
But there’s no avoiding the reality that our system is based on representation by population, and ridings need to be roughly comparable. Given that, the commission did a good job of redrawing the map.
It also took some useful steps to make ridings more appropriate, bringing like communities into the same riding to ensure a set of common interests and concerns. That will help voters, and MLAs.
Footnote: The commission will now listen to submissions before submitting a final report. Expect minor tweaking at most. Then the politicians have to make the final decision, and will face pressure to add a couple of seats in rural areas.
The report also set out proposed ridings for the single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation. That’s a different column.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Premiers' contribute mostly hot air to climate change
Climate change and energy were supposed to be the big issues when the premiers got together in Moncton.
And given all the enthusiastic talk about the importance of the global-warming issue to life on Earth, you might have expected them to do something.
But no. After two days, the best the premiers could do was agree to start keeping track of greenhouse gas emissions in a consistent way.
Weird, really. All this time they've been talking earnestly about reducing emissions by sector and setting goals and trading carbon credits.
And yet they don't even really know how much greenhouse gases are being produced by each province now, or how.
The premiers have been trying to stake out a bigger place in government. Since 2003, they've referred to themselves as the Council of the Federation, a name that's supposed to suggest - I'm not really sure what, actually. But the idea is the council speaks with some authority.
In real life, the council mostly mumbles. Like this time. Premier Gordon Campbell - along with his counterparts from Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba - were keen emission caps and a trading system. If a B.C. industry cut its emissions below the agreed-on level, it could sell the right to produce those emissions to some company in Nova Scotia that couldn't afford to install emission-reduction technology. The big benefit is that emissions come to have a cost. There is an incentive, beyond the vague notion of doing good or winning goodwill, for companies to cut emissions.
But Alberta, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan were opposed. They're afraid caps would hurt their energy industry. There was no agreement, which meant the no-caps side won. The premiers also talked about bringing in tough automobile emission standards to match the coming Californian regulations. Eventually, 12 of the 13 supported the idea.
But Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty nixed that proposal. The cost of meeting the California standards could add $2,000 to the price of a car. Fewer car sales would hurt Ontario's automotive industry. So the emissions didn't matter so much.
Individual provinces might still try to adopt the standards, but they'll have a tough time if automakers claim it's not worth producing special vehicles for a small market.
It wasn't a total bust. The premiers promised to produce an additional 25,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2020 - figure about the equivalent of the production of 10 Revelstoke dams. They will include climate change in school curricula.
And the move to measure and report emissions is useful; the first step toward some sort of trading system.
"I'm not suggesting this is Earth shattering," said B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell. Right. "We've made some progress, though." Not much, really.
It wouldn't really be a premier's meeting without some grumbling about the federal government. Saskatchewan and Newfoundland are still angry because they say Stephen Harper broke his promise to exclude oil and gas revenues from the equalization formula. (Short verdict - they're right, Harper broke the promise, but it was a bad promise and bad policy.)
Some of the premiers were also fretting about the Conservative government might do.
Harper has said the government should be playing a smaller role in creating and supporting national social programs. The federal government should not be insisting on health-care standards or funding child-care programs, the argument goes. Those are areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government should butt out.
The approach reflects Harper's view that the federal government should be smaller.
And it will score political points in Quebec. Premier Jean Charest has said he wants to start talks about a reduced role for the federal government. But other premiers are edgy, because they believe federal programs are needed to ensure equal standards and improving programs and they fear Ottawa government will cut back funding.
Still, based on the premiers' inability to make progress on climate change - supposedly a national priority - the prime minister doesn't have much to worry about from the council of the federation, grand name or not.
And given all the enthusiastic talk about the importance of the global-warming issue to life on Earth, you might have expected them to do something.
But no. After two days, the best the premiers could do was agree to start keeping track of greenhouse gas emissions in a consistent way.
Weird, really. All this time they've been talking earnestly about reducing emissions by sector and setting goals and trading carbon credits.
And yet they don't even really know how much greenhouse gases are being produced by each province now, or how.
The premiers have been trying to stake out a bigger place in government. Since 2003, they've referred to themselves as the Council of the Federation, a name that's supposed to suggest - I'm not really sure what, actually. But the idea is the council speaks with some authority.
