That was a dismal effort on TV by Premier Gordon Campbell. Especially for an address that was crucial to rebuilding Liberal support and slowing the recall movement.
Campbell announced a surprise big income tax cut - 15 per cent on the first $72,000 of income - effective Jan. 1. Someone earning $50,000 a year will save about $7 a week.
The tax cut will knock about $600 million off government revenues.
Two points are relevant about that number.
First, it’s less than one-third of the $1.9 billion in additional taxes imposed on individuals and families by the new HST.
And second, it comes as the government is running deficits and cutting services because revenues are down. People with developmental disabilities are being forced out of group homes they have lived in for years. Seniors are waiting for health care. Schools are closing.
It hardly seems time for a tax cut.
Campbell announced a couple of education initiatives. The government will continue establishing StrongStart early learning centres. They help families prepare infants and young children for school.
It will begin assessing every child entering school for learning issues that can be addressed.
And Campbell made a goofy commitment. Within five years, he guaranteed, every Grade 4 student will meet expectations for reading, writing and math skills. Today, about 20 per cent of students fall short.
That’s a laudable goal. But it’s a ridiculous, empty political promise.
The children who will be in Grade 4 five years from now are about to enter kindergarten. Almost one-third of them, according to the province’s statistics, aren’t ready to succeed. About 20 per cent have spent their childhood in poverty.
Some 40 per cent of aboriginal children aren’t meeting basic skills expectations in Grade 4. How is that to be entirely changed in five years.
It would be wonderful, if Campbell had a plan to deliver on this promise.
But the education budget is set to rise 1.5 per cent next year and is effectively frozen the following year. With no money, how are schools going to improve the skills of thousands of children, many facing big challenges?
A tax cut and empty education promises. Not inspirational.
The largest block of time - and the first part of the speech - was devoted to defending the HST.
But there was nothing new. The Liberals had opposed harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST because of fears the freedom to set tax policy would be limited, Campbell said.
Then Ontario negotiated a deal with more flexibility and the federal government offered $1.6 billion if B.C. signed on.
And, said Campbell, the federal government demanded an instant commitment or B.C. would have to wait two years. (No one in the federal government has confirmed that ultimatum.)
“Should we have consulted more - I sure would have liked to,” Campbell said.
But he felt comfortable signing a deal that permanently shifted $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals without talking to MLAs or the public or doing financial analysis of the impact.
What’s extraordinary is that Campbell, again, didn’t take the chance to say he was sorry. Sorry that he had put Liberal MLAs in a tough spot. Sorry that so many people felt abused by the government.
Instead he suggested the problem was that British Columbians are just too dim.
Campbell said he talked to a businessman who had some trucks as part of the operation. He was “really upset” because the HST added seven per cent to the cost of his haircut
“But I pointed to the truck in his lot and I said ‘You see that truck over there?’‟
“And he says, ‘Yep’ and I said, “you‟re saving about $5,000 on that truck.‟
“And he said, “I never thought of that.‟
That’s Campbell’s world. Any day, British Columbians will slap themselves on the forehead and say, “Yep, I never thought of that.”
Footnote: It’s hard to say why taxpayers should pay for this TV address. Campbell’s first televised speech to the province as premier, back in 2002, was paid for by the Liberal party. There was nothing in this message that could not have been delivered by press release Or, in the case of the tax cut, in the legislature.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Meet the new cabinet, much like the old cabinet
Cabinet shuffles are mostly political. It's not about the ministers or the government structure. It's the equivalent of designing a new detergent package with big blue letters saying "New, Improved."
Even if the detergent is not much changed. There is only one new minister, Stephanie Cadieux, in community, sport and cultural development. No one was fired. Mostly it's the same crew in slightly modified roles.
There are a couple of significant changes.
George Abbott moves from aboriginal relations to education. Abbott has been in health too, so he's handled tough assignments. They haven't gone wrong, but it's hard to point to big accomplishments.
Premier Gordon Campbell wants to make education and the economy defining issues. So Abbott is going to face big challenges in managing change to the school system while facing well-organized interest groups, from the B.C. Teachers Federation to school trustees.
The other big changes come in the resource ministries. Those are tough to understand.
Basically, Pat Bell is responsible for forests, mining and lands. That adds mining to his former responsibilities, which could make sense. It provides a ministry focused on maximizing forestry and mining opportunities, which should be good for resource-based communities.
But there is also a minister of natural resource operations, Steve Thomson, and a junior minister for mining, Randy Hawes. (Plus Bill Bennett as the energy minister.)
So if you have a great mining opportunity, who do you call - Bell, Thomson, Hawes? Or all three? And how do government employees figure out who does what (especially over the next six months as this all gets sorted out)?
There are other interesting appointments. Rich Coleman is back as solicitor general, but keeps housing because he likes it.
Coleman's former responsibility for income assistance and cuts to services for developmentally disabled adults moves to Kevin Krueger, new minister for social development. Krueger's record in arts and tourism suggest that will end in tears.
The biggest change comes in the premier's office. Martyn Brown, Campbell's chief of staff for more than a dozen years, is out. Paul Taylor is in.
You won't find a more powerful job in most governments. Premiers have a deputy minister, charged with managing the public service and a chief of staff to direct the political agenda, manage the message and make sure the party gets re-elected.
Brown was Campbell's guy through three election wins. But part of the job is taken the fall when things go wrong. So Brown is off to a nice job as deputy minister of tourism, trade and investment. (A softer landing, at public expense, than most of his counterparts experience.)
You can't fault the decision. The Liberals have had an awful go wrong. Their communication strategy has been dreadful. They can't keep doing the same things.
So Taylor takes over his job.
It's interesting that Campbell turned back to a familiar figure. Taylor has been one of the most influential managers in Alberta and B.C for almost two decades. After Ralph Klein took power in 1992, Taylor came up with the plan to cut spending.
Campbell recruited him to do the same thing in this province. Taylor did the work for seven years, then Campbell appointed him to run ICBC in 2004. He left that job in April 2008, to run NaiKun Wind Energy Group, which hoped to score big green energy deals with B.C. Hydro.
That didn't work out. Taylor left NaiKun in June. The company was worth about $100 million when he arrived, and less than $8 million when he left, as B.C. Hydro shunned the wind-power proposals. (Which should be reassuring - Taylor's connections didn't help.)
Same people, yet another round of tinkering with ministry responsibilities, even more odd positions - Naomi Yamamoto is minister for building code renewal and John Les gets an extra $15,000 as parliamentary secretary in charge of selling the HST.
That's the other thing with shuffles. They never do bring the benefits the leaders hope for.
Footnote: Hours after the shuffle, Bill Bennett offered a rare internal critique. The overhaul of resource ministries was made without any consultation with caucus or the ministers, he said. When the government is so unpopular it's time to start involving people in decisions, Bennett said.
Even if the detergent is not much changed. There is only one new minister, Stephanie Cadieux, in community, sport and cultural development. No one was fired. Mostly it's the same crew in slightly modified roles.
There are a couple of significant changes.
George Abbott moves from aboriginal relations to education. Abbott has been in health too, so he's handled tough assignments. They haven't gone wrong, but it's hard to point to big accomplishments.
Premier Gordon Campbell wants to make education and the economy defining issues. So Abbott is going to face big challenges in managing change to the school system while facing well-organized interest groups, from the B.C. Teachers Federation to school trustees.
The other big changes come in the resource ministries. Those are tough to understand.
Basically, Pat Bell is responsible for forests, mining and lands. That adds mining to his former responsibilities, which could make sense. It provides a ministry focused on maximizing forestry and mining opportunities, which should be good for resource-based communities.
But there is also a minister of natural resource operations, Steve Thomson, and a junior minister for mining, Randy Hawes. (Plus Bill Bennett as the energy minister.)
So if you have a great mining opportunity, who do you call - Bell, Thomson, Hawes? Or all three? And how do government employees figure out who does what (especially over the next six months as this all gets sorted out)?
There are other interesting appointments. Rich Coleman is back as solicitor general, but keeps housing because he likes it.
Coleman's former responsibility for income assistance and cuts to services for developmentally disabled adults moves to Kevin Krueger, new minister for social development. Krueger's record in arts and tourism suggest that will end in tears.
The biggest change comes in the premier's office. Martyn Brown, Campbell's chief of staff for more than a dozen years, is out. Paul Taylor is in.
You won't find a more powerful job in most governments. Premiers have a deputy minister, charged with managing the public service and a chief of staff to direct the political agenda, manage the message and make sure the party gets re-elected.
Brown was Campbell's guy through three election wins. But part of the job is taken the fall when things go wrong. So Brown is off to a nice job as deputy minister of tourism, trade and investment. (A softer landing, at public expense, than most of his counterparts experience.)
