Smart meters were expected to a big deal at the UBCM meeting in Vancouver.
The surprise was Solicitor General Shirley Bond�s bombshell revelation that the federal government had issued a take-it-or-leave-it final offer for new 20-year RCMP contract.
First, smart meters, and a controversy that suggests the government hasn�t learned anything from the HST debacle.
I�m not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters, which transmit data n power use in every home and business wirelessly.
For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health.
And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure. I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them.
But it is troubling that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits.
In fact, the government passed legislation that prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.
And the government�s claim that the meters won�t ultimately lead to time-of-use billing � that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times - is unconvincing. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility, and it�s the best cost-justification for the project. Only Energy Minister Rich Coleman claims it won�t happen.
Time-of-use billing, done right, is actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.
What's been most striking about the smart meter debate is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST failure.
Coleman told the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention that he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions - no chance to opt out, or options for a wired alternative to the meters. No review by the utilities commission.
The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. The cabinet knows best.
The government�s assumption seemed to be that the opposition was a small group of kooks.
But UBCM delegates from across the province voted 55 per cent in favour of a moratorium on installation of smart meters as the convention concluded. That�s a large group of elected officials for Christy Clark and company to dismiss as too dim to know what�s good for them.
Especially when that same attitude got the government in so much trouble over the HST.
The RCMP dispute rates another column, but UBCM delegates were unanimous on this issue.
Earlier in the week, Bond said the federal government had broken off negotiations on a new 20-year policing contract. The province had to accept the last offer by Nov. 30, or the RCMP would begin pulling out in 2014.
It�s a bluff. The RCMP is building a $1-billion headquarters in Surrey (original cost estimate, $300 million). And pulling out of B.C. would leave it with 6,000 surplus employees. That�s a heck of a severance bill.
Bond tried to counter the ploy, saying the province would look at a provincial police force if it couldn�t get needed accountability on costs and service levels in a new deal.
That�s the right position. And in fact, it might be time to move away from the problem-plagued RCMP.
But municipalities are worried about losing the federal subsidy � 10 per cent for larger centres, 30 per cent for smaller � that helps cover RCMP costs.
They voted unanimously to urge the parties back to the bargaining table.
Footnote: One problem in RCMP talks has been the turnover in the solicitor general�s job. Bond is the sixth minister to hold the post in the four years since negotiations began. Some, like Coleman, were keen on retaining the RCMP; others, like Kash Heed, wanted to look at change. The lack of consistency has meant B.C. is ill-prepared for the current deadlock.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
About those smart meters
I am not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters. For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, don't exercise enough and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health. (I shun cellphones, but only because I don't like to talk to people on any phone.)
And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure.
But I am troubled that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits. In fact, the government passed legislation that specifically prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.
I am unconvinced that the ultimate result won't be time-of-use billing - that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility; it's only the Liberal politicians who claim it won't happen. (It's actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.)
And I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them by government.
What's been most striking about the smart meter debate at UBCM this week is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST debacle.
Energy Minister Rich Coleman said he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions.
The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. Municipal councils that passed resolutions calling for a moratorium on installations, or opt-out provisions, were dismissed as equally dim.
There are undoubtedly times governments have to go ahead with unpopular measures.
But, in this case, why not let people opt out? Or provide an incentive - a $20 B.C. Hydro credit - for accepting a meter? Why not let the utilities commission asses the costs and benefits to customers?
The government is, effectively, saying the families concerned about the meters, and the municipal councils supporting them, are just too clueless to be taken seriously.
And that, as we've seen, ends unhappily for those in power.
Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan
Christy Clark killed off one of Gordon Campbell�s good ideas last week, weakening government accountability and removing one of the few ways citizens have to assess its performance.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders � David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board � to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas � economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It�s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn�t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government�s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell�s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board�s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it�s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government�s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There�s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn�t the Progress Board�s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week�s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that�s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren�t doing the work of finding out what�s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn�t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It�s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders � David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board � to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas � economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It�s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn�t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government�s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell�s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board�s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it�s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government�s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There�s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn�t the Progress Board�s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week�s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that�s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren�t doing the work of finding out what�s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn�t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It�s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan
Christy Clark killed off one of Gordon Campbell�s good ideas last week, weakening government accountability and removing one of the few ways citizens have to assess its performance.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders � David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board � to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas � economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It�s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn�t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government�s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell�s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board�s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it�s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government�s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There�s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn�t the Progress Board�s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week�s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that�s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren�t doing the work of finding out what�s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn�t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It�s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders � David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board � to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas � economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It�s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn�t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government�s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell�s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board�s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it�s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government�s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There�s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn�t the Progress Board�s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week�s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that�s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren�t doing the work of finding out what�s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn�t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It�s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Clark job plan does little for today�s unemployed
Premier Christy Clark�s job plan, despite all the flying around the province and flashy announcements, is a bit of a letdown.
There are some good measures. It�s worth trying to attract more foreign students, creating teaching jobs and bringing economic activity. Speeding up approvals for mines and logging and other activities, without compromising environmental standards, would be helpful. So would the promised agreements with First Nations to bring greater certainty for potential resource developments. And maybe all the new panels and committees and agencies will help bring economic activity.
But based on the advance hype, the more than 200,000 unemployed people looking for work probably expected more. After all, Jobs Minister Pat Bell promised a �seismic� impact from the strategy back in May. That suggested big changes and a lot more opportunities.
Instead, Clark delivered a package of promises that, for the most part, won�t result in increased employment for several years. There were promises of funding for infrastructure related to ports in the Lower Mainland and Prince Rupert, so, assuming speedy progress, there will be some construction jobs in the near term.
Most measures won�t produce significant results for years. Clark set a goal of eight new mines in operation by 2015, for example. That would bring many good jobs � but not now.
And the jobs plan is highly dependent on global economic recovery. Government can make B.C. a more appealing jurisdiction for mining companies committed to increasing production, for example. But they will only be interested if commodity prices are strong enough to encourage investment.
That�s the reality of the B.C. economy. We remain highly resource-dependent. Demand for minerals, logs and lumber and energy in other countries is required to fuel growth.
