You can't blame Colin Hansen for getting cranky about Olympic security costs.
But you also shouldn't forget this mess is partly the B.C. Liberals' fault.
With a year to go until the Vancouver Games, and weeks before the province's budget day, the only thing certain is that security costs are hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.
That's no surprise. The budget - $175 million to be split between the federal and provincial governments - was recognized as unrealistically low from day one.
But now the cost estimates are reported to be around the $1-billion mark.
And since the province is on the hook for Games' cost overruns, that means a big hit for provincial taxpayers this year.
How big is still to be determined. Hansen's officials are wrangling with the feds and the RCMP about what should be included in the actual costs of Games security. They argue that the bill should only include security at the Games venues. Other costs are a federal responsibility, the province says.
Sorting the cost-sharing out won't be easy.
Any manager will recognize the opportunity this situation offers to the RCMP. New equipment, fancy technology, training costs - from the perspective of the force, the more you can dump into the budget the better. It's money you don't have to find somewhere else.
And given the tough economic times, the federal government will be trying to limit its contribution.
Even though the original figure was always seen as unrealistically low - except by various ministers in the Campbell government, who maintained until last year that it was just fine - the costs are staggering.
How can security for a 17-day sporting event cost $1 billion? If you used the money for salaries and hired police officers from everywhere at overtime rates, you could have 111,000 security people working for a month - about 800 to watch each athlete.
Of course, it's more complex. There are border issues and transportation and media and traffic. But $1 billion equals about $60 million per day of the Games. It seems crazy.
The costs were inevitably going to be an embarrassment for the government. The claim that provincial Games spending is strictly limited to $600 million has always been obviously false and contradicted by the auditor general.
The security overrun will enforce even Gordon Campbell to concede the reality.
The overrun, up until the economic slump, could have been covered out of the government's expected big surpluses.
Now a $300-million or $400-million overrun could be enough to push the government into a deficit. That would mean repealing the no-deficit law - the right thing to do, but a big reversal of years of Liberal lectures on the evils of red ink.
And the overrun raises other problems.
Government ministries have been looking for spending that can be cut or put off in light of the plunging economy. Those kinds of changes would be unpopular, but could be pitched as necessary sacrifices.
But that will be undermined if the government is paying a big chunk of cash for Olympic security after years of insisting the budget was adequate.
The governments might try and dance around the issue. If the talks are continuing, they could say the costs are still unknown and would be covered out of a contingency fund.
But having no handle on costs at this point would leave the Liberals open to attack during the election campaign.
It's a tricky problem, in large part because of the timing. Neither the federal Conservatives nor the provincial Liberals want to get stuck with a big bill right now. But neither wants a public spat, either.
And while the problems might be forgotten a year from now, if the Games are a success, the election is May 12. The security problems - and the lack of openness - are going to feature heavily in the NDP campaign.
Footnote: For an example of the scale of Games security, the first major exercise is scheduled for the coming week, involving up to six naval warships, military helicopters and jet fighters and RCMP and emergency personnel.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Blazing a trail with tall wood buildings
Sean Holman over at publiceyeonline.com has an alarming look at serious concerns about the government's push to allow — and encourage — six-storey wood apartment, condo and office buildings.
The safety is being questioned by firefighters; other jurisdictions deny the government's claim that they allow such buildings.
The government says rules will ensure safety. But government also allowed construction of leaky condos — and schools — that brought ruin to thousands of people.
The safety is being questioned by firefighters; other jurisdictions deny the government's claim that they allow such buildings.
The government says rules will ensure safety. But government also allowed construction of leaky condos — and schools — that brought ruin to thousands of people.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Imagine an independent holding the balance of power in the B.C. legislature
OK, a lot to has to happen. But even the potential election of an independent MLA, as Vaughn Palmer writes about here would be welcome. Party politics, as practised today, has kept a lot of great people from becoming truly effective, representative MLAs.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Harper, maybe Campbell, decide deficits OK
The world has changed. Stephen Harper is acting like a Liberal, leaping into budget deficits and tossing cash around to win votes.
Even Gordon Campbell, who three months ago called deficits a dangerous "addiction," now says B.C. might have to break its balanced budget law next month.
These are signs of how dramatic the economic crunch has become, how badly politicians under-estimated the problems and how worried both leaders are about election prospects.
Harper's budget called for Ottawa to spend $36 billion more than it takes in this year, ending a decade of balanced budgets. (The deficit is forecast at $30 billion for the following year, but that estimate is about as reliable as a $4 watch.)
Spending will jump 10.8 per cent, at a time when inflation is almost non-existent. Revenue will fall by 4.2 per cent, thanks in part to tax cuts.
The rationale is that the government spending will take up some of the slack in the economy. If people are laid off in the forest industry, maybe they will get work on a road infrastructure project.
There is broad agreement among economists that government intervention of this type is necessary in a serious economic slowdown to cushion the impact and hasten the recovery. That almost inevitably means several deficits.
On balance, the government's direction is sound.
But it's the details that should make you nervous.
This is all an inexact science. Few economists will hazard a guess about the real effect of the programs - how much the billions will add to economic output or reduce the jobless rate.
And once the money starts flowing, it's hard to keep track of where it's going or how wisely it's used.
Some stimulus measures make obvious sense. If a bridge is planned for construction in five years, building it now creates jobs and provides needed infrastructure. In five years, the theory goes, the economy will be stronger. The money that would have been spent on the bridge can be used to pay down the debt run up in the deficit years.
Other measures are questionable. The government has promised $160 million in new spending on cultural projects. It's hard to judge the real economic value of that spending - except in make-work terms. And it's harder to see how the government can avoid pressure to keep up the commitment once begun.
And it's committing $3 billion this year to subsidize home renovations and landscaping. That doesn't qualify as smart spending - there is no gain in productivity or long-term benefit. (In contrast, social housing for low-income serniors, the disabled, natives and northerners gets about $500 million this year.)
And some measures are just foolish. The income tax cuts announced in the federal budget aren't targeted to create jobs or improve our long-term situation. While they are nce, they are not going to bring a spending rush to stimulate the economy.
And the $4 billion in foregone revenue over the next three years will now be borrowed, for us - or our children - to pay back at some point. But the cuts will score some political points.
The budget marks quite a transformation for Harper, whose political career has been built on an abhorrence of deficits and rejection of this kind of interventionist role for government.
Gordon Campbell might be having the same kind of conversion. His government made deficit budgets illegal in B.C. Even a few months ago, when he outlined the province's initial response to the meltdown, Campbell pledged the province would remain "a deficit-free zone."
But this week, with the provincial budget less than three weeks away, Campbell told The Globe and Mail he's not sure the government will be able to balance the budget.
That's a big reversal. But probably a wise one - depending, of course, on the prudence and effectiveness of the economic stimulus measures. An ideological aversion to deficits shouldn't become a straitjacket. Families sometimes borrow to get over tough patches; governments have the same opportunity.
Footnote: Politically, I have no idea what the impact will be in the provincial election May 12. Campbell could look a little hypocritical in embracing once unthinkable deficits, if it comes to that. But that's likely better than looking detached from the economic problems affecting so many families and communities.
Even Gordon Campbell, who three months ago called deficits a dangerous "addiction," now says B.C. might have to break its balanced budget law next month.
These are signs of how dramatic the economic crunch has become, how badly politicians under-estimated the problems and how worried both leaders are about election prospects.
Harper's budget called for Ottawa to spend $36 billion more than it takes in this year, ending a decade of balanced budgets. (The deficit is forecast at $30 billion for the following year, but that estimate is about as reliable as a $4 watch.)
Spending will jump 10.8 per cent, at a time when inflation is almost non-existent. Revenue will fall by 4.2 per cent, thanks in part to tax cuts.
The rationale is that the government spending will take up some of the slack in the economy. If people are laid off in the forest industry, maybe they will get work on a road infrastructure project.
There is broad agreement among economists that government intervention of this type is necessary in a serious economic slowdown to cushion the impact and hasten the recovery. That almost inevitably means several deficits.
On balance, the government's direction is sound.
But it's the details that should make you nervous.
This is all an inexact science. Few economists will hazard a guess about the real effect of the programs - how much the billions will add to economic output or reduce the jobless rate.
And once the money starts flowing, it's hard to keep track of where it's going or how wisely it's used.
Some stimulus measures make obvious sense. If a bridge is planned for construction in five years, building it now creates jobs and provides needed infrastructure. In five years, the theory goes, the economy will be stronger. The money that would have been spent on the bridge can be used to pay down the debt run up in the deficit years.
Other measures are questionable. The government has promised $160 million in new spending on cultural projects. It's hard to judge the real economic value of that spending - except in make-work terms. And it's harder to see how the government can avoid pressure to keep up the commitment once begun.
And it's committing $3 billion this year to subsidize home renovations and landscaping. That doesn't qualify as smart spending - there is no gain in productivity or long-term benefit. (In contrast, social housing for low-income serniors, the disabled, natives and northerners gets about $500 million this year.)
And some measures are just foolish. The income tax cuts announced in the federal budget aren't targeted to create jobs or improve our long-term situation. While they are nce, they are not going to bring a spending rush to stimulate the economy.
And the $4 billion in foregone revenue over the next three years will now be borrowed, for us - or our children - to pay back at some point. But the cuts will score some political points.
The budget marks quite a transformation for Harper, whose political career has been built on an abhorrence of deficits and rejection of this kind of interventionist role for government.