You can't fault the decision. The Liberals have had an awful go wrong. Their communication strategy has been dreadful. They can't keep doing the same things.
So Taylor takes over his job.
It's interesting that Campbell turned back to a familiar figure. Taylor has been one of the most influential managers in Alberta and B.C for almost two decades. After Ralph Klein took power in 1992, Taylor came up with the plan to cut spending.
Campbell recruited him to do the same thing in this province. Taylor did the work for seven years, then Campbell appointed him to run ICBC in 2004. He left that job in April 2008, to run NaiKun Wind Energy Group, which hoped to score big green energy deals with B.C. Hydro.
That didn't work out. Taylor left NaiKun in June. The company was worth about $100 million when he arrived, and less than $8 million when he left, as B.C. Hydro shunned the wind-power proposals. (Which should be reassuring - Taylor's connections didn't help.)
Same people, yet another round of tinkering with ministry responsibilities, even more odd positions - Naomi Yamamoto is minister for building code renewal and John Les gets an extra $15,000 as parliamentary secretary in charge of selling the HST.
That's the other thing with shuffles. They never do bring the benefits the leaders hope for.
Footnote: Hours after the shuffle, Bill Bennett offered a rare internal critique. The overhaul of resource ministries was made without any consultation with caucus or the ministers, he said. When the government is so unpopular it's time to start involving people in decisions, Bennett said.
Monday, October 25, 2010
A resource perspective on the cabinet shuffle
I'll do a column on the changes announced by the premier, but there's some interesting initial reaction here.
Bernard Von Schulmann's work as a consultant is mostly about resource development in B.C. He's one of a small number of knowledgeable commentators.
If he's puzzled by the cabinet changes, especially around the "dirt industries," the government has to explain quickly how this will work and result in more economic activity outside B.C.'s urban centres.
Bernard Von Schulmann's work as a consultant is mostly about resource development in B.C. He's one of a small number of knowledgeable commentators.
If he's puzzled by the cabinet changes, especially around the "dirt industries," the government has to explain quickly how this will work and result in more economic activity outside B.C.'s urban centres.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Changing story on B.C. Rail plea deal
The government now says David Loukidelis, deputy in the Attorney General's Ministry, and Graham Whitmarsh, finance deputy made the decision to cover David Basi and Bob Virk's legal bills:
From Thursday's Vancouver Sun:
"Loukidelis said in the statement that he and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh decided to relieve the two men of responsibility for their legal fees because of their inability to pay...
Loukidelis said the special prosecutor in the case and Attorney-General Mike de Jong did not have "any knowledge of the matter or any involvement in this." He added that he informed de Jong of the decision after it was made, on Oct. 8."
But on Wednesday in the Sun de Jong appears to be saying he made the decision.
"De Jong said he made the recommendation last week not to recoup outstanding legal costs.
"As attorney-general, I am presented with a set of facts and a set of recommendations and in this case have proceeded on the strength of that and people will have to come to their own conclusions," he said.
De Jong also pointed out the plea bargain means that no more public money needs to be spent in the case."
And that's certainly what he seemed to say in Tuesday's Sun story:
"Attorney-General Mike de Jong said earlier that Basi and Virk will not be asked to repay the estimated $6 million the government has paid to cover their legal costs.
De Jong said he agreed to the deal because the two men had contributed what they could to their defence and "there's nothing left to pursue."
It might be that de Jong was misquited or just careless. But given the seriousness of the case and the size of the payout, why wouldn't he say on Tuesday that the two deputy ministers had made the decision and he had no role, if that was the case?
From Thursday's Vancouver Sun:
"Loukidelis said in the statement that he and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh decided to relieve the two men of responsibility for their legal fees because of their inability to pay...
Loukidelis said the special prosecutor in the case and Attorney-General Mike de Jong did not have "any knowledge of the matter or any involvement in this." He added that he informed de Jong of the decision after it was made, on Oct. 8."
But on Wednesday in the Sun de Jong appears to be saying he made the decision.
"De Jong said he made the recommendation last week not to recoup outstanding legal costs.
"As attorney-general, I am presented with a set of facts and a set of recommendations and in this case have proceeded on the strength of that and people will have to come to their own conclusions," he said.
De Jong also pointed out the plea bargain means that no more public money needs to be spent in the case."
And that's certainly what he seemed to say in Tuesday's Sun story:
"Attorney-General Mike de Jong said earlier that Basi and Virk will not be asked to repay the estimated $6 million the government has paid to cover their legal costs.
De Jong said he agreed to the deal because the two men had contributed what they could to their defence and "there's nothing left to pursue."
It might be that de Jong was misquited or just careless. But given the seriousness of the case and the size of the payout, why wouldn't he say on Tuesday that the two deputy ministers had made the decision and he had no role, if that was the case?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Things get worse in the B.C. Rail scandal
The Times Colonist reports that defence lawyers for Dave Basi and Bob Virk negotiated the forgiveness of $6 million in legal fees with deputy attorney general David Loukidelis and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh.
That raises the perception the plea bargain had less to do with justice and more to do with closed door talks about money.
Most alarming though, is this sentence.
"But when special prosecutor Bill Berardino made the B.C. government aware on Oct. 5 that he had proposed to let the two men plead guilty, it fell to the deputy minister of finance, Graham Whitmarsh, and Loukidelis to figure out whether they would actually have to come up with the money, Loukidelis's statement read."
Why would the special prosecutor "make the government aware" of his plea offer? Special prosecutors are appointed in sensitive cases to ensure independence and avoid even the appearance that political influence was affecting the courts.
But if the special prosecutor is briefing the government of his plans, he is no longer independent. Telling the government of plans to seek a plea bargain, for example, invites interference. Either by proposing a different strategy or, as in this case, offering financial inducements to encourage a guilty plea.
This seems an extraordinary interference in what is supposed to be an independent justice system.
That raises the perception the plea bargain had less to do with justice and more to do with closed door talks about money.
Most alarming though, is this sentence.
"But when special prosecutor Bill Berardino made the B.C. government aware on Oct. 5 that he had proposed to let the two men plead guilty, it fell to the deputy minister of finance, Graham Whitmarsh, and Loukidelis to figure out whether they would actually have to come up with the money, Loukidelis's statement read."
Why would the special prosecutor "make the government aware" of his plea offer? Special prosecutors are appointed in sensitive cases to ensure independence and avoid even the appearance that political influence was affecting the courts.
But if the special prosecutor is briefing the government of his plans, he is no longer independent. Telling the government of plans to seek a plea bargain, for example, invites interference. Either by proposing a different strategy or, as in this case, offering financial inducements to encourage a guilty plea.
This seems an extraordinary interference in what is supposed to be an independent justice system.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Trial ends, B.C. Rail scandal smell lingers on
The B.C. Rail scandal has cost taxpayers some thing above $15 million.
And without more answers, that looks like a very poor bargain.
The trial ended with a whimper Monday.
Dave Basi and Bob Virk, former Liberal political aides, pleaded guilty to accepting benefits in return for leaking confidential information about the B.C. Rail sale to lobbyists for one of the bidders, Omnitrax.
Virk, the ministerial assistant to former transport minister Judith Reid, took a trip to Denver to an NFL game worth about $1,500.
Basi, aide to former finance minister Gary Collins, went on the trip and received another $25,695.
They also admitted leaking information to Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal fundraiser and a lobbyist (and brother of former deputy premier Christy Clark).
In a plea bargain, they were sentenced to two years of relaxed house arrest and Basi will have to pay a fine equal to the benefits they received.
Case closed, says Premier Gordon Campbell. Two rogue political staffers caught. Justice done. No questions to answer.
That's not true though.
For starters, people are wondering why Basi and Virk decided to cut a plea bargain after years of protesting their innocence.
Or, for that matter, why the special prosecutor Bill Berardino accepted sentences that look much like slaps on the wrist for a serious violation of the public trust.
For Basi and Virk, there are about six million reasons to take the fall.
That's the incredible amount - $6 million - spent so far on their legal defence.
Standard procedure calls for the government to pick up the tab for employees' legal bills - unless they're ultimately found guilty, in which case they have to pay their own legal costs.
But the plea bargain included an agreement that government - that is, you - will cover their costs. They also got out of what looked increasingly like an endless legal process.
Berardino says he accepted the plea bargain because the trial would have dragged on for months and the duo acknowledged their guilt. The decision - made just before Collins was to testify - was his alone.
But that's not really true either. The special prosecutor can't agree to cover legal fees; that decision has to be made by the government.
And that raises at least the perception that the Liberals were interested in heading off more evidence in this trial.
I would have liked to hear from Collins. The statement of facts agreed on by both sides says Basi arranged a dinner at an Italian restaurant with two representatives of Omnitrax, the unsuccessful bidder the lobbyists were working for, and Collins and told them he would offer a "consolation prize." Collins never made such an offer, the statement adds. (Police had the meeting under surveillance.)