In real life, the council mostly mumbles. Like this time. Premier Gordon Campbell - along with his counterparts from Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba - were keen emission caps and a trading system. If a B.C. industry cut its emissions below the agreed-on level, it could sell the right to produce those emissions to some company in Nova Scotia that couldn't afford to install emission-reduction technology. The big benefit is that emissions come to have a cost. There is an incentive, beyond the vague notion of doing good or winning goodwill, for companies to cut emissions.
But Alberta, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan were opposed. They're afraid caps would hurt their energy industry. There was no agreement, which meant the no-caps side won. The premiers also talked about bringing in tough automobile emission standards to match the coming Californian regulations. Eventually, 12 of the 13 supported the idea.
But Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty nixed that proposal. The cost of meeting the California standards could add $2,000 to the price of a car. Fewer car sales would hurt Ontario's automotive industry. So the emissions didn't matter so much.
Individual provinces might still try to adopt the standards, but they'll have a tough time if automakers claim it's not worth producing special vehicles for a small market.
It wasn't a total bust. The premiers promised to produce an additional 25,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2020 - figure about the equivalent of the production of 10 Revelstoke dams. They will include climate change in school curricula.
And the move to measure and report emissions is useful; the first step toward some sort of trading system.
"I'm not suggesting this is Earth shattering," said B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell. Right. "We've made some progress, though." Not much, really.
It wouldn't really be a premier's meeting without some grumbling about the federal government. Saskatchewan and Newfoundland are still angry because they say Stephen Harper broke his promise to exclude oil and gas revenues from the equalization formula. (Short verdict - they're right, Harper broke the promise, but it was a bad promise and bad policy.)
Some of the premiers were also fretting about the Conservative government might do.
Harper has said the government should be playing a smaller role in creating and supporting national social programs. The federal government should not be insisting on health-care standards or funding child-care programs, the argument goes. Those are areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government should butt out.
The approach reflects Harper's view that the federal government should be smaller.
And it will score political points in Quebec. Premier Jean Charest has said he wants to start talks about a reduced role for the federal government. But other premiers are edgy, because they believe federal programs are needed to ensure equal standards and improving programs and they fear Ottawa government will cut back funding.
Still, based on the premiers' inability to make progress on climate change - supposedly a national priority - the prime minister doesn't have much to worry about from the council of the federation, grand name or not.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
The public wants photo radar - why is Campbell saying no
It's getting harder and harder to figure out Premier Gordon Campbell's opposition to photo radar.
The statistics suggest the Liberals' decision to cancel photo radar in 2001 has cost about 50 lives a year and thousands of injuries. Tragedies for the individuals and their families; a waste of human potential; and a major health-care cost.
Campbell is seen as a pretty pragmatic politician - look at the big swings on First Nations and climate change. You'd expect him to accept the reality that photo radar works. Crashes and deaths are both reduced.
I attributed the reluctance to an unwillingness to admit a mistake and the fear of a public backlash.
But last month Ipsos-Reid asked British Columbians how they felt about photo radar and red-light cameras.
The support was overwhelming for both, surprising even for those - like me - who figured the public recognized the common-sense benefits of deterring speeding drivers.
The poll, done for the Canada Safety Council, asked people across Canada about the devices.
Almost 90 per cent of British Columbians, and 84 per cent of Canadians, supported the use of photo radar in school zones.
Almost three out of four British Columbians supported the use of photo radar on highways, compared with 69 per cent of Canadians. And 84 per cent of British Columbians supported red-light cameras.
So there's no risk of a real political problem. In fact, it seems the public would welcome a measure that made life safer for their families.
It all makes the refusal to act baffling.
The evidence is overwhelming that photo radar works.
Before B.C. introduced photo radar in 1996, an average of 510 people had died annually in the five preceding years.
For the almost six years photo radar was in operation, the average annual death rate was 412 - almost 100 fewer lives lost per year to crashes.
The Liberals acted on their campaign promise and killed photo radar in 2001. And in the next three years, the average number of deaths increased to 449, an average 37 additional deaths per year.
