VICTORIA - It's shameful to see the B.C. government going back to court to fight for the right to deny services to people who really need them.
It's not like we're talking about some questionable need. Kids with problems - fetal alcohol disorder or autism or the rest - get help from the government. Counselling and guidance, and if they really can't cope, one-on-one support to make sure they and the people around them are safe.
The support is based on need. It's not enough, but the criteria are roughly fair - the people who have the greatest need get the most services.
Until they turn 19. Then Community Living BC, executing a government policy, cuts all support to people with an IQ over 70. (There's small margin allowed.)
It doesn't matter if a teen can't function, is a danger to herself and others and is at a huge risk of exploitation. Too many right answers on the IQ test and all the support is gone overnight.
It's a disaster for people like Neil Fahlman. He’s a big, strong young man, with problems - fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder and an autism variant. He makes bad decisions, acts impulsively and sometimes violently. His adoptive mother, Fiona Gow, had worked hard for him, but life had been tough.
But Fahlman has been living successfully on his own in a small cabin here on Vancouver Island - with help. The government has provided seven hours of support every day, a worker to keep Fahlman going.
But Neil's 19th birthday was approaching. His IQ, at 79, was above the threshold. The support would end.
HIs mother wasn't prepared to accept that. So she went to court. And won.
And sadly, the government is appealing the decision.
Children and Families MInister Stan Hagen says the government is appealing on a question of legal principle. The legislature, not the courts, should be setting policy.
But Justice Eric Chamberlist agreed completely. His ruling was based on the legislature's decison to pass the bill setting up Community Living BC. Chamberlist noted the legislation said Community Living BC's purpose is to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities."
If the government wanted to limit that assistance to people with IQs under 70, it just needed to amend the legislation or have cabinet issue an order, the justice said.
But instead the government is off to court.
If this was about principle, the government could appeal the decision while still changing its IQ policy. It hasn't.
It is a ridiculous policy. Community Living BC arranged its own psychological assessment of Fahlman. He needed the support, the psychologist said. Without it his aggression and impulsiveness could be disastrous. "He could do significant harm to himself and the community," the psychologist warned.
And the government is fighting to keep that policy in place, despite the risk both ot the individual and the community.
The issue is money. There's nothing wrong with that; we all have to figure out how to live within our means, and sometimes make hard decisions.
Having the IQ cutoff saves the government money, at least in the short term. It's a simple way to deny services.
If the government would admit that, instead of claiming some legal principle as justification, we could have a useful debate. Maybe peoples' lives are worth saving. Maybe support is cheaper than housing these people in jail.
Instead, the government is defending the indefensible under the guise of principle.
Strip the words away and you are left with the action - cutting support for Fahlman and others like him as a question of spending priorities.
There are parents out there terrified for their children. There are children with no parents.
It is ridiculous to cut all needed support when those people turn 19, based on an arbitrary test.
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley issued a release saying the IQ policy should go and support should be based on need. Sadly, it came almost four weeks after the court judgement and a day after Hagen announced that the decision would be appealed. Morley missed the chance to involve the public in the debate before the decision was made. She plans a report on the issue later this year.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Uranium mining poses big political risks
VICTORIA - It's got to be frustrating for the government. The geologists in the mines ministry are pretty sure there are no viable uranium deposits in B.C.
But a few mining companies are out there raising money and talking enthusiastically about the potential - even drilling.
And that sends communities into panicky protest mode. No one wants a uranium mine as a neighbour. Many people don't want one anywhere in the province.
Last summer, the Okanagan was the hot spot. Two companies announced they were interested in developing a reserve about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna.
This summer it's the Clearwater area, where a tiny company called International Ranger is doing test drilling after talking up the uranium prospects. The anti-mine groups are already mobilizing. There are other potential reserves in southeast B.C.
It's a headache for the government. The Liberals know uranium mining would be wildly controversial and unite all sorts of potential foes, from environmentalists to people worried about weapons to community activists.
But they don't want to bring in a ban, because that would send the wrong message to the mining companies they've been wooing - successfully - for the last five years.
Former Socred premier Bill Bennett came to a different conclusion back in 1980. That's when the Okanagan project, then championed by Norcen and Ontario Hydro, looked like it was going to go ahead. Bennett saw the protests building and brought in a seven-year moratorium. Bill Vander Zalm let the ban lapse, sparking more demonstrations.
But the woes of the nuclear power industry - remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - have meant there's been little interest in uranium in B.C. Until now.
Ontario Hydro has just committed to rebuilding and adding to its nuclear power plants. China is looking to increase its nuclear power production by 600 per cent over the next 14 years. Spiking oil and gas prices mean conventional power plants will be more expensive to operate. And, as proponents note, nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases.
Nuclear is back, and that means uranium prices are soaring and companies are looking at reserves all over the world, including B.C. The current projects may have a small chance of going ahead, but if prices stay high companies are going to keep looking.