But it would be useful to hear him explain whether there was any reason for Basi to believe that was true.
I'd like to hear from Erik Bornman and Brian Kieran, the lobbyists who bribed Basi and Virk, on whether this was standard business practice and how they managed to avoid charges.
I'd like to hear from Clark about why he got inside information from the two men.
I would very much like to hear From Basi and Virk about what they were doing and why they were doing it.
And I would like to hear how the justice system has become so broken that a case can take seven years and bills for prosecution and defence lawyers can top $10 million.
The B.C. Rail deal smells. The Liberals promised not to sell the railway in 2001 and then turned around and did just that. (No reasonable person would believe that a 990-year lease isn't a sale.)
CP Rail, one of the bidders, pulled out, alleging the bid process was unfairly rigged to make sure CN ended up owning the railway.
And Omnitrax was being fed inside information.
Campbell says British Columbians shouldn't worry about any of this, or about the fact that senior political aides have been convicted on criminal charges.
But a lot of people are likely to find all this very troubling unless an inquiry of some kind is eventually called.
Footnote: Basi also pleaded guilty to accepting $50,000 to help get land out of the agricultural land reserve in the capital region. The land was released and developed. The government says Basi's efforts made no difference.
And without more answers, that looks like a very poor bargain.
The trial ended with a whimper Monday.
Dave Basi and Bob Virk, former Liberal political aides, pleaded guilty to accepting benefits in return for leaking confidential information about the B.C. Rail sale to lobbyists for one of the bidders, Omnitrax.
Virk, the ministerial assistant to former transport minister Judith Reid, took a trip to Denver to an NFL game worth about $1,500.
Basi, aide to former finance minister Gary Collins, went on the trip and received another $25,695.
They also admitted leaking information to Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal fundraiser and a lobbyist (and brother of former deputy premier Christy Clark).
In a plea bargain, they were sentenced to two years of relaxed house arrest and Basi will have to pay a fine equal to the benefits they received.
Case closed, says Premier Gordon Campbell. Two rogue political staffers caught. Justice done. No questions to answer.
That's not true though.
For starters, people are wondering why Basi and Virk decided to cut a plea bargain after years of protesting their innocence.
Or, for that matter, why the special prosecutor Bill Berardino accepted sentences that look much like slaps on the wrist for a serious violation of the public trust.
For Basi and Virk, there are about six million reasons to take the fall.
That's the incredible amount - $6 million - spent so far on their legal defence.
Standard procedure calls for the government to pick up the tab for employees' legal bills - unless they're ultimately found guilty, in which case they have to pay their own legal costs.
But the plea bargain included an agreement that government - that is, you - will cover their costs. They also got out of what looked increasingly like an endless legal process.
Berardino says he accepted the plea bargain because the trial would have dragged on for months and the duo acknowledged their guilt. The decision - made just before Collins was to testify - was his alone.
But that's not really true either. The special prosecutor can't agree to cover legal fees; that decision has to be made by the government.
And that raises at least the perception that the Liberals were interested in heading off more evidence in this trial.
I would have liked to hear from Collins. The statement of facts agreed on by both sides says Basi arranged a dinner at an Italian restaurant with two representatives of Omnitrax, the unsuccessful bidder the lobbyists were working for, and Collins and told them he would offer a "consolation prize." Collins never made such an offer, the statement adds. (Police had the meeting under surveillance.)
But it would be useful to hear him explain whether there was any reason for Basi to believe that was true.
I'd like to hear from Erik Bornman and Brian Kieran, the lobbyists who bribed Basi and Virk, on whether this was standard business practice and how they managed to avoid charges.
I'd like to hear from Clark about why he got inside information from the two men.
I would very much like to hear From Basi and Virk about what they were doing and why they were doing it.
And I would like to hear how the justice system has become so broken that a case can take seven years and bills for prosecution and defence lawyers can top $10 million.
The B.C. Rail deal smells. The Liberals promised not to sell the railway in 2001 and then turned around and did just that. (No reasonable person would believe that a 990-year lease isn't a sale.)
CP Rail, one of the bidders, pulled out, alleging the bid process was unfairly rigged to make sure CN ended up owning the railway.
And Omnitrax was being fed inside information.
Campbell says British Columbians shouldn't worry about any of this, or about the fact that senior political aides have been convicted on criminal charges.
But a lot of people are likely to find all this very troubling unless an inquiry of some kind is eventually called.
Footnote: Basi also pleaded guilty to accepting $50,000 to help get land out of the agricultural land reserve in the capital region. The land was released and developed. The government says Basi's efforts made no difference.
Friday, October 15, 2010
With B.C.'s 20,000 grow ops, the pot war is lost
B.C. Hydro is getting ready to tell the utilities commission that it's losing $100 million worth of stolen electricity to grow ops every year.
The Crown corporation is including the estimate as part of its justification for spending spend $930 million on smart power meters for customers. The meters should make it easier to detect theft, it says.
That $100 million figure should tell us something about the foolishness of our current drug policies.
It's big money, equivalent to the electricity used by 77,000 homes, B.C. Hydro told delegates at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention this month.
The corporation also says grow ops use three to 10 times as much electricity as an average house.
Take the midpoint for grow op power use and the $100 million means some 17,000 grow ops are stealing electricity right now in the province.
All these numbers are a little overwhelming. But consider that there are 1,300 liquor stores, public and private, in the province. For every store, there are 13 grow ops stealing electricity.
But that's far from the total number. Many operators use generators or take the risk of running up big B.C. Hydro bills and hope they don't get caught.
And there are big outdoor marijuana crops across the province.
The RCMP does annual fall patrols, often using planes and helicopters. Last year, officers chopped down 29,000 plants on Vancouver Island, likely a fraction of the total outdoor plantations.
So, if B.C. Hydro's submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission is accurate, there are certainly more than 20,000 grow ops in the province at any time and could be up to 30,000.
Which suggests that the idea that police are actually going to make any real dent in the marijuana industry is pure fantasy.
It's physically impossible - without thousands more police officers on the assignment - to deal with that number of offenders.
The number isn't the only issue. Estimates of the value of the marijuana industry to B.C. are all over the map, with Forbes magazine putting it at $7 billion a few years ago.
Conservative estimates have the industry contributing $3 billion to $4 billion a year to the economy.
That virtually ensures that as fast as police detect one grow op and seize the plants and equipment, another one will open.
So on one hand, there's an expensive and largely pointless effort that makes no real impact on marijuana production and sales in the province.
And on the other, there are the negative impacts.
The most significant is the enormous boost handed to criminal gangs. Because marijuana is illegal, the grow ops are hugely profitable. The money enriches the gangs. It also fuels the rivalries and gang wars that bring violence to communities.
That's understandable. Practically, growing marijuana and growing tomatoes involves similar input costs. Tomatoes sell for about $1 a pound. Marijuana brings more than $3,000 a pound at the retail level. The profit motive ensures the grow ops aren't going away.
And police have pointed out that gangs often trade B.C. marijuana to their U.S. counterparts for cocaine that is then imported into this province.
It would simply be foolish to continue this costly, futile charade.
So why not legalize and regulate marijuana?
That doesn't mean ignoring the risks of pot use, which are real, despite the denials of the more enthusiastic supporters.
But alcohol and tobacco both have much more serious risks. We have accepted that regulation is the best way to manage them.
And it will not eliminate illegal grow ops. There is still a good export market.
But it would cut into the criminal profits. Police would have a slightly more manageable task. And crime would be reduced.
Californians will vote next month on legalization.
It is long past time for Canada to acknowledge that the current drug efforts waste money and increase the reach of crime and that it is time to try something new.
Footnote: California's government estimates taxes on legal marijuana sales could produce $1.4 billion a year in revenue, while providing significant savings in policing and prison costs. The initiative - to be voted on Nov. 2 - is opposed by some police, politician and religious groups and by the states beer and liquor distributors who fear lost profits.
The Crown corporation is including the estimate as part of its justification for spending spend $930 million on smart power meters for customers. The meters should make it easier to detect theft, it says.
That $100 million figure should tell us something about the foolishness of our current drug policies.
It's big money, equivalent to the electricity used by 77,000 homes, B.C. Hydro told delegates at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention this month.
The corporation also says grow ops use three to 10 times as much electricity as an average house.
Take the midpoint for grow op power use and the $100 million means some 17,000 grow ops are stealing electricity right now in the province.
All these numbers are a little overwhelming. But consider that there are 1,300 liquor stores, public and private, in the province. For every store, there are 13 grow ops stealing electricity.
But that's far from the total number. Many operators use generators or take the risk of running up big B.C. Hydro bills and hope they don't get caught.