But it�s surprising, given the extent of joblessness in B.C. right now, that the plan did not include some short-term measures that are within the province�s control.
The federal-provincial stimulus program, now completed, offers one model. The infrastructure projects � with a few exceptions � were needed long-term investments in communities. Governments moved them up to provide jobs when they were needed, accepting the additional interest costs and earlier increase in the debt.
Jobs are still needed, and communities have a list of worthy projects. Clark could have announced a stimulus fund.
Or the government could rethink its commitment to make balancing the budget by 2013-14 it�s main priority.
Returning to a balanced budget as the economy improves should be a goal. But clinging to an arbitrary date could be bad policy. The federal government, for example, has given itself an extra year to return to eliminate its deficit.
Delaying the return to balanced budgets would give the government the ability to consider spending aimed at easing the impact of unemployment in the near term. Immediate measures could be taken to protect and increase employment � a subsidy for B.C. Ferries to allow a tourism promotion, for example. The government could protect families from the impact of prolonged job losses by funding training for people whose Employment Insurance has run out, or programs to fund needed community projects.
In fact, the fixation on the deficit could increase unemployment in B.C. Given the defeat of the HST and the slumping economy, the government is faced with making deeper spending cuts to meet its deficit targets, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says. Those cuts will inevitably mean job losses at a time when prospects for new work are slim, and likely mean a reduction in community services when they are most needed.
A long-term focus is certainly valuable. But for many families, the impact of joblessness � or the threat of joblessness � is immediate, and dire. And when they can�t spend, their communities suffer.
Clark�s jobs plan has many commendable features. But for those seeking work today, it has little to offer.
There are some good measures. It�s worth trying to attract more foreign students, creating teaching jobs and bringing economic activity. Speeding up approvals for mines and logging and other activities, without compromising environmental standards, would be helpful. So would the promised agreements with First Nations to bring greater certainty for potential resource developments. And maybe all the new panels and committees and agencies will help bring economic activity.
But based on the advance hype, the more than 200,000 unemployed people looking for work probably expected more. After all, Jobs Minister Pat Bell promised a �seismic� impact from the strategy back in May. That suggested big changes and a lot more opportunities.
Instead, Clark delivered a package of promises that, for the most part, won�t result in increased employment for several years. There were promises of funding for infrastructure related to ports in the Lower Mainland and Prince Rupert, so, assuming speedy progress, there will be some construction jobs in the near term.
Most measures won�t produce significant results for years. Clark set a goal of eight new mines in operation by 2015, for example. That would bring many good jobs � but not now.
And the jobs plan is highly dependent on global economic recovery. Government can make B.C. a more appealing jurisdiction for mining companies committed to increasing production, for example. But they will only be interested if commodity prices are strong enough to encourage investment.
That�s the reality of the B.C. economy. We remain highly resource-dependent. Demand for minerals, logs and lumber and energy in other countries is required to fuel growth.
But it�s surprising, given the extent of joblessness in B.C. right now, that the plan did not include some short-term measures that are within the province�s control.
The federal-provincial stimulus program, now completed, offers one model. The infrastructure projects � with a few exceptions � were needed long-term investments in communities. Governments moved them up to provide jobs when they were needed, accepting the additional interest costs and earlier increase in the debt.
Jobs are still needed, and communities have a list of worthy projects. Clark could have announced a stimulus fund.
Or the government could rethink its commitment to make balancing the budget by 2013-14 it�s main priority.
Returning to a balanced budget as the economy improves should be a goal. But clinging to an arbitrary date could be bad policy. The federal government, for example, has given itself an extra year to return to eliminate its deficit.
Delaying the return to balanced budgets would give the government the ability to consider spending aimed at easing the impact of unemployment in the near term. Immediate measures could be taken to protect and increase employment � a subsidy for B.C. Ferries to allow a tourism promotion, for example. The government could protect families from the impact of prolonged job losses by funding training for people whose Employment Insurance has run out, or programs to fund needed community projects.
In fact, the fixation on the deficit could increase unemployment in B.C. Given the defeat of the HST and the slumping economy, the government is faced with making deeper spending cuts to meet its deficit targets, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says. Those cuts will inevitably mean job losses at a time when prospects for new work are slim, and likely mean a reduction in community services when they are most needed.
A long-term focus is certainly valuable. But for many families, the impact of joblessness � or the threat of joblessness � is immediate, and dire. And when they can�t spend, their communities suffer.
Clark�s jobs plan has many commendable features. But for those seeking work today, it has little to offer.
Liberals' attack ads both incompetent and destructive
The Liberal attack ads aimed at B.C. Conservative leader John Cummins show that Christy Clark was wise to ditch the idea of a fall election.
Because if the campaign matched the ads for sleazy, self-destructive incompetence, the Liberals would be routed.
The Liberals launched the attack last week with radio ads, a website and news releases, with Aboriginal Relations Minister Mary Polak, apparently because of her conservative credentials, charged with leading the attack.
The radio ads capture the tone. A man and a woman are talking about Cummins.
�He opposed Christy�s minimum wage increase but takes a $100,000 pension from taxpayers,� the snarky woman says. �Another unprincipled politician,� the guy responds.
�He says he quote �owes it to his offspring,�� the woman snipes. You can�t trust Cummins, they conclude. (The quote about accepting the pension for the sake of his children is 16 years old.)
It�s a fair criticism, but not from the Liberals. They ran on a promise to get rid of MLA pensions, then brought in a rich pension plan that would be the envy of anyone in the private sector. Gordon Campbell will actually be eligible to collect a higher provincial pension � around $125,000 while still on the federal government payroll as high commissioner to London.
In the other ad, the couple grumble that Cummins, who says he voted NDP in the last provincial election, isn�t a real Conservative.
�A joke,� the guy grumps.
�So Cummins pretends he's a Conservative, then votes NDP,� the woman says. �Just what we need, another unprincipled politician."
�How can you trust a politician like Cummins who says one thing and does another?�
Challenging Cummins conservative credentials is ludicrous. He was elected as a Reform MP in 1993, then as a Canadian Alliance member and a Conservative. He�s a strong social and fiscal conservative. (Probably too strong for many B.C. voters.)
His NDP vote just illustrates his disdain for the provincial Liberals.
