Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Thanks, I'm fine
Better than fine, as this is a fun break. But thanks for fretting a little. It's much appreciated.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Campbell's 'province of losers' warning comes true
Should a responsible government really be trying to entice people into casinos to chase their lottery losses on slot machines?
Especially when the "special offer" is running at the same time as the B.C. Medical Association is warning about the impact of gambling addiction on thousands of British Columbians - almost the identitcal number, in fact, addicted to drugs?
You might have seen the ads. B.C. Lotteries is encouraging people to take their losing lottery tickets into a casino or mini-casino. You can exchange to $20 worth of losing tickets a day.
It's remarkably irresponsible and destructive. Especially from a government that has acknowledged the damage done by gambling, even while breaking its promise not to ramp up betting in the province.
B.C. Lotteries has always had the objective of recruiting additional gamblers every year. The more people who buy lottery tickets or bet online with the corporation or go to casinos, the more the government takes from their pockets. (And the more people whose lives will be damaged addiction.)
But this is a new, nasty twist. Lottery tickets are a less harmful form of gambling. Even with scratch and lose tickets, it's a dull, slow experience. People are less likely to lose control.
Slot machines are designed and developed, at great expense, to be addictive, to keep people gambling for longer periods and to make them want to come back for more. The companies hire psychologists and watch people in casinos to see how different patterns of flashing and ringing bells keep them betting. They test different patterns and symbols on the spinning wheels.
And the companies are very good at their work. Today's slot machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling.
It's a dangerous idea to encourage people to switch from a few lottery tickets to the much more dangerous form of gambling.
The casinos would like the idea. The lottery corporation - and the government - would make more money. But more lives will be wrecked. That is a simple fact. People who might never have taken that first step into the local bingo hall to play a VLT - that's what slots are today - will fall into addiction or problem gambling.
But that's part of the government's plan for the lottery corporation. Its business plan, released last month along with the budget documents, has a number of objectives. The corporation wants to increase the percentage of the adult population who gamble steadily over the next several years.
And it hopes the average gambler will lose more - rising from about $725 last year to about $810 each by 2011.
It's business.
But it's a damaging business. The B.C. Medical Association report is worth a read at bcma.org. It has important, practical recommendations on ways to reduce the toll all forms of addiction are taking, starting with the need to treat addiction as a health issue, not a police problem or moral failing.
Gambling is part of the problem. The BCMA found research indicates 33,000 British Columbians have a severe gambling problem. That number more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, as the government rapidly gambling in the province, particularly the number of slot machines in large and small communities.
Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem.
By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.
None of this is surprising. Premier Gordon Campbell, in the 2001 election campaign, vowed to halt the expansion of gambling. The government made gambling money by turning its citizens into a province of losers, he said.
Kevin Krueger, now a cabinet minister, was even direct and passionate. Alllowing gambling to expand meant divorce, crime and even deaths, he said. It was immoral and destructive.
But then the Liberals were elected. The lottery corporation looked like a good way to boost government revenues. The casino companies were lobbying hard to be allowed to go bigger and move into smaller communities. They wanted people to drink while they gambled, so they would lose more.
The government decided the principle wasn't worth the price and launched a massive gambling spree. Those people whose lives fell apart because of gambling were acceptable collateral damage. They should have called the help line or decided to bar themselves from casinos.
Today, it is encouraging people to make the jump from lotteries to slots with a special offer to losers. The principles have really been tossed aside.
Especially when the "special offer" is running at the same time as the B.C. Medical Association is warning about the impact of gambling addiction on thousands of British Columbians - almost the identitcal number, in fact, addicted to drugs?
You might have seen the ads. B.C. Lotteries is encouraging people to take their losing lottery tickets into a casino or mini-casino. You can exchange to $20 worth of losing tickets a day.
It's remarkably irresponsible and destructive. Especially from a government that has acknowledged the damage done by gambling, even while breaking its promise not to ramp up betting in the province.
B.C. Lotteries has always had the objective of recruiting additional gamblers every year. The more people who buy lottery tickets or bet online with the corporation or go to casinos, the more the government takes from their pockets. (And the more people whose lives will be damaged addiction.)
But this is a new, nasty twist. Lottery tickets are a less harmful form of gambling. Even with scratch and lose tickets, it's a dull, slow experience. People are less likely to lose control.
Slot machines are designed and developed, at great expense, to be addictive, to keep people gambling for longer periods and to make them want to come back for more. The companies hire psychologists and watch people in casinos to see how different patterns of flashing and ringing bells keep them betting. They test different patterns and symbols on the spinning wheels.
And the companies are very good at their work. Today's slot machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling.
It's a dangerous idea to encourage people to switch from a few lottery tickets to the much more dangerous form of gambling.
The casinos would like the idea. The lottery corporation - and the government - would make more money. But more lives will be wrecked. That is a simple fact. People who might never have taken that first step into the local bingo hall to play a VLT - that's what slots are today - will fall into addiction or problem gambling.
But that's part of the government's plan for the lottery corporation. Its business plan, released last month along with the budget documents, has a number of objectives. The corporation wants to increase the percentage of the adult population who gamble steadily over the next several years.
And it hopes the average gambler will lose more - rising from about $725 last year to about $810 each by 2011.
It's business.
But it's a damaging business. The B.C. Medical Association report is worth a read at bcma.org. It has important, practical recommendations on ways to reduce the toll all forms of addiction are taking, starting with the need to treat addiction as a health issue, not a police problem or moral failing.
Gambling is part of the problem. The BCMA found research indicates 33,000 British Columbians have a severe gambling problem. That number more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, as the government rapidly gambling in the province, particularly the number of slot machines in large and small communities.
Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem.
By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.
None of this is surprising. Premier Gordon Campbell, in the 2001 election campaign, vowed to halt the expansion of gambling. The government made gambling money by turning its citizens into a province of losers, he said.
Kevin Krueger, now a cabinet minister, was even direct and passionate. Alllowing gambling to expand meant divorce, crime and even deaths, he said. It was immoral and destructive.
But then the Liberals were elected. The lottery corporation looked like a good way to boost government revenues. The casino companies were lobbying hard to be allowed to go bigger and move into smaller communities. They wanted people to drink while they gambled, so they would lose more.
The government decided the principle wasn't worth the price and launched a massive gambling spree. Those people whose lives fell apart because of gambling were acceptable collateral damage. They should have called the help line or decided to bar themselves from casinos.
Today, it is encouraging people to make the jump from lotteries to slots with a special offer to losers. The principles have really been tossed aside.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
B.C. Rail Kinsella memo to be revealed Thursday in court, NDP predicts
MEDIA ADVISORY
March 25, 2009
KEY DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION TRIAL EXPECTED TOMORROW
VANCOUVER - The contents of a 2004 e-mail exchange between B.C. Rail
executives asking about payments made to Patrick Kinsella and his
company Progressive Group are expected to be revealed in open court
tomorrow as part of the ongoing B.C. Rail Corruption Trial.
Attorney General Critic Leonard Krog will be available for comment at
the Vancouver Supreme Courthouse tomorrow following proceedings.
WHEN: Thursday, March 26
WHERE: Vancouver Supreme Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver
The time and courtroom number will not be posted until 8:30 a.m.
tomorrow morning at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme%5Fcourt/hearing%5Flist/index.aspx
under Vancouver, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Basi/Virk. Please note you
must turn off your pop-up blocker to view the site.