Gordon Campbell might be having the same kind of conversion. His government made deficit budgets illegal in B.C. Even a few months ago, when he outlined the province's initial response to the meltdown, Campbell pledged the province would remain "a deficit-free zone."
But this week, with the provincial budget less than three weeks away, Campbell told The Globe and Mail he's not sure the government will be able to balance the budget.
That's a big reversal. But probably a wise one - depending, of course, on the prudence and effectiveness of the economic stimulus measures. An ideological aversion to deficits shouldn't become a straitjacket. Families sometimes borrow to get over tough patches; governments have the same opportunity.
Footnote: Politically, I have no idea what the impact will be in the provincial election May 12. Campbell could look a little hypocritical in embracing once unthinkable deficits, if it comes to that. But that's likely better than looking detached from the economic problems affecting so many families and communities.
Monday, January 26, 2009
It's 2009, but roads are still destroying salmon streams
I'll do a column on the topic, but the Times Colonist has a good editorial on a Forest Practices Board report on the number of streams and rivers that are critical fisheries habitat, yet blocked by shoddy road construction. It's appalling, even astonishing, that for all the talk about threats to salmon runs, we still act like it's 1920.
The board, a watchdog on forest practices, has released a number of expert, balanced and useful reports. Take a look a here.
The board, a watchdog on forest practices, has released a number of expert, balanced and useful reports. Take a look a here.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Stan Hagen
I have a soft spot for Stan Hagen. When he died this week, in a coffee shop a few steps from the legislature, something passed with him.
Hagen was a veteran MLA and cabinet minister. He was always perfect – suit, tie, crisp shirt, perfect white hair, healthy glow. He was always positive and happy. And he always really interested in how you were.
He wasn’t perfect, of course. I always get wary when people suddenly are seen as saint-like after they die.
But Hagen never lost sight of the reason he went into politics. And that was to make things better for the people he represented in the Comox Valley, and the province.
You could argue about choices made to achieve that. But I don’t think you could doubt that Hagen was trying to do the right thing, as an MLA and a cabinet minister.
He represents, to me, the best of the Socred cabinet ministers of the 1980s. He wasn’t a politician. Hagen had been a school trustee — he has five children — but mostly he’d been involved in church and a whole raft of community activities. People knew him and respected him. So in 1986, in his mid-40s, he was elected.
It’s a good route to office. You have a family, experience, a whole life outside politics. And everyone knows you – not just the business types, or the guys from the Steelworkers, or the party stalwarts. When you go out to get groceries, they tell you how you’re doing.
And you represent them in Victoria, instead of representing the government in the riding. When people are unhappy, you say so and think about changes. That culture helped the Socreds to almost four decades of power.
And Socreds, at least until things unraveled, had a useful focus on the individual. Understand one person’s problems, and fix them, and things would get better.
Sure, that led to some mistakes. But on balance, maybe fixing problems that way is better than ending up in endless studies and exercises in process.
Again, this isn’t St. Stan stuff. I remember being terribly frustrated with Hagen’s evasions when something had gone wrong in his ministry of children and families. In part, because I expected better.
But I also remember talking with him in the corridor outside the legislative chamber, when he said he’d told Gordon Campbell he wanted to stay as children and families minister after the 2005 election. The work was so important, he said.
That is one brutally hard job. But Hagen wanted it. He could see the children whose lives were changed, maybe saved, by the ministry’s workers. The families kept together.
And he did have a certain freedom. Hagen held 10 different portfolios during his time in provincial politics. He was 69 when he died. He could say what he thought.
It’s a funny thing, covering the legislature. Ideally, you just don’t know the politicians. That way, you can focus on policy and actions, without worrying that you’re being swayed – either way – by the way you feel about some minister. There was hopeless NDP cabinet minister, but I was always slightly kinder after she talked about how much she missed the Thursday night bowling league back home.)
But my partner grew up in the Valley. She taught piano to two of the Hagen’s five children. And at a desperately hard point in her life, scared and feeling alone, she ran into Hagen, in a restaurant in Parksville. And he listened, for a couple of hours, and didn’t judge and, she says, one of the worst nights of her life was not quite as bad. (You can read her account. There'sa link down a post or two.)
I can imagine people thought of Stan Hagen as the bad guy, the enemy,
Nah. Right sometimes, wrong sometimes. But he wanted to make this a good place for everyone to live.
That’s a pretty good starting point for anyone in government.
Hagen was a veteran MLA and cabinet minister. He was always perfect – suit, tie, crisp shirt, perfect white hair, healthy glow. He was always positive and happy. And he always really interested in how you were.
He wasn’t perfect, of course. I always get wary when people suddenly are seen as saint-like after they die.
But Hagen never lost sight of the reason he went into politics. And that was to make things better for the people he represented in the Comox Valley, and the province.
You could argue about choices made to achieve that. But I don’t think you could doubt that Hagen was trying to do the right thing, as an MLA and a cabinet minister.
He represents, to me, the best of the Socred cabinet ministers of the 1980s. He wasn’t a politician. Hagen had been a school trustee — he has five children — but mostly he’d been involved in church and a whole raft of community activities. People knew him and respected him. So in 1986, in his mid-40s, he was elected.
It’s a good route to office. You have a family, experience, a whole life outside politics. And everyone knows you – not just the business types, or the guys from the Steelworkers, or the party stalwarts. When you go out to get groceries, they tell you how you’re doing.
And you represent them in Victoria, instead of representing the government in the riding. When people are unhappy, you say so and think about changes. That culture helped the Socreds to almost four decades of power.
And Socreds, at least until things unraveled, had a useful focus on the individual. Understand one person’s problems, and fix them, and things would get better.
Sure, that led to some mistakes. But on balance, maybe fixing problems that way is better than ending up in endless studies and exercises in process.
Again, this isn’t St. Stan stuff. I remember being terribly frustrated with Hagen’s evasions when something had gone wrong in his ministry of children and families. In part, because I expected better.
But I also remember talking with him in the corridor outside the legislative chamber, when he said he’d told Gordon Campbell he wanted to stay as children and families minister after the 2005 election. The work was so important, he said.
That is one brutally hard job. But Hagen wanted it. He could see the children whose lives were changed, maybe saved, by the ministry’s workers. The families kept together.
And he did have a certain freedom. Hagen held 10 different portfolios during his time in provincial politics. He was 69 when he died. He could say what he thought.
It’s a funny thing, covering the legislature. Ideally, you just don’t know the politicians. That way, you can focus on policy and actions, without worrying that you’re being swayed – either way – by the way you feel about some minister. There was hopeless NDP cabinet minister, but I was always slightly kinder after she talked about how much she missed the Thursday night bowling league back home.)
But my partner grew up in the Valley. She taught piano to two of the Hagen’s five children. And at a desperately hard point in her life, scared and feeling alone, she ran into Hagen, in a restaurant in Parksville. And he listened, for a couple of hours, and didn’t judge and, she says, one of the worst nights of her life was not quite as bad. (You can read her account. There'sa link down a post or two.)
I can imagine people thought of Stan Hagen as the bad guy, the enemy,
Nah. Right sometimes, wrong sometimes. But he wanted to make this a good place for everyone to live.
That’s a pretty good starting point for anyone in government.
The beauty of art and politics
The best all-round Canadian blog, I'd say, has a great post on a street response to Barack Obama's win. The combination of joy and the willingness to do real work to bring it to others are heartening.
Stan Hagen
I'll post something later, but wanted to point to this fine column as a reminder that there is much more to our politicians than the clips we see on TV or the quotes that we see in the newspapers.
If newspapers fade away....
The tone is a little whiney, but an east coast newspaper manager makes points that should be consideredabout the future of news, and specifically the problems when newspapers generate the content but aggregators get the revenue.
Lord knows newspapers have their failings and self-inflicted wounds, but in most communities they put the most money and time into news reporting. Without them, what will happen to that role? What will happen to the shared understanding of community issues - flawed or not - if mass news media fade away?
Lord knows newspapers have their failings and self-inflicted wounds, but in most communities they put the most money and time into news reporting. Without them, what will happen to that role? What will happen to the shared understanding of community issues - flawed or not - if mass news media fade away?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Where's our Obama, in Canada or B.C.?
It's a disheartening contrast.
Take any moment of debate from the weekend legislative session on the Olympic athletes' village and contrast it with Barack Obama's inauguration speech.
Leave aside, for a few moments, the issues involved in the legislative session. The debate was the usual legislature mix of interruption, insult and vilification. Both sides, as usual, were to blame.
Not that legislature debate need be all warm and fuzzy. There are real issues and real disagreements on how to approach them. Debate is inevitable and healthy.
But I thought of the legislature - indeed of Canadian politics generally - when Obama said it was "time to put away childish things." When he talked about the need for Americans to abandon politics of division and fear and envy.
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them," Obama told the crowds gathered in Washington D.C. "That the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Meanwhile, on this side of the border, stale political arguments are all we hear from our leaders. (That might explain why Obama's inauguration attracted more than two million people who wanted to be part of the change. Can you imagine 200,000 people gathering in Ottawa for the first speech by a new prime minister?)
It was not just the usual rhetorical nod to co-operation. When Obama talked about the current economic crisis, he noted the role of "greed and irresponsibility on the part of some."
But he also told all Americans they share the blame because of "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." Not George W. Bush's failure, or Wall Street's or Republicans', but all Americans.