And how could Clark and company have been so tone deaf as to include the line criticizing politicians who say one thing and do another?
They�ve just been slapped for doing exactly that with the HST. Then there are the promises not to sell B.C. Rail, rip up contracts or expand gambling, all examples of politicians who say one thing and do another.
Cummins has the Liberals in a panic. They are concerned, rightly, that the Conservatives could attract enough of their support to allow an NDP victory. In 1996, Reform took just nine per cent of the vote, and the New Democrats won. The Conservatives were at 18 per cent support in a May Mustel Group poll.
But the ads were a gift to Cummins, who remains unknown in much of the province. The Liberals brought media attention, largely positive, to their nemesis. It was remarkably dumb.
The radio ads, and the anti-Cummins website with the standard attack ad creepy photo and allegations, also tie Clark to dishonest, sleazy, American-style attack ads � hardly a good thing for someone promising a new style of politics.
The ads sometimes work. The federal Conservatives attacked Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff relentlessly with slimy ads, and succeeded in defining them in negative ways.
But they are fundamentally dishonest and destructive to democracy and public life, encouraging mindless division and contempt for all politicians.
There are lots of reasons to criticize Cummins and the Conservatives and their policy positions. But these ads are about smearing a person, and presenting him not just as wrong, but as corrupt and �a joke.�
That should concern anyone who hopes for a functioning democracy.
And Liberals should also be concerned that the party has spent money on an amateurish smear campaign that does more damage to its own cause than the target.
Footnote: Cummins is a challenge for the Liberals. He�s skilled and quick � almost two decades in federal politics will do that � and has a reputation for speaking his mind and representing his constituents� interests. He�s too extreme for many voters, but offers an alternative for people who would never vote NDP, but are angry at the Liberals, as well as voters who sat out the last few elections because they didn�t see a credible party that represented them.
Because if the campaign matched the ads for sleazy, self-destructive incompetence, the Liberals would be routed.
The Liberals launched the attack last week with radio ads, a website and news releases, with Aboriginal Relations Minister Mary Polak, apparently because of her conservative credentials, charged with leading the attack.
The radio ads capture the tone. A man and a woman are talking about Cummins.
�He opposed Christy�s minimum wage increase but takes a $100,000 pension from taxpayers,� the snarky woman says. �Another unprincipled politician,� the guy responds.
�He says he quote �owes it to his offspring,�� the woman snipes. You can�t trust Cummins, they conclude. (The quote about accepting the pension for the sake of his children is 16 years old.)
It�s a fair criticism, but not from the Liberals. They ran on a promise to get rid of MLA pensions, then brought in a rich pension plan that would be the envy of anyone in the private sector. Gordon Campbell will actually be eligible to collect a higher provincial pension � around $125,000 while still on the federal government payroll as high commissioner to London.
In the other ad, the couple grumble that Cummins, who says he voted NDP in the last provincial election, isn�t a real Conservative.
�A joke,� the guy grumps.
�So Cummins pretends he's a Conservative, then votes NDP,� the woman says. �Just what we need, another unprincipled politician."
�How can you trust a politician like Cummins who says one thing and does another?�
Challenging Cummins conservative credentials is ludicrous. He was elected as a Reform MP in 1993, then as a Canadian Alliance member and a Conservative. He�s a strong social and fiscal conservative. (Probably too strong for many B.C. voters.)
His NDP vote just illustrates his disdain for the provincial Liberals.
And how could Clark and company have been so tone deaf as to include the line criticizing politicians who say one thing and do another?
They�ve just been slapped for doing exactly that with the HST. Then there are the promises not to sell B.C. Rail, rip up contracts or expand gambling, all examples of politicians who say one thing and do another.
Cummins has the Liberals in a panic. They are concerned, rightly, that the Conservatives could attract enough of their support to allow an NDP victory. In 1996, Reform took just nine per cent of the vote, and the New Democrats won. The Conservatives were at 18 per cent support in a May Mustel Group poll.
But the ads were a gift to Cummins, who remains unknown in much of the province. The Liberals brought media attention, largely positive, to their nemesis. It was remarkably dumb.
The radio ads, and the anti-Cummins website with the standard attack ad creepy photo and allegations, also tie Clark to dishonest, sleazy, American-style attack ads � hardly a good thing for someone promising a new style of politics.
The ads sometimes work. The federal Conservatives attacked Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff relentlessly with slimy ads, and succeeded in defining them in negative ways.
But they are fundamentally dishonest and destructive to democracy and public life, encouraging mindless division and contempt for all politicians.
There are lots of reasons to criticize Cummins and the Conservatives and their policy positions. But these ads are about smearing a person, and presenting him not just as wrong, but as corrupt and �a joke.�
That should concern anyone who hopes for a functioning democracy.
And Liberals should also be concerned that the party has spent money on an amateurish smear campaign that does more damage to its own cause than the target.
Footnote: Cummins is a challenge for the Liberals. He�s skilled and quick � almost two decades in federal politics will do that � and has a reputation for speaking his mind and representing his constituents� interests. He�s too extreme for many voters, but offers an alternative for people who would never vote NDP, but are angry at the Liberals, as well as voters who sat out the last few elections because they didn�t see a credible party that represented them.
Safety Precautions in the Handling of Radioactive Substances
- Radioactive substances must always be handled with the correct procedures to prevent harmful effects to people and the environment. The following are some basic precautions:
- Read and follow the advice and instructions marked on radioactive sources, equipment and work manuals. Refer to the label on a box containing a radioactive source.
- Gloves must be worn any time an unsealed source is being used or whenever contamination is likely to occur.
- Laboratory coats, long pants, and closed-toe footwear should be worn.
- Eating, drinking, applying cosmetics, or storing of food is prohibited.
- All work surfaces and storage areas should be covered with absorbent material to contain radioactive material contamination.
- When using radioactive liquids, plastic or metal trays should be utilised to contain potential spills.
- Radioactive material, especially liquids, should be kept in unbreakable containers whenever possible. If glass is used, a secondary container is necessary.
- Before eating or drinking, wash hands and forearms thoroughly.
- Radioactive sources for educational use are kept in lead boxes and stored in a secure lead container.
The Negative Effects of Radioactive Substances
- Exposure to large doses of radiation is very dangerous.
