(Aired on March 30, 2010)
It probably didn't come as an surprise on the weekend to hear former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge tell us we're not getting properly prepared for retirement. Dodge told a Liberal think tank session "Middle- and upper-income Canadians now in their prime earning years are both going to have to save more and expect to retire later in life than they'd hoped to do." He said most Canadians are not financially prepared for retirement.
If the Liberals paid Dodge to speak at their conference, they certainly wasted their money. Dodge said what most of us who prepare for retirement already know.
Dodge said Canadians need to save between 10% and 22% of their pre-tax incomes each year if they save consistently for 35 years to have comfortable retirement incomes. And there are precious few who can do that. I can look all around me at my family, my friends' families, people I meet in the work environment every day, and virtually none of them are starting to save for retirement. And they're already in their mid to late 30's and beyond. To expect families these days to do that is beyond expectations.
We're being taxed to death. Costs are going out of sight. People with young children aren't in a position to save, even with both parents working. No one can afford it. And the government is not helping. Banks, who are making fortunes in profits, raised mortgage rates yesterday, at a time when a new study indicates at least 20% of people are struggling to afford the homes they're living in now, and that productivity is suffering as a result. The Bank of Canada says it's soon going to start raising interest rates, probably before the summer. That will make it even more difficult to save.
Ultimately, of course, the government is going to have to pay because senior citizens won't be able to pay the bills and the government is going to have to take care of them. It's fine to tell us we have to save more, and we probably can all cut corners to do that a bit better, but we're not going to save what we really need to. With what we're paying in taxes and charges, it's just not going to happen.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
VanderZalm has Uphill Fight
(Aired on March 29, 2010)
If Bill VanderZalm is going to derail the Harmonized Sales Tax, I think he's going to have to do better than he did in Kamloops Saturday. If people were so upset about the tax, I would have thought people would have come from all over the Interior to participate in the rally. Nothing gets government thinking like large rallies to bring matters to the forefront.
No matter what the turnout, the big push will come starting this weekend, when the battle to find enough people to sign a petition gets underway. 10% of the registered voters in each riding must sign a petition to move it to the next level, which could be either a bill by a standing committee to eliminate the HST or a move for a vote which would be held in September, 2011. It's an uphill battle, but it will that battle which will determine just how much opposition there is to the tax.
To get 10% of voters in every single one of the 85 ridings in the province is a huge task. Organizers will have to make sure they have committed people on board. It's not just a matter of going around the neighbourhood to get names. You have to make sure every one of those signatories is eligible to be there. But if the opposition is truly there, we might find an interesting situation where the government has to face the people on the matter.
The tax is controversial because it will vastly increase the number of things we are taxed on. It's a cash grab of the highest magnitude, forced on us by the federal government who dangled the funding carrot over the B.C. government's head and pretty much pushed us into going along with it. It gives the federal government way too much power over the province, and sooner or later, Ottawa will begin to tell us how much to tax and when, and we will lose a vital part of our control provincially over how we tax our residents. That may be more important than the actual money we will have to fork out if the tax comes into effect.
If Bill VanderZalm is going to derail the Harmonized Sales Tax, I think he's going to have to do better than he did in Kamloops Saturday. If people were so upset about the tax, I would have thought people would have come from all over the Interior to participate in the rally. Nothing gets government thinking like large rallies to bring matters to the forefront.
No matter what the turnout, the big push will come starting this weekend, when the battle to find enough people to sign a petition gets underway. 10% of the registered voters in each riding must sign a petition to move it to the next level, which could be either a bill by a standing committee to eliminate the HST or a move for a vote which would be held in September, 2011. It's an uphill battle, but it will that battle which will determine just how much opposition there is to the tax.
To get 10% of voters in every single one of the 85 ridings in the province is a huge task. Organizers will have to make sure they have committed people on board. It's not just a matter of going around the neighbourhood to get names. You have to make sure every one of those signatories is eligible to be there. But if the opposition is truly there, we might find an interesting situation where the government has to face the people on the matter.
The tax is controversial because it will vastly increase the number of things we are taxed on. It's a cash grab of the highest magnitude, forced on us by the federal government who dangled the funding carrot over the B.C. government's head and pretty much pushed us into going along with it. It gives the federal government way too much power over the province, and sooner or later, Ottawa will begin to tell us how much to tax and when, and we will lose a vital part of our control provincially over how we tax our residents. That may be more important than the actual money we will have to fork out if the tax comes into effect.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Does Olson Deserve Old Age Benefits?
(Aired on March 26, 2010)
Senior citizens trying to make do on a fixed income, eking out their pennies so they can buy groceries, or paying most of their pensions to live in an assisted-living facility must be wondering whether or not they should go out and kill someone so they can be like convicted child-killer Clifford Olson. Olson is 70 now, and has been in jail for many years after being convicted of killing 11 people in the early 80's. For the last few years, he's been quietly getting Old Age Security and the Assisted Living Supplement.
And the public is furious. Even Prime Minister Harper says it's wrong. If, however, the government wants to change Olson's status, they'll have to change the law. I can't find anywhere where it says prisoners can't collect the pension, and because he doesn't make any money languishing in prison, he also qualifies for the supplement. So if it takes a legal change to make it so, make it so, Mr. Prime Minister.
It's a joke that Olson can sit in prison at our expense, getting good meals, watching TV that we're paying for, and getting free medical and dental service. I don't think you can argue they're living the life of Reilly in prison, but I'm betting it's a better life than many of our seniors are facing, living in some dank apartment because it's all they can afford, or having to pay everything they make to an assisted living facility so they can live in some sort of comfort. And then there are the families of many seniors who make places in their own homes so their parents can enjoy their retirement years. While that's noble, and I would have done it in a heartbeat for either of my sets of parents, it's still a challenge, with very little service in the way of respite and in-home care.
And yet here is Clifford Olson taking thousands of dollars every year on top of what we're paying to keep him in prison.
If the government doesn't want to change the law to stop Olson from getting the pension, then at least make him pay a hefty portion to live in prison, just the same as we do for people who pay to live in a seniors home. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Senior citizens trying to make do on a fixed income, eking out their pennies so they can buy groceries, or paying most of their pensions to live in an assisted-living facility must be wondering whether or not they should go out and kill someone so they can be like convicted child-killer Clifford Olson. Olson is 70 now, and has been in jail for many years after being convicted of killing 11 people in the early 80's. For the last few years, he's been quietly getting Old Age Security and the Assisted Living Supplement.
And the public is furious. Even Prime Minister Harper says it's wrong. If, however, the government wants to change Olson's status, they'll have to change the law. I can't find anywhere where it says prisoners can't collect the pension, and because he doesn't make any money languishing in prison, he also qualifies for the supplement. So if it takes a legal change to make it so, make it so, Mr. Prime Minister.
It's a joke that Olson can sit in prison at our expense, getting good meals, watching TV that we're paying for, and getting free medical and dental service. I don't think you can argue they're living the life of Reilly in prison, but I'm betting it's a better life than many of our seniors are facing, living in some dank apartment because it's all they can afford, or having to pay everything they make to an assisted living facility so they can live in some sort of comfort. And then there are the families of many seniors who make places in their own homes so their parents can enjoy their retirement years. While that's noble, and I would have done it in a heartbeat for either of my sets of parents, it's still a challenge, with very little service in the way of respite and in-home care.
And yet here is Clifford Olson taking thousands of dollars every year on top of what we're paying to keep him in prison.