And for those losing track of all the angles involving Kinsella, Sean Holman - who has been far out in front in reporting on the story - offers a useful chronology here .
March 25, 2009
KEY DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION TRIAL EXPECTED TOMORROW
VANCOUVER - The contents of a 2004 e-mail exchange between B.C. Rail
executives asking about payments made to Patrick Kinsella and his
company Progressive Group are expected to be revealed in open court
tomorrow as part of the ongoing B.C. Rail Corruption Trial.
Attorney General Critic Leonard Krog will be available for comment at
the Vancouver Supreme Courthouse tomorrow following proceedings.
WHEN: Thursday, March 26
WHERE: Vancouver Supreme Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver
The time and courtroom number will not be posted until 8:30 a.m.
tomorrow morning at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme%5Fcourt/hearing%5Flist/index.aspx
under Vancouver, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Basi/Virk. Please note you
must turn off your pop-up blocker to view the site.
And for those losing track of all the angles involving Kinsella, Sean Holman - who has been far out in front in reporting on the story - offers a useful chronology here .
Friday, March 20, 2009
Running a wire on the police
The Times Colonist has been following an interesting case. Victoria police stopped a driver, in case, they said, his car was stolen.
He was difficult. They arrested him and searched his van. He had the audio record function running on his Palm Pilot during the arrest and while they searched the vehicles as he sat, handcuffed, in the back seat of the police car.
But police didn't know that until after the arresting officer had testified at the man's trial for obstructing justice.
The recording was played by defence lawyer Doug Christie (yeh, that guy). The Crown dropped the charges.
The report is here .
Click on the link to transcript of trial on the right to see what happened.
It suggests, sadly, real grounds for concerns about court cases decided on the basis of police testimony.
He was difficult. They arrested him and searched his van. He had the audio record function running on his Palm Pilot during the arrest and while they searched the vehicles as he sat, handcuffed, in the back seat of the police car.
But police didn't know that until after the arresting officer had testified at the man's trial for obstructing justice.
The recording was played by defence lawyer Doug Christie (yeh, that guy). The Crown dropped the charges.
The report is here .
Click on the link to transcript of trial on the right to see what happened.
It suggests, sadly, real grounds for concerns about court cases decided on the basis of police testimony.
Nurses find way around coming wage freeze
It looks like the B.C. Nurses Union has retired Solidarity Forever in favour of Take the Money and Run as a rallying song.
The nurses' contract, like collective agreements for pretty much the whole public sector, was set to expire at the end of March in 2010.
That's also when the government has said it will introduce a two-year public sector wage freeze in response to the economic downturn.
The union wasn't keen on a wage freeze, naturally enough. So it approached the government last month to propose a contract extension now, more than a year before it expires, in return for salary increases.
The government liked the idea. It agreed to extend the contract for two years, until April 2012, with a three-per-cent raise in each year. The union and government call it a "labour market adjustment," but it's a wage hike.
Like all collective bargaining, the deal is a trade-off. The nurses' union gets a good guaranteed raise for members at a time of huge economic uncertainty.
The government, which is working on a similar deal with doctors, avoids the threat of disruptions to the health care system in the summer of 2010 and, perhaps, attracts some needed new nurses and doctors.
It's an interesting calculation on the part of both sides. For the union, there's a wage increase above the rate of inflation. And there's no worry about a newly elected government getting fierce about a wage freeze.
For the government, there's a fixed increase for one of the unions that tends to enter contract disputes with public sympathy. And by grabbing the chance to settle with doctors and nurses, it has isolated the other health-sector unions, especially the Hospital Employees Union.
The HEU represents some skilled technical employees and licensed practical nurses, who have similar cases for a "labour market adjustment."
But many members work in areas calling for few specialized skills. In a slow economy, it's not hard to find people to do the work. And those employees are also less likely to win public support than the heirs to Florence Nightingale.
A common front, or at least a co-ordinated bargaining strategy, might have produced larger overall gains. Even if that was unlikely - after all, the HEU signed first in 2006 - the union fears that the raises for nurses and doctors will preclude similar adjustments for its 43,000 members.
But the nurses' union has a legal responsibility to represent its members' interests, not the needs of other health-care workers.
The deal is a reminder that contracts covering almost every public sector worker, from teachers to direct government employees to hospital workers expire a little more than a year from now.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's budget is based on a wage freeze in the new deals and there is no allowance for any extra expenses. The nurses' deal will cost $120 million in year two, I estimate, money the government doesn't have in its budget plan.
The government goes into these talks with some goodwill. The last round of settlements, which included bonuses of about $4,000 per employee, were well received.
But goodwill has a short shelf life when it comes to labour relations in this province. And the government has hinted at big staff cuts and, possibly, significant layoffs. If those happen, talks will be tougher.
The case for a wage freeze should be strong by next year. But unions - the B.C. Teachers Federation comes to mine - will still be looking for gains.
Taxpayers, though, might not be seeing raises in their workplaces - if they have workplaces. And they might be crabby if their taxes go up to pay for public sector workers' raises.
And on top of all this, add the political question of which party would best represent the public interest in negotiating the next round of contacts.
Footnote: The agreement includes provisions for a nurses' union-government-health authority committee to work on workload, management, job scope and other issues that affect nurses and the system. The government hopes the co-operative approach will result in savings and efficiencies.
The nurses' contract, like collective agreements for pretty much the whole public sector, was set to expire at the end of March in 2010.
That's also when the government has said it will introduce a two-year public sector wage freeze in response to the economic downturn.
The union wasn't keen on a wage freeze, naturally enough. So it approached the government last month to propose a contract extension now, more than a year before it expires, in return for salary increases.
The government liked the idea. It agreed to extend the contract for two years, until April 2012, with a three-per-cent raise in each year. The union and government call it a "labour market adjustment," but it's a wage hike.
Like all collective bargaining, the deal is a trade-off. The nurses' union gets a good guaranteed raise for members at a time of huge economic uncertainty.
The government, which is working on a similar deal with doctors, avoids the threat of disruptions to the health care system in the summer of 2010 and, perhaps, attracts some needed new nurses and doctors.
It's an interesting calculation on the part of both sides. For the union, there's a wage increase above the rate of inflation. And there's no worry about a newly elected government getting fierce about a wage freeze.
For the government, there's a fixed increase for one of the unions that tends to enter contract disputes with public sympathy. And by grabbing the chance to settle with doctors and nurses, it has isolated the other health-sector unions, especially the Hospital Employees Union.
The HEU represents some skilled technical employees and licensed practical nurses, who have similar cases for a "labour market adjustment."
But many members work in areas calling for few specialized skills. In a slow economy, it's not hard to find people to do the work. And those employees are also less likely to win public support than the heirs to Florence Nightingale.
A common front, or at least a co-ordinated bargaining strategy, might have produced larger overall gains. Even if that was unlikely - after all, the HEU signed first in 2006 - the union fears that the raises for nurses and doctors will preclude similar adjustments for its 43,000 members.
But the nurses' union has a legal responsibility to represent its members' interests, not the needs of other health-care workers.
The deal is a reminder that contracts covering almost every public sector worker, from teachers to direct government employees to hospital workers expire a little more than a year from now.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's budget is based on a wage freeze in the new deals and there is no allowance for any extra expenses. The nurses' deal will cost $120 million in year two, I estimate, money the government doesn't have in its budget plan.