A study done on B.C.'s first year of photo radar found "a dramatic reduction of speed" at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
Almost 20 per cent fewer deaths.
The people who object to the cameras can come up with explanations.
But a major Australian review last year analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies done around the world. The number of crashes was reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent once photo radar was installed, it reported.
Fatalities were reduced by an even more dramatic 40 to 46 per cent - cut almost in half.
Photo radar - or speed cameras, as they're called now - isn't a cure-all. It would be more effective to have increased policing. The survey found that 42 per cent of Canadians thought there should be more traffic enforcement - roadside checks, radar, speed traps and the general visibility of police. Only seven per cent thought there was too much enforcement.
But police officers are expensive. Speed cameras, done right, are cheap. The old B.C. system used vans. Other jurisdictions set up permanent camera boxes in appropriate locations - school zones, stretches of highway with a high rate of crashes. They rotate the actual cameras between sites.
So for very little money, speeds are reduced in dangerous areas, there are fewer crashes and lives are saved.
Sometimes people would get tickets they don't deserve, because they loaned their cars to someone. But most of us would want to know if someone - a child, perhaps - was driving our vehicle at high speed.
The public backs photo radar. It saves lives, reduces health-care costs and protects families.
How long can the government keep saying no?
Footnote: The government hasn't come up with any reason for its position. Solicitor General John Les has even turned down a request for speed cameras on the deadly Patullo Bridge. The RCMP want them; they say enforcement is too dangerous. ICBC and Surrey council say the cameras are needed to save lives.
But the government won't budge.
The statistics suggest the Liberals' decision to cancel photo radar in 2001 has cost about 50 lives a year and thousands of injuries. Tragedies for the individuals and their families; a waste of human potential; and a major health-care cost.
Campbell is seen as a pretty pragmatic politician - look at the big swings on First Nations and climate change. You'd expect him to accept the reality that photo radar works. Crashes and deaths are both reduced.
I attributed the reluctance to an unwillingness to admit a mistake and the fear of a public backlash.
But last month Ipsos-Reid asked British Columbians how they felt about photo radar and red-light cameras.
The support was overwhelming for both, surprising even for those - like me - who figured the public recognized the common-sense benefits of deterring speeding drivers.
The poll, done for the Canada Safety Council, asked people across Canada about the devices.
Almost 90 per cent of British Columbians, and 84 per cent of Canadians, supported the use of photo radar in school zones.
Almost three out of four British Columbians supported the use of photo radar on highways, compared with 69 per cent of Canadians. And 84 per cent of British Columbians supported red-light cameras.
So there's no risk of a real political problem. In fact, it seems the public would welcome a measure that made life safer for their families.
It all makes the refusal to act baffling.
The evidence is overwhelming that photo radar works.
Before B.C. introduced photo radar in 1996, an average of 510 people had died annually in the five preceding years.
For the almost six years photo radar was in operation, the average annual death rate was 412 - almost 100 fewer lives lost per year to crashes.
The Liberals acted on their campaign promise and killed photo radar in 2001. And in the next three years, the average number of deaths increased to 449, an average 37 additional deaths per year.
A study done on B.C.'s first year of photo radar found "a dramatic reduction of speed" at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
Almost 20 per cent fewer deaths.
The people who object to the cameras can come up with explanations.
But a major Australian review last year analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies done around the world. The number of crashes was reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent once photo radar was installed, it reported.
Fatalities were reduced by an even more dramatic 40 to 46 per cent - cut almost in half.
Photo radar - or speed cameras, as they're called now - isn't a cure-all. It would be more effective to have increased policing. The survey found that 42 per cent of Canadians thought there should be more traffic enforcement - roadside checks, radar, speed traps and the general visibility of police. Only seven per cent thought there was too much enforcement.
But police officers are expensive. Speed cameras, done right, are cheap. The old B.C. system used vans. Other jurisdictions set up permanent camera boxes in appropriate locations - school zones, stretches of highway with a high rate of crashes. They rotate the actual cameras between sites.
So for very little money, speeds are reduced in dangerous areas, there are fewer crashes and lives are saved.