If the government doesn't want to change the law to stop Olson from getting the pension, then at least make him pay a hefty portion to live in prison, just the same as we do for people who pay to live in a seniors home. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Friday, March 26, 2010
(Aired March 25,2010)
A video on You Tube this week showing a Victoria police officer kicking and kneeing two different people apparently involved in a bar brawl certainly doesn't put police in a good light. One particular officer seems to go up to one person lying on the ground and give him a kick to the stomach. He then goes to another person, also on the ground, and appears to kick him, then knee him in the kidneys to try and get him handcuffed. Many are making this out as the latest black eye in a continuing round of accusations of violence against police officers. This event certainly makes it seem that the police overreacted. But I will still give police the doubt until I hear all the facts. You've heard me say many times that what appears to be the case isn't often the case at all. The video is only one small part of the overall story. We don't know what was going on outside the range of the camera. It was a bar brawl. Anything can happen. We don't know whether there were reports anyone was armed. We don't know the extent of the fighting. When a small group of police officers is called out to what could be a major conflagration, you have to be prepared for the worse. I'll agree that the shots of the officer kicking the two men doesn't look good. He knees one man in the back, but it's pretty obvious that the man wasn't being cooperative and he probably did it to make him put his hands behind his back. I can't defend or persecute the police yet in this case, because we don't know all the facts. But I do believe we have to wait till we see the results of the investigation before we make a final decision. So often, there's much more than meets the eye. And I would still frankly put my faith in the force than not. Maybe I can be accused of turning a blind eye to the situation, but I can live with that.
A video on You Tube this week showing a Victoria police officer kicking and kneeing two different people apparently involved in a bar brawl certainly doesn't put police in a good light. One particular officer seems to go up to one person lying on the ground and give him a kick to the stomach. He then goes to another person, also on the ground, and appears to kick him, then knee him in the kidneys to try and get him handcuffed. Many are making this out as the latest black eye in a continuing round of accusations of violence against police officers. This event certainly makes it seem that the police overreacted. But I will still give police the doubt until I hear all the facts. You've heard me say many times that what appears to be the case isn't often the case at all. The video is only one small part of the overall story. We don't know what was going on outside the range of the camera. It was a bar brawl. Anything can happen. We don't know whether there were reports anyone was armed. We don't know the extent of the fighting. When a small group of police officers is called out to what could be a major conflagration, you have to be prepared for the worse. I'll agree that the shots of the officer kicking the two men doesn't look good. He knees one man in the back, but it's pretty obvious that the man wasn't being cooperative and he probably did it to make him put his hands behind his back. I can't defend or persecute the police yet in this case, because we don't know all the facts. But I do believe we have to wait till we see the results of the investigation before we make a final decision. So often, there's much more than meets the eye. And I would still frankly put my faith in the force than not. Maybe I can be accused of turning a blind eye to the situation, but I can live with that.
When Will We Get The Message About Land Use?
(Aired March 24, 2010)
We still are under the belief in our country that we can continue to simply spread out housing more and more and eat up more and more farmland from our reserves. I don't know how long we think we can do that, but at some point, we're going to have to realize what they realized centuries ago in Europe, that you have to start going up instead of out.
The latest dispute in Vancouver would have over 200 hectares of farmland in Tsawassen turned over to housing. It's been a potato farm for many years. The Greater Vancouver area is probably one of the best examples of what not to do in planning growth. So much valuable delta farm land has been taken over for housing that it is shameful.
People will ask-where will we live if we don't have more development? The same places you would live if you were in Denmark, or London or Amsterdam. Growth is up, not out, and in those places there's plenty of green and there's plenty of farmland still in production.
I wonder what the Lower Mainland will look like in 100 years, when there will be no farmland left in the Fraser Valley and people will be wondering how they are going to eat. We continue to do the same on a lesser scale in the Interior, and if you look at how all the benchland in the Okanagan has been decimated by homes, all the fruit trees that have been destroyed for spread out housing, you wonder what will be the eventual fate of food production.
We have so much artificial in our food now, and it will only get worse. I remember hearing 30 years ago that we don't have to worry, that we'll have new production techniques in place that we will be able to a lot more in a smaller space. That hasn't proven to be the case. And I believe we are not far away from having to make some serious decisions on how we use land in the future. We apparently haven't got the message yet.
We still are under the belief in our country that we can continue to simply spread out housing more and more and eat up more and more farmland from our reserves. I don't know how long we think we can do that, but at some point, we're going to have to realize what they realized centuries ago in Europe, that you have to start going up instead of out.
The latest dispute in Vancouver would have over 200 hectares of farmland in Tsawassen turned over to housing. It's been a potato farm for many years. The Greater Vancouver area is probably one of the best examples of what not to do in planning growth. So much valuable delta farm land has been taken over for housing that it is shameful.
People will ask-where will we live if we don't have more development? The same places you would live if you were in Denmark, or London or Amsterdam. Growth is up, not out, and in those places there's plenty of green and there's plenty of farmland still in production.
I wonder what the Lower Mainland will look like in 100 years, when there will be no farmland left in the Fraser Valley and people will be wondering how they are going to eat. We continue to do the same on a lesser scale in the Interior, and if you look at how all the benchland in the Okanagan has been decimated by homes, all the fruit trees that have been destroyed for spread out housing, you wonder what will be the eventual fate of food production.
We have so much artificial in our food now, and it will only get worse. I remember hearing 30 years ago that we don't have to worry, that we'll have new production techniques in place that we will be able to a lot more in a smaller space. That hasn't proven to be the case. And I believe we are not far away from having to make some serious decisions on how we use land in the future. We apparently haven't got the message yet.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
(Aired March 23, 2010)
A report out today from a UBC group is somewhat scary. It says the war on drugs is backfiring badly.
The report says the war has done nothing to stop the supply of street drugs and is actually increasing drug-related violence. The report goes on to suggest that by taking drug lords into captivity and taking drugs off the street, we're causing prices to skyrocket, more turf wars, and increasing violence.
It's one of those reports in my mind that we've wasted a whole lot of money undertaking. We have found nothing we didn't know already, there are no solutions proposed, and if you take the report at absolutely face value, it's almost hinting we should do nothing to stop crime. That's almost the take you get from reading the report.
The report doesn't advocate legalizing drug use, but that's kind of the feeling you're left with. The report says we have to commit more resources to addiction treatment, because increasing health treatment will do more good than costly law-enforcement efforts. Sorry, that's a stupid approach. I'm not denying that we need to do more to treat those affected by drugs. But to do the treatment without trying to reduce the supply is a self-defeating effort.
If you don't do something to try and stop the flow of drugs, and put the drug lords behind bars, even if you only cramp their style for a little while, anything you do on the treatment front is a waste. Trafficking of drugs, gang-related violence and power struggles between groups have literally gone on for decades, maybe centuries. It's not going to go away. But you can't give up the fight. Where would our country be if we did nothing?
The report out today says some interesting things, unfortunately some of the statements make the whole report a little suspect and unconvincing. They could have done a better job.
A report out today from a UBC group is somewhat scary. It says the war on drugs is backfiring badly.
The report says the war has done nothing to stop the supply of street drugs and is actually increasing drug-related violence. The report goes on to suggest that by taking drug lords into captivity and taking drugs off the street, we're causing prices to skyrocket, more turf wars, and increasing violence.
It's one of those reports in my mind that we've wasted a whole lot of money undertaking. We have found nothing we didn't know already, there are no solutions proposed, and if you take the report at absolutely face value, it's almost hinting we should do nothing to stop crime. That's almost the take you get from reading the report.
The report doesn't advocate legalizing drug use, but that's kind of the feeling you're left with. The report says we have to commit more resources to addiction treatment, because increasing health treatment will do more good than costly law-enforcement efforts. Sorry, that's a stupid approach. I'm not denying that we need to do more to treat those affected by drugs. But to do the treatment without trying to reduce the supply is a self-defeating effort.
If you don't do something to try and stop the flow of drugs, and put the drug lords behind bars, even if you only cramp their style for a little while, anything you do on the treatment front is a waste. Trafficking of drugs, gang-related violence and power struggles between groups have literally gone on for decades, maybe centuries. It's not going to go away. But you can't give up the fight. Where would our country be if we did nothing?
The report out today says some interesting things, unfortunately some of the statements make the whole report a little suspect and unconvincing. They could have done a better job.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Do We Need To Regulate Outdoor Fun?