The government goes into these talks with some goodwill. The last round of settlements, which included bonuses of about $4,000 per employee, were well received.
But goodwill has a short shelf life when it comes to labour relations in this province. And the government has hinted at big staff cuts and, possibly, significant layoffs. If those happen, talks will be tougher.
The case for a wage freeze should be strong by next year. But unions - the B.C. Teachers Federation comes to mine - will still be looking for gains.
Taxpayers, though, might not be seeing raises in their workplaces - if they have workplaces. And they might be crabby if their taxes go up to pay for public sector workers' raises.
And on top of all this, add the political question of which party would best represent the public interest in negotiating the next round of contacts.
Footnote: The agreement includes provisions for a nurses' union-government-health authority committee to work on workload, management, job scope and other issues that affect nurses and the system. The government hopes the co-operative approach will result in savings and efficiencies.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Uranium a glowing problem for government
The province's handling of uranium mining brings to mind Homer Simpson's approach to operating a nuclear power plant.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court.
Uranium mining brings a classic clash of B.C. values - the resource sector, used to wresting wealth from the ground, versus the urbanites and retirees, who have never forgotten Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. And who don't much like mining near them in any form.
This month the cabinet had a Homer Simpson moment.
"B.C. strengthens position against uranium mining," a news release was headlined. It said cabinet had an issued an order-in-council - a regulation - "to prevent permits from being issued for uranium and thorium exploration and development in B.C."
But 10 months ago, the government issued a news release headlined "Government confirms position on uranium development."
Uranium mining wasn't on, said junior minister Kevin Krueger. "By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry."
He sure got that wrong. It was the uncertainty about the government's position that prompted the latest cabinet regulation. Krueger's announcement last year said that future mining claims would be barred from rights to uranium.
But that suggested existing claims weren't be affected. "Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped," the 2008 news release did add.
The second try at getting it right appears to be more definitive. The new order says no uranium mining permits will be issued.
And it's retroactive, even though governments often get in trouble when they backdate laws and regulations.
A large part of the whole problem is where the uranium lies. The most promising deposit, the Blizzard claim, is about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. People did not move to the Okanagan to be near a uranium mine.
Canada is already one of the top two uranium-producing countries, along with Australia, and the world's largest mine is in Saskatchewan. But that site is so remote it might as well be in Mars. The Okanagan deposits are close to wine country.
The efforts to deal with the issue are sparked by the activity around the Blizzard claim.
Boss Power Corp., which owns the claim, sued last year after Krueger's announcement.
We've got rights here, and potentially valuable uranium deposits, the company said. You can't just take them away because uranium mining is politically unpopular.
And, the company complained, Krueger's fiat came just days "following a series of meeting between Boss Power management and senior provincial officials up to the assistant deputy minister level in which we were assured that our permit applications would be processed in a fair and transparent manner."
The company's share price fell by 50 per cent in the days after the ban.
In October, Boss sued. The ban was imposed "without any meaningful consultation with the mineral exploration industry, First Nations or the general public and has not only harmed the interests of Boss Power Corp. but may discourage other exploration companies who value the ability to work in a consultative environment."
Then things got stranger. The province filed a statement of defence that, according to the company, said the ban didn't apply to the Blizzard claim because the mines were already registered before it was introduced.
The latest changes to the regulations, made by cabinet last week, were an apparent to target the Blizzard claim.
Which means that the company's lawsuit seeking compensation is likely to go ahead.
It's a tricky issue. Nuclear power is seen by many as a green form of energy, though it's banned in B.C. And you can't have power without fuel.
And the government doesn't want to irk the mining industry.
But residents won't stand for a mine in the Okanagan. The questions now will be whether compensation is due - and whether the ban should have been in place all along.
Footnote: Interest in the deposits goes back a long way. When development seemed likely, in 1980, then premier Bill Bennett brought in a seven-year moratorium on uranium development. The Vander Zalm government let it lapse. Neither the New Democrat or Liberal governments addressed the issue since 1987, when the ban ended.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court.
Uranium mining brings a classic clash of B.C. values - the resource sector, used to wresting wealth from the ground, versus the urbanites and retirees, who have never forgotten Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. And who don't much like mining near them in any form.
This month the cabinet had a Homer Simpson moment.
"B.C. strengthens position against uranium mining," a news release was headlined. It said cabinet had an issued an order-in-council - a regulation - "to prevent permits from being issued for uranium and thorium exploration and development in B.C."
But 10 months ago, the government issued a news release headlined "Government confirms position on uranium development."
Uranium mining wasn't on, said junior minister Kevin Krueger. "By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry."
He sure got that wrong. It was the uncertainty about the government's position that prompted the latest cabinet regulation. Krueger's announcement last year said that future mining claims would be barred from rights to uranium.
But that suggested existing claims weren't be affected. "Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped," the 2008 news release did add.
The second try at getting it right appears to be more definitive. The new order says no uranium mining permits will be issued.
And it's retroactive, even though governments often get in trouble when they backdate laws and regulations.
A large part of the whole problem is where the uranium lies. The most promising deposit, the Blizzard claim, is about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. People did not move to the Okanagan to be near a uranium mine.
Canada is already one of the top two uranium-producing countries, along with Australia, and the world's largest mine is in Saskatchewan. But that site is so remote it might as well be in Mars. The Okanagan deposits are close to wine country.
The efforts to deal with the issue are sparked by the activity around the Blizzard claim.
Boss Power Corp., which owns the claim, sued last year after Krueger's announcement.
We've got rights here, and potentially valuable uranium deposits, the company said. You can't just take them away because uranium mining is politically unpopular.
And, the company complained, Krueger's fiat came just days "following a series of meeting between Boss Power management and senior provincial officials up to the assistant deputy minister level in which we were assured that our permit applications would be processed in a fair and transparent manner."
The company's share price fell by 50 per cent in the days after the ban.
In October, Boss sued. The ban was imposed "without any meaningful consultation with the mineral exploration industry, First Nations or the general public and has not only harmed the interests of Boss Power Corp. but may discourage other exploration companies who value the ability to work in a consultative environment."
Then things got stranger. The province filed a statement of defence that, according to the company, said the ban didn't apply to the Blizzard claim because the mines were already registered before it was introduced.
The latest changes to the regulations, made by cabinet last week, were an apparent to target the Blizzard claim.
Which means that the company's lawsuit seeking compensation is likely to go ahead.
It's a tricky issue. Nuclear power is seen by many as a green form of energy, though it's banned in B.C. And you can't have power without fuel.
And the government doesn't want to irk the mining industry.
But residents won't stand for a mine in the Okanagan. The questions now will be whether compensation is due - and whether the ban should have been in place all along.
Footnote: Interest in the deposits goes back a long way. When development seemed likely, in 1980, then premier Bill Bennett brought in a seven-year moratorium on uranium development. The Vander Zalm government let it lapse. Neither the New Democrat or Liberal governments addressed the issue since 1987, when the ban ended.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Questions unanswered about BC Rail payments to Liberal insider
Sure, a lot was happening in the Liberals' first term. But it's hard to see why a Crown corporation had to pay $297,000 to a Liberal insider for help understanding the new government.
Surely picking up the phone and calling Premier Gordon Campbell could have worked just as well.
The New Democrats has been asking a lot of questions about why B.C. Rail paid almost $300,000 to the consulting companies of Patrick Kinsella between 2002 and 2005. They haven't been getting answers.