- Radiation causes ionisations in the molecules of living cells to cause damage.
- At the low doses of radiation, the cells can repair rapidly.
- If the dose is higher, the cells may be dying or changed permanently.
- Somatic effects appear in the person exposed to radiation.
- The seriousness of the effect depends on the dose of radiation received.
- Genetic effects appear in the future generations of the exposed person as a result of radiation damage to reproductive cells.
Province, CLBC failing the disabled
Here�s how bad it has become for mentally handicapped people in B.C.
Barely five months into the fiscal year, the agency that�s supposed to be providing the supports they need has had to beg government for more money to meet �urgent health and safety needs.�
The planning and funding were so inadequate that these people�s health and safety were at risk. Not their quality of life, or their parents� ability to sleep at night knowing their children had a shot at happiness.
Their health and safety.
We are talking about people with developmental disabilities � mental handicaps like Down syndrome or other limits. Many have other serious conditions, physical, mental and emotional. Their parents are often aging themselves and facing limitations.
In a caring society, these people can have rich lives. Families can often provide support, until parents grow too old and needs too great. Day programs, group homes, supported workplaces and other options offer a way for people to share in the joys and sorrows of life.
But in this province, we�re not even meeting urgent health and safety needs, let alone providing needed support.
Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation providing services, called a press conference to announce it had found an extra $8.9 million to meet �urgent health and safety needs� of its clients. The provincial government had contributed an extra $6 million. Another $2.9 million, allocated for helping people with FASD and other problems, was redirected, because, CLBC says, the money wasn�t needed to assist those people.
The corporation actually seemed to think this was a good news story.
It wasn�t. The corporation was acknowledging that it did such a bad job in planning � or the government cut its budget proposals so significantly � that five months into the year clients had �urgent� health and safety needs it couldn�t meet.
That means serious needs that fall short of the urgent threat to life and limb are still not being met.
Even with the $8.9 million, the provincial funding for CLBC is up just 1.8 per cent. The number of clients needing services is increasing 5.1 per cent, and many costs are also rising with inflation.
The money is obviously inadequate. Advocates, including the B.C. Association for Community Living, said a $70-million increase is needed to provide proper support.
CLBC per-client funding has been cut every year since the Liberal government created the agency six years ago. In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $46,000. Just returning to the original level would require an extra $85 million.
CLBC has been looking, appropriately, at ways to meet people�s needs more cheaply. Clients who have been in group homes, for example, a relatively cost form of housing and support, might be able to do as well or better in other arrangements. Supported workplace programs could be chopped and developmentally disabled clients encouraged to compete in the job market.
But families and advocates have complained �with convincing evidence � that the corporation is putting the priority on cutting costs, not client needs.
This has been particularly brutal for the 550 young people who will turn 19 this year. That�s the magic age when support through the children�s ministry ends and CLBC takes over. Supports are slashed, or disappear. Even when there are serious risk of harm, people are told there is no money to deliver the services that CLBC�s case planners agree are needed. CLBC can�t, or won�t, say how many people are on waitlists.
The underlying problem is that the agency � and Harry Bloy, the hapless minister responsible � have little credibility. Both claimed repeatedly that clients were not being forced from group homes. They acknowledge now that was not true.
This is a dismal failure, at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in the province.
Footnote: The problems are only to going to get worse. Despite an increasing number of clients in each of the next two years, the Liberal budget calls for funding to be effectively frozen and Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has been warning that even deeper cuts in government could lie ahead.
Barely five months into the fiscal year, the agency that�s supposed to be providing the supports they need has had to beg government for more money to meet �urgent health and safety needs.�
The planning and funding were so inadequate that these people�s health and safety were at risk. Not their quality of life, or their parents� ability to sleep at night knowing their children had a shot at happiness.
Their health and safety.
We are talking about people with developmental disabilities � mental handicaps like Down syndrome or other limits. Many have other serious conditions, physical, mental and emotional. Their parents are often aging themselves and facing limitations.
In a caring society, these people can have rich lives. Families can often provide support, until parents grow too old and needs too great. Day programs, group homes, supported workplaces and other options offer a way for people to share in the joys and sorrows of life.
But in this province, we�re not even meeting urgent health and safety needs, let alone providing needed support.
Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation providing services, called a press conference to announce it had found an extra $8.9 million to meet �urgent health and safety needs� of its clients. The provincial government had contributed an extra $6 million. Another $2.9 million, allocated for helping people with FASD and other problems, was redirected, because, CLBC says, the money wasn�t needed to assist those people.
The corporation actually seemed to think this was a good news story.
It wasn�t. The corporation was acknowledging that it did such a bad job in planning � or the government cut its budget proposals so significantly � that five months into the year clients had �urgent� health and safety needs it couldn�t meet.
That means serious needs that fall short of the urgent threat to life and limb are still not being met.
Even with the $8.9 million, the provincial funding for CLBC is up just 1.8 per cent. The number of clients needing services is increasing 5.1 per cent, and many costs are also rising with inflation.
The money is obviously inadequate. Advocates, including the B.C. Association for Community Living, said a $70-million increase is needed to provide proper support.
CLBC per-client funding has been cut every year since the Liberal government created the agency six years ago. In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $46,000. Just returning to the original level would require an extra $85 million.
CLBC has been looking, appropriately, at ways to meet people�s needs more cheaply. Clients who have been in group homes, for example, a relatively cost form of housing and support, might be able to do as well or better in other arrangements. Supported workplace programs could be chopped and developmentally disabled clients encouraged to compete in the job market.
But families and advocates have complained �with convincing evidence � that the corporation is putting the priority on cutting costs, not client needs.
This has been particularly brutal for the 550 young people who will turn 19 this year. That�s the magic age when support through the children�s ministry ends and CLBC takes over. Supports are slashed, or disappear. Even when there are serious risk of harm, people are told there is no money to deliver the services that CLBC�s case planners agree are needed. CLBC can�t, or won�t, say how many people are on waitlists.
The underlying problem is that the agency � and Harry Bloy, the hapless minister responsible � have little credibility. Both claimed repeatedly that clients were not being forced from group homes. They acknowledge now that was not true.
This is a dismal failure, at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in the province.