(Aired March 22, 2010)
I'm not in favour of overly-regulating the great outdoors in British Columbia. I agree in principle with MP Justin Trudeau that we shouldn't get too carried away with regulating skiiers and snowmobilers who enjoy the rush of being out in the back country on mountainsides and terrain that many of us would be afraid to set foot on. But we have to determine where the boundary is between foolishness and fun. We can't always determine where danger lies. Maybe that's part of the excitement.
On the weekend, two skiiers were killed near Valemount. It appears that the two guides involved had a lot of experience and had skiied the same area only a day or two before. But other deaths occurred in areas where the avalanche danger was extremely high, and you wonder why people would even take that chance. In some of those cases, young children were involved, and that's just insane.
The big question for me is not whether or not people should ski or snowmobile the back country. As long as they're not damaging the environment, I say let them go to it. But I am not in favour of you and I, the taxpayer, having to fund great relief and search efforts when these people go missing or get trapped. I'm obviously not in favour of letting them perish if they get hurt, but there has to be a line. If you want to take the risk, don't be coming to me if you get into trouble.
If we're going to pay the bill, then maybe some sort of regulation needs to be in place to govern when people can go out. But that brings up another problem-who patrols the regulations? Do we have to front that too?
There's no easy answer, but we have to come to grips with what is becoming an increasingly serious problem. In years like this, where the avalanche danger is inordinately high, can we allow the tragedies of the last month to continue? That's the question lawmakers have to deal with. The tragedies are becoming far too frequent.
I'm not in favour of overly-regulating the great outdoors in British Columbia. I agree in principle with MP Justin Trudeau that we shouldn't get too carried away with regulating skiiers and snowmobilers who enjoy the rush of being out in the back country on mountainsides and terrain that many of us would be afraid to set foot on. But we have to determine where the boundary is between foolishness and fun. We can't always determine where danger lies. Maybe that's part of the excitement.
On the weekend, two skiiers were killed near Valemount. It appears that the two guides involved had a lot of experience and had skiied the same area only a day or two before. But other deaths occurred in areas where the avalanche danger was extremely high, and you wonder why people would even take that chance. In some of those cases, young children were involved, and that's just insane.
The big question for me is not whether or not people should ski or snowmobile the back country. As long as they're not damaging the environment, I say let them go to it. But I am not in favour of you and I, the taxpayer, having to fund great relief and search efforts when these people go missing or get trapped. I'm obviously not in favour of letting them perish if they get hurt, but there has to be a line. If you want to take the risk, don't be coming to me if you get into trouble.
If we're going to pay the bill, then maybe some sort of regulation needs to be in place to govern when people can go out. But that brings up another problem-who patrols the regulations? Do we have to front that too?
There's no easy answer, but we have to come to grips with what is becoming an increasingly serious problem. In years like this, where the avalanche danger is inordinately high, can we allow the tragedies of the last month to continue? That's the question lawmakers have to deal with. The tragedies are becoming far too frequent.
Monday, March 22, 2010
(Aired March 19, 2010)
I wonder what would have happened if Aboriginal Cogeneration Corporation had done a better job of public relations before pulling the pin last night and deciding to drop plans for a gasification plant at Mission Flats.
It was only yesterday that Aboriginal Cogeneration spokesman Kim Sigurdson told us he was planning to push on with his plans for a gasification plant at Mission Flats to burn old creosote-covered railway ties and turn them into energy. What happened between his conversation with us yesterday morning and 9:30 PM last night isn't public knowledge. But Sigurdson sent out an email last night to the media saying he was pulling out of Kamloops and would try to locate the plant elsewhere.
Sigurdson did admit he was affected by the amount of opposition to the plant. He says the technology is sound, and the plant would have been good for the city. But we'll never know. The Environment Ministry didn't have a problem with the technology, even though there wasn't concrete evidence presented to the public
that it was safe.
Even last week at a public forum, Sigurdson talked about interest from all over the world for the technology, to burn a variety of items, none of which was remotely as dangerous as creosote.
If Sigurdson had come to Kamloops council and the general public sooner, would it have made a difference? I highly doubt it. I don't think it would have ever flown publicly. When the idea of toxins floating around starts hitting the news, it's like waving a big red flag, and I don't think Sigurdson would ever have picked up strong public support.
And public support isn't always necessary. Look at City Council this week, voting for water meters despite a public referendum a few years back indicating a lack of public support for that move. The evidence, said council this week, was overwhelming. Water meters were needed.
If the Environment Ministry felt Sigurdson's technology was sound, and the proper procedures for monitoring were put in place, what would have been technically wrong with him going ahead? Don't get me wrong, I'm not unhappy the plant isn't coming. I'm just saying that lack of public support isn't the only criteria.
I wonder what would have happened if Aboriginal Cogeneration Corporation had done a better job of public relations before pulling the pin last night and deciding to drop plans for a gasification plant at Mission Flats.
It was only yesterday that Aboriginal Cogeneration spokesman Kim Sigurdson told us he was planning to push on with his plans for a gasification plant at Mission Flats to burn old creosote-covered railway ties and turn them into energy. What happened between his conversation with us yesterday morning and 9:30 PM last night isn't public knowledge. But Sigurdson sent out an email last night to the media saying he was pulling out of Kamloops and would try to locate the plant elsewhere.
Sigurdson did admit he was affected by the amount of opposition to the plant. He says the technology is sound, and the plant would have been good for the city. But we'll never know. The Environment Ministry didn't have a problem with the technology, even though there wasn't concrete evidence presented to the public
that it was safe.
Even last week at a public forum, Sigurdson talked about interest from all over the world for the technology, to burn a variety of items, none of which was remotely as dangerous as creosote.
If Sigurdson had come to Kamloops council and the general public sooner, would it have made a difference? I highly doubt it. I don't think it would have ever flown publicly. When the idea of toxins floating around starts hitting the news, it's like waving a big red flag, and I don't think Sigurdson would ever have picked up strong public support.
And public support isn't always necessary. Look at City Council this week, voting for water meters despite a public referendum a few years back indicating a lack of public support for that move. The evidence, said council this week, was overwhelming. Water meters were needed.
If the Environment Ministry felt Sigurdson's technology was sound, and the proper procedures for monitoring were put in place, what would have been technically wrong with him going ahead? Don't get me wrong, I'm not unhappy the plant isn't coming. I'm just saying that lack of public support isn't the only criteria.
(Aired March 18, 2010)
And so after all the reconfiguration in School District 73, after all the work done by administration, all the work done by the Trustees to attend all those meetings with parents around the District, we're still going to be 2.4 million dollars short in the budget. That means 30-50 teachers are likely to lose their jobs for September.
We're going to have all-day kindergarten, which in my mind is a luxury we can't afford, yet we're not going to be in a position to fund basic education for our children. What's wrong with that picture? It's totally wrong for the province to continue the status quo in funding for education, without taking into account the need for a new model.
Everyone is saying the model is broken, everyone is blaming declining enrollment, yet the government refuses to sit down and restructure the system so we can accomplish our goals without having to drop the standards of education. To paraphrase the old adage- when it's broke, fix it.
I am so sick of our MLA's and other government ministers telling us education spending is higher than ever. It's a totally irrelevant statement. It's irrelevant because despite the new money, you're not addressing the problems. How do we get that message through? There has to be a way to convene some sort of think tank to come up with new ways of doing things.
Declining enrollment is an ongoing problem. Restructuring school boundaries as the board did this year is going to continue to be a problem. And kids will probably still have to change schools, take more busses and become acclimatised to changing methods of delivery. But when they get to whatever classroom they're going to, they should expect to get the best education we can provide. And we're not providing it.
Teachers aren't above criticism here either, but that's another story for another day. The point is-we need to have an overhaul. The province has to get serious about restructuring. Until that happens, our students will continue to be shortchanged, and fall further behind.
And so after all the reconfiguration in School District 73, after all the work done by administration, all the work done by the Trustees to attend all those meetings with parents around the District, we're still going to be 2.4 million dollars short in the budget. That means 30-50 teachers are likely to lose their jobs for September.