And there are big outdoor marijuana crops across the province.
The RCMP does annual fall patrols, often using planes and helicopters. Last year, officers chopped down 29,000 plants on Vancouver Island, likely a fraction of the total outdoor plantations.
So, if B.C. Hydro's submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission is accurate, there are certainly more than 20,000 grow ops in the province at any time and could be up to 30,000.
Which suggests that the idea that police are actually going to make any real dent in the marijuana industry is pure fantasy.
It's physically impossible - without thousands more police officers on the assignment - to deal with that number of offenders.
The number isn't the only issue. Estimates of the value of the marijuana industry to B.C. are all over the map, with Forbes magazine putting it at $7 billion a few years ago.
Conservative estimates have the industry contributing $3 billion to $4 billion a year to the economy.
That virtually ensures that as fast as police detect one grow op and seize the plants and equipment, another one will open.
So on one hand, there's an expensive and largely pointless effort that makes no real impact on marijuana production and sales in the province.
And on the other, there are the negative impacts.
The most significant is the enormous boost handed to criminal gangs. Because marijuana is illegal, the grow ops are hugely profitable. The money enriches the gangs. It also fuels the rivalries and gang wars that bring violence to communities.
That's understandable. Practically, growing marijuana and growing tomatoes involves similar input costs. Tomatoes sell for about $1 a pound. Marijuana brings more than $3,000 a pound at the retail level. The profit motive ensures the grow ops aren't going away.
And police have pointed out that gangs often trade B.C. marijuana to their U.S. counterparts for cocaine that is then imported into this province.
It would simply be foolish to continue this costly, futile charade.
So why not legalize and regulate marijuana?
That doesn't mean ignoring the risks of pot use, which are real, despite the denials of the more enthusiastic supporters.
But alcohol and tobacco both have much more serious risks. We have accepted that regulation is the best way to manage them.
And it will not eliminate illegal grow ops. There is still a good export market.
But it would cut into the criminal profits. Police would have a slightly more manageable task. And crime would be reduced.
Californians will vote next month on legalization.
It is long past time for Canada to acknowledge that the current drug efforts waste money and increase the reach of crime and that it is time to try something new.
Footnote: California's government estimates taxes on legal marijuana sales could produce $1.4 billion a year in revenue, while providing significant savings in policing and prison costs. The initiative - to be voted on Nov. 2 - is opposed by some police, politician and religious groups and by the states beer and liquor distributors who fear lost profits.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
B.C. Hydro stats support legal, regulated maraijuana
The Baltimore Sun has noticed B.C. Hydro's estimated that $100 million worth of electricity is being stolen each year for grow ops. Reporter Jay Hancock helpfully reminds readers that British Columbia "is to pot what Texas is to oil" in a post here.
The Times Colonist also noticed. An editorial today looks at the numbers and concludes, based on B.C. Hydro data, that $100 million of stolen electricity would power about 17,000 grow ops. Add in outdoor grows and indoor operations using generators or legal power and on any given day there are some 20,000 to 25,000, the editorial concludes.
Isn't it time to legalize and regulate marijuana, the editorial asks.
The Times Colonist also noticed. An editorial today looks at the numbers and concludes, based on B.C. Hydro data, that $100 million of stolen electricity would power about 17,000 grow ops. Add in outdoor grows and indoor operations using generators or legal power and on any given day there are some 20,000 to 25,000, the editorial concludes.
Isn't it time to legalize and regulate marijuana, the editorial asks.
Useful update on the BC Rail corruption trial
Ian Reid was in court and has an interesting post on the reasons for yet another delay in the trial at his blog The Real Story.
"Outside the courtroom, Special Prosecutor Bill Barardino went off the record with the three reporters in court to try and explain why he’s delaying the trial again. Seems he’s not been able to reorganize his trial strategy and shorten the trial. He also wasn’t able to confirm that his next witness will be former finance minister Gary Collins, despite the fact that he’s sent a letter to the defense informing them that Collins is the next witness."
See more here.
"Outside the courtroom, Special Prosecutor Bill Barardino went off the record with the three reporters in court to try and explain why he’s delaying the trial again. Seems he’s not been able to reorganize his trial strategy and shorten the trial. He also wasn’t able to confirm that his next witness will be former finance minister Gary Collins, despite the fact that he’s sent a letter to the defense informing them that Collins is the next witness."
See more here.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Scientists building a whole new salmon species to farm
I'm keen on building a better world through science.
But the idea of creating a new species of salmon in the lab, patenting it, raising the new creature in fish farms and selling it to consumers freaks me out, as the young people used to say.
That's what AquaBounty, a U.S.-based aquaculture company, is proposing. The company has applied for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for its genetically modified Atlantic salmon. It even has a name for the new fish - AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon.
AquaBounty likes the fish because it reaches market size in 18 months; normal farmed Atlantic salmon take three years.
The new fish was engineered that way. The company took Atlantic salmon DNA and added a gene from Chinook salmon, which are bigger eaters.
Then it added a gene from the ocean pout, a big eel-like fish. The pout has remarkable tolerance for cold water; its gene triggers the Chinook eating gene to help the new fish pack on weight quickly.
The plan is to produce eggs for the new AquaAdvantage fish at the company's Prince Edward Island plant. They would be flown to Panama where the salmon would be raised in land-based tanks. Then they would make their way back to our tables.
We eat genetically modified foods every day. Most people's cupboards are full of food products - corn, soy, rice - that rely on genetically modified seeds.
Not everyone agrees, but the benefits in increased food production have widely been seen to outweigh the drawbacks.
But the AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon is the first effort to create a new animal, bird or fish as a food source.
As they say in the movies, what could possibly go wrong?
The FDA has given the fish preliminary approval for human consumption. The meat isn't chemically or nutritionally different from Atlantic salmon. But the U.S. agency hasn't yet given approval for the plan.
Critics aren't convinced. Some research, they say, suggests more allergies could be created by genetically modified food.
But the bigger issues are around the impact of the fish on the environment. What if the AquaAdvantage salmon escaped from the fish farms. It's genetically programmed to grow twice as fast as real Atlantic salmon. That could mean it would be twice as effective in gobbling up food sources, leaving the wild fish struggling to compete.
No worries, says AquaBounty. The P.E.I. lab will only create eggs that produce sterile females. The Panama fish farms mean that even if there is an escape, the salmon will die in the warm rivers in that country.
And if, through some bizarre series of circumstances, the ubersalmon ended up in the oceans off Canada, they are not likely to do well, the corporation says
And the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance says it's not interested in using the lab-created salmon.
The problem is that the salmon aquaculture industry has some credibility issues. It insisted, for example, that escaped Atlantic salmon could not possibly spawn in B.C. rivers.
Until researchers found the offspring of escaped fish swimming in Island streams.
This is about much more than salmon farms. Researchers have lots of ideas about building new, improved animals.
Scientists at the University of Guelph, for example, hope to get approval for a genetically modified pig. Hogs need phosphorus but are lousy at digesting it. That means farmers pay for supplements and the manure is an environmental problem as the undigested phosphorus is a fertilizer that can promote algae growth in water systems.
The Enviropig, as they call it, cam digest phosphorus more efficiently, solving both problems.
What's striking about the bid to win approval for the AquaAdvantage salmon is the inadequate process. The U.S. FDA has a limited mandate. The broader issues of creating new species need not be addressed.
Trust us, the food companies' scientists say. Everything will be fine.
What could possibly go wrong?
Footnote: The FDA is also undecided on whether the genetically modified salmon would have to be labelled so consumers would know what they were - or weren't buying. The industry opposes labeling as unnecessary.
In the near term, the fish would be identifiable - there aren't many Atlantic salmon that would be labeled 'Product of Panama. But that would be little use if more new species are approved for sale to consumers.
But the idea of creating a new species of salmon in the lab, patenting it, raising the new creature in fish farms and selling it to consumers freaks me out, as the young people used to say.
That's what AquaBounty, a U.S.-based aquaculture company, is proposing. The company has applied for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for its genetically modified Atlantic salmon. It even has a name for the new fish - AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon.
AquaBounty likes the fish because it reaches market size in 18 months; normal farmed Atlantic salmon take three years.
The new fish was engineered that way. The company took Atlantic salmon DNA and added a gene from Chinook salmon, which are bigger eaters.
Then it added a gene from the ocean pout, a big eel-like fish. The pout has remarkable tolerance for cold water; its gene triggers the Chinook eating gene to help the new fish pack on weight quickly.
The plan is to produce eggs for the new AquaAdvantage fish at the company's Prince Edward Island plant. They would be flown to Panama where the salmon would be raised in land-based tanks. Then they would make their way back to our tables.