Footnote: The problems are only to going to get worse. Despite an increasing number of clients in each of the next two years, the Liberal budget calls for funding to be effectively frozen and Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has been warning that even deeper cuts in government could lie ahead.
Liberals have seen the enemy, and he is John Cummins
Note: Saturday updates at end of post.
I don't know anything about professional politics, although I have some experience in the corporate kind.
I don't know anything about professional politics, although I have some experience in the corporate kind.
Maybe the Liberals' sleazy attacks on John Cummins are just the way you win.
After all, the federal Conservatives' attacks on Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff seemed to work. American politicians and their handlers have great success with attack ads.
So Christy Clark has adopted the same approach. Find a way to portray other leaders as creepy, amoral, sinister figures, buy some ads and stick up some grisly photos to show them in their worst light. Make them not just people with bad policies, but evil, perhaps deranged or stupid, princes of darkness.
Use the attacks to solidify your base, as they say, and raise money.
The smear campaigns don't seem to make voters think you're desperate or fearful, or at least not often. Though it does seem odd that the Liberal party is buying radio commercials to attack a politician most British Columbians haven't likely heard of.
But couldn't parties win by arguing their opponents' policies were dumb or destructive, without vilifying them on a personal level or making up motivations for their actions and policies?
That would be a lot less damaging for democracy and public life.
If this kind of stuff works, it says something sad about us as voters.
Saturday updates:
Les Leyne has a good column in the Times Colonist on just how wretched and fake these attack ads are.
And the Gazetteer calls for a much stronger denunciation of a style of sleazy, destructive politics that threatens democracy itself. You should read him here.
Saturday updates:
Les Leyne has a good column in the Times Colonist on just how wretched and fake these attack ads are.
And the Gazetteer calls for a much stronger denunciation of a style of sleazy, destructive politics that threatens democracy itself. You should read him here.
CLBC funding boost inadequate, and an admission of bungling
From today's Times Colonist editorial on the announcement of additional money for CLBC:
"The government's grudging commitment of extra money for services for mentally handicapped adults falls far short of what's needed and shows inept handling of an important responsibility.
The government provided an extra $8.9 million for Community Living B.C. Wednesday in response to a public outcry over sharp cuts to services for some of the most vulnerable people in our province.
Obviously, any increase is welcome. But the increase is barely one per cent of the Crown corporation's budget, and far short of the $85 million needed to restore perclient funding to the level in 2005, when CLBC was created. Even with the increase, the province's contribution this year will increase 1.8 per cent, despite a 5.1 per cent increase in the number of people with developmental disabilities who require services.
CLBC executives said the money is needed to cover "urgent health and safety needs" of the Crown corporation's clients.
That is an admission of failure. It is not difficult to forecast the need for services. The government knows how many young people with developmental disabilities, currently supported by the children's ministry, will turn 19 and rely on CLBC. It can predict current clients' needs.
Yet barely five months into the fiscal year, the agency does not have enough money to cover urgent health and safety needs...."
You can read the rest here.
Lessons from Kienan's abduction and return
First, cheers and gratitude for the safe return of three-year-old Kienan Hebert, a remarkable happy ending to a nightmarish story.
The fact that stranger abductions are extraordinarily rare doesn�t lessen the heart-stopping impact of his abduction.
That celebration and the prosecution of the now-arrested suspect, Randall Hopley, will take some time. And it's important to remember there has not been a single piece of evidence offered to support the theory that Hopley did this.
But we need answers to broader questions.
Kienan�s father, Paul Hebert, has shown calm dignity throughout the ordeal. He has forgiven Hopley, he says, citing his own Christian faith and its requirement for forgiveness.
But on Monday, he set out his frustration with the justice system. Hebert didn�t offer an emotional response � no demands that such people be locked up forever, for example.
He wanted to know why Hopley didn�t get help that would change his behaviour despite his repeated contacts with the police and courts that stretched back almost to the 46-year-old man�s own childhood. And why, given that, he was free.
They are good questions. And the implications go far beyond this case.
Hopley is, based on media reports, an archetype. Our courts are full of people like him; they occupy a large amount of police officers� time. They lead a life of petty crime, with occasional forays into something more serious.
Hopley fits the profile. He is neither smart nor educated; one of his defence lawyers told the court he was mentally handicapped. Hopley�s father died in a mine accident when he was about Kienan�s age. His stepfather, Doug Fink, said was out of control as a child, running away and constantly in trouble. �I didn't want nothing to do with him, he'd only stay so long and he couldn't help himself, he'd be in trouble again,� Fink said.
Dale Fedoruk, who lived in Sparwood, where Hopley has lived for about 16 years, said he was �a dirty, creepy guy.�
Hopley was a thief, breaking into businesses in an industrial park, stealing from cars. He wasn�t particularly good at it, and would sometimes confess to police when caught. Hopley had kept police busy since moving to Sparwood in 1995, an officer told a judge in 2003.
He pleaded guilty to stealing $795 from a business in that case, and got four months of house arrest, a year�s probation and an order to repay the money. He was to abstain from drugs and alcohol as well.
Those kinds of orders are common too. But Hopley, like many offenders, had a poor record in actually following the orders, frequently ending up back in court for breaches of various orders.
These people, often with addictions as well, are the frequent flyers in the criminal justice system. And the system does a poor job of dealing with them, undermining the sense of security in communities.
There were more serious charges as well. Hopley was sentenced to two years for a sex assault in the 1980s and faced charges � later dropped � of attempting to abduct a boy in 2007. Those should have been warnings, Paul Hebert says.
�The judges and the system failed us,� he said. �Hopley needs help and the system didn�t give him the help he needed and because of that, we have been affected. Our rights have been taken away and our family got hurt.�
The justice system - judges, prosecutors, police - are notoriously reluctant to accept scrutiny.
But it�s reasonable to make an effort to look at Hopley�s life of involvement with the courts and police and see if Hebert is right in believing that a better job cold have been done in protecting the public.
A Crown prosecutor sought a psychiatric examination for Hopley before sentencing in 2008, for example, but the defence objected and the court didn�t order one. Perhaps that might have been useful.
And, in fact, the issues might have less to do with the court system than with the lack of early childhood intervention to deal with people before they become criminals.
There�s a lot to learn from this case.