We're going to have all-day kindergarten, which in my mind is a luxury we can't afford, yet we're not going to be in a position to fund basic education for our children. What's wrong with that picture? It's totally wrong for the province to continue the status quo in funding for education, without taking into account the need for a new model.
Everyone is saying the model is broken, everyone is blaming declining enrollment, yet the government refuses to sit down and restructure the system so we can accomplish our goals without having to drop the standards of education. To paraphrase the old adage- when it's broke, fix it.
I am so sick of our MLA's and other government ministers telling us education spending is higher than ever. It's a totally irrelevant statement. It's irrelevant because despite the new money, you're not addressing the problems. How do we get that message through? There has to be a way to convene some sort of think tank to come up with new ways of doing things.
Declining enrollment is an ongoing problem. Restructuring school boundaries as the board did this year is going to continue to be a problem. And kids will probably still have to change schools, take more busses and become acclimatised to changing methods of delivery. But when they get to whatever classroom they're going to, they should expect to get the best education we can provide. And we're not providing it.
Teachers aren't above criticism here either, but that's another story for another day. The point is-we need to have an overhaul. The province has to get serious about restructuring. Until that happens, our students will continue to be shortchanged, and fall further behind.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Gutsy Decision By City Council
(Aired March 17, 2010)
Finally, a city council with enough jam to make a tough decision. Council voted 7-2 yesterday in favour of establishing water meters starting in 2012. The move is long overdue.
I've always been in favour of paying for what you use, and if you use more water than the next person because, as Marg Spina puts it, you want to have 10 baths a day, you pay for it. You eat fancier food than anyone else, you pay for it, you go out for dinner more, you pay for it, you want a fancier car than my 23 year old van, you pay for it. You like the fancy house instead of the basic bungalow? Well, you get the picture.
Council made the right move in approving the meters. Councillor Denis Walsh says he would have preferred more watering restrictions, or going back to referendum. Pat Wallace says she feels bound to honour the results of the referendum a few years ago, when residents voted against meters. But while I have the utmost respect for Pat, I think she's wrong here. Times change, and the average homeowner, unfortunately and with no disrespect, doesn't have a clue about the bigger picture.
Council has an obligation to make the right decision here. They don't need to go back to the people. The facts are staring them in the face. We elected them to do what's right for the community. This is what's right.
Meters will save money, and at the very least, even if they don't, people should pay relative to what they use. I'm not thinking about the savings we get by deferring various infrastucture upgrades, because eventually that money is going to have to be spent as the city grows. It's really just a simple case of something whose time has come.
Now that council has made the decision, let's just get on with it, and move on to the next project. There's plenty more issues that need discussion.
Finally, a city council with enough jam to make a tough decision. Council voted 7-2 yesterday in favour of establishing water meters starting in 2012. The move is long overdue.
I've always been in favour of paying for what you use, and if you use more water than the next person because, as Marg Spina puts it, you want to have 10 baths a day, you pay for it. You eat fancier food than anyone else, you pay for it, you go out for dinner more, you pay for it, you want a fancier car than my 23 year old van, you pay for it. You like the fancy house instead of the basic bungalow? Well, you get the picture.
Council made the right move in approving the meters. Councillor Denis Walsh says he would have preferred more watering restrictions, or going back to referendum. Pat Wallace says she feels bound to honour the results of the referendum a few years ago, when residents voted against meters. But while I have the utmost respect for Pat, I think she's wrong here. Times change, and the average homeowner, unfortunately and with no disrespect, doesn't have a clue about the bigger picture.
Council has an obligation to make the right decision here. They don't need to go back to the people. The facts are staring them in the face. We elected them to do what's right for the community. This is what's right.
Meters will save money, and at the very least, even if they don't, people should pay relative to what they use. I'm not thinking about the savings we get by deferring various infrastucture upgrades, because eventually that money is going to have to be spent as the city grows. It's really just a simple case of something whose time has come.
Now that council has made the decision, let's just get on with it, and move on to the next project. There's plenty more issues that need discussion.
It's About Time We Got Ready To Cope With Disaster
(Aired March 16, 2010 )
I am struggling with the fact that, until yesterday, we did not have a national emergency plan in place in this country.
Given the potential for any number of potential disasters, from flooding to earthquakes to toxic spills, it is absolutely astounding to me that we did not have an official plan in place to deal with these emergencies. I know that individual departments had some plans in place for emergencies, but there didn't seem to be a coordinated plan approved by cabinet. That's pretty hard to believe.
This new plan apparently has as its focus getting everyone on the same page. Wonder why it took this long to make that happen. I know that we've coped with emergencies in the past, but it seems to me that we could have let a lot slip through the cracks in not having a coordinated plan. Under the new plan, emergency response efforts will be coordinated. You mean they weren't doing that before? What were they doing?
When a disaster strikes, you have to be able to move quickly and seamlessly. That seems like pretty simple math. So the question remains, what kind of plan did we have in place when we had emergencies before?
When there's a disaster, you have to be able to pull out the protocol and get everything moving. The city and TNRD have good plans in place, but the feds don't? What would we have done if a big disaster hit? Something beyond the scope of the plans put in place by municipalities and regional districts.
It's pretty scary to think we didn't have a proper plan in place to take care of all the contingencies. I guess the good thing is we now have a plan in place and hopefully that will help should disaster strike. Hopefully it won't take as long enacting the plan in an emergency as it took to put the plan in place.
I am struggling with the fact that, until yesterday, we did not have a national emergency plan in place in this country.
Given the potential for any number of potential disasters, from flooding to earthquakes to toxic spills, it is absolutely astounding to me that we did not have an official plan in place to deal with these emergencies. I know that individual departments had some plans in place for emergencies, but there didn't seem to be a coordinated plan approved by cabinet. That's pretty hard to believe.
This new plan apparently has as its focus getting everyone on the same page. Wonder why it took this long to make that happen. I know that we've coped with emergencies in the past, but it seems to me that we could have let a lot slip through the cracks in not having a coordinated plan. Under the new plan, emergency response efforts will be coordinated. You mean they weren't doing that before? What were they doing?
When a disaster strikes, you have to be able to move quickly and seamlessly. That seems like pretty simple math. So the question remains, what kind of plan did we have in place when we had emergencies before?
When there's a disaster, you have to be able to pull out the protocol and get everything moving. The city and TNRD have good plans in place, but the feds don't? What would we have done if a big disaster hit? Something beyond the scope of the plans put in place by municipalities and regional districts.
It's pretty scary to think we didn't have a proper plan in place to take care of all the contingencies. I guess the good thing is we now have a plan in place and hopefully that will help should disaster strike. Hopefully it won't take as long enacting the plan in an emergency as it took to put the plan in place.
What Were They Thinking?
(Aired March 15, 2010)
I've always been a pretty conservative kind of guy. In just about everything I've done, I've not taken many chances and haven't stepped too often off the plank to see where I'd wind up. So to me, going to see an event like the Big Iron Shootout near Revelstoke on the weekend wouldn't even be in the cards. I guess I don't have that adventurous streak that some of those have who would have been at Boulder Mountain on the weekend.
But even those who enjoy the risks of going into the backcountry must give their heads a bit of a shake given the severe avalanche warnings that came out late last week. With about 10 slides in that general area since Friday, why in God's name would you place yourself in what some say was a death trap? You have to have a snowmobile to get in. There's virtually no chance of escape if an avalanche should hit. It was a perfect storm, it seems, on Saturday.
Two people died, many were injured, and you and I as taxpayers will have to pay a fortune for the cost of the rescue effort. All because some people needed some kind of adrenalin rush watching snowmobilers race up a mountain.
We won't know for a while yet whether the snowmobilers themselves triggered the wall of snow that rushed down onto the spectators below. But surely someone must have wondered whether or not this was the place to be, given all the warnings.
This is an unsanctioned event, one that has received negative publicity in the past. Four years ago, thousands of dollars in damage was caused by snowmobilers attending the event. I don't know how you patrol this kind of thing, but it's obvious that some steps need to be taken to put restrictions in place, especially in circumstances that have prevailed all winter long on B.C. slopes.