Sometimes people would get tickets they don't deserve, because they loaned their cars to someone. But most of us would want to know if someone - a child, perhaps - was driving our vehicle at high speed.
The public backs photo radar. It saves lives, reduces health-care costs and protects families.
How long can the government keep saying no?
Footnote: The government hasn't come up with any reason for its position. Solicitor General John Les has even turned down a request for speed cameras on the deadly Patullo Bridge. The RCMP want them; they say enforcement is too dangerous. ICBC and Surrey council say the cameras are needed to save lives.
But the government won't budge.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
James and the politics of leadership
NDP leader Carole James took quite a little beating for her muddled responses to the treaty ratification by the Tsawwassen First Nation.
Mostly deserved, I'd say. James was attempting to explain why the party hadn't taken any position on the treaty in the months leading up to the vote.
It was out of respect, she said. The choice to accept the deal - or not - was up to the First Nation.
James said she decided the party's position should be kept secret to avoid any appearance of telling the Tsawwassen what to do.
So how does the party feel about the coming Maa-Nulth treaty vote, James was asked.
We hope it passes, she said. (It did.)
Which raised the obvious question: Why wasn't James staying silent on that treaty ratification vote out of respect, as well?
Right. I should have, said a stumbling James. Oops.
Not a great leadership moment.
And confirmation, I'd say, of suspicions that the New Democrats' silence on the Tsawwassen deal was based more on a desire to avoid airing their public divisions than on any principle.
The party is pro-treaty. An NDP government fought for the Nisga'a treaty, while Gordon Campbell staged a long battle against the deal, trying to stall approval in the legislature and challenging it in court.
But the NDP has also taken the Agricultural Land Reserve as a sacred cause.
The Tsawwassen treaty includes a transfer of land to the band. Some of it was in the reserve, but it will be removed before it is handed over to the First Nation.
Supporting the deal would have been tough for the ALR purists within the party and the caucus. There might have been internal fighting.
And James' contradictory responses on the two treaties suggest that avoiding a public squabble was a large part of the NDP's decision to stay silent on the Tsawwassen deal.
The whole affair raised once again that perhaps James isn't tough enough for the job. The suggestion, I suppose, is that she should have bludgeoned the party into line - or at least public silence - and taken a position on the treaty.
There's not much evidence for the claim. James' approval ratings are still better than the public marks for Premier Gordon Campbell.
The last Ipsos-Reid poll, in June, found 54 per cent of those surveyed approved of the job she was doing. Campbell won positive ratings from 49 per cent of those surveyed.
And James has generally been gaining ground. Back in March 2005 a similar poll found her approval rating at 50 per cent. Some voters who were undecided then have been won over.
It might be that the pundit types put too much value on toughness.
It seems to be generally considered a good thing when leaders are decisive, even authoritarian. Hesitation is worse than being confidently wrong.
Canadians don't cut and run, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper, so the war in Afghanistan continues no matter what's happening on the ground. But certainty can be dangerous. The leader who insists he alone knows the right course can - with great and stylish decisiveness - lead his followers over a cliff. (Or into Iraq.)
Earlier this year The New Yorker profiled rising U.S. political star and presidential candidate Barack Obama. One of the knocks against Obama is that he's too inclined to compromise and consensus. (The article was titled The Conciliator.)
But Obama said he simply considers that sensible. He has strong views, he said, but he also recognizes that he doesn't have a monopoly on wisdom. If others feel strongly about an issue, it's smart to heed their views.
There's a risk of drift and indecision in the approach.
But we've run into a lot of problems created by leaders who are convinced they have all the answers.
Maybe it's time to celebrate a little compromise and conciliation.
Footnote: What's Campbell's approach? Tough to tell from the outside. But the government's big initiatives - the Conversation on Health, the New Relationship with First Nations, forest policy changes and now the new enthusiasm for fighting global warming - have all been launched from the premier's office. And the role of backbench MLAs in shaping policy through caucus committees has been sharply cut back since the 2005 election.
Mostly deserved, I'd say. James was attempting to explain why the party hadn't taken any position on the treaty in the months leading up to the vote.
It was out of respect, she said. The choice to accept the deal - or not - was up to the First Nation.