But first, there�s a lot to be thankful for.
Footnote: The RCMP also needs to provide answers, especially about the way in which Kienan was dropped off at his families� empty home at 3 a.m., with police apparently unaware that someone had entered the crime scene. Police have said they �facilitated� the return, but need to explain what arrangements, if any, they made and how they managed the risk to Kienan and others.
The fact that stranger abductions are extraordinarily rare doesn�t lessen the heart-stopping impact of his abduction.
That celebration and the prosecution of the now-arrested suspect, Randall Hopley, will take some time. And it's important to remember there has not been a single piece of evidence offered to support the theory that Hopley did this.
But we need answers to broader questions.
Kienan�s father, Paul Hebert, has shown calm dignity throughout the ordeal. He has forgiven Hopley, he says, citing his own Christian faith and its requirement for forgiveness.
But on Monday, he set out his frustration with the justice system. Hebert didn�t offer an emotional response � no demands that such people be locked up forever, for example.
He wanted to know why Hopley didn�t get help that would change his behaviour despite his repeated contacts with the police and courts that stretched back almost to the 46-year-old man�s own childhood. And why, given that, he was free.
They are good questions. And the implications go far beyond this case.
Hopley is, based on media reports, an archetype. Our courts are full of people like him; they occupy a large amount of police officers� time. They lead a life of petty crime, with occasional forays into something more serious.
Hopley fits the profile. He is neither smart nor educated; one of his defence lawyers told the court he was mentally handicapped. Hopley�s father died in a mine accident when he was about Kienan�s age. His stepfather, Doug Fink, said was out of control as a child, running away and constantly in trouble. �I didn't want nothing to do with him, he'd only stay so long and he couldn't help himself, he'd be in trouble again,� Fink said.
Dale Fedoruk, who lived in Sparwood, where Hopley has lived for about 16 years, said he was �a dirty, creepy guy.�
Hopley was a thief, breaking into businesses in an industrial park, stealing from cars. He wasn�t particularly good at it, and would sometimes confess to police when caught. Hopley had kept police busy since moving to Sparwood in 1995, an officer told a judge in 2003.
He pleaded guilty to stealing $795 from a business in that case, and got four months of house arrest, a year�s probation and an order to repay the money. He was to abstain from drugs and alcohol as well.
Those kinds of orders are common too. But Hopley, like many offenders, had a poor record in actually following the orders, frequently ending up back in court for breaches of various orders.
These people, often with addictions as well, are the frequent flyers in the criminal justice system. And the system does a poor job of dealing with them, undermining the sense of security in communities.
There were more serious charges as well. Hopley was sentenced to two years for a sex assault in the 1980s and faced charges � later dropped � of attempting to abduct a boy in 2007. Those should have been warnings, Paul Hebert says.
�The judges and the system failed us,� he said. �Hopley needs help and the system didn�t give him the help he needed and because of that, we have been affected. Our rights have been taken away and our family got hurt.�
The justice system - judges, prosecutors, police - are notoriously reluctant to accept scrutiny.
But it�s reasonable to make an effort to look at Hopley�s life of involvement with the courts and police and see if Hebert is right in believing that a better job cold have been done in protecting the public.
A Crown prosecutor sought a psychiatric examination for Hopley before sentencing in 2008, for example, but the defence objected and the court didn�t order one. Perhaps that might have been useful.
And, in fact, the issues might have less to do with the court system than with the lack of early childhood intervention to deal with people before they become criminals.
There�s a lot to learn from this case.
But first, there�s a lot to be thankful for.
Footnote: The RCMP also needs to provide answers, especially about the way in which Kienan was dropped off at his families� empty home at 3 a.m., with police apparently unaware that someone had entered the crime scene. Police have said they �facilitated� the return, but need to explain what arrangements, if any, they made and how they managed the risk to Kienan and others.
CLBC cuts and the invisible minister
Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines has another report on the devastating cuts to services for people with developmental disabilities, this time focusing on the total lack of support when people turn 19 and Community Living BC takes over responsibility from the children's ministry.
Recommended reading here.
The problem, as I note here, is reduced per-client funding for CLBC every year since the agency was created by the Liberal government. The result has been worsening wait lists, clients forced out of group homes they have lived in for years and a dramatic reduction in the quality of life for people with disabilities.
So what does Social Development Minister Harry Bloy say about the service cuts, and the demand by advocacy groups for a $70-million funding increase to deal with what they call a crisis?
No one knows. Bloy has hidden from questions from reporters and the public, and since the legislature rarely sits he isn't held accountable there. Any day I expect to see his picture on the side of a milk carton.
Kines asked to talk to the minister for the story, as he and other reports have tried for many articles, and was refused.
Instead, communications staff write meaningless emails allegedly from Bloy.
Read the response below, which is typical, and judge for yourself whether this represents an open and accountable government able to explain and defend its decisions. If you were the parent of a disabled adult who was losing day support, or being forced from a group home, would your concerns and questions about the actions and future service reductions be addressed?
Or whether a $150,000-a-year cabinet minister simply won't even try to defend the indefensible.
"Lindsay:
"As a parent, I understand and share the concerns of families whose loved ones have unique developmental challenges. As Minister responsible for Community Living BC, I am committed to finding solutions that best address the needs of our province�s most vulnerable citizens.
"This is not to suggest there aren�t challenges. CLBC serves over 13,600 developmentally disabled adults - 3,300 more than they did in 2007. Despite annual budget increases and an investment to date of more than $3.5 billion, the number of requests for CLBC services and supports from both new and existing individuals continues to grow. CLBC provided services for 766 new people last year, and over a thousand people already in the system got additional services.
"We are living in difficult financial times and we continue to investigate and adopt innovative solutions that will support any many families as possible. "We have always funded CLBC and will continue to fund them in the future. The care, comfort and well-being of developmentally disabled individuals and their families are, and always will be, government�s priority and my priority as Minister."
After 10 years, time to rethink 9/11 response
We�re coming at the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the wrong way.
It�s as if we want to relive those terrible moments, and forget what has happened in the decade since.
That Tuesday was a stunning day. Most of us had grown up believing that war and terrorism happened somewhere else. The images � a plane striking the twin towers, people jumping to certain death, the stunned faces of New Yorkers � had great impact.