Conditions this winter have caused numerous warnings to be put out, advising skiiers and snowmobilers of the danger. But it's obvious that to some, the excitement is worth the risk. After Saturday's tragedy, you have to ask yourself if the excitement really was worth it.
I've always been a pretty conservative kind of guy. In just about everything I've done, I've not taken many chances and haven't stepped too often off the plank to see where I'd wind up. So to me, going to see an event like the Big Iron Shootout near Revelstoke on the weekend wouldn't even be in the cards. I guess I don't have that adventurous streak that some of those have who would have been at Boulder Mountain on the weekend.
But even those who enjoy the risks of going into the backcountry must give their heads a bit of a shake given the severe avalanche warnings that came out late last week. With about 10 slides in that general area since Friday, why in God's name would you place yourself in what some say was a death trap? You have to have a snowmobile to get in. There's virtually no chance of escape if an avalanche should hit. It was a perfect storm, it seems, on Saturday.
Two people died, many were injured, and you and I as taxpayers will have to pay a fortune for the cost of the rescue effort. All because some people needed some kind of adrenalin rush watching snowmobilers race up a mountain.
We won't know for a while yet whether the snowmobilers themselves triggered the wall of snow that rushed down onto the spectators below. But surely someone must have wondered whether or not this was the place to be, given all the warnings.
This is an unsanctioned event, one that has received negative publicity in the past. Four years ago, thousands of dollars in damage was caused by snowmobilers attending the event. I don't know how you patrol this kind of thing, but it's obvious that some steps need to be taken to put restrictions in place, especially in circumstances that have prevailed all winter long on B.C. slopes.
Conditions this winter have caused numerous warnings to be put out, advising skiiers and snowmobilers of the danger. But it's obvious that to some, the excitement is worth the risk. After Saturday's tragedy, you have to ask yourself if the excitement really was worth it.
LOTS OF OPPOSITION AT FORUM TO ACC GASIFIER
AFTER LAST NIGHT'S FORUM, AND WADING THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS, THE ABORIGINAL COGENERATION CORPORATION ISSUE HAS BECOME A LITTLE CLEARER.
THOUGH I DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF MYSELF, IT SEEMS TWO FATAL MISTAKES HAVE LED TO THE ULTIMATE FAILURE OF A-C-C TO TAKE A FOOTHOLD IN KAMLOOPS.
FIRST, THE CHOICE OF LOCATION MIGHT HAVE SOUNDED GOOD ON PAPER, BUT IT'S NOT GOOD IN PERSON.
SIGURDSON WAS PROBABLY SALIVATING AT THE PROSPECT OF A CITY WITH A RAILYARD, AND A TRANSPORTATION HUB WITH A POTENTIAL CUSTOMER RIGHT NEARBY.
WHAT HE DIDN'T REALIZE WAS THE UNIQUE AIR QUALITY ISSUES HERE - AND THE FACT THAT - SINGULARLY BECAUSE OF OUR PULP MILL - WE ARE ALREADY VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF HEAVY INDUSTRY TO OUR AIRSHED.
THIS ISSUE ESSENTIALLY BOILS DOWN TO LOCATION.
SIGURDSON'S SECOND MISTAKE WAS NOT BEING COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY UP FRONT AND TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT HE WAS PLANNING.
HE'S DONE THE BARE MINIMUM, BUT HAS CERTAINLY NOT DONE HIMSELF ANY FAVOURS WHATSOEVER BY NEGLECTING TO INITIATE AN EVENT LIKE LAST NIGHT'S MUCH EARLIER.
SIGURDSON HAS CHOSEN A COMMUNITY THAT IS AT ONCE TOO LARGE AND TOO SMALL.
IT'S LARGE ENOUGH THAT THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE TO SCRUTINIZE HIM AND LEVER SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE AGAINST HIM.
BUT IT'S SMALL ENOUGH THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL RESPOND TO A SINGLE COMPANY TRYING TO SET UP INSIDE OUR BOUNDARIES.
NO ONE WOULD HAVE BATTED AN EYE IN A LARGER CENTRE, BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T HAVE SHOWN UP ON ANYONE'S RADAR.
A LOT OF RESIDENTS THINK OF KAMLOOPS AS A SMALL TOWN, AND SIGURDSON SHOULD HAVE RESPECTED THAT IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT CAN COME TOGETHER AND ESSENTIALLY SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE.
NOW, HE HAS ANOTHER PROBLEM ON HIS HAND - IT'S NOT WHAT LED TO THE OPPOSITION, BUT THE OPPOSITION ITSELF.
KIM SIGURDSON'S NAME IS MUD IN THIS TOWN, AND THAT IS SO CERTAIN IT'S NEARLY A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
BRING UP THIS PROJECT AND YOU'RE AS LIKELY AS NOT TO GET EYE-ROLLING AS A RESPONSE.
HIS REPUTATION HAS BEEN BESMIRCHED - AND THAT WILL AFFECT HIS BUSINESS PROSPECTS.
FOR A WHILE, IT LOOKED THERE WAS NOTHING THAT COULD STOP A-C-C FROM SETTING UP HERE.
NOW, THERE SEEM TO BE NOTHING BUT OBSTACLES STANDING IN ITS PATH.
THOUGH I DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF MYSELF, IT SEEMS TWO FATAL MISTAKES HAVE LED TO THE ULTIMATE FAILURE OF A-C-C TO TAKE A FOOTHOLD IN KAMLOOPS.
FIRST, THE CHOICE OF LOCATION MIGHT HAVE SOUNDED GOOD ON PAPER, BUT IT'S NOT GOOD IN PERSON.
SIGURDSON WAS PROBABLY SALIVATING AT THE PROSPECT OF A CITY WITH A RAILYARD, AND A TRANSPORTATION HUB WITH A POTENTIAL CUSTOMER RIGHT NEARBY.
WHAT HE DIDN'T REALIZE WAS THE UNIQUE AIR QUALITY ISSUES HERE - AND THE FACT THAT - SINGULARLY BECAUSE OF OUR PULP MILL - WE ARE ALREADY VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF HEAVY INDUSTRY TO OUR AIRSHED.
THIS ISSUE ESSENTIALLY BOILS DOWN TO LOCATION.
SIGURDSON'S SECOND MISTAKE WAS NOT BEING COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY UP FRONT AND TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT HE WAS PLANNING.
HE'S DONE THE BARE MINIMUM, BUT HAS CERTAINLY NOT DONE HIMSELF ANY FAVOURS WHATSOEVER BY NEGLECTING TO INITIATE AN EVENT LIKE LAST NIGHT'S MUCH EARLIER.
SIGURDSON HAS CHOSEN A COMMUNITY THAT IS AT ONCE TOO LARGE AND TOO SMALL.
IT'S LARGE ENOUGH THAT THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE TO SCRUTINIZE HIM AND LEVER SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE AGAINST HIM.
BUT IT'S SMALL ENOUGH THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL RESPOND TO A SINGLE COMPANY TRYING TO SET UP INSIDE OUR BOUNDARIES.
NO ONE WOULD HAVE BATTED AN EYE IN A LARGER CENTRE, BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T HAVE SHOWN UP ON ANYONE'S RADAR.
A LOT OF RESIDENTS THINK OF KAMLOOPS AS A SMALL TOWN, AND SIGURDSON SHOULD HAVE RESPECTED THAT IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT CAN COME TOGETHER AND ESSENTIALLY SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE.
NOW, HE HAS ANOTHER PROBLEM ON HIS HAND - IT'S NOT WHAT LED TO THE OPPOSITION, BUT THE OPPOSITION ITSELF.
KIM SIGURDSON'S NAME IS MUD IN THIS TOWN, AND THAT IS SO CERTAIN IT'S NEARLY A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
BRING UP THIS PROJECT AND YOU'RE AS LIKELY AS NOT TO GET EYE-ROLLING AS A RESPONSE.
HIS REPUTATION HAS BEEN BESMIRCHED - AND THAT WILL AFFECT HIS BUSINESS PROSPECTS.