Kinsella is as well-connected as they come. He's been involved in politics, mostly behind the scenes, for three decades. He has run successful provincial election campaigns for the Socreds and was co-chair of the 2001 and 2005 Liberal campaigns. One of the company's executives managed Gordon Campbell's own campaign.
And his companies have done very well for - and presumably by - companies seeking to have government see things their way.
Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com used an FOI request to obtain documents from Washington state, where the Progressive Group, one of Kinsella's firms, was seeking a contract.
The company identified successes in winning government decisions worth more than $2 billion to its clients. Progressive helped Accenture "promote and educate the B.C. government of the value of outsourcing a number of the government services," the firm said. That resulted in a 10-year, $1.45-billion deal to take over most of B.C. Hydro's administrative functions.
It helped Alcan persuade the government of the value of a Kitimat smelter expansion; that deal included a new power agreement worth some $1 billion to the corporation. The deal was so rich for Alcan - and so unfair to B.C. Hydro's customers - that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned it.
Progressive helped the film industry get additional tax breaks worth $65 million a year and persuaded the provincial government - through the Forest Ministry - to contribute $15 million toward a new public-private arena in Langley.
Corporations or individuals are free to hire consultants to help them figure out how best to align their goals with the aims of government. And it could be argued that the best advice might come from those with the closest ties to the politicians and party in power.
Certainly Kinsella's companies have advised an impressive roster of corporations and industries in the province. Plutonic Power, which has a controversial megaproject planned for Bute Inlet rivers, has used him as an adviser. A major payday loan company, gambling companies, ING Canada - it's an impressive list. (Credit to Holman for the diligent research.)
And, of course, B.C. Rail.
The difference in this case is that the Crown corporation was paying Kinsella's company with taxpayers' money.
The NDP raised the issue repeatedly in the legislature last week. There was the usual partisan posturing, but the fundamental questions were legitimate.
What did the companies do for the money? Was there an open tender process? Were the Kinsella companies' ties to the Liberals a factor in the decision?
Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal refused to answer. Oppal said the contract might be relevant to the B.C. Rail corruption trial inching its way through the courts and he wouldn't comment.
That seemed implausible; the consulting payments weren't released as part of evidence in the case. They were in public B.C. Rail documents.
But on Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the revelations during a pre-trial hearing. Defence lawyer Kevin McCulloch, representing Bob Virk, one of three government aides charged in the case, reminded her of an e-mail that appears to refer to the payments. "It's the backroom Liberal e-mail," he said.
And Kinsella's company than responded with a news release saying it had been hired to help B.C. Rail understand the Liberals "core review" of government activities.
But the questions remain, including the basic one - why would a Crown corporation need to pay a consultant to help it understand the government of the day?
Footnote: Kinsella embarrassed the government last fall when Information Commissioner David Loukidelis launched an investigation into allegations he had acted as a lobbyist without registering, as required by the lobbying laws. Kinsella's lawyers told Loukidelis the law didn't give him authority to investigate and their client wouldn't co-operate voluntarily.
Surely picking up the phone and calling Premier Gordon Campbell could have worked just as well.
The New Democrats has been asking a lot of questions about why B.C. Rail paid almost $300,000 to the consulting companies of Patrick Kinsella between 2002 and 2005. They haven't been getting answers.
Kinsella is as well-connected as they come. He's been involved in politics, mostly behind the scenes, for three decades. He has run successful provincial election campaigns for the Socreds and was co-chair of the 2001 and 2005 Liberal campaigns. One of the company's executives managed Gordon Campbell's own campaign.
And his companies have done very well for - and presumably by - companies seeking to have government see things their way.
Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com used an FOI request to obtain documents from Washington state, where the Progressive Group, one of Kinsella's firms, was seeking a contract.
The company identified successes in winning government decisions worth more than $2 billion to its clients. Progressive helped Accenture "promote and educate the B.C. government of the value of outsourcing a number of the government services," the firm said. That resulted in a 10-year, $1.45-billion deal to take over most of B.C. Hydro's administrative functions.
It helped Alcan persuade the government of the value of a Kitimat smelter expansion; that deal included a new power agreement worth some $1 billion to the corporation. The deal was so rich for Alcan - and so unfair to B.C. Hydro's customers - that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned it.
Progressive helped the film industry get additional tax breaks worth $65 million a year and persuaded the provincial government - through the Forest Ministry - to contribute $15 million toward a new public-private arena in Langley.
Corporations or individuals are free to hire consultants to help them figure out how best to align their goals with the aims of government. And it could be argued that the best advice might come from those with the closest ties to the politicians and party in power.
Certainly Kinsella's companies have advised an impressive roster of corporations and industries in the province. Plutonic Power, which has a controversial megaproject planned for Bute Inlet rivers, has used him as an adviser. A major payday loan company, gambling companies, ING Canada - it's an impressive list. (Credit to Holman for the diligent research.)
And, of course, B.C. Rail.
The difference in this case is that the Crown corporation was paying Kinsella's company with taxpayers' money.
The NDP raised the issue repeatedly in the legislature last week. There was the usual partisan posturing, but the fundamental questions were legitimate.
What did the companies do for the money? Was there an open tender process? Were the Kinsella companies' ties to the Liberals a factor in the decision?
Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal refused to answer. Oppal said the contract might be relevant to the B.C. Rail corruption trial inching its way through the courts and he wouldn't comment.
That seemed implausible; the consulting payments weren't released as part of evidence in the case. They were in public B.C. Rail documents.
But on Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the revelations during a pre-trial hearing. Defence lawyer Kevin McCulloch, representing Bob Virk, one of three government aides charged in the case, reminded her of an e-mail that appears to refer to the payments. "It's the backroom Liberal e-mail," he said.
And Kinsella's company than responded with a news release saying it had been hired to help B.C. Rail understand the Liberals "core review" of government activities.
But the questions remain, including the basic one - why would a Crown corporation need to pay a consultant to help it understand the government of the day?
Footnote: Kinsella embarrassed the government last fall when Information Commissioner David Loukidelis launched an investigation into allegations he had acted as a lobbyist without registering, as required by the lobbying laws. Kinsella's lawyers told Loukidelis the law didn't give him authority to investigate and their client wouldn't co-operate voluntarily.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Finance ministry records included faked B.C. Rail sale e-mails
A few days ago, I posted e-mails from finance ministry files that indicated former New Democrat MLAs Paul Ramsey, Gordon Wilson, Helmut Geisbrecht and others plotting to attack Gordon Campbell's B.C. Rail sale.
They were fake, as Paul Ramsey has already said.
Wilson has added his notice that the e-mails were bogus.
"I can assure you that I did not author any email to Ramsey on the sale of BC Rail. During my time in politics I was a vocal critic of Campbell's desire to sell off the Railway, and predicted that he would do so despite his constant denials to the contrary.
I am not sure who wrote those emails or why anyone would go to such lengths to try to engage those named. It is quite bizarre, but then so is the whole episode even to the extent to which it has been kept out of the public spotlight.
Gordon Wilson"
So, who was behind the e-mails?
They were fake, as Paul Ramsey has already said.
Wilson has added his notice that the e-mails were bogus.
"I can assure you that I did not author any email to Ramsey on the sale of BC Rail. During my time in politics I was a vocal critic of Campbell's desire to sell off the Railway, and predicted that he would do so despite his constant denials to the contrary.