There was no mention of enemies. The message was that the people of the U.S., and the world, are in this together and have many common goals and aspirations and values. They might disagree, strongly, on some moral issues or policy directions. But not on the fundamental principles that have been part of their national life for 230-plus years.
Our politicians see enemies everywhere. Gordon Campbell dismissed people who rallied outside a Liberal party convention to protest some government policies as stupid and representatives of special interests. Glen Clark called people who disagreed with his government's forest policy "enemies of B.C."
In fact, politicians and their political staffs are always on the lookout for "wedge issues." The aim is to split the society into opposing factions in ways that increase their support at the expense of other parties. The issues don't have to be consequential, or the positions legitimate. The best wedge issues play on emotion, particularly fear. That explains the popularity of tough talk on crime or politicians' love of talking about the "powerful interests" behind other parties.
Obama largely shunned such tactics in his campaign and such topics in his inaugural address. He appealed not to peoples' fears or their self-interest, but to their sense of decency and justice. "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," he said. "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
Instead of ideology, decisions should be based in pragmatism. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
Obama is a gifted orator. But what lifted his address was not clever writing, or a skilled delivery.
The speech was illuminated by a belief in the energy, intelligence, compassion and shared values of Americans - and indeed of people around the world.
Footnote: A striking feature of Obama's entire political career has been his willingness to listen and accommodate the views of other people, while still working toward goals he considers important. He has proved that approach is not only more decent, but also more effective in bringing change and building support.
Take any moment of debate from the weekend legislative session on the Olympic athletes' village and contrast it with Barack Obama's inauguration speech.
Leave aside, for a few moments, the issues involved in the legislative session. The debate was the usual legislature mix of interruption, insult and vilification. Both sides, as usual, were to blame.
Not that legislature debate need be all warm and fuzzy. There are real issues and real disagreements on how to approach them. Debate is inevitable and healthy.
But I thought of the legislature - indeed of Canadian politics generally - when Obama said it was "time to put away childish things." When he talked about the need for Americans to abandon politics of division and fear and envy.
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them," Obama told the crowds gathered in Washington D.C. "That the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Meanwhile, on this side of the border, stale political arguments are all we hear from our leaders. (That might explain why Obama's inauguration attracted more than two million people who wanted to be part of the change. Can you imagine 200,000 people gathering in Ottawa for the first speech by a new prime minister?)
It was not just the usual rhetorical nod to co-operation. When Obama talked about the current economic crisis, he noted the role of "greed and irresponsibility on the part of some."
But he also told all Americans they share the blame because of "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." Not George W. Bush's failure, or Wall Street's or Republicans', but all Americans.
There was no mention of enemies. The message was that the people of the U.S., and the world, are in this together and have many common goals and aspirations and values. They might disagree, strongly, on some moral issues or policy directions. But not on the fundamental principles that have been part of their national life for 230-plus years.
Our politicians see enemies everywhere. Gordon Campbell dismissed people who rallied outside a Liberal party convention to protest some government policies as stupid and representatives of special interests. Glen Clark called people who disagreed with his government's forest policy "enemies of B.C."
In fact, politicians and their political staffs are always on the lookout for "wedge issues." The aim is to split the society into opposing factions in ways that increase their support at the expense of other parties. The issues don't have to be consequential, or the positions legitimate. The best wedge issues play on emotion, particularly fear. That explains the popularity of tough talk on crime or politicians' love of talking about the "powerful interests" behind other parties.
Obama largely shunned such tactics in his campaign and such topics in his inaugural address. He appealed not to peoples' fears or their self-interest, but to their sense of decency and justice. "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," he said. "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
Instead of ideology, decisions should be based in pragmatism. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
Obama is a gifted orator. But what lifted his address was not clever writing, or a skilled delivery.
The speech was illuminated by a belief in the energy, intelligence, compassion and shared values of Americans - and indeed of people around the world.
Footnote: A striking feature of Obama's entire political career has been his willingness to listen and accommodate the views of other people, while still working toward goals he considers important. He has proved that approach is not only more decent, but also more effective in bringing change and building support.
Campbell's forest land contradictions
Last week, Premier Gordon Campbell told the truck loggers the province would move to create a "forest reserve" to make sure timberland isn't lost to other uses. It was critical to families and communities, he said.
A Times Colonist editorial notes the contradiction between the new commitment to forest land and decisions to allow two forest companies on Vancouver Island to remove land from tree farm licences. Those decisions, criticized by the auditor general, enriched the companies by at least $700 million and produced no benefits to taxpayers.
A Times Colonist editorial notes the contradiction between the new commitment to forest land and decisions to allow two forest companies on Vancouver Island to remove land from tree farm licences. Those decisions, criticized by the auditor general, enriched the companies by at least $700 million and produced no benefits to taxpayers.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Four months to go, and the Liberals should be worried
British bookies take bets on election results and post odds years in advance.
Perhaps it's the next bit of gambling expansion the B.C. Liberals will look at, now that people are getting less keen on scratch and lose tickets.
But the oddsmakers would be having a tough time right about now.
Even a year ago, Gordon Campbell and company would have been heavy favorites.
The economy was good, Olympic plans were allegedly on track and voters in the Lower Mainland could see big infrastructure projects all over the place.
There were problems - homelessness and street disorder, health care waits and gaps in seniors' care. The forest industry, especially the coastal industry, was a mess.
But problems are part of governing. It's only when they become really serious, or when the party in power doesn't seem to have any plans to deal with them - or worse, doesn't acknowledge them - that voters get really riled
And Carole James and the New Democrats hadn't convinced voters that they could do any better.
The polls suggest that's changing. A year ago, the Mustel Group had the Liberals with the support of 48 per cent of decided voters and the NDP with 36 per cent. (In the 2005 election, the Liberals captured 46 per cent of the vote and the New Democrats 42 per cent.) That kind of lead translates into a comfortable majority.
But the last Mustel poll, done in late November, found the two parties tied.
Since then, the Liberals have run into more problems. Some are definitely of their own making; others are just the kind of bumps - like the global economic collapse - that would jar any government.
MLAs gathered in Victoria for an emergency legislative session to pass a law letting Vancouver borrow almost $500 million. The city needs the money to rescue the botched athletes' village project.
The mess was created by terrible decisions made by Vancouver's former council, not the province. (The new council, now dominated by provincial New Democrats, is unlikely to make things easy for the government.)
But it's bad news for Campbell. The price tag for next February's Games is already an issue, especially as the economy slumps. The $500-million overrun on the Vancouver Convention Centre raised doubts about the government's competence and it has been criticized for secrecy on the real cost of the Games. The security bill is still secret, but will likely be five times the $175 million the province maintained would be adequate.
At a time when the government is looking for programs to cut next year to save money, it will likely be asked to spend some $350 million in extra security costs for a 16-day event.
The global economic woes have nothing directly to do with Campbell and the Liberals.
But he will be judged on two fronts as a result - on the effectiveness of efforts to respond to the crisis and, much more subjectively, on whether he "gets it."
So far, there isn't much sign of a response, although next month's budget will be the real test.
Campbell's real problem might come when voters decide whether he actually understands and cares about their concerns. An Angus Reid Strategies poll last fall found 59 per cent of those surveyed didn't believe Campbell understood the problems of British Columbians.
Campbell did outpoll James on management competence, an important factor in peoples' voting decisions.
That's why the Olympic cost problems are so critical. The Liberal campaign is pushing the themes that the New Democrats can't be trusted and aren't competent. The risks are especially high at such a turbulent time, they will argue.
But the distinction blurs if voters are wondering about the Liberals on the same two qualities.
Campbell and the Liberals are still the favorites. But a year ago, it looked like they were cruising to an easy victory; today, it's a real contest.
Footnote: The Liberals' problems are compounded by the perception that this is a one-man government, with Campbell's enthusiasms - like climate change - setting the agenda. A bigger effort to demonstrate a larger role for ministers and MLAs would have insulated the party from some of these problems.
Perhaps it's the next bit of gambling expansion the B.C. Liberals will look at, now that people are getting less keen on scratch and lose tickets.
But the oddsmakers would be having a tough time right about now.
Even a year ago, Gordon Campbell and company would have been heavy favorites.
The economy was good, Olympic plans were allegedly on track and voters in the Lower Mainland could see big infrastructure projects all over the place.
There were problems - homelessness and street disorder, health care waits and gaps in seniors' care. The forest industry, especially the coastal industry, was a mess.
But problems are part of governing. It's only when they become really serious, or when the party in power doesn't seem to have any plans to deal with them - or worse, doesn't acknowledge them - that voters get really riled
And Carole James and the New Democrats hadn't convinced voters that they could do any better.
The polls suggest that's changing. A year ago, the Mustel Group had the Liberals with the support of 48 per cent of decided voters and the NDP with 36 per cent. (In the 2005 election, the Liberals captured 46 per cent of the vote and the New Democrats 42 per cent.) That kind of lead translates into a comfortable majority.
But the last Mustel poll, done in late November, found the two parties tied.
Since then, the Liberals have run into more problems. Some are definitely of their own making; others are just the kind of bumps - like the global economic collapse - that would jar any government.
MLAs gathered in Victoria for an emergency legislative session to pass a law letting Vancouver borrow almost $500 million. The city needs the money to rescue the botched athletes' village project.