So governments rushed to find ways to prevent new attacks. And, for the most part, we supported them in the first few months.
But 10 years later, it�s time to step back, consider what we have wrought and choose a new path forward.
The reality is that America, the target of the vicious attack, is worse off in virtually every way than it was a decade ago.
Not because of al Qaeda�s efforts. Americans are a resilient people; they have surmounted much greater difficulties.
The wounds have been self-inflicted. America, now in financial trouble, spent more than $3 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of the attacks, and hundreds of billions in security measures. The indirect costs were also enormous, as other priorities � like regulating a financial system that had become a giant con game � were ignored.
Its global stature, and the credibility of its government inside and outside the country, were greatly diminished as freedoms were eroded, rights compromised and torture condoned. The American public has developed a profound mistrust of those in power and destructive political divisions.
Nor has Canada been immune. We joined the Afghan war at a military cost of $18.5 billion, and the sacrifice of 162 lives. Our Parliament passed new anti-terror laws that limited rights once considered fundamental. Security measures touched most Canadians� lives at some point, even if only in the form of delays and searches at airports.
A Rideau Institute report this week estimated that Canada has spent an extra $90 billion as a result of 9/11, creating new measures and agencies and expanding the roles of others � almost $2,600 for every Canadian.
It�s time, after a decade, to come to a more realistic assessment of the risks of terror attacks, and the best ways of responding.
The 9/11 attacks did change things. The threat of terrorism always existed � the World Trade Centre had already been targeted, in 1993. But the attacks in New York and Washington showed the scale of possible damage and demonstrated to would-be attackers the impact of a major successful blow.
But the decade since has not brought a wave of attacks. The threat of an organized global terror effort never materialized; al Qaeda while dangerous, never grew in strength or effectiveness; Canadians continue to be affected much more by security efforts than by terrorism.
Some will argue that our continued security shows the effectiveness of the measures and that we should spend more, and sacrifice more liberties, to increase safety.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper took that position this week. When Parliament rushed to pass the Antiterrorism Act in the aftermath of 9/11, it included provisions that some of the extraordinary measures infringing on individual liberty would expire in 2007. Canada has been safe without them since then, but Harper plans to bring them back this fall.
In a column on the first anniversary of the attack, I noted that �the state � Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq � always wants to increase its power over the people. It�s not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier � surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it�s an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.�
It�s time to push back, in a sensible and informed way. It�s time to question the scale and scope of security spending, in a prudent way. Canada spends $40 million a year to have armed RCMP air marshalls on flights, for example. Perhaps that can end. Perhaps we can spend focus less on extraordinary laws and more on effective intelligence.
That was a terrible day 10 years ago. But it did not change everything. It�s time we regained our balance, and confidence, as a people.
Postscript
There's something at once wrong and frightening about the fervent celebration of the attacks on the United States one year ago.
It�s as if we want to relive those terrible moments, and forget what has happened in the decade since.
That Tuesday was a stunning day. Most of us had grown up believing that war and terrorism happened somewhere else. The images � a plane striking the twin towers, people jumping to certain death, the stunned faces of New Yorkers � had great impact.
So governments rushed to find ways to prevent new attacks. And, for the most part, we supported them in the first few months.
But 10 years later, it�s time to step back, consider what we have wrought and choose a new path forward.
The reality is that America, the target of the vicious attack, is worse off in virtually every way than it was a decade ago.
Not because of al Qaeda�s efforts. Americans are a resilient people; they have surmounted much greater difficulties.
The wounds have been self-inflicted. America, now in financial trouble, spent more than $3 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of the attacks, and hundreds of billions in security measures. The indirect costs were also enormous, as other priorities � like regulating a financial system that had become a giant con game � were ignored.
Its global stature, and the credibility of its government inside and outside the country, were greatly diminished as freedoms were eroded, rights compromised and torture condoned. The American public has developed a profound mistrust of those in power and destructive political divisions.
Nor has Canada been immune. We joined the Afghan war at a military cost of $18.5 billion, and the sacrifice of 162 lives. Our Parliament passed new anti-terror laws that limited rights once considered fundamental. Security measures touched most Canadians� lives at some point, even if only in the form of delays and searches at airports.
A Rideau Institute report this week estimated that Canada has spent an extra $90 billion as a result of 9/11, creating new measures and agencies and expanding the roles of others � almost $2,600 for every Canadian.
It�s time, after a decade, to come to a more realistic assessment of the risks of terror attacks, and the best ways of responding.
The 9/11 attacks did change things. The threat of terrorism always existed � the World Trade Centre had already been targeted, in 1993. But the attacks in New York and Washington showed the scale of possible damage and demonstrated to would-be attackers the impact of a major successful blow.
But the decade since has not brought a wave of attacks. The threat of an organized global terror effort never materialized; al Qaeda while dangerous, never grew in strength or effectiveness; Canadians continue to be affected much more by security efforts than by terrorism.
Some will argue that our continued security shows the effectiveness of the measures and that we should spend more, and sacrifice more liberties, to increase safety.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper took that position this week. When Parliament rushed to pass the Antiterrorism Act in the aftermath of 9/11, it included provisions that some of the extraordinary measures infringing on individual liberty would expire in 2007. Canada has been safe without them since then, but Harper plans to bring them back this fall.
In a column on the first anniversary of the attack, I noted that �the state � Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq � always wants to increase its power over the people. It�s not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier � surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it�s an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.�
It�s time to push back, in a sensible and informed way. It�s time to question the scale and scope of security spending, in a prudent way. Canada spends $40 million a year to have armed RCMP air marshalls on flights, for example. Perhaps that can end. Perhaps we can spend focus less on extraordinary laws and more on effective intelligence.
That was a terrible day 10 years ago. But it did not change everything. It�s time we regained our balance, and confidence, as a people.
Postscript
Here's my 2002 first anniversary column on 9/11. It stands up well.
A licence to extend the state's power
Wrong, because it rests on the false pretence that Sept. 11 was a defining moment that changed everything, for everyone.
And frightening because it is being used to justify mindless conformity, an erosion of individual rights in favour of the state -- and even war.