James said she decided the party's position should be kept secret to avoid any appearance of telling the Tsawwassen what to do.
So how does the party feel about the coming Maa-Nulth treaty vote, James was asked.
We hope it passes, she said. (It did.)
Which raised the obvious question: Why wasn't James staying silent on that treaty ratification vote out of respect, as well?
Right. I should have, said a stumbling James. Oops.
Not a great leadership moment.
And confirmation, I'd say, of suspicions that the New Democrats' silence on the Tsawwassen deal was based more on a desire to avoid airing their public divisions than on any principle.
The party is pro-treaty. An NDP government fought for the Nisga'a treaty, while Gordon Campbell staged a long battle against the deal, trying to stall approval in the legislature and challenging it in court.
But the NDP has also taken the Agricultural Land Reserve as a sacred cause.
The Tsawwassen treaty includes a transfer of land to the band. Some of it was in the reserve, but it will be removed before it is handed over to the First Nation.
Supporting the deal would have been tough for the ALR purists within the party and the caucus. There might have been internal fighting.
And James' contradictory responses on the two treaties suggest that avoiding a public squabble was a large part of the NDP's decision to stay silent on the Tsawwassen deal.
The whole affair raised once again that perhaps James isn't tough enough for the job. The suggestion, I suppose, is that she should have bludgeoned the party into line - or at least public silence - and taken a position on the treaty.
There's not much evidence for the claim. James' approval ratings are still better than the public marks for Premier Gordon Campbell.
The last Ipsos-Reid poll, in June, found 54 per cent of those surveyed approved of the job she was doing. Campbell won positive ratings from 49 per cent of those surveyed.
And James has generally been gaining ground. Back in March 2005 a similar poll found her approval rating at 50 per cent. Some voters who were undecided then have been won over.
It might be that the pundit types put too much value on toughness.
It seems to be generally considered a good thing when leaders are decisive, even authoritarian. Hesitation is worse than being confidently wrong.
Canadians don't cut and run, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper, so the war in Afghanistan continues no matter what's happening on the ground. But certainty can be dangerous. The leader who insists he alone knows the right course can - with great and stylish decisiveness - lead his followers over a cliff. (Or into Iraq.)
Earlier this year The New Yorker profiled rising U.S. political star and presidential candidate Barack Obama. One of the knocks against Obama is that he's too inclined to compromise and consensus. (The article was titled The Conciliator.)
But Obama said he simply considers that sensible. He has strong views, he said, but he also recognizes that he doesn't have a monopoly on wisdom. If others feel strongly about an issue, it's smart to heed their views.
There's a risk of drift and indecision in the approach.
But we've run into a lot of problems created by leaders who are convinced they have all the answers.
Maybe it's time to celebrate a little compromise and conciliation.
Footnote: What's Campbell's approach? Tough to tell from the outside. But the government's big initiatives - the Conversation on Health, the New Relationship with First Nations, forest policy changes and now the new enthusiasm for fighting global warming - have all been launched from the premier's office. And the role of backbench MLAs in shaping policy through caucus committees has been sharply cut back since the 2005 election.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Maybe Hillbilly Heroin is a good thing
Apparently prescription drugs are bumping heroin off some addicts' shopping lists in Victoria these days.
Which seems like a good thing, one that points to a solution to at least some of the drug problems causing our communities so much grief. The Times Colonist reported "the evolution of drug use in Victoria" is under way. Dealers are shifting from heroin to prescription drugs that have similar effects - Dilaudid, OxyContin and morphine variants. OxyContin has kind of a buzz going. It's apparently swept through small-town and rural America and made inroads in Atlantic Canada. The prescription drug even has a media handle - "hillbilly heroin." (Of course, we in the media don't have a good record in reporting on drugs; we tend to get overly excited about each new drug that comes along.)
The article suggested the shift marked a "troublesome trend" in drug use. I can't see much troublesome about the change. Being addicted - to prescription drugs, heroin, cocaine or alcohol - is terrible.