The mess was created by terrible decisions made by Vancouver's former council, not the province. (The new council, now dominated by provincial New Democrats, is unlikely to make things easy for the government.)
But it's bad news for Campbell. The price tag for next February's Games is already an issue, especially as the economy slumps. The $500-million overrun on the Vancouver Convention Centre raised doubts about the government's competence and it has been criticized for secrecy on the real cost of the Games. The security bill is still secret, but will likely be five times the $175 million the province maintained would be adequate.
At a time when the government is looking for programs to cut next year to save money, it will likely be asked to spend some $350 million in extra security costs for a 16-day event.
The global economic woes have nothing directly to do with Campbell and the Liberals.
But he will be judged on two fronts as a result - on the effectiveness of efforts to respond to the crisis and, much more subjectively, on whether he "gets it."
So far, there isn't much sign of a response, although next month's budget will be the real test.
Campbell's real problem might come when voters decide whether he actually understands and cares about their concerns. An Angus Reid Strategies poll last fall found 59 per cent of those surveyed didn't believe Campbell understood the problems of British Columbians.
Campbell did outpoll James on management competence, an important factor in peoples' voting decisions.
That's why the Olympic cost problems are so critical. The Liberal campaign is pushing the themes that the New Democrats can't be trusted and aren't competent. The risks are especially high at such a turbulent time, they will argue.
But the distinction blurs if voters are wondering about the Liberals on the same two qualities.
Campbell and the Liberals are still the favorites. But a year ago, it looked like they were cruising to an easy victory; today, it's a real contest.
Footnote: The Liberals' problems are compounded by the perception that this is a one-man government, with Campbell's enthusiasms - like climate change - setting the agenda. A bigger effort to demonstrate a larger role for ministers and MLAs would have insulated the party from some of these problems.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
B.C.'s lobbying laws more hole than net
The promised lobbyist registry was a good idea when it was introduced by the Liberals, and, don't forget, followed the NDP government's failure to do anything to regulate lobbying.
But, as Sean Holman demonstrates at publiceyeonline.com, the lack of effective enforcement means it's perfectly safe to ignore the rules.
After the B.C. Rail scandal, you would expect the government to be keener on dealing with the need to protect the public interest and curb the influence of thjose with political power and money (the two being tightly linked).
But, as Sean Holman demonstrates at publiceyeonline.com, the lack of effective enforcement means it's perfectly safe to ignore the rules.
After the B.C. Rail scandal, you would expect the government to be keener on dealing with the need to protect the public interest and curb the influence of thjose with political power and money (the two being tightly linked).
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Games nightmare
How did we get into this Olympic thing, anyway?
The Games are a year away, and British Columbians face rapidly rising costs and growing doubts about the event's economic value.
Provincial taxpayers are likely on the hook for more than $2 billion for the Games and directly related infrastructure costs. That's about $450 per person.
Municipal governments - B.C. taxpayers, again - will pay some $600 million.
The federal government will end up contributing another $800 million.
That's a cost of something like $3.5 billion. And that's not including the out-of-control spending on the Vancouver Convention Centre, now at $900 million, or the $2 billion to expand rapid transit to Vancouver's airport. Both those projects went ahead, during a time of high construction costs, at least in part to support Vancouver's Olympic bid.
So just the basic costs tied to the Games will cost the public about $220 million per day during the big show.
That's not how the Games were sold to British Columbians by government. The Liberals, despite looking increasingly foolish, have consistently tried to claim the province is only contributing $610 million.
That required excluding the Sea to Sky Highway improvement costs, which the province's auditor general said should be considered part of the Games expenses. Poor Finance Minister Colin Hansen was even forced to try and claim that the government's Olympic Secretariat was not a Games cost.
And the government also claimed for years - despite mounting evidence - that the initial $175-million projection of security costs was credible. It has now conceded the costs will be higher, but won't say how much higher. Stockwell Day, federal minister on the file, says perhaps $1 billion will cover the costs.
And the federal government is only on the hook for $87.5 million, although expect it to come up with at least some of the increase.
The big risk-taker in this deal was the provincial government, which accepted responsibility for all cost overruns or revenue shortfalls.
Even the costs of the incredible mess in Vancouver, where city council ended up taking on all the risk involved in completing the athletes' village, could end up being worn in part by the province.
That could include at least a share of the hundreds of millions of dollars at risk in Vancouver's bungled plan for athletes' housing. A private developer was supposed to build condos that would be used for the athletes' village and then sold.
But the lender has cut off funding because of cost overruns and market concerns. The city foolishly entered into agreements that leave it guaranteeing all the costs - currently estimated at $875 million - to complete the project in time for the Games.
The money is certainly not all at risk. The condos will have value. But much less than expected, and Vancouver taxpayers will pay for the losses, which could easily be $250 million. And ultimately, the city might come looking for provincial help, pointing to the government's guarantees.
As all this happens, the potential benefits of the Games are shrinking. The long-term selling point was marketing exposure, bringing tourism and investment. But as the global economy chills, so does the chance of luring tourists and investment. (And anyway, how many of you made plans to vacation in Turin after the 2006 Winter Games there?)
Back to the original question- how did this happen? For starters, the whole Games bobsled started down the icy run with a gentle nudge. A group of boosters were interested, then premier Glen Clark kicked in $150,000 to help them and we were off on the thrill ride. We just kept going faster down the slope and no one really stopped to figure out if this was a good idea.
The other big problem has been lack of honest, open information. If the government had accepted the auditor general's recommendations in 2006, the risks would have been managed.
As it is, B.C. taxpayers face a big bill for this ride.
Footnote: The money is mostly spent or committed and the show must go on. British Columbians can at least expect every effort to control costs and protect their interest now - and much more openness. And it's critical to ensure that every effort is made to capture the Games' benefits.
The Games are a year away, and British Columbians face rapidly rising costs and growing doubts about the event's economic value.
Provincial taxpayers are likely on the hook for more than $2 billion for the Games and directly related infrastructure costs. That's about $450 per person.
Municipal governments - B.C. taxpayers, again - will pay some $600 million.
The federal government will end up contributing another $800 million.
That's a cost of something like $3.5 billion. And that's not including the out-of-control spending on the Vancouver Convention Centre, now at $900 million, or the $2 billion to expand rapid transit to Vancouver's airport. Both those projects went ahead, during a time of high construction costs, at least in part to support Vancouver's Olympic bid.
So just the basic costs tied to the Games will cost the public about $220 million per day during the big show.
That's not how the Games were sold to British Columbians by government. The Liberals, despite looking increasingly foolish, have consistently tried to claim the province is only contributing $610 million.
That required excluding the Sea to Sky Highway improvement costs, which the province's auditor general said should be considered part of the Games expenses. Poor Finance Minister Colin Hansen was even forced to try and claim that the government's Olympic Secretariat was not a Games cost.
And the government also claimed for years - despite mounting evidence - that the initial $175-million projection of security costs was credible. It has now conceded the costs will be higher, but won't say how much higher. Stockwell Day, federal minister on the file, says perhaps $1 billion will cover the costs.
And the federal government is only on the hook for $87.5 million, although expect it to come up with at least some of the increase.
The big risk-taker in this deal was the provincial government, which accepted responsibility for all cost overruns or revenue shortfalls.
Even the costs of the incredible mess in Vancouver, where city council ended up taking on all the risk involved in completing the athletes' village, could end up being worn in part by the province.
That could include at least a share of the hundreds of millions of dollars at risk in Vancouver's bungled plan for athletes' housing. A private developer was supposed to build condos that would be used for the athletes' village and then sold.
But the lender has cut off funding because of cost overruns and market concerns. The city foolishly entered into agreements that leave it guaranteeing all the costs - currently estimated at $875 million - to complete the project in time for the Games.
The money is certainly not all at risk. The condos will have value. But much less than expected, and Vancouver taxpayers will pay for the losses, which could easily be $250 million. And ultimately, the city might come looking for provincial help, pointing to the government's guarantees.
As all this happens, the potential benefits of the Games are shrinking. The long-term selling point was marketing exposure, bringing tourism and investment. But as the global economy chills, so does the chance of luring tourists and investment. (And anyway, how many of you made plans to vacation in Turin after the 2006 Winter Games there?)
Back to the original question- how did this happen? For starters, the whole Games bobsled started down the icy run with a gentle nudge. A group of boosters were interested, then premier Glen Clark kicked in $150,000 to help them and we were off on the thrill ride. We just kept going faster down the slope and no one really stopped to figure out if this was a good idea.
The other big problem has been lack of honest, open information. If the government had accepted the auditor general's recommendations in 2006, the risks would have been managed.
As it is, B.C. taxpayers face a big bill for this ride.
Footnote: The money is mostly spent or committed and the show must go on. British Columbians can at least expect every effort to control costs and protect their interest now - and much more openness. And it's critical to ensure that every effort is made to capture the Games' benefits.
Monday, January 12, 2009
How we stumbled into Olympic problems
First, the NDP government got all enthusiastic about a bid and launched the luge down the icy chute before anyone really thought much about whether we actualy wanted the Games, or why we should.
Second, no one paid too much attention because a) it was just a bid anyway; and b) the Games are a "good thing."
Third, governments got away with too much secrecy and silly claims, as in security costs will only be $175 million.
Fourth, effective oversight was ignored or eliminated. The auditor general's concerns were brushed aside; the public's representatives on the VANOC board reported to political masters.