The government doesn't think they'll be successful. In their eagerness to calm fears the usually boosterish Liberals have taken to bad-mouthing B.C.'s uranium potential.
Trust us, they effectively say, There's no need for a ban because no mines are going to be worth developing.
But at the same time they're letting companies explore and raise money from investors who think a mines might prove viable. And maybe one of them will be right.
Why the reluctance to just say no? Mining companies are treating the issue as a symbol of the government's commitment to welcoming the industry. What if there's a great copper reserve that includes a small amount of uranium, the companies ask? Will the copper stay in the ground because uranium mining is banned?
That's the new argument taken by International Ranger, which had been touting the uranium potential until public opposition started. Now it says it’s really interested in potential molybdenum deposits on the property, not the uranium. Since it stressed the huge uranium potential in its earlier statements, the claim isn’t flying.)
And the industry argues that uranium mining is not necessarily risky. Canada and Australia are the two largest producers, and the world's largest mine is two provinces over in Saskatchewan. (Though one critical difference is that it's in the middle of nowhere, not in retirement and resort country.)
The government's position might work, if companies lose interest in B.C. quickly.
But if any of them press on seriously, there will be trouble ahead.
Public pressure for a ban would be enormous, and likely successful.
Companies would then say, what a minute, why did you let us spend money on exploration if you weren't going to allow a mine?
The government is trying a tricky balancing act over a risky issue.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld told the legislature approval of a uranium mine is up to the federal government. Ottawa does regulate uranium mining, but no project can go ahead in B.C. without provincial approval, according to the Mines Act. The company looking at the Clearwater project was ordered by the province to hold an open house this month; it didn't win many converts.
But a few mining companies are out there raising money and talking enthusiastically about the potential - even drilling.
And that sends communities into panicky protest mode. No one wants a uranium mine as a neighbour. Many people don't want one anywhere in the province.
Last summer, the Okanagan was the hot spot. Two companies announced they were interested in developing a reserve about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna.
This summer it's the Clearwater area, where a tiny company called International Ranger is doing test drilling after talking up the uranium prospects. The anti-mine groups are already mobilizing. There are other potential reserves in southeast B.C.
It's a headache for the government. The Liberals know uranium mining would be wildly controversial and unite all sorts of potential foes, from environmentalists to people worried about weapons to community activists.
But they don't want to bring in a ban, because that would send the wrong message to the mining companies they've been wooing - successfully - for the last five years.
Former Socred premier Bill Bennett came to a different conclusion back in 1980. That's when the Okanagan project, then championed by Norcen and Ontario Hydro, looked like it was going to go ahead. Bennett saw the protests building and brought in a seven-year moratorium. Bill Vander Zalm let the ban lapse, sparking more demonstrations.
But the woes of the nuclear power industry - remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - have meant there's been little interest in uranium in B.C. Until now.
Ontario Hydro has just committed to rebuilding and adding to its nuclear power plants. China is looking to increase its nuclear power production by 600 per cent over the next 14 years. Spiking oil and gas prices mean conventional power plants will be more expensive to operate. And, as proponents note, nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases.
Nuclear is back, and that means uranium prices are soaring and companies are looking at reserves all over the world, including B.C. The current projects may have a small chance of going ahead, but if prices stay high companies are going to keep looking.
The government doesn't think they'll be successful. In their eagerness to calm fears the usually boosterish Liberals have taken to bad-mouthing B.C.'s uranium potential.
Trust us, they effectively say, There's no need for a ban because no mines are going to be worth developing.
But at the same time they're letting companies explore and raise money from investors who think a mines might prove viable. And maybe one of them will be right.
Why the reluctance to just say no? Mining companies are treating the issue as a symbol of the government's commitment to welcoming the industry. What if there's a great copper reserve that includes a small amount of uranium, the companies ask? Will the copper stay in the ground because uranium mining is banned?
That's the new argument taken by International Ranger, which had been touting the uranium potential until public opposition started. Now it says it’s really interested in potential molybdenum deposits on the property, not the uranium. Since it stressed the huge uranium potential in its earlier statements, the claim isn’t flying.)
And the industry argues that uranium mining is not necessarily risky. Canada and Australia are the two largest producers, and the world's largest mine is two provinces over in Saskatchewan. (Though one critical difference is that it's in the middle of nowhere, not in retirement and resort country.)
The government's position might work, if companies lose interest in B.C. quickly.
But if any of them press on seriously, there will be trouble ahead.
Public pressure for a ban would be enormous, and likely successful.
Companies would then say, what a minute, why did you let us spend money on exploration if you weren't going to allow a mine?
The government is trying a tricky balancing act over a risky issue.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld told the legislature approval of a uranium mine is up to the federal government. Ottawa does regulate uranium mining, but no project can go ahead in B.C. without provincial approval, according to the Mines Act. The company looking at the Clearwater project was ordered by the province to hold an open house this month; it didn't win many converts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