And some substances are worse than others. Cocaine addicts seem particularly likely to have a tough ride; alcoholics have the benefit of easy access and a certain social tolerance. But any addiction is bad news. Still, oxycontin or heroin - what's the difference? Some argue prescription heroin substitutes might add to addiction problems if they're more readily available than heroin. Getting phony prescriptions and reselling the drugs might be easier than importing heroin, they suggest. But there never seems to be any problem meeting the demand for heroin. The biggest busts and record-breaking seizures make absolutely no difference in supply.
Basically, it seems that the new street drugs are appealing because they're a safe, cost-effective alternative to heroin. How is that a bad thing?
When people buy heroin, or cocaine or meth, they can't tell what they're getting.
When they buy a prescription drug, they often can check the tablet or capsule before they grind it up. The drug has been made in a pharmaceutical company's manufacturing centre, not some basement. That means addicts have a reduced risk of taking bad drugs and dying, or ending up in hospital. Surely that's a good thing.
The cost of feeding a prescription drug addiction is about the same as being on heroin. Markets work that way. If prescription drugs give the same effects as heroin, then they'll command pretty much the same price. But the article raised an interesting possibility. On the street, it said, the prescription pills sell for $5 to $20 each. An addict would typically use $40 or $50 worth at a time, based on street prices. Consider the process involved. Someone persuades a doctor he has terrible pain and gets a prescription for a morphine-like drug. He sells the pills to a dealer, who sets out to resell them on the street. A buyer - an addict - would need $40 to make the buy. If he's doing crimes to support his habit, that means perhaps three cars broken into to get stuff to sell.
Which would, of course, cost each of the owners $500 for a new lock or window. So the addict gets drugs. Dealers and gangs make money supplying them. Property crimes soar. Police are kept busy.
Instead, why not write the addict a prescription, and even provide free drugs? The real price for the bills, prescribed, is $8, not $40. Providing the drugs deals a big blow to the criminals making profits in the drug trade. The addict wouldn't break into those three cars. Perhaps, given freedom from the daily scramble for drug money, he might even begin to get a grip. It's worked that way in other jurisdictions. Switzerland conducted an experiment in which 1,100 addicts received free heroin. During the test there was a massive reduction in criminal activity by the drug users and an increase in employment and not one overdose death.
And more than 80 people quit drugs while using legal heroin. So why aren't we just writing prescriptions for at least some addicts?
Footnote: There are practical issues. Drugs shouldn't be too readily available, as difficulty deters at least some new users. But making life difficult for addicts serves no purpose. Their lives are worse, the entire community suffers through crime, policing costs, health care pressures and our sense of safety is eroded. What is the point?
Which seems like a good thing, one that points to a solution to at least some of the drug problems causing our communities so much grief. The Times Colonist reported "the evolution of drug use in Victoria" is under way. Dealers are shifting from heroin to prescription drugs that have similar effects - Dilaudid, OxyContin and morphine variants. OxyContin has kind of a buzz going. It's apparently swept through small-town and rural America and made inroads in Atlantic Canada. The prescription drug even has a media handle - "hillbilly heroin." (Of course, we in the media don't have a good record in reporting on drugs; we tend to get overly excited about each new drug that comes along.)
The article suggested the shift marked a "troublesome trend" in drug use. I can't see much troublesome about the change. Being addicted - to prescription drugs, heroin, cocaine or alcohol - is terrible.
And some substances are worse than others. Cocaine addicts seem particularly likely to have a tough ride; alcoholics have the benefit of easy access and a certain social tolerance. But any addiction is bad news. Still, oxycontin or heroin - what's the difference? Some argue prescription heroin substitutes might add to addiction problems if they're more readily available than heroin. Getting phony prescriptions and reselling the drugs might be easier than importing heroin, they suggest. But there never seems to be any problem meeting the demand for heroin. The biggest busts and record-breaking seizures make absolutely no difference in supply.
Basically, it seems that the new street drugs are appealing because they're a safe, cost-effective alternative to heroin. How is that a bad thing?
When people buy heroin, or cocaine or meth, they can't tell what they're getting.
When they buy a prescription drug, they often can check the tablet or capsule before they grind it up. The drug has been made in a pharmaceutical company's manufacturing centre, not some basement. That means addicts have a reduced risk of taking bad drugs and dying, or ending up in hospital. Surely that's a good thing.