I am not sure who wrote those emails or why anyone would go to such lengths to try to engage those named. It is quite bizarre, but then so is the whole episode even to the extent to which it has been kept out of the public spotlight.
Gordon Wilson"
So, who was behind the e-mails?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Binder 5: E-mails fake says, ex-Liberal MLA
Paul Nettleton also says the finance ministry e-mail files allegedly showing a campaign against the BC Rail are fakes.
"Your recent blog on BCR was brought to my attention with specific reference to my "letter to former Transportation Minister Reid" on the BCR sale. At no time did I correspond with Minister Reid at the direction of Lois Boone (former NDP Transportation Minister) and/or anyone else in the NDP. Furthermore at no time did anyone in the NDP request that I do so!
Paul Nettleton"
"Your recent blog on BCR was brought to my attention with specific reference to my "letter to former Transportation Minister Reid" on the BCR sale. At no time did I correspond with Minister Reid at the direction of Lois Boone (former NDP Transportation Minister) and/or anyone else in the NDP. Furthermore at no time did anyone in the NDP request that I do so!
Paul Nettleton"
BC Rail paid firms of Liberal campaign co-chair for services
The New Democrats asked about questions yersterday about $297,000 in payments from B.C. Rail to the consulting firms of Patrick Kinsella, the Liberals' campaign co-chair in 2001 and 2005. Sean Holman sets out the details here. It's worth searching on Kinsella on publiceyeonline.com for background.
An alert reader posted an interesting Hansard exchange from May 28, 2003, on my site. The exchange came during debate on the budget for the premier's office.
J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.
J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.
An alert reader posted an interesting Hansard exchange from May 28, 2003, on my site. The exchange came during debate on the budget for the premier's office.
J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.
J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Binder 5: Paul Ramsey says he's never seen the e-mails referred to in the post below
Former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey says he's never seen, and certainly didn't write, any of the e-mails in Finance Ministry files that supposedly include comments from him on the B.C. Rail deal.
"Very strange, Mr. Willcocks, very strange," he said in an e-mail today.
"I did not write the July 10, 2003 e-mail that appears in Binder 5 with my name on it. I never saw any secret "documents" that discussed the BC Rail sale. I was not part of any co-ordinated NDP attack on the sale--though I certainly thought it was a dumb idea (for both policy and political reasons) and said so in print and on the air. I never discussed the sale of BC Rail with Joy (MacPhail, I assume). And I don't know who Ron Cannan is."
I have no doubt that's Ramsey being candid and straightforward.
And I have no idea what's going on here.
"Very strange, Mr. Willcocks, very strange," he said in an e-mail today.
"I did not write the July 10, 2003 e-mail that appears in Binder 5 with my name on it. I never saw any secret "documents" that discussed the BC Rail sale. I was not part of any co-ordinated NDP attack on the sale--though I certainly thought it was a dumb idea (for both policy and political reasons) and said so in print and on the air. I never discussed the sale of BC Rail with Joy (MacPhail, I assume). And I don't know who Ron Cannan is."
I have no doubt that's Ramsey being candid and straightforward.
And I have no idea what's going on here.
Binder 5: New Democrats plot against the B.C. Rail sale, and the government gets the e-mails
Note: See post above. Paul Ramsey says he's never seen and didn't write any of these e-mails. Which raises a whole lot of questions about how bogus e-mails ended up in Finance Ministry files.
But how did e-mails supposedly between former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey, ex-Liberal leader and later New Democrat Gordon Wilson and defeated NDP backbencher Helmut Giesbrecht end up in finance ministry files? Wilson was replaced as Liberal leader by Gordon Campbell; Ramsey represented a Prince George riding until 2001, and Giesbrecht represented Skeena until 2001.
Assuming the trio were not keen on telegraphing their plans to attack the sale of B.C. Rail, how did the Liberals get their hands on the 2003 e-mail exchange?
A mole in their midst? Carelessness? Or are the e-mails faked?
The e-mails are among some 8,000 pages of material — much of it blanked out — released to defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption case under FOI requests. The NDP has posted them here .
“We should fine tune our strategy on rail,” Wilson allegedly wrote in a July 10 e-mail to Ramsey and Giesbrecht. “It will go to cabinet on July 23. Believe me gentlemen this is going to be more controversial than the Coq deal. We have the potential to really nail the coffin shut. Its clear the only thing Campbell cares about is the bottom line. We need to hit them fast and hard on this.” Wilson says cabinet will give the sale the “green light” at the meeting. “It is obvious from what I have seen from our friends, the tax advantages make it almost certain that CN will be the only suitor for B.C. Rail. Paul have you spoken to Joy or Lois? Even the stuff on raiding pension funds is good. Campbell won’t be able to find a place to hide. He will regret his promise not to sell bcr. Everywhere you look the word sale is mentioned.”
Giesbrecht's supposedly sent a response to Ramsey and Wilson within 15 minutes.
“I agree with you. Our good fortune is really hard to comprehend. I spoke to Lois the other day she is working hard with the unions. She spoke to nettleton yesterday and convinced him to write a strongly worded letter to reid. Once the negotiating team is given their obvious bottom line mandate, that will be the time to crank things up considerably. The order of the bids is not what I would have expected. Campbell will dread the word ‘sale’ every time it is mentioned!” (Reid likely refers to then transportation minister Judith Reid and Nettleton to Prince George MLA Paul Nettleton, who by then had been bounced from the Liberal caucus. Lois would be former Prince George NDP MLA Lois Boone.)
Ramsey allegedly responds to Wilson and Giesbrecht that evening.
“I spoke to Lois yesterday. She is beginning to ratchet up the pressure. I advised her to lay low until cabinet decides on july 23. The comments by cibc have been incredibly helpful. That just confirmed to me this was already a done deal. The job losses will be staggering… I can’t believe our stroke of luck. Please ensure you do not pass those documents to anybody else. Let’s keep them under wraps. I have put a call into Lois. I did speak to Joy. She called ron cannan to touch base and stir the pot some more. When I hear what transpired I will fill you in. It’s my understanding Campbell will be trying to sell this to his cabinet up in sechelt. Let’s hope they don’t develop a backbone overnight.”
(CIBC World Markets had been hired to organize the sale and a company analyst had caused a stir by suggesting CN was the logical buyer. Ron Cannan was then a Kelowna councilor who opposed the sale; now he’s a Conservative MP. The cabinet met in Sechelt on July 15; Reid did a telephone press call that day to try and ease fears about the sale and potential job losses.)
Finally, Giesbrecht is supposed to have e-mailed 10 former NDP MLAs on July 11 – Jom Doyle, Lois Boone, Corky Evans, David Zirnhelt, Erda Walsh, Steve Orcherton, Pietro Calendino, Glenn Robertson. Bill Goodacre and Moe Sihota.
“This is the latest. When we get a decision after July 23 I will follow up at that time.”
And there the record stops.
But how did e-mails supposedly between former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey, ex-Liberal leader and later New Democrat Gordon Wilson and defeated NDP backbencher Helmut Giesbrecht end up in finance ministry files? Wilson was replaced as Liberal leader by Gordon Campbell; Ramsey represented a Prince George riding until 2001, and Giesbrecht represented Skeena until 2001.
Assuming the trio were not keen on telegraphing their plans to attack the sale of B.C. Rail, how did the Liberals get their hands on the 2003 e-mail exchange?