Fifth, even people like I who raised issues, weren't nearly dogged enough.
Still, I repost a column from before the bid went in that suggests the warning signs were there for all to see.
Tuesday, June 22, 2002
Olympics' bid looking fiercely expensive
British Columbians should be getting mighty nervous about what the Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games could cost us.
The 2010 Games could turn out to be a great thing for B.C., a chance to showcase the province before the world.
But the Olympic bid is steam-rolling forward without nearly enough public information or consultation on the costs and benefits.
The Olympic bid committee has already sent its proposal off to the IOC, a list of promises of all the things you will do to make these the best Games ever.
Sadly, you won't know what those promises are, the bid committee having decided they should stay secret. That seems a little odd, since Bern, Switzerland, one of B.C.'s top rivals, has posted its proposals on the web site for all to see. Bern also plans a referendum before going further, something citizens in Whistler have unsuccessfully been seeking.
There's much encouraging in B.C.'s Olympic bid. The Games are expected to be officially self-supporting, with revenue covering the operating costs and maybe leaving a little money over. And the province could well score future tourism business and some nice sports facilities.
But the self-supporting claim is misleading.
Organizers already have about $9 million from the province to help make the pitch to get the Games. Ottawa and B.C. have promised $310 million each for new facilities for sports events.
And on top of that, the federal and provincial governments are on the hook for security costs, easily $500 million if recent Games are an indication.
And there's more.
The Games bid requires an expanded convention centre, which would serve as the headquarters for some 10,000 journalists, and cost some $500 million.
There's a strong case for a new convention centre, but it's certainly not clear why those who will benefit - Vancouver hotels and restaurants - shouldn't pay the bill.
Bid chairman Jack Poole also says that without major improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler, Vancouver won't win the Games. Figure $1.3 billion for that. And proponents also want a rapid transit line from the airport, another $1.4-billion megaproject.
Add them up, and you'll see that those cost-free Games will really reach into taxpayers' pockets for $5.3 billion.
Of course there will be benefits, including an estimated $2 billion in tax revenue for the two levels of government. But that doesn't come close to the costs.
And that too would be fine if we had decided that the most important capital priorities for B.C. were a better highway to Whistler and rapid transit from the airport.
But we haven't made that decision. And I'm not sure that people bouncing over rutted roads in the northeast would be so keen to know that their tax dollars were being used to make it easier for people to get to their chalets in Whistler. Or that people in the North and Interior facing health care cuts would think that a better way of getting from the airport to downtown Vancouver should be a top priority.
The Olympic bid has crept up on British Columbians. Few people realize that a specific proposal has been submitted, or that in about a year B.C. could have actually won these Games.
That's partly our fault. The Games people have been out talking about their plans, but the public hasn't paid much attention.
But it's also the proponents' fault, for failing to provide enough information about exactly what this will cost and where the money will be found within the finances of a government that says it's too broke to provide a wide range of other services to citizens.
The Games may make sense. But right now, it feels like we're being asked to hand over a lot of money with no clear idea what we're getting, or why we should want it.
Second, no one paid too much attention because a) it was just a bid anyway; and b) the Games are a "good thing."
Third, governments got away with too much secrecy and silly claims, as in security costs will only be $175 million.
Fourth, effective oversight was ignored or eliminated. The auditor general's concerns were brushed aside; the public's representatives on the VANOC board reported to political masters.
Fifth, even people like I who raised issues, weren't nearly dogged enough.
Still, I repost a column from before the bid went in that suggests the warning signs were there for all to see.
Tuesday, June 22, 2002
Olympics' bid looking fiercely expensive
British Columbians should be getting mighty nervous about what the Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games could cost us.
The 2010 Games could turn out to be a great thing for B.C., a chance to showcase the province before the world.
But the Olympic bid is steam-rolling forward without nearly enough public information or consultation on the costs and benefits.
The Olympic bid committee has already sent its proposal off to the IOC, a list of promises of all the things you will do to make these the best Games ever.
Sadly, you won't know what those promises are, the bid committee having decided they should stay secret. That seems a little odd, since Bern, Switzerland, one of B.C.'s top rivals, has posted its proposals on the web site for all to see. Bern also plans a referendum before going further, something citizens in Whistler have unsuccessfully been seeking.
There's much encouraging in B.C.'s Olympic bid. The Games are expected to be officially self-supporting, with revenue covering the operating costs and maybe leaving a little money over. And the province could well score future tourism business and some nice sports facilities.
But the self-supporting claim is misleading.
Organizers already have about $9 million from the province to help make the pitch to get the Games. Ottawa and B.C. have promised $310 million each for new facilities for sports events.
And on top of that, the federal and provincial governments are on the hook for security costs, easily $500 million if recent Games are an indication.
And there's more.
The Games bid requires an expanded convention centre, which would serve as the headquarters for some 10,000 journalists, and cost some $500 million.
There's a strong case for a new convention centre, but it's certainly not clear why those who will benefit - Vancouver hotels and restaurants - shouldn't pay the bill.
Bid chairman Jack Poole also says that without major improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler, Vancouver won't win the Games. Figure $1.3 billion for that. And proponents also want a rapid transit line from the airport, another $1.4-billion megaproject.
Add them up, and you'll see that those cost-free Games will really reach into taxpayers' pockets for $5.3 billion.
Of course there will be benefits, including an estimated $2 billion in tax revenue for the two levels of government. But that doesn't come close to the costs.
And that too would be fine if we had decided that the most important capital priorities for B.C. were a better highway to Whistler and rapid transit from the airport.
But we haven't made that decision. And I'm not sure that people bouncing over rutted roads in the northeast would be so keen to know that their tax dollars were being used to make it easier for people to get to their chalets in Whistler. Or that people in the North and Interior facing health care cuts would think that a better way of getting from the airport to downtown Vancouver should be a top priority.
The Olympic bid has crept up on British Columbians. Few people realize that a specific proposal has been submitted, or that in about a year B.C. could have actually won these Games.
That's partly our fault. The Games people have been out talking about their plans, but the public hasn't paid much attention.
But it's also the proponents' fault, for failing to provide enough information about exactly what this will cost and where the money will be found within the finances of a government that says it's too broke to provide a wide range of other services to citizens.
The Games may make sense. But right now, it feels like we're being asked to hand over a lot of money with no clear idea what we're getting, or why we should want it.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Polygamy issue thorny, but charges needed
The effort to test Canada's polygamy laws isn't likely to go well.
But it's still necessary.
Leaders of two religious communities in southeast B.C. have been arrested and charged with polygamy. One, Winston Blackmore, has acknowledged having many wives, reportedly more than 20, and some 100 children in his community of Bountiful.
The facts basic facts aren't likely to be in dispute.
But prosecutors have decided against charges for some 20 years because of the other issues the case is going to raise.
Most people don't like polygamy, especially when they hear of middle-aged men taking large numbers of teenage brides.
The sense that women are being exploited - and children treated unfairly - is unavoidable.
But the men are certain to argue that the polygamy laws violate Charter of Rights and Freedoms provisions - for starters, on religious freedom. They're members of fundamentalist sects that broke away from the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy in 1880. Polygamy is mandated by their faith, they maintain.
Religious freedom isn't absolute. But the charter ensures that the courts won't limit it lightly. Nor should the state be telling people what or what not to believe, unless there is demonstrable harm as a result of actions linked to those beliefs.
The defence will also be able to argue on wider grounds, suggesting it is none of the government's business if consenting adults decide that to live together in any arrangement. Lawyers will likely suggest thousands of Canadians are living with more than one partner without being prosecuted.
That means the prosecutors will have to show harm from the practice to justify the limitation on individual rights.
And if harm is being done, the defence will argue, prosecutors should lay charges under the laws governing those offences.
Proving harm will be challenging. The RCMP has launched investigations into sexual exploitation allegations and interviewed scores of people without finding anyone who would testify. The communities are tight-knit and socially isolated.
But the prosecution can still make the case indirectly.
Some of the facts speak for themselves. Blackmore, for example, has in the past acknowledged taking wives as young as 15. Under Canadian law today, the age of sexual consent is 16. (It was 14 until last year. The law also sets the age at 18 when one person is a position of authority or dependent upon the other.)
The court could also be asked to consider the actual likelihood of free consent of girls raised in a religious community, with no real options should they run afoul of those in power.
Witnesses can describe the effects on the boys and young men of the communities, Their chances to be married within the only faith and home they have known are slim, as older men take multiple brides.
And the court can hear expert testimony about abuses confirmed at similar Mormon splinter groups in the U.S.
The outcome is still uncertain. Religious freedom is important and the defence will have its own list of witnesses to describe the happiness and freedom of community members.
Prosecutors have consistently recommended against charges, partly for fear that the law would be struck down under the Charter.
Attorney General Wally Oppal has pressed to have the charges laid. That seems sensible. There is no point in a law that will never be used.
If the charges are proved and the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately sanctions the limit on religious freedom, then Oppal's decision will be justified.
And if the effort fails, but the trial reveals grounds for concern about the effects of polygamy, then Parliament has the chance to draft laws that will provide protection for those who need it.
These communities have sparked concern about human rights for some two decades, with no action.
Oppal deserves credit for ensuring that the issues will finally get the public, far hearing they deserve.