FOR A WHILE, IT LOOKED THERE WAS NOTHING THAT COULD STOP A-C-C FROM SETTING UP HERE.
NOW, THERE SEEM TO BE NOTHING BUT OBSTACLES STANDING IN ITS PATH.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Opining On Hold
My wife Jennie and I are celebrating the arrival of our second child, and thus I will be under the radar for a couple of weeks.
Bonus Opinion: The staff in the Delivery and Maternity wards at RIH were absolutely top notch. RIH has major issues to overcome, but the women and men on the 3rd floor are terrific. Not a single complaint.
Bonus Opinion: The staff in the Delivery and Maternity wards at RIH were absolutely top notch. RIH has major issues to overcome, but the women and men on the 3rd floor are terrific. Not a single complaint.
Friday, March 12, 2010
How Much Information is Too Much?
(Aired on March 11, 2010)
I honestly don't know what to think about a new page on the Interior Health website that gives the results of every inspection made by officials to restaurants, tattoo parlours, beauty shops and retirement centres. While I obviously care that these facilities are safe, I wonder how much information is too much. Most infractions are minor, and are cleared up immediately. So why have the restaurant front and centre because of that minor infraction when the facility is, in reality, perfectly safe to eat in?
To my way of thinking, why not put up reports where an establishment continually breaks the rules and is cited for seriously infractions that really could cause problems, instead of reporting on every single thing that doesn't really impact the overall health scenario. Let's face it - if an inspector went into your home, they would almost certainly find some infraction every time they visit.
Let me be clear, I'm not condoning violations. If a restaurant flaunts the rules, shut them down. I have no hesitation in recommending that. But I trust the inspectors to take care of those problems. I don't need to see whether or not they have one instance where the cooling temperature is one degree above what it should be. If that's a problem, I trust the health inspectors will see to it that it's fixed.
Frankly, I'm more inclined not to go back to a restaurant if their bathrooms are dirty than anything else. That to me is a sure sign about how caring a facility is about their customers. Or if the blinds are dirty or the floors untidy. That's the first thing I look for. And if I don't like what I see, I don't come back. Because to me, that first impression is important, and if owners care about that, I'm more inclined to think the rest of the place is good too. I don't need to see every inpsection report to know a facility is following the rules. In many cases, it's pretty obvious just by walking in the door.
Maybe having these reports available is a good thing. But to me, it's going just a little too far.
I honestly don't know what to think about a new page on the Interior Health website that gives the results of every inspection made by officials to restaurants, tattoo parlours, beauty shops and retirement centres. While I obviously care that these facilities are safe, I wonder how much information is too much. Most infractions are minor, and are cleared up immediately. So why have the restaurant front and centre because of that minor infraction when the facility is, in reality, perfectly safe to eat in?
To my way of thinking, why not put up reports where an establishment continually breaks the rules and is cited for seriously infractions that really could cause problems, instead of reporting on every single thing that doesn't really impact the overall health scenario. Let's face it - if an inspector went into your home, they would almost certainly find some infraction every time they visit.
Let me be clear, I'm not condoning violations. If a restaurant flaunts the rules, shut them down. I have no hesitation in recommending that. But I trust the inspectors to take care of those problems. I don't need to see whether or not they have one instance where the cooling temperature is one degree above what it should be. If that's a problem, I trust the health inspectors will see to it that it's fixed.
Frankly, I'm more inclined not to go back to a restaurant if their bathrooms are dirty than anything else. That to me is a sure sign about how caring a facility is about their customers. Or if the blinds are dirty or the floors untidy. That's the first thing I look for. And if I don't like what I see, I don't come back. Because to me, that first impression is important, and if owners care about that, I'm more inclined to think the rest of the place is good too. I don't need to see every inpsection report to know a facility is following the rules. In many cases, it's pretty obvious just by walking in the door.
Maybe having these reports available is a good thing. But to me, it's going just a little too far.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Some Cuts Cold, Others Non-Sensical
(Aired on March 10, 2010)
The cuts to welfare benefits in this month's provincial budget are a little curious.
Consider this. It's one thing if you actually have an ideology and you stick to it. For example, if you happen to believe that poor people deserve to be poor - that they are nothing more than a drag on the public purse - then the cuts make sense. If you believe that because a person lives on the street, they don't need a shelter allowance, you can eliminate that $75 per month. After all, you got elected. The majority of people who care must agree with you. You can axe funeral support for sponsored immigrants. You can cut and cut and not feel it's irresponsible.
But here's what doesn't make sense. Slash Gordon and the B.C. Liberals also believe in fiscal responsibility - doing what's most cost effective in the long run. Keeping that in mind, other money-saving measures in the budget do not make sense. In the long run, cuts to birth control and dental coverage for those on welfare will not be fiscally responsible. Neither will axing the bottled water supplement for people who have compromised immune systems. In both of these cases, the province will be paying more for medical care down the road. It's save now, spend later.
If you really want to save money now and pay for it in the long term, what should be getting removed is the new half-billion dollar retractable roof for B.C. Place. After all, if thousands of homeless people can't have proper shelter, why should the B.C. Lions?
The cuts to welfare benefits in this month's provincial budget are a little curious.
Consider this. It's one thing if you actually have an ideology and you stick to it. For example, if you happen to believe that poor people deserve to be poor - that they are nothing more than a drag on the public purse - then the cuts make sense. If you believe that because a person lives on the street, they don't need a shelter allowance, you can eliminate that $75 per month. After all, you got elected. The majority of people who care must agree with you. You can axe funeral support for sponsored immigrants. You can cut and cut and not feel it's irresponsible.
But here's what doesn't make sense. Slash Gordon and the B.C. Liberals also believe in fiscal responsibility - doing what's most cost effective in the long run. Keeping that in mind, other money-saving measures in the budget do not make sense. In the long run, cuts to birth control and dental coverage for those on welfare will not be fiscally responsible. Neither will axing the bottled water supplement for people who have compromised immune systems. In both of these cases, the province will be paying more for medical care down the road. It's save now, spend later.
If you really want to save money now and pay for it in the long term, what should be getting removed is the new half-billion dollar retractable roof for B.C. Place. After all, if thousands of homeless people can't have proper shelter, why should the B.C. Lions?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Arts Groups Caught in Government Vacuum
(Aired on March 9, 2010)
We shouldn't be surprised that the provincial government is cutting money to the arts and culture. When budget cuts come, arts and culture are always the first cut. The government has reduced the amount it gives from gaming revenue by over $30-million this year, mainly to groups which target adults. This, however, is a bit deceiving because theatre and cultural organizations like theatre groups reach out to all ages.
It's a sad commentary when this type of thing happens. The arts are such a valuable part of our mosaic and to cut their funding leaves a gaping hole in that important part of our life.
It's difficult, of course, to rationalize spending money on the arts and culture and reducing money for health and education. Obviously that's a pretty tough sell. But the reality is that government wastes so much money on unnecessary expenditures that if someone really took a careful look at spending, they could probably find enough money for the arts as well as health and education. Governments are like big gaping black holes in space. Money just seems to get swallowed up inside some big space and no one knows where it goes and how to stop it. Imagine, if you will, this giant vacuum cleaner going around the province just sucking up your money as it goes by. That's government. Not just the province, but the feds as well.
I don't imagine we'll ever get a clear handle on where our tax dollars go. I think we all fully realize how much it costs to run health services and education. But there is so much that seems to be taken in that never seems to be accounted for.
I often wonder what would happen if we just shut down all our government offices and let people fend for themselves. Not a practical solution, but we had this thing called zero based budgeting become the watchword a few years ago. Maybe that's what we should do with government services. Start from scratch and see where it leads. I'll bet we'd be pleasantly surprised at what we could do away with.
We shouldn't be surprised that the provincial government is cutting money to the arts and culture. When budget cuts come, arts and culture are always the first cut. The government has reduced the amount it gives from gaming revenue by over $30-million this year, mainly to groups which target adults. This, however, is a bit deceiving because theatre and cultural organizations like theatre groups reach out to all ages.