A mole in their midst? Carelessness? Or are the e-mails faked?
The e-mails are among some 8,000 pages of material — much of it blanked out — released to defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption case under FOI requests. The NDP has posted them here .
“We should fine tune our strategy on rail,” Wilson allegedly wrote in a July 10 e-mail to Ramsey and Giesbrecht. “It will go to cabinet on July 23. Believe me gentlemen this is going to be more controversial than the Coq deal. We have the potential to really nail the coffin shut. Its clear the only thing Campbell cares about is the bottom line. We need to hit them fast and hard on this.” Wilson says cabinet will give the sale the “green light” at the meeting. “It is obvious from what I have seen from our friends, the tax advantages make it almost certain that CN will be the only suitor for B.C. Rail. Paul have you spoken to Joy or Lois? Even the stuff on raiding pension funds is good. Campbell won’t be able to find a place to hide. He will regret his promise not to sell bcr. Everywhere you look the word sale is mentioned.”
Giesbrecht's supposedly sent a response to Ramsey and Wilson within 15 minutes.
“I agree with you. Our good fortune is really hard to comprehend. I spoke to Lois the other day she is working hard with the unions. She spoke to nettleton yesterday and convinced him to write a strongly worded letter to reid. Once the negotiating team is given their obvious bottom line mandate, that will be the time to crank things up considerably. The order of the bids is not what I would have expected. Campbell will dread the word ‘sale’ every time it is mentioned!” (Reid likely refers to then transportation minister Judith Reid and Nettleton to Prince George MLA Paul Nettleton, who by then had been bounced from the Liberal caucus. Lois would be former Prince George NDP MLA Lois Boone.)
Ramsey allegedly responds to Wilson and Giesbrecht that evening.
“I spoke to Lois yesterday. She is beginning to ratchet up the pressure. I advised her to lay low until cabinet decides on july 23. The comments by cibc have been incredibly helpful. That just confirmed to me this was already a done deal. The job losses will be staggering… I can’t believe our stroke of luck. Please ensure you do not pass those documents to anybody else. Let’s keep them under wraps. I have put a call into Lois. I did speak to Joy. She called ron cannan to touch base and stir the pot some more. When I hear what transpired I will fill you in. It’s my understanding Campbell will be trying to sell this to his cabinet up in sechelt. Let’s hope they don’t develop a backbone overnight.”
(CIBC World Markets had been hired to organize the sale and a company analyst had caused a stir by suggesting CN was the logical buyer. Ron Cannan was then a Kelowna councilor who opposed the sale; now he’s a Conservative MP. The cabinet met in Sechelt on July 15; Reid did a telephone press call that day to try and ease fears about the sale and potential job losses.)
Finally, Giesbrecht is supposed to have e-mailed 10 former NDP MLAs on July 11 – Jom Doyle, Lois Boone, Corky Evans, David Zirnhelt, Erda Walsh, Steve Orcherton, Pietro Calendino, Glenn Robertson. Bill Goodacre and Moe Sihota.
“This is the latest. When we get a decision after July 23 I will follow up at that time.”
And there the record stops.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Who is paying lawyers for Basi and Virk?
The New Democrats have posted most of the 8,000-odd pages of material released to the defence in the B.C. Rail sale corruption case here .
I suggested it was a good chance to test citizen journalism; take a look and see if there's something you find noteworthy, and post it here - or anywhere else.
Having slogged through Binder 3, I note that Vaughn Palmer certainly makes people in government nervous.
And that taxpayers are, apparently, picking up the spectacular legal expenses for Dave Basi and Bob Virk. Documents in the binder say the deputy minister of finance and the deputy attorney general approved the indemnity in July 2005.
Taxpayers would pick up the tab for legal costs "in criminal procedures against them arising from conduct that was in the course of their employment as ministerial assistants." The reasons, offered in a briefing note, have been kept secret.
Another memo says, "Both of these individuals were told, as part of the correspondence related to the termination of their employment, that the province would consider giving them indemnity."
Which seems reasonable. If you're doing your job and end up in facing criminal charges related to your work, your employer should support unless clearly improper behaviour has taken place. That certainly hasn't been established.
And it's especially critical in this case. The prosecution appears to have a limitless budget, with a number of lawyers under special prosecutor Bill Beradino working on the case.
And, of course, remember that Glen Clark's legal costs were paid by the public, as they should have been.
I suggested it was a good chance to test citizen journalism; take a look and see if there's something you find noteworthy, and post it here - or anywhere else.
Having slogged through Binder 3, I note that Vaughn Palmer certainly makes people in government nervous.
And that taxpayers are, apparently, picking up the spectacular legal expenses for Dave Basi and Bob Virk. Documents in the binder say the deputy minister of finance and the deputy attorney general approved the indemnity in July 2005.
Taxpayers would pick up the tab for legal costs "in criminal procedures against them arising from conduct that was in the course of their employment as ministerial assistants." The reasons, offered in a briefing note, have been kept secret.
Another memo says, "Both of these individuals were told, as part of the correspondence related to the termination of their employment, that the province would consider giving them indemnity."
Which seems reasonable. If you're doing your job and end up in facing criminal charges related to your work, your employer should support unless clearly improper behaviour has taken place. That certainly hasn't been established.
And it's especially critical in this case. The prosecution appears to have a limitless budget, with a number of lawyers under special prosecutor Bill Beradino working on the case.
And, of course, remember that Glen Clark's legal costs were paid by the public, as they should have been.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Time to become a reporter
The New Democrats have posted most of the 8,000-odd pages of material released to the defence in the B.C. Rail sale corruption case here . It's your chance to be a reporter. Spend some time, find something interesting and post it as a comment, or somewhere else. Wikijournalism, you could call it.
Can the RCMP survive with its credibility gone?
I covered court in Alberta for a little while. RCMP officers often testified. Sometimes, they were a little evasive or obviously coached.
But almost invariably, I assumed you could trust their version of events.
More importantly, so did judges and juries.
Now the Dziekanski inquiry evidence shows that is no longer true.
The inquiry into Robert Dziekanski’s death is on a two-week break. But the evidence so far has been devastating for the RCMP’s credibility.
Three of the four officers involved have testified. Their actions seemed to me reckless and unnecessary; their response to the dying man unprofessional. But those are judgment calls the inquiry will make.
Two other things have been much more alarming.
The first is the conflict between what really happened, captured on a video that has been played over and over, second by second, and what the officers - and the RCMP said - happened.
Officers will make mistakes given the quick judgments and stresses of police work.
But we expect them to be reliable, competent, honest witnesses, even in stressful times. We believe their notes, “made in their own handwriting, at the time,” as they say in court, reflect what really happened.
The three officers who have testified at the inquiry failed that test. And the false information they provided, in their notes and in interviews that night and the next day with RCMP investigators, was self-serving. It would probably by the accepted record, if a Victoria traveller hadn’t kept his video camera rolling throughout the deadly encounter.
Const. Gerry Rundel was the first to testify at the inquiry. He told the RCMP homicide officers investigating the death that Dzienkanski had waved a stapler above his head in a threatening way.
But the video showed that never happened. Dzienkanski picked up the stapler, but never brandished it as a weapon or held it above waist height.
Const. Bill Bentley wrote in his notes that night that “subject grabbed stapler and came at officers screaming.” He told the investigators that Dziekanski “came at the police screaming.”