Footnote: An earlier version of the law, introduced in Canada's first Criminal Code in 1892, specifically mentioned the Mormon faith. The issue of faith-based polygamy is now wider - the Koran allows up to four wives and at least some Canadian Muslims reportedly practise polygamy.
But it's still necessary.
Leaders of two religious communities in southeast B.C. have been arrested and charged with polygamy. One, Winston Blackmore, has acknowledged having many wives, reportedly more than 20, and some 100 children in his community of Bountiful.
The facts basic facts aren't likely to be in dispute.
But prosecutors have decided against charges for some 20 years because of the other issues the case is going to raise.
Most people don't like polygamy, especially when they hear of middle-aged men taking large numbers of teenage brides.
The sense that women are being exploited - and children treated unfairly - is unavoidable.
But the men are certain to argue that the polygamy laws violate Charter of Rights and Freedoms provisions - for starters, on religious freedom. They're members of fundamentalist sects that broke away from the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy in 1880. Polygamy is mandated by their faith, they maintain.
Religious freedom isn't absolute. But the charter ensures that the courts won't limit it lightly. Nor should the state be telling people what or what not to believe, unless there is demonstrable harm as a result of actions linked to those beliefs.
The defence will also be able to argue on wider grounds, suggesting it is none of the government's business if consenting adults decide that to live together in any arrangement. Lawyers will likely suggest thousands of Canadians are living with more than one partner without being prosecuted.
That means the prosecutors will have to show harm from the practice to justify the limitation on individual rights.
And if harm is being done, the defence will argue, prosecutors should lay charges under the laws governing those offences.
Proving harm will be challenging. The RCMP has launched investigations into sexual exploitation allegations and interviewed scores of people without finding anyone who would testify. The communities are tight-knit and socially isolated.
But the prosecution can still make the case indirectly.
Some of the facts speak for themselves. Blackmore, for example, has in the past acknowledged taking wives as young as 15. Under Canadian law today, the age of sexual consent is 16. (It was 14 until last year. The law also sets the age at 18 when one person is a position of authority or dependent upon the other.)
The court could also be asked to consider the actual likelihood of free consent of girls raised in a religious community, with no real options should they run afoul of those in power.
Witnesses can describe the effects on the boys and young men of the communities, Their chances to be married within the only faith and home they have known are slim, as older men take multiple brides.
And the court can hear expert testimony about abuses confirmed at similar Mormon splinter groups in the U.S.
The outcome is still uncertain. Religious freedom is important and the defence will have its own list of witnesses to describe the happiness and freedom of community members.
Prosecutors have consistently recommended against charges, partly for fear that the law would be struck down under the Charter.
Attorney General Wally Oppal has pressed to have the charges laid. That seems sensible. There is no point in a law that will never be used.
If the charges are proved and the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately sanctions the limit on religious freedom, then Oppal's decision will be justified.
And if the effort fails, but the trial reveals grounds for concern about the effects of polygamy, then Parliament has the chance to draft laws that will provide protection for those who need it.
These communities have sparked concern about human rights for some two decades, with no action.
Oppal deserves credit for ensuring that the issues will finally get the public, far hearing they deserve.
Footnote: An earlier version of the law, introduced in Canada's first Criminal Code in 1892, specifically mentioned the Mormon faith. The issue of faith-based polygamy is now wider - the Koran allows up to four wives and at least some Canadian Muslims reportedly practise polygamy.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
BC Rail scandal a symbol of failure
Imagine a place where police raid the legislature offices of political aides in a corruption probe involving a billion-dollar sale of a public asset.
The police talk about the destructive reach of organized crime and seize thousands of documents. The investigation involves a number of political power brokers.
Then imagine that five years later, the public still has few answers. No trial; no inquiry.
Silence from the government, which refuses to answer questions because the matter was "before the courts."
And endless delays that left the public in the dark, the three men charged in limbo and the government under a cloud.
Most people would assume, at best, that the country's system was broken.
At worst, they would fear that corruption was rife in a political and legal environment unable or unwilling to deal with it.
Welcome to B.C.
It's was a little more than five years ago that RCMP officers and Victoria police swooped in on the legislature offices of Dave Basi, a political assistant to then finance minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who did the same work for transportation minister Judith Reid. (Collins and Reid have since left politics.)
They hauled away boxes of evidence. Officers also collected documents from lobbyists and operatives with ties to the federal and provincial Liberal parties.
Gordon Campbell, after completing his Hawaiian holiday, returned to say he knew nothing, but the government would co-operate fully with the investigation.
That hasn't really happened. The government has chosen to argue that a number of documents sought by the defence lawyers should be kept secret.
It's exercising its option to claim the documents are privileged, either as legal advice or cabinet material. If the government had chosen to, it could have released all the relevant material. Instead, legal wrangles have delayed the trial.
And the questions have mounted, as the only information - almost all unsubstantiated - has trickled out during various pretrial legal hearings, generally over the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence.
It's known that the RCMP alleged lobbyist Eric Bornman paid Basi about $24,000 over the course of a year for information and steering clients his way. The two knew each other well; both were active in the federal Liberal party. Police also alleged Basi and his cousin Virk went with their spouses to Denver in 2002 and watched an NFL game. They sat with Gary Rennick, a top exec with OmniTRAX, then a bidder for BC Rail. Lobbyist Brian Kieran, a partner with Bornman in Pilothouse Public Affairs, paid for the trip, police claimed.
Both men are expected to be witnesses; neither was charged. Basi and Virk face fraud and breach of trust charges.
And it's known that enough went wrong that the government was forced to cancel the sale of a B.C. Rail spur line after the process was started in case the process was corrupted. That cost taxpayers more than $1 million. (Legal costs are likely 10 times that amount already.)
But nothing has been proven. The public has no answers about what information, if any, changed hands. Defence lawyers have suggested they will show the two men were simply acting on behalf of their political masters and have done nothing wring.
The raids took place Dec. 28, 2003, midway through the Liberals' first term. There were no answers by the 2005 election.
And there will be no answers before the 2009 election. The special prosecutor is going to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that defence lawyers have a right to know the identity of a secret informant.
Meanwhile, of course, Basi and Virk and Aneal Basi, another government employee charged, are under a cloud with no chance to clear their names.
Imagine a place where corruption in the corridors of government had been alleged five years earlier, charges had been laid and there were still no answers. Welcome to B.C.
Footnote: The odds are increasing that the case will be tossed out due to unreasonable delays, although the defence camp has said that it wanted to be vindicated in a trial. If charges are dismissed due to delay would leave a public inquiry as the only way to answer the corruption questions. (For a great guide to the case, see billtieleman.blogspot.com.)
The police talk about the destructive reach of organized crime and seize thousands of documents. The investigation involves a number of political power brokers.
Then imagine that five years later, the public still has few answers. No trial; no inquiry.
Silence from the government, which refuses to answer questions because the matter was "before the courts."
And endless delays that left the public in the dark, the three men charged in limbo and the government under a cloud.
Most people would assume, at best, that the country's system was broken.
At worst, they would fear that corruption was rife in a political and legal environment unable or unwilling to deal with it.
Welcome to B.C.
It's was a little more than five years ago that RCMP officers and Victoria police swooped in on the legislature offices of Dave Basi, a political assistant to then finance minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who did the same work for transportation minister Judith Reid. (Collins and Reid have since left politics.)
They hauled away boxes of evidence. Officers also collected documents from lobbyists and operatives with ties to the federal and provincial Liberal parties.
Gordon Campbell, after completing his Hawaiian holiday, returned to say he knew nothing, but the government would co-operate fully with the investigation.
That hasn't really happened. The government has chosen to argue that a number of documents sought by the defence lawyers should be kept secret.
It's exercising its option to claim the documents are privileged, either as legal advice or cabinet material. If the government had chosen to, it could have released all the relevant material. Instead, legal wrangles have delayed the trial.
And the questions have mounted, as the only information - almost all unsubstantiated - has trickled out during various pretrial legal hearings, generally over the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence.
It's known that the RCMP alleged lobbyist Eric Bornman paid Basi about $24,000 over the course of a year for information and steering clients his way. The two knew each other well; both were active in the federal Liberal party. Police also alleged Basi and his cousin Virk went with their spouses to Denver in 2002 and watched an NFL game. They sat with Gary Rennick, a top exec with OmniTRAX, then a bidder for BC Rail. Lobbyist Brian Kieran, a partner with Bornman in Pilothouse Public Affairs, paid for the trip, police claimed.
Both men are expected to be witnesses; neither was charged. Basi and Virk face fraud and breach of trust charges.
And it's known that enough went wrong that the government was forced to cancel the sale of a B.C. Rail spur line after the process was started in case the process was corrupted. That cost taxpayers more than $1 million. (Legal costs are likely 10 times that amount already.)
But nothing has been proven. The public has no answers about what information, if any, changed hands. Defence lawyers have suggested they will show the two men were simply acting on behalf of their political masters and have done nothing wring.
The raids took place Dec. 28, 2003, midway through the Liberals' first term. There were no answers by the 2005 election.
And there will be no answers before the 2009 election. The special prosecutor is going to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that defence lawyers have a right to know the identity of a secret informant.
Meanwhile, of course, Basi and Virk and Aneal Basi, another government employee charged, are under a cloud with no chance to clear their names.
Imagine a place where corruption in the corridors of government had been alleged five years earlier, charges had been laid and there were still no answers. Welcome to B.C.