We eat genetically modified foods every day. Most people's cupboards are full of food products - corn, soy, rice - that rely on genetically modified seeds.
Not everyone agrees, but the benefits in increased food production have widely been seen to outweigh the drawbacks.
But the AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon is the first effort to create a new animal, bird or fish as a food source.
As they say in the movies, what could possibly go wrong?
The FDA has given the fish preliminary approval for human consumption. The meat isn't chemically or nutritionally different from Atlantic salmon. But the U.S. agency hasn't yet given approval for the plan.
Critics aren't convinced. Some research, they say, suggests more allergies could be created by genetically modified food.
But the bigger issues are around the impact of the fish on the environment. What if the AquaAdvantage salmon escaped from the fish farms. It's genetically programmed to grow twice as fast as real Atlantic salmon. That could mean it would be twice as effective in gobbling up food sources, leaving the wild fish struggling to compete.
No worries, says AquaBounty. The P.E.I. lab will only create eggs that produce sterile females. The Panama fish farms mean that even if there is an escape, the salmon will die in the warm rivers in that country.
And if, through some bizarre series of circumstances, the ubersalmon ended up in the oceans off Canada, they are not likely to do well, the corporation says
And the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance says it's not interested in using the lab-created salmon.
The problem is that the salmon aquaculture industry has some credibility issues. It insisted, for example, that escaped Atlantic salmon could not possibly spawn in B.C. rivers.
Until researchers found the offspring of escaped fish swimming in Island streams.
This is about much more than salmon farms. Researchers have lots of ideas about building new, improved animals.
Scientists at the University of Guelph, for example, hope to get approval for a genetically modified pig. Hogs need phosphorus but are lousy at digesting it. That means farmers pay for supplements and the manure is an environmental problem as the undigested phosphorus is a fertilizer that can promote algae growth in water systems.
The Enviropig, as they call it, cam digest phosphorus more efficiently, solving both problems.
What's striking about the bid to win approval for the AquaAdvantage salmon is the inadequate process. The U.S. FDA has a limited mandate. The broader issues of creating new species need not be addressed.
Trust us, the food companies' scientists say. Everything will be fine.
What could possibly go wrong?
Footnote: The FDA is also undecided on whether the genetically modified salmon would have to be labelled so consumers would know what they were - or weren't buying. The industry opposes labeling as unnecessary.
In the near term, the fish would be identifiable - there aren't many Atlantic salmon that would be labeled 'Product of Panama. But that would be little use if more new species are approved for sale to consumers.
Friday, October 08, 2010
NDP’s expulsion of MLA bad deal for voters
Politically, it might make sense to kick MLA Bob Simpson out of the New Democrat caucus.
But it’s another step away from a functioning democratic system that voters can respect.
NDP leader Carole James gave Simpson the boot this week. His immediate offence was some mild observations about the lack of specifics in her speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
The Cariboo North MLA had also been raising questions internally about the party’s direction, lack of clear policies and failure to grab more voter support as the Liberals stumbled.
Simpson didn’t want to be part of the team, James said, as she showed him the door.
Parties need common policies and some internal discipline. Voters are reluctant to support a party that might lurch off in uncharted directions or implode in internal bickering.
But the current fashion calls for much more than that.
MLAs and MPs often seem to have lost the ability to form independent thoughts, ordered to recite the talking points handed out by the leader’s office or say nothing at all.
The people paid to manage such things believe that is the best way to win power. The messages are tightly scripted so politicians don’t say anything that the other side could attack. (And they don’t consider MLAs and MPs quite bright enough to use their own judgment.)
It might be the best way to win power. Just as it might be astute to avoid any serious talk about policies and spend a lot of time bashing the other side.
But while the parties are fighting perpetual campaigns aimed at victory in the next election, they’re losing a more important battle to rebuild public trust in a battered political system.
Simpson was kicked out of the caucus after his brief report on the UBCM convention speeches by provincial and federal politicians appeared on a couple of websites.
He was sharply critical of speeches by Stockwell Day and Premier Gordon Campbell and offered some praise for a speech by B.C. Green party leader Jane Sterk..
And he was not dazzled by James’s’ speech. "The leader of the opposition likewise had little concrete to offer the delegates other than a commitment to be more consultative than the current government and a promise to explore the possibility of revenue sharing with local governments," he wrote. "This is a timely concept which has the potential to address the resource needs of local governments, but the lack of specifics was a disappointment to delegates."
The municipal politicians had real problems grappling with the services they need to provide and the available revenue sources, but didn’t hear anything meaningful from federal and provincial politicians.
"They were simply politicking for the press, not serving the real and immediate needs of UBCM delegates and their constituents," Simpson wrote.
You could expect James would be displeased, even if the comments are accurate. Simpson acknowledged he anticipated a lecture.
Instead, he was given a chance to apologize, declined and was then then kicked out of the caucus. He will sit as an independent.
Simpson’s comments don’t seem that far out of line.
In fact, while that kind of candor might irritate the leader’s office and party brass, it’s useful.
Problems don’t get solved when people are prevented from talking about them. And the best decisions come from a free, informed discussion by all involved.
Maybe those discussions can take place behind closed doors. But there is little evidence they do.
And in any case, it’s also important that citizens see they are taking place. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents and raise their concerns - even if the party doesn’t like it.
Instead, the public perception is that they almost always do what they are told. The orders of the leader’s office come before the duty to represent their constituents.
Maybe that’s the way to win elections. But it’s also a sure way to convince voters the system is broken — and that they’re the losers.
Footnote: The issue was a relief to the Liberals, glad the attention was off the HST. It exposed some rifts in the NDP over James’s leadership, but they will likely be short-lived. For all the grumbling, the party’s poll standings have been the best in years. It hardly seems time to get into a leadership debate.
But it’s another step away from a functioning democratic system that voters can respect.
NDP leader Carole James gave Simpson the boot this week. His immediate offence was some mild observations about the lack of specifics in her speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
The Cariboo North MLA had also been raising questions internally about the party’s direction, lack of clear policies and failure to grab more voter support as the Liberals stumbled.
Simpson didn’t want to be part of the team, James said, as she showed him the door.
Parties need common policies and some internal discipline. Voters are reluctant to support a party that might lurch off in uncharted directions or implode in internal bickering.
But the current fashion calls for much more than that.
MLAs and MPs often seem to have lost the ability to form independent thoughts, ordered to recite the talking points handed out by the leader’s office or say nothing at all.
The people paid to manage such things believe that is the best way to win power. The messages are tightly scripted so politicians don’t say anything that the other side could attack. (And they don’t consider MLAs and MPs quite bright enough to use their own judgment.)
It might be the best way to win power. Just as it might be astute to avoid any serious talk about policies and spend a lot of time bashing the other side.
But while the parties are fighting perpetual campaigns aimed at victory in the next election, they’re losing a more important battle to rebuild public trust in a battered political system.
Simpson was kicked out of the caucus after his brief report on the UBCM convention speeches by provincial and federal politicians appeared on a couple of websites.
He was sharply critical of speeches by Stockwell Day and Premier Gordon Campbell and offered some praise for a speech by B.C. Green party leader Jane Sterk..
And he was not dazzled by James’s’ speech. "The leader of the opposition likewise had little concrete to offer the delegates other than a commitment to be more consultative than the current government and a promise to explore the possibility of revenue sharing with local governments," he wrote. "This is a timely concept which has the potential to address the resource needs of local governments, but the lack of specifics was a disappointment to delegates."
The municipal politicians had real problems grappling with the services they need to provide and the available revenue sources, but didn’t hear anything meaningful from federal and provincial politicians.
"They were simply politicking for the press, not serving the real and immediate needs of UBCM delegates and their constituents," Simpson wrote.
You could expect James would be displeased, even if the comments are accurate. Simpson acknowledged he anticipated a lecture.
Instead, he was given a chance to apologize, declined and was then then kicked out of the caucus. He will sit as an independent.
Simpson’s comments don’t seem that far out of line.
In fact, while that kind of candor might irritate the leader’s office and party brass, it’s useful.
Problems don’t get solved when people are prevented from talking about them. And the best decisions come from a free, informed discussion by all involved.
Maybe those discussions can take place behind closed doors. But there is little evidence they do.
And in any case, it’s also important that citizens see they are taking place. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents and raise their concerns - even if the party doesn’t like it.
Instead, the public perception is that they almost always do what they are told. The orders of the leader’s office come before the duty to represent their constituents.
Maybe that’s the way to win elections. But it’s also a sure way to convince voters the system is broken — and that they’re the losers.
Footnote: The issue was a relief to the Liberals, glad the attention was off the HST. It exposed some rifts in the NDP over James’s leadership, but they will likely be short-lived. For all the grumbling, the party’s poll standings have been the best in years. It hardly seems time to get into a leadership debate.