The cost of feeding a prescription drug addiction is about the same as being on heroin. Markets work that way. If prescription drugs give the same effects as heroin, then they'll command pretty much the same price. But the article raised an interesting possibility. On the street, it said, the prescription pills sell for $5 to $20 each. An addict would typically use $40 or $50 worth at a time, based on street prices. Consider the process involved. Someone persuades a doctor he has terrible pain and gets a prescription for a morphine-like drug. He sells the pills to a dealer, who sets out to resell them on the street. A buyer - an addict - would need $40 to make the buy. If he's doing crimes to support his habit, that means perhaps three cars broken into to get stuff to sell.
Which would, of course, cost each of the owners $500 for a new lock or window. So the addict gets drugs. Dealers and gangs make money supplying them. Property crimes soar. Police are kept busy.
Instead, why not write the addict a prescription, and even provide free drugs? The real price for the bills, prescribed, is $8, not $40. Providing the drugs deals a big blow to the criminals making profits in the drug trade. The addict wouldn't break into those three cars. Perhaps, given freedom from the daily scramble for drug money, he might even begin to get a grip. It's worked that way in other jurisdictions. Switzerland conducted an experiment in which 1,100 addicts received free heroin. During the test there was a massive reduction in criminal activity by the drug users and an increase in employment and not one overdose death.
And more than 80 people quit drugs while using legal heroin. So why aren't we just writing prescriptions for at least some addicts?
Footnote: There are practical issues. Drugs shouldn't be too readily available, as difficulty deters at least some new users. But making life difficult for addicts serves no purpose. Their lives are worse, the entire community suffers through crime, policing costs, health care pressures and our sense of safety is eroded. What is the point?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
So how much did the panelists who recommended giant raises for MLAs get paid?
Sean Holman has the answer at publiceyeonline.com. Look for the item headed "Reviewing the reviewers."
RCMP complaints process a travesty
As questions mounted about the death of Ian Bush, the RCMP repeatedly noted that the shooting would be investigated by the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints.
What they didn't say was that the top Mounties get to rewrite the commission's reports before they're made public.
And they routinely do, clearing officers accused of wrongdoing.
The Commission for Public Complaints issued 48 interim reports in its last fiscal year, which ended March 31.
The commission, after reviewing the evidence, issued 184 "findings." Half of them - 92 - were critical of the actions of the RCMP officers involved.
But the RCMP commissioner gets to go through the reports before they're released. During that 12-month period, the commissioners - first Giuliano Zaccardelli, then Beverley Busson - regularly rewrote reports. They decided witnesses judged credible by the commission should not be believed. They changed findings of fact and introduced new evidence.
And they over-ruled and rewrote 50 per cent of the commission's "adverse findings" against the actions of officers.
The situation is so outrageous it's like something out of a political satire. If something goes wrong - from a small complaint to a shooting - here's what happens. The RCMP investigates the actions of its officers. The investigators might forward a report to Crown prosecutors, who would use it to decide if charges are warranted.
If someone was unhappy with the results of this process, they could ask the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints to review the case. But the commission relies largely on the investigation by the RCMP.
And the top Mountie can and does rewrite the commission's reports to remove criticisms of officers or the force.
This has nothing to do with the general conduct of RCMP officers. Based on my limited experience as a police reporter - all right, very limited - they routinely do a tough job with remarkable good judgment.
But not always. Not invariably, 100 per cent of the time, like some saintly brigade. These are people like you and I, who chose a challenging line of work.
We give police officers great powers - from carrying guns to stopping people they suspect of wrongdoing. And most of us, I think, when we hear someone complain about being mistreated by police, tend to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. We've seen the kind of people they have to deal with, drunk and stupid and contrary.
That's exactly why there has to be accountability and independent oversight. When something does go wrong, a victim needs to know someone will look at his complaints with an open mind. Someone who isn't on the side of the police, or against them. Someone just interested in the truth and law.
Instead, complaints are investigated by RCMP officers. The information goes to the commission for public complaints. And then the head of the RCMP can rewrite any recommendations he doesn't like.