Footnote: The odds are increasing that the case will be tossed out due to unreasonable delays, although the defence camp has said that it wanted to be vindicated in a trial. If charges are dismissed due to delay would leave a public inquiry as the only way to answer the corruption questions. (For a great guide to the case, see billtieleman.blogspot.com.)
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Some lessons from a bizarre year
So how about these four lessons from 2008?
Things can change dramatically and rapidly.
People who are supposed to be smart and knowledgeable are neither.
People who are supposed to be looking after the public interest aren't.
And in response to those three, we have to accept our personal responsibility - including our responsibility to demand better from the people who are supposed to be acting in our interest.
A year ago, Premier Gordon Campbell was all fired up about climate change. Dealing with it was a moral and practical imperative, he said, calling for a focus and effort like Canadians brought to two world wars. People should be prepared to sacrifice.
And the public was mostly onside. After all, homeowners were feeling pretty rich as prices climbed ever upward. The economy was ticking along nicely, unless you were a coastal forest worker. Most forecasts called for more growth and rising markets.
A year later, nothing seems certain. The news is all bad and there's no clear bottom in sight. The public isn't quite so convinced that climate change is the big priority.
And the people who were supposed to see the change coming - the ones who are paid well because they claim that ability - didn't.
Packs of quite smart, trained people are paid to focus on a limited number of companies and report on their prospects. They've got great educations, superb technical support and good access to information.
And they were hopeless. An analyst tracking one media company rated it a speculative buy and set a target price of $3.50. It's trading at 50 cents.
They're hopelessness was exceeded by the failure of the agencies that were supposed to be protecting the public interest by regulating markets.
Start with government, of course. It's become fashionable to see regulation as a bad thing. Gordon Campbell even set up Kevin Falcon as junior minister of deregulation in 2001 and set out to cut one-third of the rules in place.
The U.S. deregulation push removed rules that have prevented lenders from offering $500,000 mortgages, with no payments for a year, to people earning minimum wage.
Deregulation allowed the lenders to package the loans in bundles, claim they would produce a steady income, and sell shares in them to other companies. They in turn flogged them- including to people trying to set aside money for retirement.
Deregulation was supposed to be good for the economy. The people who have lost billions and the taxpayers bailing out companies won't agree.
It's not just government regulators who have failed. The big accounting firms audited these companies and didn't report any problems. Bond rating agencies reviewed them and gave great ratings for stability and safety.
Economies go through good and bad times, of course.
But this collapse, without warning, did terrible damage. Remember, in early October Prime Minister Stephen Harper was suggesting the drop in markets was a "buying opportunity." Anyone who took his advice and bought a bundle of leading Canadian stocks has lost about 35 per cent of his money so far.
Cutting unneeded regulation increases freedom and encourages innovation and brings few risks. The fewer unnecessary rules the better. Letting barbers cut hair without a licence means a few people might look funny, but a few great haircutters might emerge.
But that kind of deregulation wasn't at the core of the agendas of many governments over the past two decades.
Which leads to the fourth lesson, based on the first three.
If you want something done right, be prepared to take some personal responsibility. The people who are being paid to work on your behalf might not.
That includes taking responsibility for the people you elect to all levels of government - to vote, of course, but also to keep informed about what they're doing and offer your views.
Onward to 2009.
Footnote: After more than a hundred columns over the last 12 months, I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to read at least some of them and the editors who have found a place in their newspapers. It's a great privilege to have the chance to be part of a discussion with the people who will decide our shared future.
Things can change dramatically and rapidly.
People who are supposed to be smart and knowledgeable are neither.
People who are supposed to be looking after the public interest aren't.
And in response to those three, we have to accept our personal responsibility - including our responsibility to demand better from the people who are supposed to be acting in our interest.
A year ago, Premier Gordon Campbell was all fired up about climate change. Dealing with it was a moral and practical imperative, he said, calling for a focus and effort like Canadians brought to two world wars. People should be prepared to sacrifice.
And the public was mostly onside. After all, homeowners were feeling pretty rich as prices climbed ever upward. The economy was ticking along nicely, unless you were a coastal forest worker. Most forecasts called for more growth and rising markets.
A year later, nothing seems certain. The news is all bad and there's no clear bottom in sight. The public isn't quite so convinced that climate change is the big priority.
And the people who were supposed to see the change coming - the ones who are paid well because they claim that ability - didn't.
Packs of quite smart, trained people are paid to focus on a limited number of companies and report on their prospects. They've got great educations, superb technical support and good access to information.
And they were hopeless. An analyst tracking one media company rated it a speculative buy and set a target price of $3.50. It's trading at 50 cents.
They're hopelessness was exceeded by the failure of the agencies that were supposed to be protecting the public interest by regulating markets.
Start with government, of course. It's become fashionable to see regulation as a bad thing. Gordon Campbell even set up Kevin Falcon as junior minister of deregulation in 2001 and set out to cut one-third of the rules in place.
The U.S. deregulation push removed rules that have prevented lenders from offering $500,000 mortgages, with no payments for a year, to people earning minimum wage.
Deregulation allowed the lenders to package the loans in bundles, claim they would produce a steady income, and sell shares in them to other companies. They in turn flogged them- including to people trying to set aside money for retirement.
Deregulation was supposed to be good for the economy. The people who have lost billions and the taxpayers bailing out companies won't agree.
It's not just government regulators who have failed. The big accounting firms audited these companies and didn't report any problems. Bond rating agencies reviewed them and gave great ratings for stability and safety.
Economies go through good and bad times, of course.
But this collapse, without warning, did terrible damage. Remember, in early October Prime Minister Stephen Harper was suggesting the drop in markets was a "buying opportunity." Anyone who took his advice and bought a bundle of leading Canadian stocks has lost about 35 per cent of his money so far.
Cutting unneeded regulation increases freedom and encourages innovation and brings few risks. The fewer unnecessary rules the better. Letting barbers cut hair without a licence means a few people might look funny, but a few great haircutters might emerge.
But that kind of deregulation wasn't at the core of the agendas of many governments over the past two decades.
Which leads to the fourth lesson, based on the first three.
If you want something done right, be prepared to take some personal responsibility. The people who are being paid to work on your behalf might not.
That includes taking responsibility for the people you elect to all levels of government - to vote, of course, but also to keep informed about what they're doing and offer your views.
Onward to 2009.
Footnote: After more than a hundred columns over the last 12 months, I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to read at least some of them and the editors who have found a place in their newspapers. It's a great privilege to have the chance to be part of a discussion with the people who will decide our shared future.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Teachers' union opposition to FSA test unfair to children
It would be a great loss to toss out the Foundation Skills Assessment tests and the chance for more effective public education.
The B.C. Teachers' Federation - and a lot of teachers - want the tests dumped. They are both wrong and short-sighted.
The FSA tests are taken annually by every student in Grades 4 and 7. They provide a snapshot of reading, writing and numeracy skills.
Most parents like the information. They might know how their children are doing and have report cards from school. But the tests are a useful way to help confirm a child is mastering some critical skills.
The teachers' union doesn't like the tests, which among other things, allows comparisons between the success rate in schools, or classrooms. School superintendents aren't that keen either. Districts can also be assessed using the results.
Even Education Minister Shirley Bond, who blasted the teachers' federation on the issue, has been critical of the use of the results. Bond is a former school board chair in Prince George.
The tests are far from perfect. The information they provide has been neglected. There are risks of misuse.
But they're still great tools. For parents, obviously. But also for anyone who cares about doing a better job for students.
The opposition to the tests seems contrived or wrongheaded. The teachers' union says students are stressed by the tests. But it's hard to see why, unless the stress comes from the teacher. There's nothing riding on the tests, and students can be told that.
The union complains about lost teaching time. But two sets of tests in eight years hardly seems a problem.
The union fears teachers are spending too much time preparing students for the tests. If that's a problem, they should stop. There's no need to cram for skills tests.
Then there are the philosophical arguments. The information should not be gathered because someone might misuse it. You can't measure education. The exams just test literacy and numeracy skills, and don't assess all the things that schools provide students. They don't reflect students' backgrounds. The whole idea of testing is seen as a plot by some.
Of course the tests don't measure all the wonderful things schools offer students. But reading, writing and numeracy, those are fundamental enough to be worth measuring.
Of course some people could misuse the data. But that argument could be used to shut down almost every form of research being done in the academic world today. It is a prescription for ignorance.
And of course the results don't reflect different social and economic factors. It is an absolute certainly that the children sent to a $20,000-a-year private school in Vancouver will score better than their Grade 4 counterparts in a school in poor inner city neighbourhood or struggling resource community. But everyone knows that. The results also let you compare schools dealing with similar student populations.
If one is achieving much better results in the core skills tests, we should know that.
The tests should encourage different ways of teaching or preparing children for school or involving parents. Creative, bright people in the system can test new approaches and measure how well they work.
And the results allow valuable research. In the last four weeks, a Simon Fraser University professor released a study on the gap in FSA scores between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students in B.C. Some districts have almost closed the gap; in others, it remains dramatic. The study identified strategies that help improve aboriginal students' success. That could not have been done without the FSA results as a starting point. (The study, of course, adjusted to compensate for socio-economic factors.)
The FSA tests aren't perfect. But eliminating them would be a great step backward.
Instead, parents and teachers should be using the results to learn. And to force the government to provide the support needed so all schools can achieve the best results for children.