Bentley said that as soon as they arrived, Dziekanski started backing away, looking for something to grab. He had picked up something and “kind of swung it at us.”
The video, he conceded at the inquiry, showed that none of those things actually happened.
Bentley also told the homicide investigators Dziekanski was “fighting through” the Taser so the officers had to wrestle him to the ground. That didn’t happen either. The video shows Dziekanski being hit and falling on his back instantly. Police jumped on top of after that.
Const. Kwesi Millington told investigators Dziekanski had raised the stapler in the air and stepped toward the police in a “threatening manner.” The video showed that didn’t happen.
Millington, who fired the Taser, told investigators Dziekanski didn’t go down when he was hit. He had to be shot again and wrestled to the ground by the three officers.
The video showed Dziekanski fell immediately. The second Taser shot came literally one second later as he lay on his back, legs in the air. The officers didn’t wrestle him to the ground.
It could be understood if there were small errors in their notes and evidence. It was a stressful night.
But police are trained observers. How could they recall three officers wrestling a man to the ground, or someone charging at them screaming, when those things just didn’t happen?
Either the officers are terribly incompetent, or they were dishonest. And without the video - which the RCMP tried to suppress - their stories would not likely have been questioned.
The other troubling aspect of their testimony was the statements by all three that they had followed policy and their training. They would do nothing different if confronted with the same situation, they testified.
The RCMP’s credibility is essential to its effectiveness. It is now in tatters.
Footnote: The inquiry is on a two-week break. The fourth RCMP officer will testify on March 23, when it resumes. Crown prosecutors decided against charging the officers with any offences after receiving the report from RCMP investigators. It’s not known how significant the officers’ inaccurate statements were in that process.
But almost invariably, I assumed you could trust their version of events.
More importantly, so did judges and juries.
Now the Dziekanski inquiry evidence shows that is no longer true.
The inquiry into Robert Dziekanski’s death is on a two-week break. But the evidence so far has been devastating for the RCMP’s credibility.
Three of the four officers involved have testified. Their actions seemed to me reckless and unnecessary; their response to the dying man unprofessional. But those are judgment calls the inquiry will make.
Two other things have been much more alarming.
The first is the conflict between what really happened, captured on a video that has been played over and over, second by second, and what the officers - and the RCMP said - happened.
Officers will make mistakes given the quick judgments and stresses of police work.
But we expect them to be reliable, competent, honest witnesses, even in stressful times. We believe their notes, “made in their own handwriting, at the time,” as they say in court, reflect what really happened.
The three officers who have testified at the inquiry failed that test. And the false information they provided, in their notes and in interviews that night and the next day with RCMP investigators, was self-serving. It would probably by the accepted record, if a Victoria traveller hadn’t kept his video camera rolling throughout the deadly encounter.
Const. Gerry Rundel was the first to testify at the inquiry. He told the RCMP homicide officers investigating the death that Dzienkanski had waved a stapler above his head in a threatening way.
But the video showed that never happened. Dzienkanski picked up the stapler, but never brandished it as a weapon or held it above waist height.
Const. Bill Bentley wrote in his notes that night that “subject grabbed stapler and came at officers screaming.” He told the investigators that Dziekanski “came at the police screaming.”
Bentley said that as soon as they arrived, Dziekanski started backing away, looking for something to grab. He had picked up something and “kind of swung it at us.”
The video, he conceded at the inquiry, showed that none of those things actually happened.
Bentley also told the homicide investigators Dziekanski was “fighting through” the Taser so the officers had to wrestle him to the ground. That didn’t happen either. The video shows Dziekanski being hit and falling on his back instantly. Police jumped on top of after that.
Const. Kwesi Millington told investigators Dziekanski had raised the stapler in the air and stepped toward the police in a “threatening manner.” The video showed that didn’t happen.
Millington, who fired the Taser, told investigators Dziekanski didn’t go down when he was hit. He had to be shot again and wrestled to the ground by the three officers.
The video showed Dziekanski fell immediately. The second Taser shot came literally one second later as he lay on his back, legs in the air. The officers didn’t wrestle him to the ground.
It could be understood if there were small errors in their notes and evidence. It was a stressful night.
But police are trained observers. How could they recall three officers wrestling a man to the ground, or someone charging at them screaming, when those things just didn’t happen?
Either the officers are terribly incompetent, or they were dishonest. And without the video - which the RCMP tried to suppress - their stories would not likely have been questioned.
The other troubling aspect of their testimony was the statements by all three that they had followed policy and their training. They would do nothing different if confronted with the same situation, they testified.
The RCMP’s credibility is essential to its effectiveness. It is now in tatters.
Footnote: The inquiry is on a two-week break. The fourth RCMP officer will testify on March 23, when it resumes. Crown prosecutors decided against charging the officers with any offences after receiving the report from RCMP investigators. It’s not known how significant the officers’ inaccurate statements were in that process.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Not all sex trade workers are on the street
It's easy to fall into cliche and stereotype when it comes to sex workers. And false assumptions usually work to push many of them farther into the margins. Jody Paterson highlights a good example here .
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Heeding threats and playing nice with government not best course
Today, a lesson for everyone who deals with government, courtesy of John Les and the rural stores that sell alcohol.
The stores' owners believed they were being treated unfairly a few years ago.
The government had cut wholesale prices for private liquor stores, boosting their profits (at taxpayers' expense). But the rural agents hadn't got the same break.
Keep quiet, Les warned them in 2007, and I might get you a better deal.
But if the issue hit the media or was raised in the legislature, they could forget about getting anything done.
"One more question in QP [question period] or an article in the paper and it's over," said Les, then the solicitor general.
So the stores' owners stayed quiet, for two years. Until finally, this year, the owners decided they had been played for saps. Staying quiet for two years got them nothing.
It's a dilemma, for businesses and social service agencies and municipalities and anyone else who think they're getting a bad deal from government.
Play nice with the party in power, work quietly and hope things turn out OK.
Or raise the problems publicly, so the government feels political pressure to deal with the issue.
It's a scary decision. Government's have immense power. A school district or social service agency or business worries about reprisals if it makes waves. What if funding disappears?
Most reporters have talked with people representing organizations who feel they're being hurt by poor government policies, but are afraid to air their concerns.
Better to work within the system, most decide
The rural liquor agents said they took Les's 2007 comments as a threat. It wasn't right, some said, but they decided to keep things quiet.
It does sound much like that.
"All this talk and e-mails flying around is not helpful," Les wrote. "It will get out to those who are not helpful and a huge fuss will break out and I won't be able to help you."
If the store owners let anyone know they felt they were being treated unfairly, that would be it, Les said. They would be shut out, their concerns ignored.
Which is interesting, in that another group - an association of home inspectors - had earlier claimed Les threatened them, not because they went public, but because the premier with their concerns.
Les, the home inspectors said in a subsequent letter to the premier, had responded by calling them stupid. He warned that if they "ever wrote to the premier again, he would drop the issue of consumer protection for B.C. homebuyers." Les denied the claims.
Here's where the lesson gets meaningful. The home inspectors went public, made their case and, after almost three years, won their goal - licensing and government regulation.
The liquor agents played along with Les and the Liberals. They got nothing. While the private liquor stores - much better politically connected - have received financial help from the government, the liquor agents have been left out of the generosity. (That's probably the right decision. The businesses signed on to sell liquor based on the existing price structure. If they don't like the deal, they can give up the business.)