Bob Simpson's expulsion and group home closures
Two useful pieces from the Times Colonist today.
An editorial suggests it might be better for democracy if more MLAs and MPs emulated Bob Simpson and were more candid in their comments. It might make political sense to muzzle MLAs and encourage them to repeat scripted talking points rather than sharing their own views or raising the concerns of their constituents, just as it might make political sense for a party in opposition to avoid any clear policy positions.
But in pursuing tactics that lead to power, what if the parties steadily destroying public confidence in the political system.
And in a column, Jody Paterson looks at cuts to services and group home closures that are hammering the developmentally disabled and their families.
An editorial suggests it might be better for democracy if more MLAs and MPs emulated Bob Simpson and were more candid in their comments. It might make political sense to muzzle MLAs and encourage them to repeat scripted talking points rather than sharing their own views or raising the concerns of their constituents, just as it might make political sense for a party in opposition to avoid any clear policy positions.
But in pursuing tactics that lead to power, what if the parties steadily destroying public confidence in the political system.
And in a column, Jody Paterson looks at cuts to services and group home closures that are hammering the developmentally disabled and their families.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
The special prosecutor, Oppal and the perception of bias
OK, there are differences in the two cases.
But Terry Robertson is in trouble with the law society because he accepted an appointment as special prosecutor to look into allegations of irregularities and election law violations in Kash Heed's campaign without revealing his law firm had donated to the campaign. (Story here.)
By not disclosing the potential conflict, Robertson "failed to meet the expected standard that requires a lawyer to disclose to his client any previous connection to the parties in a matter," the society found.
The failure to disclose is the issue. But the underlying concern is that the government would have decided that Robertson could be seen to be biased and wouldn't have been appointed.
Which leads, again, to the appointment of Wally Oppal to head the inquiry into the Pickton investigation and the missing women investigation.
If a law firm donation to a candidate is seen to raise a potential conflict of interest, how can four years as a Liberal cabinet minister and public comments supporting the police investigation and questioning the need for an inquiry not raise the perception of bias?
(The Vancouver Sun backed Oppal's appointment in an editorial today. The fact that it took 560 words to come up with a lukewarm endorsement - how else to consider the phrase "Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe Oppal has an untenable conflict of interest because of his foray into partisan politics" - suggests the appointment remains questionable.)
But Terry Robertson is in trouble with the law society because he accepted an appointment as special prosecutor to look into allegations of irregularities and election law violations in Kash Heed's campaign without revealing his law firm had donated to the campaign. (Story here.)
By not disclosing the potential conflict, Robertson "failed to meet the expected standard that requires a lawyer to disclose to his client any previous connection to the parties in a matter," the society found.
The failure to disclose is the issue. But the underlying concern is that the government would have decided that Robertson could be seen to be biased and wouldn't have been appointed.
Which leads, again, to the appointment of Wally Oppal to head the inquiry into the Pickton investigation and the missing women investigation.
If a law firm donation to a candidate is seen to raise a potential conflict of interest, how can four years as a Liberal cabinet minister and public comments supporting the police investigation and questioning the need for an inquiry not raise the perception of bias?
(The Vancouver Sun backed Oppal's appointment in an editorial today. The fact that it took 560 words to come up with a lukewarm endorsement - how else to consider the phrase "Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe Oppal has an untenable conflict of interest because of his foray into partisan politics" - suggests the appointment remains questionable.)
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
The media, Vander Zalm and the HST-cut rumours
What we're supposed to offer, those of us in Sarah Palin's "lamestream media," is quality assurance.
A wild-eyed blogger - as opposed to a steely-eyed one - might report an unsubstantiated claim the premier was about to announce a cut in the HST rate, for example.
But professional reporters would carefully check out the rumour. If the sources were shaky or non-existent, the story wouldn't make it - or at least it would make it clear that the information was one step above coffee-shop gossip. (Though really, why report something one step above gossip? Not reporting seems the best option.)
That quality assurance wobbled last week. A little before midnight last Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST forces issued a press released headlined "Rumours abound Campbell will reduce HST rate on Friday."
That's when the premier was to address the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The Vander Zalm release cited "reliable sources" who also confirmed Campbell would announce the HST referendum would be held earlier than next September.
The CBC and CTV bit with news stories Thursday. The CBC report noted the premier's office called the rumours "completely untrue." CTV reports had similar denials and a weird quote from Vander Zalm that "sometimes these very reliable sources may not be that reliable."
But the chance of an HST rate cut was reported seriously based solely on Vander Zalm's e-mailed news release.
Well, not solely. The Province's clever columnist Mike Smyth, in a piece written before Vander Zalm dropped his bomb, asked "could Gordon Campbell announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention this week?" And CBC reporters said the capital was buzzing with rumours Campbell would announce the provincial share of the HST would be reduced from seven to six per cent.
I'm sure rumours were buzzing. But that could mean one person was spreading the same rumour to anyone who would listen, who would then say, yeah, I heard that too.
Campbell didn't announce a reduction in the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said Vander Zalm must be hearing voices.
Over at pacificgazette.blogspot.com, perhaps the most consistently interesting B.C. blog, the Gazetter believes the evidence points to some successful media manipulation.
The Liberal government floated the rumour of a cut in the HST to draw attention to Campbell's speech, the theory goes, and Vander Zalm and company spread the rumour of an earlier vote on the HST to make mischief.
I expect he gives almost everyone involved too much credit. The reports of an HST rate cut didn't help the Liberals. Anything Campbell had to offer at UBCM - and he didn't have much - would seem anticlimactic after the rumours of big announcements.
And Vander Zalm ended up looking goofy - the man whose reliable sources were not.
Vander Zalm said it wasn't his problem if the media chose to report his claims.
Which does seem like the issue in all this. As a young reporter, in the last days of typewriters, I learned from Harold Evan's five-book series on newspapering and All the President's Men, the Woodward-Bernstein book on Watergate.
Two sources, was the rule. Two credible people, in a position to know, who could vouch for the accuracy of the information to be reported.
None of this is simple. Vander Zalm is a public figure right now; if he says a big tax change is coming, should the media refuse to report that?
If they do, they can be called irresponsible. If they don't, they're keeping information from the people.
What we should bring to the relationship with readers, viewers and listeners, are judgment, experience and intelligence.
I can't discern any guiding intelligence behind the HST rumours.
But I also don't think it was a great week for the paid media workers.
Footnote: Two other points. As the Gazetteer notes, the focus on the rumour came at the expense of other reporting, including on StatsCan numbers that showed the Canadian economy shrank in July in part because of the HST's impact.
And why the rush to report on speculation about the speech, when by the next day everyone would know exactly what Campbell said.
A wild-eyed blogger - as opposed to a steely-eyed one - might report an unsubstantiated claim the premier was about to announce a cut in the HST rate, for example.
But professional reporters would carefully check out the rumour. If the sources were shaky or non-existent, the story wouldn't make it - or at least it would make it clear that the information was one step above coffee-shop gossip. (Though really, why report something one step above gossip? Not reporting seems the best option.)
That quality assurance wobbled last week. A little before midnight last Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST forces issued a press released headlined "Rumours abound Campbell will reduce HST rate on Friday."
That's when the premier was to address the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The Vander Zalm release cited "reliable sources" who also confirmed Campbell would announce the HST referendum would be held earlier than next September.
The CBC and CTV bit with news stories Thursday. The CBC report noted the premier's office called the rumours "completely untrue." CTV reports had similar denials and a weird quote from Vander Zalm that "sometimes these very reliable sources may not be that reliable."
But the chance of an HST rate cut was reported seriously based solely on Vander Zalm's e-mailed news release.
Well, not solely. The Province's clever columnist Mike Smyth, in a piece written before Vander Zalm dropped his bomb, asked "could Gordon Campbell announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention this week?" And CBC reporters said the capital was buzzing with rumours Campbell would announce the provincial share of the HST would be reduced from seven to six per cent.
I'm sure rumours were buzzing. But that could mean one person was spreading the same rumour to anyone who would listen, who would then say, yeah, I heard that too.
Campbell didn't announce a reduction in the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said Vander Zalm must be hearing voices.
Over at pacificgazette.blogspot.com, perhaps the most consistently interesting B.C. blog, the Gazetter believes the evidence points to some successful media manipulation.
The Liberal government floated the rumour of a cut in the HST to draw attention to Campbell's speech, the theory goes, and Vander Zalm and company spread the rumour of an earlier vote on the HST to make mischief.
I expect he gives almost everyone involved too much credit. The reports of an HST rate cut didn't help the Liberals. Anything Campbell had to offer at UBCM - and he didn't have much - would seem anticlimactic after the rumours of big announcements.