It's a sad commentary when this type of thing happens. The arts are such a valuable part of our mosaic and to cut their funding leaves a gaping hole in that important part of our life.
It's difficult, of course, to rationalize spending money on the arts and culture and reducing money for health and education. Obviously that's a pretty tough sell. But the reality is that government wastes so much money on unnecessary expenditures that if someone really took a careful look at spending, they could probably find enough money for the arts as well as health and education. Governments are like big gaping black holes in space. Money just seems to get swallowed up inside some big space and no one knows where it goes and how to stop it. Imagine, if you will, this giant vacuum cleaner going around the province just sucking up your money as it goes by. That's government. Not just the province, but the feds as well.
I don't imagine we'll ever get a clear handle on where our tax dollars go. I think we all fully realize how much it costs to run health services and education. But there is so much that seems to be taken in that never seems to be accounted for.
I often wonder what would happen if we just shut down all our government offices and let people fend for themselves. Not a practical solution, but we had this thing called zero based budgeting become the watchword a few years ago. Maybe that's what we should do with government services. Start from scratch and see where it leads. I'll bet we'd be pleasantly surprised at what we could do away with.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
No Rhyme or Reason to Kamloops Gas Prices
(Aired on March 8, 2010)
I must admit to you that in all my years of being in news, I've never been able to figure out why gas prices have fluctuated. I've heard all the arguments, supply and demand, cost in the field making its way to the pumps, refinery costs, local taxes, you name it - I've heard it. But none of the arguments hold true, and I think it's time for the feds to have another inquiry into gas prices. They've looked before, and they're obviously as dumb as I am, because they haven't been able to figure it out either.
Last month, I had to make a business trip to Quesnel. My traveling partner and I were intrigued that the prices in the Cariboo were at least a couple of cents cheaper than in Kamloops. That just didn't make any sense to us at all. This past weekend, I was in 100 Mile. We went up to Little Fort and across Highway 24. In Lone Butte, which can claim no reason at all for having cheaper gas prices than Kamloops, prices were $1.03 cents a liter, a full 2 cents cheaper than Kamloops. And again, all the way home down Highway 97, prices were cheaper than Kamloops.
This just doesn't make any sense folks. We never seem to have a big fluctuation in Kamloops. Occasionally, as we did a few weeks back, we'll drop down for a short period of time, but that's normally the precursor to a sharp jump.
I can understand the price of gas in Vancouver averaging $1.13 this morning because they have transit taxes specific to the coast. I can understand Whitehorse being $1.12. They have to take that gas a long way. We're not out of line compared to a lot of communities across the country, but to have our gas price more expensive than the Cariboo just doesn't make sense. Someone, somewhere has to have an answer. And it can't be just any answer. It's got to be one that we can actually believe.
I must admit to you that in all my years of being in news, I've never been able to figure out why gas prices have fluctuated. I've heard all the arguments, supply and demand, cost in the field making its way to the pumps, refinery costs, local taxes, you name it - I've heard it. But none of the arguments hold true, and I think it's time for the feds to have another inquiry into gas prices. They've looked before, and they're obviously as dumb as I am, because they haven't been able to figure it out either.
Last month, I had to make a business trip to Quesnel. My traveling partner and I were intrigued that the prices in the Cariboo were at least a couple of cents cheaper than in Kamloops. That just didn't make any sense to us at all. This past weekend, I was in 100 Mile. We went up to Little Fort and across Highway 24. In Lone Butte, which can claim no reason at all for having cheaper gas prices than Kamloops, prices were $1.03 cents a liter, a full 2 cents cheaper than Kamloops. And again, all the way home down Highway 97, prices were cheaper than Kamloops.
This just doesn't make any sense folks. We never seem to have a big fluctuation in Kamloops. Occasionally, as we did a few weeks back, we'll drop down for a short period of time, but that's normally the precursor to a sharp jump.
I can understand the price of gas in Vancouver averaging $1.13 this morning because they have transit taxes specific to the coast. I can understand Whitehorse being $1.12. They have to take that gas a long way. We're not out of line compared to a lot of communities across the country, but to have our gas price more expensive than the Cariboo just doesn't make sense. Someone, somewhere has to have an answer. And it can't be just any answer. It's got to be one that we can actually believe.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Rewriting 'O Canada'
(Aired on March 5, 2010)
There was a suggestion this week that it's time to change Canada's national anthem. Some apparently think we should change "in all our sons command" to make it more gender inclusive. It is high time we change the anthem - but not for this particular reason.
It needs to be updated for accuracy. Stand on guard for thee? Considering our vast unguarded north - is that really true? We need to revamp the whole thing - to better reflect what Canadians are really proud of.
Speaking of the north, let's start with geography and point out that we have coastlines on three oceans. That'll work. Then we can rhyme "oceans" with "Nova Scotians" - and maybe lotions, because when it gets cold, you need that stuff to keep your skin from cracking.
Hockey will have to play a prominent part in the new anthem. But the only thing that remotely rhymes with "Gretzky" is "sexy", and I'm not comfortable with that if Rita McNeil ever sings this anthem.
Inventions like insulin, hair tonic, and the game Pictionary all happened in Canada, so we should probably mention those. Canadians are known to drink a lot of beer, but we are also known to be very gracious, so at one point in the anthem we should probably apologize for drinking so much beer. As a nod to our multiculturalism, we should probably include a verse of "Frere Jacques" as well.
Another verse should be dedicated entirely to beavers.
For the title, Prime Minister Harper has requested we include the word "spangled."
You know what? This is getting entirely too long and convoluted. Why don't we just commission Leonard Cohen or Gordon Lightfoot to write us an anthem?
Or better yet - Celine Dion. Because what's more Canadian than celebrating someone only once they become accepted in the United States.
There was a suggestion this week that it's time to change Canada's national anthem. Some apparently think we should change "in all our sons command" to make it more gender inclusive. It is high time we change the anthem - but not for this particular reason.
It needs to be updated for accuracy. Stand on guard for thee? Considering our vast unguarded north - is that really true? We need to revamp the whole thing - to better reflect what Canadians are really proud of.
Speaking of the north, let's start with geography and point out that we have coastlines on three oceans. That'll work. Then we can rhyme "oceans" with "Nova Scotians" - and maybe lotions, because when it gets cold, you need that stuff to keep your skin from cracking.
Hockey will have to play a prominent part in the new anthem. But the only thing that remotely rhymes with "Gretzky" is "sexy", and I'm not comfortable with that if Rita McNeil ever sings this anthem.
Inventions like insulin, hair tonic, and the game Pictionary all happened in Canada, so we should probably mention those. Canadians are known to drink a lot of beer, but we are also known to be very gracious, so at one point in the anthem we should probably apologize for drinking so much beer. As a nod to our multiculturalism, we should probably include a verse of "Frere Jacques" as well.
Another verse should be dedicated entirely to beavers.
For the title, Prime Minister Harper has requested we include the word "spangled."
You know what? This is getting entirely too long and convoluted. Why don't we just commission Leonard Cohen or Gordon Lightfoot to write us an anthem?
Or better yet - Celine Dion. Because what's more Canadian than celebrating someone only once they become accepted in the United States.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Budgets Could Have Included More Vision
(Aired on March 4, 2010)
While specific items in the B.C. and federal budgets this week are of concern, of more concern to me is the long term impact that these budgets have. In the B.C. budget Tuesday, it's obvious the government has no faith in the immediate future of the resource industries in our province. Laying off a vast number of government employees in the resource sectors indicates to me that the government doesn't expect these industries to rebound very quickly, and there isn't much of a plan to try and stimulate things.
Of more concern than the lack of immediate funding for health and education is the lack of any indication of some sort of structure to revamp how we deal with both those major issues. We know that both systems are broken, but there's no indication of any strategic planning to figure out a better way.