It was a terrible day. But most people have placed that devastating event into some appropriate place among the other terrible and joyous moments that define a life. About 40,000 children were born in B.C. last year. For those families, 2001 won't be the year the World Trade Center was destroyed; that pales beside the wonder of a new life beginning. About 315 British Columbians killed themselves last year. For those families, it will be the year that someone was lost, and something in them died, too.
The attacks were terrible. But they were not different in purpose or effect than the decades of horrors that the current generation has witnessed.
Even their scale is not beyond comparison. Some 3,000 people died last Sept. 11. Twenty times as many died when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki; twice as many died in Bhopal after the 1994 Union Carbide disaster; about the same number of Africans will die of AIDS while you are at work today.
Last Sept. 11 was an awful day, but everything didn't change because of it. We still go to work, look for happiness, slide into despair. We raise our children. Just like always. And one year later, I am much less frightened of a terror attack than I am of the governments supposedly on my side.
The state -- Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq -- always wants to increase its power over the people. It's not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier -- surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it's an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.
For a year governments have been using Sept. 11 as a licence to extend the state's power. And an uncertain public has failed to push back.
Airport security may have needed upgrading, perhaps through improved training. But a $24-per-ticket surcharge is taking $400 million a year from travellers' pockets and has wounded regional airlines and the communities they serve. The take from Vancouver alone is enough to hire more than 600 extra security staff; the need has never been demonstrated.
The federal government likewise made no effective case for $8 billion in increased security spending over the next five years, money it could never find to help Canada's poorest children or reduce the tax burden.
And now the U.S. is pressuring Canada to spend more on defence, even after a 10-per-cent increase this year. (The Americans spend $400 billion a year on their military, more than the next 25 countries combined. To match their level of per-capita spending, Canada would have to more than triple its defence budget.)
Sadly, it's not just about money. The Bush administration quickly passed the "USA Patriot Act" (the name, commanding mindless acquiescence, should sound alarm bells.) Americans lost rights they had treasured for 200 years. The right to legal representation, to a speedy and public trial, to protection from unjustified searches -- all gone. Americans can now be jailed indefinitely and secretly, without a trial.
Canada didn't go as far. But the prime minister can now outlaw groups based on secret evidence. Police gained the right to arrest someone who has broken no law on the suspicion that person is involved in terrorist activities. You can now be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.
And then there is war. Canada fought in Afghanistan, to little obvious effect. And now we are being asked to fight in Iraq, not because of anything that nation has done, but because the U.S. believes Saddam Hussein may some day do something. This is not a war on terrorism; it's a beating for a nation the U.S. simply wishes had a different leader.
Enough. Everything did not change in a few terrible hours one year ago. We have rights and freedoms and values worth defending, and a commitment to the rule of law that should not be abandoned when a government finds it convenient.
We will betray our past and our future if we allow ourselves to be defined by a single day of terror.
Campbell's order, no fall election and the slow HST repeal
On Gordon Campbell�s Order of B.C., Christy Clark�s belated rejection of a fall election and more.
First, Campbell�s selection for the Order of B.C. The decision is bad by any measure. The order was created in 1989 to recognize achievement and service. Candidates are nominated, and then selected by a seven-person panel. It�s supposed to be an honour and a celebration.
Campbell was forced out of office by public anger. It�s far too early to judge his impact as premier. He has been a divisive figure over the last decade.
There were no grounds to award the honour. Especially as only one premier - Bill Bennett - has been inducted into the order. And it came 21 years after he left office.
Campbell�s prize was so rushed it probably broke the rules. Elected representatives aren�t eligible. The nomination deadline was March 10. Campbell didn�t resign until March 15 and so shouldn�t have been considered.
The selection panel includes a university president, the province�s chief justice, a deputy minister, a Union of B.C. Municipalities rep, the Speaker and two members of the order.
A mostly elite group, and one closely tied to Campbell and the Liberals. Speaker Bill Barisoff is a Liberal MLA and a loyalist. The deputy minister, Pierette Miranda, worked in the premier�s office. The UBCM rep, Barbara Steele, was a Liberal candidate. The universities� representative, Ralph Nilson, has donated to the Liberals. One of the order members, John Furlong, was backed by Campbell as the 2010 Olympic top boss.
Which all makes Campbell�s selection look like a handful of establishment people looking after one of their own, without even thinking how other British Columbians might see the choice. (A perception reinforced by the simultaneous induction of Ken Dobell, Campbell�s long-time managerial sidekick, and David Emerson, the federal politician who ran as a Liberal and immediately crossed over to the Conservatives and a cabinet job.)
It�s surprising the panel didn�t think this might be seen as thumbing their noses at British Columbians, whose disdain forced Campbell from office.
Second, Clark�s announcement that a fall election is no longer an option and she�ll wait for the fixed election date of May 14, 2013.
It�s the right decision. The province has been damaged by two years of chaotic tax policy and political uncertainty. It�s time to try for stable government.
And Clark hasn�t given any clear indication of her vision and agenda for the province in the six months since she won the leadership. It�s too soon for an election.
But her refusal to rule out a fall election until now still looks irresponsible.
And Clark�s comments in announcing that she wouldn�t call an election reinforce the perception, right or wrong, that she isn�t serious enough about the premier�s job.
Clark said she had listened to the public, and people didn�t want an election. And she said she recognized that an election would be harmful, given global financial instability.
But that was Wednesday. Just five days earlier, Clark had refused to rule out a fall election. Surely she knew about the global financial crisis then.
Third, the HST reversal. The government took about 11 months to impose the tax from they announced it, having done no studies or analysis of its impact.
But Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says it will take 19 months to rescind it, even though the government has had months to prepare for the likely result of the referendum.
That�s a damaging delay. Why do a major home reno, for example, if the tax hit will be much lower once the HST is repealed? Or start a restaurant?
Falcon and company were once critics of the creeping pace of government. Now he seems comfortable with what he once considered outrageous.
All of which suggests Clark is wise to put off an election for a while.
Footnote: The other HST question is why the government has been so quick to roll over and promise to repay the federal government the full $1.6 billion incentive payment to adopt the tax. The HST will have been in place for half the required five-year term. The province spent money to implement the tax, in good faith. At the least, some hard bargaining was in order, not a quick agreement to repay all the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