Footnote: The teachers' federation is threatening a boycott of the tests. That's irresponsible. The union doesn't run the school system and is accountable to no one but its members. Elected trustees and the provincial government have a mandate to make decisions about education.
The B.C. Teachers' Federation - and a lot of teachers - want the tests dumped. They are both wrong and short-sighted.
The FSA tests are taken annually by every student in Grades 4 and 7. They provide a snapshot of reading, writing and numeracy skills.
Most parents like the information. They might know how their children are doing and have report cards from school. But the tests are a useful way to help confirm a child is mastering some critical skills.
The teachers' union doesn't like the tests, which among other things, allows comparisons between the success rate in schools, or classrooms. School superintendents aren't that keen either. Districts can also be assessed using the results.
Even Education Minister Shirley Bond, who blasted the teachers' federation on the issue, has been critical of the use of the results. Bond is a former school board chair in Prince George.
The tests are far from perfect. The information they provide has been neglected. There are risks of misuse.
But they're still great tools. For parents, obviously. But also for anyone who cares about doing a better job for students.
The opposition to the tests seems contrived or wrongheaded. The teachers' union says students are stressed by the tests. But it's hard to see why, unless the stress comes from the teacher. There's nothing riding on the tests, and students can be told that.
The union complains about lost teaching time. But two sets of tests in eight years hardly seems a problem.
The union fears teachers are spending too much time preparing students for the tests. If that's a problem, they should stop. There's no need to cram for skills tests.
Then there are the philosophical arguments. The information should not be gathered because someone might misuse it. You can't measure education. The exams just test literacy and numeracy skills, and don't assess all the things that schools provide students. They don't reflect students' backgrounds. The whole idea of testing is seen as a plot by some.
Of course the tests don't measure all the wonderful things schools offer students. But reading, writing and numeracy, those are fundamental enough to be worth measuring.
Of course some people could misuse the data. But that argument could be used to shut down almost every form of research being done in the academic world today. It is a prescription for ignorance.
And of course the results don't reflect different social and economic factors. It is an absolute certainly that the children sent to a $20,000-a-year private school in Vancouver will score better than their Grade 4 counterparts in a school in poor inner city neighbourhood or struggling resource community. But everyone knows that. The results also let you compare schools dealing with similar student populations.
If one is achieving much better results in the core skills tests, we should know that.
The tests should encourage different ways of teaching or preparing children for school or involving parents. Creative, bright people in the system can test new approaches and measure how well they work.
And the results allow valuable research. In the last four weeks, a Simon Fraser University professor released a study on the gap in FSA scores between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students in B.C. Some districts have almost closed the gap; in others, it remains dramatic. The study identified strategies that help improve aboriginal students' success. That could not have been done without the FSA results as a starting point. (The study, of course, adjusted to compensate for socio-economic factors.)
The FSA tests aren't perfect. But eliminating them would be a great step backward.
Instead, parents and teachers should be using the results to learn. And to force the government to provide the support needed so all schools can achieve the best results for children.
Footnote: The teachers' federation is threatening a boycott of the tests. That's irresponsible. The union doesn't run the school system and is accountable to no one but its members. Elected trustees and the provincial government have a mandate to make decisions about education.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The case for throwing shoes at Bush
There have been many times, standing in a press conference or even doing an interview, when I've wanted to take off my shoes and peg them at a politician.
I expect there have been times when some politicians have thought briefly about sending a loafer my way.
Muntadar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist, has become famous for throwing his shows at U.S President George W. Bush at a Baghdad press conference on Sunday.
He missed, but they were pretty good pitches from across the room.
Journalists aren't supposed to throw stuff at the people they cover. The tacit agreement is that they gather information by asking questions, but don't take sides or protest. The process can be rude and chaotic, and often pointless, but the understanding is that in return for access, they act within some broad rules of behaviour.
But I'm pretty sympathetic when it comes to Zaidi's protest.
The Globe and Mail got quite exercised about it all.
In an editorial headlined "A disgrace to journalism," the paper said Zaidi is a "disgrace to his profession and should be fired by his employer." The editorial blasted reporters' organizations for not condemning his actions.
OK, he was wrong. It would be too bad if politicians stopped doing press conferences in case people started throwing things.
But Zaidi, although he had some zip on the throws, was no threat to Bush, who ducked the shoes and appeared mostly puzzled. He was making a point, as his words indicate. (You can judge; the video is on YouTube and has been viewed more than two million times.)
"This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog," Zaidi shouted as he threw the first shoe.
The second was on behalf of others: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," he called.
It was a double insult: Hitting someone with a shoe and calling them a dog both show great contempt in the Mideast, where they are seen as symbols of dirtiness.
But consider all this from Zaidi's perspective.
Bush instigated an invasion of Iraq based on false claims that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction and aiding al-Qaeda.
The war was launched with no real planning for what would happen next, and an apparent expectation that the Iraqis would all do a spirited dance of welcome in the streets and then quickly aside their sectarian differences, elect a government and live happily ever after. Mission Accomplished, as Bush claimed five years ago.
When that didn't happen, the U.S. has bumbled and fumbled.
And Iraqis suffered. About 4.7 million people - more than the population of British Columbia, or one in six Iraqis, are refugees. They have been driven from their homes by fighting, or their homes have simply been destroyed.
At least 100,000 civilians have been killed, more than the Canadian deaths in the First and Second World Wars combined. Some estimates have put the number of deaths much higher, at more than 500,000, when the effects of collapsing health care and other problems are included.
After five years - a period of suffering longer than Europe endured in the Second World War - no end is in sight. Iraq is ranked as one of the five worst "failed states" in the world, worse than Afghanistan. The U.S. is in a rush to leave; the Iraqis face years of internal fighting, external threats and poverty and disorder.
Zaidi didn't act like a journalist. But he did act on behalf of millions of people in Iraq who have been damaged by the ineptitude, recklessness and arrogance of the Bush administration. He's being cheered in the Mideast.
And he's not being much criticized in the U.S. either. Bush leaves a mess - unresolved conflicts, massive debt, a world economic crisis and a discredited and demoralized country.
Dodging a couple of shoes seems a small penance.
Footnote: Zaidi took responsibility for his acts. He faces imprisonment and has already apparently been beaten. The incident does raise significant questions about security; the video shows a sluggish response before officers pile onto Zaidi; if he had been throwing cameras instead of shows, Bush could have been hurt.
I expect there have been times when some politicians have thought briefly about sending a loafer my way.
Muntadar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist, has become famous for throwing his shows at U.S President George W. Bush at a Baghdad press conference on Sunday.
He missed, but they were pretty good pitches from across the room.
Journalists aren't supposed to throw stuff at the people they cover. The tacit agreement is that they gather information by asking questions, but don't take sides or protest. The process can be rude and chaotic, and often pointless, but the understanding is that in return for access, they act within some broad rules of behaviour.
But I'm pretty sympathetic when it comes to Zaidi's protest.
The Globe and Mail got quite exercised about it all.
In an editorial headlined "A disgrace to journalism," the paper said Zaidi is a "disgrace to his profession and should be fired by his employer." The editorial blasted reporters' organizations for not condemning his actions.
OK, he was wrong. It would be too bad if politicians stopped doing press conferences in case people started throwing things.
But Zaidi, although he had some zip on the throws, was no threat to Bush, who ducked the shoes and appeared mostly puzzled. He was making a point, as his words indicate. (You can judge; the video is on YouTube and has been viewed more than two million times.)
"This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog," Zaidi shouted as he threw the first shoe.
The second was on behalf of others: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," he called.
It was a double insult: Hitting someone with a shoe and calling them a dog both show great contempt in the Mideast, where they are seen as symbols of dirtiness.
But consider all this from Zaidi's perspective.
Bush instigated an invasion of Iraq based on false claims that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction and aiding al-Qaeda.
The war was launched with no real planning for what would happen next, and an apparent expectation that the Iraqis would all do a spirited dance of welcome in the streets and then quickly aside their sectarian differences, elect a government and live happily ever after. Mission Accomplished, as Bush claimed five years ago.
When that didn't happen, the U.S. has bumbled and fumbled.
And Iraqis suffered. About 4.7 million people - more than the population of British Columbia, or one in six Iraqis, are refugees. They have been driven from their homes by fighting, or their homes have simply been destroyed.
At least 100,000 civilians have been killed, more than the Canadian deaths in the First and Second World Wars combined. Some estimates have put the number of deaths much higher, at more than 500,000, when the effects of collapsing health care and other problems are included.
After five years - a period of suffering longer than Europe endured in the Second World War - no end is in sight. Iraq is ranked as one of the five worst "failed states" in the world, worse than Afghanistan. The U.S. is in a rush to leave; the Iraqis face years of internal fighting, external threats and poverty and disorder.
Zaidi didn't act like a journalist. But he did act on behalf of millions of people in Iraq who have been damaged by the ineptitude, recklessness and arrogance of the Bush administration. He's being cheered in the Mideast.
And he's not being much criticized in the U.S. either. Bush leaves a mess - unresolved conflicts, massive debt, a world economic crisis and a discredited and demoralized country.
Dodging a couple of shoes seems a small penance.
Footnote: Zaidi took responsibility for his acts. He faces imprisonment and has already apparently been beaten. The incident does raise significant questions about security; the video shows a sluggish response before officers pile onto Zaidi; if he had been throwing cameras instead of shows, Bush could have been hurt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