It's an example that others should consider, especially as we head into what looks like a year of cuts to services and supports. The politicians from the party in power always urge silence and patience. Just work with us, they say. And behind the vague promises, lies the implied threat that making waves will kill any hopes of progress on the issue.
But it didn't work out that way in these examples.
Which seems understandable. Governments are moved by public pressure. And as long as problems are hushed up, they're more apt to ignore them and concentrate on other priorities.
Working to persuade government is useful. But the threat of a little public heat can help make things happen as well.
Footnote: Meanwhile, Les remains under investigation by a special prosecutor in relations to land deals when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the 1990s. A special prosecutor has been on the case for 20 months. It is unfair to the public - and especially to Les - that the investigation is taken so long to come up with any conclusions.
The stores' owners believed they were being treated unfairly a few years ago.
The government had cut wholesale prices for private liquor stores, boosting their profits (at taxpayers' expense). But the rural agents hadn't got the same break.
Keep quiet, Les warned them in 2007, and I might get you a better deal.
But if the issue hit the media or was raised in the legislature, they could forget about getting anything done.
"One more question in QP [question period] or an article in the paper and it's over," said Les, then the solicitor general.
So the stores' owners stayed quiet, for two years. Until finally, this year, the owners decided they had been played for saps. Staying quiet for two years got them nothing.
It's a dilemma, for businesses and social service agencies and municipalities and anyone else who think they're getting a bad deal from government.
Play nice with the party in power, work quietly and hope things turn out OK.
Or raise the problems publicly, so the government feels political pressure to deal with the issue.
It's a scary decision. Government's have immense power. A school district or social service agency or business worries about reprisals if it makes waves. What if funding disappears?
Most reporters have talked with people representing organizations who feel they're being hurt by poor government policies, but are afraid to air their concerns.
Better to work within the system, most decide
The rural liquor agents said they took Les's 2007 comments as a threat. It wasn't right, some said, but they decided to keep things quiet.
It does sound much like that.
"All this talk and e-mails flying around is not helpful," Les wrote. "It will get out to those who are not helpful and a huge fuss will break out and I won't be able to help you."
If the store owners let anyone know they felt they were being treated unfairly, that would be it, Les said. They would be shut out, their concerns ignored.
Which is interesting, in that another group - an association of home inspectors - had earlier claimed Les threatened them, not because they went public, but because the premier with their concerns.
Les, the home inspectors said in a subsequent letter to the premier, had responded by calling them stupid. He warned that if they "ever wrote to the premier again, he would drop the issue of consumer protection for B.C. homebuyers." Les denied the claims.
Here's where the lesson gets meaningful. The home inspectors went public, made their case and, after almost three years, won their goal - licensing and government regulation.
The liquor agents played along with Les and the Liberals. They got nothing. While the private liquor stores - much better politically connected - have received financial help from the government, the liquor agents have been left out of the generosity. (That's probably the right decision. The businesses signed on to sell liquor based on the existing price structure. If they don't like the deal, they can give up the business.)
It's an example that others should consider, especially as we head into what looks like a year of cuts to services and supports. The politicians from the party in power always urge silence and patience. Just work with us, they say. And behind the vague promises, lies the implied threat that making waves will kill any hopes of progress on the issue.
But it didn't work out that way in these examples.
Which seems understandable. Governments are moved by public pressure. And as long as problems are hushed up, they're more apt to ignore them and concentrate on other priorities.
Working to persuade government is useful. But the threat of a little public heat can help make things happen as well.
Footnote: Meanwhile, Les remains under investigation by a special prosecutor in relations to land deals when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the 1990s. A special prosecutor has been on the case for 20 months. It is unfair to the public - and especially to Les - that the investigation is taken so long to come up with any conclusions.
Taxpayers supporting Liberal attack campaign
Here's what the NDP transportation critic said about the Port Mann bridge project in question period yesterday.
M. Karagianis: Well, the minister cannot be serious about that. But listen. The reality is the project is late, it's massively over budget, and the financing scheme has collapsed. This isn't just a failure, but it's an embarrassment for the minister and it's also a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. My question to the minister is simply: will he reveal to British Columbians the cost of this embarrassing failure? How much are we paying because he ignored the warnings, blindly pursued a privatization scheme, wasted time on his failed financing deal and pushed the costs through the roof?
And here's the resulting news release from the Liberal caucus, produced by government employees.
BC Liberal Government Caucus
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
March 2, 2009
NDP CALL PORT MANN 'A COLOSSAL WASTE'
VICTORIA -NDP transportation critic Maurine Karagianis continues to reject the new Port Mann Bridge and the 8,000 jobs that will be created during construction.
The NDP's opposition to the bridge was reconfirmed in today's Question Period at the B.C. Legislature, when Karagianis called the Port Mann Bridge project: "...a colossal waste of taxpayers' money."
It seems dishonest, the kind of activity that brings politics and politicians into disrepute.
And it raises the question of why, when the government is citing a desperate need to cut spending, taxpayers' money is being used for this kind of activity instead of for health care or commun ity safety.
M. Karagianis: Well, the minister cannot be serious about that. But listen. The reality is the project is late, it's massively over budget, and the financing scheme has collapsed. This isn't just a failure, but it's an embarrassment for the minister and it's also a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. My question to the minister is simply: will he reveal to British Columbians the cost of this embarrassing failure? How much are we paying because he ignored the warnings, blindly pursued a privatization scheme, wasted time on his failed financing deal and pushed the costs through the roof?
And here's the resulting news release from the Liberal caucus, produced by government employees.
BC Liberal Government Caucus
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
March 2, 2009
NDP CALL PORT MANN 'A COLOSSAL WASTE'
VICTORIA -NDP transportation critic Maurine Karagianis continues to reject the new Port Mann Bridge and the 8,000 jobs that will be created during construction.
The NDP's opposition to the bridge was reconfirmed in today's Question Period at the B.C. Legislature, when Karagianis called the Port Mann Bridge project: "...a colossal waste of taxpayers' money."
It seems dishonest, the kind of activity that brings politics and politicians into disrepute.
And it raises the question of why, when the government is citing a desperate need to cut spending, taxpayers' money is being used for this kind of activity instead of for health care or commun ity safety.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Now you can be in the scrums
The NDP has started mining the 8,000 pages of FOI material that defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption trial obtained from the government. The first revelations dealt with the public affairs bureau tactics in controlling the news agenda when the legislature is sitting and allegations government employees are working on Liberal party fundraising. You can check Hansard for today's question period to get the highlights, or go here .
But I wanted to draw your attention publiceyeonline.com's video of Attorney General Wally Opall's response to the issue. Sean Holman has begun posting video from scrums. It's a great service. People can now see exactly what their elected representatives are saying about the issues, no matter where they are in the province. And instead of half-a-dozen reporters assessing the answers, experts and those on the front lines can respond to the politicians' claims.
It is a great step forward in political reporting.
But I wanted to draw your attention publiceyeonline.com's video of Attorney General Wally Opall's response to the issue. Sean Holman has begun posting video from scrums. It's a great service. People can now see exactly what their elected representatives are saying about the issues, no matter where they are in the province. And instead of half-a-dozen reporters assessing the answers, experts and those on the front lines can respond to the politicians' claims.
It is a great step forward in political reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