And Vander Zalm ended up looking goofy - the man whose reliable sources were not.
Vander Zalm said it wasn't his problem if the media chose to report his claims.
Which does seem like the issue in all this. As a young reporter, in the last days of typewriters, I learned from Harold Evan's five-book series on newspapering and All the President's Men, the Woodward-Bernstein book on Watergate.
Two sources, was the rule. Two credible people, in a position to know, who could vouch for the accuracy of the information to be reported.
None of this is simple. Vander Zalm is a public figure right now; if he says a big tax change is coming, should the media refuse to report that?
If they do, they can be called irresponsible. If they don't, they're keeping information from the people.
What we should bring to the relationship with readers, viewers and listeners, are judgment, experience and intelligence.
I can't discern any guiding intelligence behind the HST rumours.
But I also don't think it was a great week for the paid media workers.
Footnote: Two other points. As the Gazetteer notes, the focus on the rumour came at the expense of other reporting, including on StatsCan numbers that showed the Canadian economy shrank in July in part because of the HST's impact.
And why the rush to report on speculation about the speech, when by the next day everyone would know exactly what Campbell said.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
An important on-the-ground perspective from Afghanistan
"After nine years of effort in the country, and several years of intense effort in Kandahar City and the surrounding districts, there is no substantial progress that we can claim for the region. Violence and insecurity are at record levels. The Taliban move and strike throughout most of the country at will. Public confidence in the Karzai regime and NATO is near zero...
"Yes, we should be commended for taking on the part of Afghanistan known to be the toughest. But it must also be recognized that we have failed, and we need to examine whether the failure was in our approach, in the strategies and tactics applied to the mission -- or was success in Afghanistan never even possible? If the latter, then tough questions must be asked of our military and political leadership, about their ability to identify the point when it became apparent that this cause was lost."
Peter Dimitroff is a security advisor to NGOs in Kandahar and has worked in the country for years. His perspective is that we have spent billions and sacrificed lives while accomplishing little or nothing of lasting value.
And as government, media and society we've failed to even count the costs or assess whether this made sense.
It's an important piece in the Times Colonist today.
"Yes, we should be commended for taking on the part of Afghanistan known to be the toughest. But it must also be recognized that we have failed, and we need to examine whether the failure was in our approach, in the strategies and tactics applied to the mission -- or was success in Afghanistan never even possible? If the latter, then tough questions must be asked of our military and political leadership, about their ability to identify the point when it became apparent that this cause was lost."
Peter Dimitroff is a security advisor to NGOs in Kandahar and has worked in the country for years. His perspective is that we have spent billions and sacrificed lives while accomplishing little or nothing of lasting value.
And as government, media and society we've failed to even count the costs or assess whether this made sense.
It's an important piece in the Times Colonist today.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
You've read the words, now see the pictures
If you're out and about in Victoria, consider stopping in at 2% Jazz Coffee, where I have a bunch of pictures on the wall.
Last year I set out to do 45 works on paper in 90 days, mostly as a way to get down to making art and also because the commitment discouraged over-thinking. I used moments in my life as topics.
The results - or most of them - are on the wall at 2621 Douglas (beside the Times Colonist).
Take a look. And try the great coffee and food.
Last year I set out to do 45 works on paper in 90 days, mostly as a way to get down to making art and also because the commitment discouraged over-thinking. I used moments in my life as topics.
The results - or most of them - are on the wall at 2621 Douglas (beside the Times Colonist).
Take a look. And try the great coffee and food.
Oppal's appointment says, once again, that the missing and murdered women don't matter
Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines, who has been reporting on the missing women case long before police and politicians were even acknowledging women were disappearing in Vancouver, explains why Wally Oppal's appointment is another indication that they are still seen as disposable people in a column here.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Campbell has little new for UBCM
The Union of B.C. Municipalities has evolved into the big political event of the year.
And the just-concluded gathering in Whistler was suitably weird, as you would expect in these strange times.
The meetings bring together mayors, councillors, provincial politicians, lobbyists and a few reporters, who swirl around a convention centre and bars and restaurants.
There are speeches and private meetings and votes on resolutions covering everything from whether to kill urban deer to the risks of offshore tanker traffic.
The Liberals put a lot of effort into preparing for UBCM. The premier traditionally speaks on the last day; Gordon Campbell generally has launched some now initiative or announced some politically popular measure.
Ministers are kept hopping - to a tight script - through the event.
That turned out badly for Murray Coell. The Saanich-Gulf Island MLA is B.C.'s low-profile labour minister. He spoke to the convention Wednesday and talked about increasing the minimum wage, frozen at $8 since 2002.
The government had focused on tax cuts and other "levers" to put more money into low-income earners' pockets rather than a minimum-wage increase, he said.
"But we are getting close to, I would say, running out of levers that we can use, so it's something we're definitely going to have a look at in the future," Coell said.
That heartened advocates for low-income workers, who have watched as B.C.'s minimum wage fell to the lowest in the country during the eight-year freeze. (While the premier's pay increased by more than 50 per cent.)
But the next day the minister was in full retreat. By "in the future," he meant someday, Coell said. For now, the lowest minimum wage in Canada is just fine. (Someone likely got yelled at about all this. Ministers' comments are generally crafted to sound meaningful without actually committing to anything. The initial minimum wage comments actually hinted at action, a mistake.)
Campbell's speech was foreshadowed by another weird development. Just before midnight Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST people put out a news release citing "reliable sources" and saying Campbell would announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax in his speech and an earlier referendum on the tax.
The news release got some media coverage, although it's hard to see how Vander Zalm could have inside information from leak-resistant Liberals.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen quickly denied the rumour. The agreement with Ottawa fixes the HST rate until 2012, he said, coming close to calling Vander Zalm crazy.
The stunt made the Fight HST people look flaky. But it also undermined Campbell's speech before he said a word.
Whatever he promised, it would be kind of anticlimactic after reports - ill-founded or not - that he'd be announcing a cut in the HST.
As it turned out, Campbell didn't have much new to offer.
There was $3 million to help communities hit by the pine beetle disaster try to diversify their economies and a renewed commitment to transit projects. Parks will get extra funding next year and communities that hose the B.C. Games will get more money. The province will pick up the tab for criminal record checks for volunteers.
There will be some sort of big tourism marketing effort in the future.
About half the speech was devoted to reminiscing about the Olympics and looking ahead to the HST referendum.
Campbell likened the introduction of the HST to a bad figure skating routine, continuing his Olympic theme.
But that section of the speech was a tone-deaf performance. There was no apology or indication that serious harm had been done to political life. The imposition of a new tax that angered so many was the subject of a series of jokes.
Campbell fared better in making the argument the referendum should be about the tax policy itself and the benefits and costs.
That's going to be a Liberal theme for the next 12 months.
Footnote: Campbell offered strong support for Taseko's Prosperity gold mine project. It was approved after a provincial environmental assessment, but a federal review found significant problems, including the destruction of a lake and conflicts with native rights. The federal cabinet has yet to make a decision.
And the just-concluded gathering in Whistler was suitably weird, as you would expect in these strange times.
The meetings bring together mayors, councillors, provincial politicians, lobbyists and a few reporters, who swirl around a convention centre and bars and restaurants.
There are speeches and private meetings and votes on resolutions covering everything from whether to kill urban deer to the risks of offshore tanker traffic.
The Liberals put a lot of effort into preparing for UBCM. The premier traditionally speaks on the last day; Gordon Campbell generally has launched some now initiative or announced some politically popular measure.
Ministers are kept hopping - to a tight script - through the event.
That turned out badly for Murray Coell. The Saanich-Gulf Island MLA is B.C.'s low-profile labour minister. He spoke to the convention Wednesday and talked about increasing the minimum wage, frozen at $8 since 2002.
The government had focused on tax cuts and other "levers" to put more money into low-income earners' pockets rather than a minimum-wage increase, he said.
"But we are getting close to, I would say, running out of levers that we can use, so it's something we're definitely going to have a look at in the future," Coell said.
That heartened advocates for low-income workers, who have watched as B.C.'s minimum wage fell to the lowest in the country during the eight-year freeze. (While the premier's pay increased by more than 50 per cent.)
But the next day the minister was in full retreat. By "in the future," he meant someday, Coell said. For now, the lowest minimum wage in Canada is just fine. (Someone likely got yelled at about all this. Ministers' comments are generally crafted to sound meaningful without actually committing to anything. The initial minimum wage comments actually hinted at action, a mistake.)
Campbell's speech was foreshadowed by another weird development. Just before midnight Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST people put out a news release citing "reliable sources" and saying Campbell would announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax in his speech and an earlier referendum on the tax.