It's a deeply flawed process. The head of the RCMP has a natural desire to protect fellow officers. And too many bad reports might cost him his job.
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is trying to improve things. It announced this month, in the aftermath of the Ian Bush shooting, a test program that will see its staff observe investigations into serious cases in B.C.
Commission chair Paul Kennedy says more is needed. The government has to pass legislation that allows real independent oversight. (Justice Dennis O'Connors investigation into the Arar case produced the same recommendation.)
The federal government's failure to deal with the issue is particularly unfair to British Columbians. The province has an independent Police Complaint Commissioner in charge of investigating public complaints.
But the RCMP won't accept the commissioner's oversight. Since most communities are policed by the RCMP, about 75 per cent of British Columbians don't have access to an adequate complaints process.
It's time the federal government acted on the urgent need to bring adequate oversight to the RCMP
Footonote: An independent review released earlier this year found significant problems in the provincial police complaints' review process. The report's author, former appeal court justice Josiah Wood, also advocates bringing the RCMP under the authority of the province's complaints commissioner.
What they didn't say was that the top Mounties get to rewrite the commission's reports before they're made public.
And they routinely do, clearing officers accused of wrongdoing.
The Commission for Public Complaints issued 48 interim reports in its last fiscal year, which ended March 31.
The commission, after reviewing the evidence, issued 184 "findings." Half of them - 92 - were critical of the actions of the RCMP officers involved.
But the RCMP commissioner gets to go through the reports before they're released. During that 12-month period, the commissioners - first Giuliano Zaccardelli, then Beverley Busson - regularly rewrote reports. They decided witnesses judged credible by the commission should not be believed. They changed findings of fact and introduced new evidence.
And they over-ruled and rewrote 50 per cent of the commission's "adverse findings" against the actions of officers.
The situation is so outrageous it's like something out of a political satire. If something goes wrong - from a small complaint to a shooting - here's what happens. The RCMP investigates the actions of its officers. The investigators might forward a report to Crown prosecutors, who would use it to decide if charges are warranted.
If someone was unhappy with the results of this process, they could ask the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints to review the case. But the commission relies largely on the investigation by the RCMP.
And the top Mountie can and does rewrite the commission's reports to remove criticisms of officers or the force.
This has nothing to do with the general conduct of RCMP officers. Based on my limited experience as a police reporter - all right, very limited - they routinely do a tough job with remarkable good judgment.
But not always. Not invariably, 100 per cent of the time, like some saintly brigade. These are people like you and I, who chose a challenging line of work.
We give police officers great powers - from carrying guns to stopping people they suspect of wrongdoing. And most of us, I think, when we hear someone complain about being mistreated by police, tend to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. We've seen the kind of people they have to deal with, drunk and stupid and contrary.
That's exactly why there has to be accountability and independent oversight. When something does go wrong, a victim needs to know someone will look at his complaints with an open mind. Someone who isn't on the side of the police, or against them. Someone just interested in the truth and law.
Instead, complaints are investigated by RCMP officers. The information goes to the commission for public complaints. And then the head of the RCMP can rewrite any recommendations he doesn't like.
It's a deeply flawed process. The head of the RCMP has a natural desire to protect fellow officers. And too many bad reports might cost him his job.
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is trying to improve things. It announced this month, in the aftermath of the Ian Bush shooting, a test program that will see its staff observe investigations into serious cases in B.C.
Commission chair Paul Kennedy says more is needed. The government has to pass legislation that allows real independent oversight. (Justice Dennis O'Connors investigation into the Arar case produced the same recommendation.)
The federal government's failure to deal with the issue is particularly unfair to British Columbians. The province has an independent Police Complaint Commissioner in charge of investigating public complaints.
But the RCMP won't accept the commissioner's oversight. Since most communities are policed by the RCMP, about 75 per cent of British Columbians don't have access to an adequate complaints process.
It's time the federal government acted on the urgent need to bring adequate oversight to the RCMP
Footonote: An independent review released earlier this year found significant problems in the provincial police complaints' review process. The report's author, former appeal court justice Josiah Wood, also advocates bringing the RCMP under the authority of the province's complaints commissioner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