The news release got some media coverage, although it's hard to see how Vander Zalm could have inside information from leak-resistant Liberals.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen quickly denied the rumour. The agreement with Ottawa fixes the HST rate until 2012, he said, coming close to calling Vander Zalm crazy.
The stunt made the Fight HST people look flaky. But it also undermined Campbell's speech before he said a word.
Whatever he promised, it would be kind of anticlimactic after reports - ill-founded or not - that he'd be announcing a cut in the HST.
As it turned out, Campbell didn't have much new to offer.
There was $3 million to help communities hit by the pine beetle disaster try to diversify their economies and a renewed commitment to transit projects. Parks will get extra funding next year and communities that hose the B.C. Games will get more money. The province will pick up the tab for criminal record checks for volunteers.
There will be some sort of big tourism marketing effort in the future.
About half the speech was devoted to reminiscing about the Olympics and looking ahead to the HST referendum.
Campbell likened the introduction of the HST to a bad figure skating routine, continuing his Olympic theme.
But that section of the speech was a tone-deaf performance. There was no apology or indication that serious harm had been done to political life. The imposition of a new tax that angered so many was the subject of a series of jokes.
Campbell fared better in making the argument the referendum should be about the tax policy itself and the benefits and costs.
That's going to be a Liberal theme for the next 12 months.
Footnote: Campbell offered strong support for Taseko's Prosperity gold mine project. It was approved after a provincial environmental assessment, but a federal review found significant problems, including the destruction of a lake and conflicts with native rights. The federal cabinet has yet to make a decision.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Why the ruling on prostitution laws matters
The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that laws around the sex trade targeting soliciting, bawdy houses and living off the avails are unconstitutional. They create added dangers for people - mostly women - in prostitution business, which is legal in Canada, the court found. And they have no offsetting broader public benefits.
Jody Paterson spent several years with PEERS, a non-profit supporting sex workers in Victoria. She set out why this is important in a fine column in the Times Colonist today.
Jody Paterson spent several years with PEERS, a non-profit supporting sex workers in Victoria. She set out why this is important in a fine column in the Times Colonist today.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Oppal a wretched choice for Pickton inquiry
The appointment of Wally Oppal to head the Pickton inquiry demonstrates this government's combination of arrogance and ineptitude.
Attorney General Mike de Jong announced details of the inquiry into the Pickton murders and the missing women this week.
Its excessively narrow mandate includes looking at the police investigation and the Crown's decision to stay attempted murder and other charges against Pickton in 1998.
The inquiry can also make recommendations for the way future missing women's investigations and homicide cases when multiple police departments are handled.
But not, however, on the broader issue of regionalized policing.
Oppal's appointment shows remarkably bad judgment.
He was a Liberal cabinet minister until he was defeated in last year's election. He supported the party's policies, including its rejection of the need for better co-ordinated policing in the Lower Mainland.
He worked with ministers who were in power as the Pickton investigation unfolded. As a cabinet minister, Oppal publicly rejected the idea that racism played a role in the missing women investigation, although many of Pickton's victims were aboriginal. As attorney general, he waged a legal battle to keep evidence from the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, a native man who died after Vancouver police left him in an alley.
The appointment creates an instant and well-founded perception of bias.
De Jong brushed off the concerns. Oppal is a good man and independent by nature, he said. He's a former judge and conducted another on policing in 1994. So we picked him.
That's all fine. But it's also irrelevant.
Oppal's most recent job was serving as de Jong's predecessor as Liberal attorney general (with an unremarkable record).
The appearance of conflict of interest in his appointment is enough to undermine the inquiry's independence and credibility.
It is baffling how the government could not see - or not care - that Oppal's appointment would be greeted with suspicion.
The inquiry's narrow mandate is also a serious problem.
A Vancouver Police Department internal review of the Pickton investigation found serious problems within the department. But it also concluded that Pickton was able to keep on killing long after he should have been caught because of the fragmented policing structure on the Lower Mainland. The Vancouver police and RCMP detachments failed to share information or co-operate. The Mounties refused a request for a combined investigation. And the women kept dying.
But Oppal isn't allowed to look at the option of regional policing.
He's also not allowed to look at a wide range of other factors that might have helped Pickton - and others like him - kill women.
His victims were women on the margins. Many were aboriginal, poor, in the sex trade or addicted. Did that affect the police response? Did our laws around prostitution serve these women up as victims?
The inquiry won't answer those questions.
Admittedly, those issues would be difficult to deal with in a focused inquiry.
But the government's alternate plan for dealing with them is fuzzy. De Jong said he hoped the Native Women Association of Canada will hold a national conference in B.C. in 2011 on the broader concerns.
It appears to be an inadequate response to a serious problem.
De Jong doesn't appear to have consulted with families of the victims or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which has sought an inquiry for years, on the terms of the inquiry or Oppal's appointment.
The government has the ultimate responsibility. But not consulting shows, again, arrogance and an unwillingness to consider that others might have useful contributions.
What can the Liberals be thinking?
It would seem they either didn't realize that naming Oppal - a Liberal cabinet minister not that long ago - to head an "independent" inquiry would be viewed with suspicion.
Or that they didn't care what the public thought.
We need to know how Pickton could kill so easily and for so long. We need to learn from this horrible case.
And the government has made a lousy effort to accomplish those goals.
Footnote: De Jong also said he would not delay negotiations on a new long-term contract with the RCMP - expected to be concluded next year - until Oppal reports. (His deadline is Dec, 31, 2011.) That suggest any recommendations on changes to policing or for mandated improved co-operation between RCMP detachments and municipal forces will be ignored.
Attorney General Mike de Jong announced details of the inquiry into the Pickton murders and the missing women this week.
Its excessively narrow mandate includes looking at the police investigation and the Crown's decision to stay attempted murder and other charges against Pickton in 1998.
The inquiry can also make recommendations for the way future missing women's investigations and homicide cases when multiple police departments are handled.
But not, however, on the broader issue of regionalized policing.
Oppal's appointment shows remarkably bad judgment.
He was a Liberal cabinet minister until he was defeated in last year's election. He supported the party's policies, including its rejection of the need for better co-ordinated policing in the Lower Mainland.
He worked with ministers who were in power as the Pickton investigation unfolded. As a cabinet minister, Oppal publicly rejected the idea that racism played a role in the missing women investigation, although many of Pickton's victims were aboriginal. As attorney general, he waged a legal battle to keep evidence from the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, a native man who died after Vancouver police left him in an alley.
The appointment creates an instant and well-founded perception of bias.
De Jong brushed off the concerns. Oppal is a good man and independent by nature, he said. He's a former judge and conducted another on policing in 1994. So we picked him.
That's all fine. But it's also irrelevant.
Oppal's most recent job was serving as de Jong's predecessor as Liberal attorney general (with an unremarkable record).
The appearance of conflict of interest in his appointment is enough to undermine the inquiry's independence and credibility.
It is baffling how the government could not see - or not care - that Oppal's appointment would be greeted with suspicion.
The inquiry's narrow mandate is also a serious problem.
A Vancouver Police Department internal review of the Pickton investigation found serious problems within the department. But it also concluded that Pickton was able to keep on killing long after he should have been caught because of the fragmented policing structure on the Lower Mainland. The Vancouver police and RCMP detachments failed to share information or co-operate. The Mounties refused a request for a combined investigation. And the women kept dying.
But Oppal isn't allowed to look at the option of regional policing.
He's also not allowed to look at a wide range of other factors that might have helped Pickton - and others like him - kill women.
His victims were women on the margins. Many were aboriginal, poor, in the sex trade or addicted. Did that affect the police response? Did our laws around prostitution serve these women up as victims?
The inquiry won't answer those questions.
Admittedly, those issues would be difficult to deal with in a focused inquiry.
But the government's alternate plan for dealing with them is fuzzy. De Jong said he hoped the Native Women Association of Canada will hold a national conference in B.C. in 2011 on the broader concerns.
It appears to be an inadequate response to a serious problem.
De Jong doesn't appear to have consulted with families of the victims or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which has sought an inquiry for years, on the terms of the inquiry or Oppal's appointment.
The government has the ultimate responsibility. But not consulting shows, again, arrogance and an unwillingness to consider that others might have useful contributions.
What can the Liberals be thinking?
It would seem they either didn't realize that naming Oppal - a Liberal cabinet minister not that long ago - to head an "independent" inquiry would be viewed with suspicion.
Or that they didn't care what the public thought.
We need to know how Pickton could kill so easily and for so long. We need to learn from this horrible case.
And the government has made a lousy effort to accomplish those goals.
Footnote: De Jong also said he would not delay negotiations on a new long-term contract with the RCMP - expected to be concluded next year - until Oppal reports. (His deadline is Dec, 31, 2011.) That suggest any recommendations on changes to policing or for mandated improved co-operation between RCMP detachments and municipal forces will be ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