Similarly with the federal budget today. While we are going to spend a limited amount of money in the last budget to deal with stimulus funding, of much greater concern is the move to loosen investment rules in key sectors like telecommunications, satellite and uranium industries. This could cause serious job loss if big American companies take over phone and mobile companies, or take over broadcast operations. Ultimately that could lead to control of much of our future growth in these areas in American hands. And we all know how problematic that control can be when we look at the power of American automakers.
I'm all for free trade, but when Americans can implement Buy American plans that hurt us, and yet we can be forced to ship our water to the U.S. with no concern over our own needs, that scares the hell out of me.
As I say, it's not the line by line items that worry me about budgets and throne speeches, it's where those long-range plans are leading us. And in some cases, they may be leading us down the proverbial garden path.
While specific items in the B.C. and federal budgets this week are of concern, of more concern to me is the long term impact that these budgets have. In the B.C. budget Tuesday, it's obvious the government has no faith in the immediate future of the resource industries in our province. Laying off a vast number of government employees in the resource sectors indicates to me that the government doesn't expect these industries to rebound very quickly, and there isn't much of a plan to try and stimulate things.
Of more concern than the lack of immediate funding for health and education is the lack of any indication of some sort of structure to revamp how we deal with both those major issues. We know that both systems are broken, but there's no indication of any strategic planning to figure out a better way.
Similarly with the federal budget today. While we are going to spend a limited amount of money in the last budget to deal with stimulus funding, of much greater concern is the move to loosen investment rules in key sectors like telecommunications, satellite and uranium industries. This could cause serious job loss if big American companies take over phone and mobile companies, or take over broadcast operations. Ultimately that could lead to control of much of our future growth in these areas in American hands. And we all know how problematic that control can be when we look at the power of American automakers.
I'm all for free trade, but when Americans can implement Buy American plans that hurt us, and yet we can be forced to ship our water to the U.S. with no concern over our own needs, that scares the hell out of me.
As I say, it's not the line by line items that worry me about budgets and throne speeches, it's where those long-range plans are leading us. And in some cases, they may be leading us down the proverbial garden path.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
IHA Needs to Clean House
(Aired on March 3, 2010)
The revelation today of yet another case of dirty surgical tools at Royal Inland Hospital is proof positive that the Interior Health Authority has not taken this problem seriously. A caller told us a joint replacement surgery had to be called off this morning after debris was found on one of the surgical instruments. This comes after multiple assurances by people as high up as the C.E.O. of the health authority that everything possible was being done to ensure patient safety.
Now, that's clearly shown to be false.
This story probably tugs at me more than some others because my wife and I are expecting our second child in the next few weeks. This is where it hits home - cleanliness at the hospital is of the utmost concern.
If it comes down to having someone literally inspect every instrument as it comes out of the cleaning and sterilization equipment and before it is repackaged, then so be it. If it comes down to someone losing his or her job, then that's what must be done. If it comes down to biting the bullet and replacing the entire cleaning and sterilization system, then THAT's what must be done.
To be honest, I'm what the kids call "freaked" about this. And I know I'm not the only one.
The time for audits and reviews has come and gone. It's time for action. As news of our dirty O.R. spreads throughout the province, Royal Inland is gaining the kind of reputation it certainly does not want. It's time to clean house.
The revelation today of yet another case of dirty surgical tools at Royal Inland Hospital is proof positive that the Interior Health Authority has not taken this problem seriously. A caller told us a joint replacement surgery had to be called off this morning after debris was found on one of the surgical instruments. This comes after multiple assurances by people as high up as the C.E.O. of the health authority that everything possible was being done to ensure patient safety.
Now, that's clearly shown to be false.
This story probably tugs at me more than some others because my wife and I are expecting our second child in the next few weeks. This is where it hits home - cleanliness at the hospital is of the utmost concern.
If it comes down to having someone literally inspect every instrument as it comes out of the cleaning and sterilization equipment and before it is repackaged, then so be it. If it comes down to someone losing his or her job, then that's what must be done. If it comes down to biting the bullet and replacing the entire cleaning and sterilization system, then THAT's what must be done.
To be honest, I'm what the kids call "freaked" about this. And I know I'm not the only one.
The time for audits and reviews has come and gone. It's time for action. As news of our dirty O.R. spreads throughout the province, Royal Inland is gaining the kind of reputation it certainly does not want. It's time to clean house.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Racism Not the Root of ACC Objections
(Aired on March 2, 2010)
I am a Canadian. I believe in the rights of our First Nations, I believe in a true and just settlement for their concerns. But I am not a racist if I have some
concerns over a situation just because it involves First Nations. And I object strongly when the so-called "race card" is brought out whenever that
happens.
Those who are opposed to the Aboriginal Cogeneration Plant are not, in my view, racist because they oppose the plant The fact that some of the proponents of the plant have blood lines that were here before mine shouldn't enter the equation. This is a plant that might be built in a community where air problems have persisted for decades. Those opposed aren't sure the technology is proven and there aren't hidden dangers. They may be wrong. But they have the right to declare their opposition without being branded.
In the end, the technology may be fine, and if it is, let the plant go ahead. But let's make sure. That is not racist. Does racism exist? Of course it does. And that's wrong. It's uncalled for. It should be weeded out. In fact, there have been racist emails apparently sent to the proponents of the project. And if ACC spokesman Kim Sigurdson says his reference to racism refers to those people, and not the entire group opposing the plant, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
A group of people opposing something because they believe it will harm their health is not racist. Let's look at the facts of this case without bringing up prejudice and talking about racism. We need to have answers based on a logical and progressive examination of the technology and its impact. Nothing else will be satisfactory.
I am a Canadian. I believe in the rights of our First Nations, I believe in a true and just settlement for their concerns. But I am not a racist if I have some
concerns over a situation just because it involves First Nations. And I object strongly when the so-called "race card" is brought out whenever that
happens.
Those who are opposed to the Aboriginal Cogeneration Plant are not, in my view, racist because they oppose the plant The fact that some of the proponents of the plant have blood lines that were here before mine shouldn't enter the equation. This is a plant that might be built in a community where air problems have persisted for decades. Those opposed aren't sure the technology is proven and there aren't hidden dangers. They may be wrong. But they have the right to declare their opposition without being branded.
In the end, the technology may be fine, and if it is, let the plant go ahead. But let's make sure. That is not racist. Does racism exist? Of course it does. And that's wrong. It's uncalled for. It should be weeded out. In fact, there have been racist emails apparently sent to the proponents of the project. And if ACC spokesman Kim Sigurdson says his reference to racism refers to those people, and not the entire group opposing the plant, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
A group of people opposing something because they believe it will harm their health is not racist. Let's look at the facts of this case without bringing up prejudice and talking about racism. We need to have answers based on a logical and progressive examination of the technology and its impact. Nothing else will be satisfactory.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Olympians Did Canada Proud
(Aired on March 1, 2010)
A week ago, I sat here criticizing those who were decrying the lack of success of Canadian athletes at the Olympics, people who criticized the Own
the Podium campaign. I said that we were successful with what we had already accomplished.
A week later, I sit here again, proud of our country not only as a country which has run a remarkable Olympics, but one in which our athletes did, in fact, Own the Podium in so many ways. We had the most Olympic gold medals of any host country at the Winter Olympics. Not only that, we had the most gold medals of any country in the Winter Olympics. We finished third overall behind perennial powerhouses Germany and the U.S. and less than a handful of medals short of second place overall. If you wish to call that unsuccessful, I would suggest you give your head a very serious shake.
But more than the medals, the coming together of the Olympics after a bit of a shaky start, and tragedy on the luge run, was the coming together of the community. Vancouver's games will be rememebered for the tremendous community spirit, the awesome display of pride evident everywhere you walked in downtown Vancouver. It was truly a memorable event, and you can say what you will, these Olympics will go down as some of the best Winter Olympics ever. There is no question about that. Were we perfect? No. But did we perform? Absolutely. In virtually every respect. Did we draw attention to our country in a positive way? Despite the best efforts of some naysayers, we did exactly that.
Our province is not without fault. We have work to do to improve social conditions for many down and out. We have to come back from an economic downturn. We await with interest the government's view for us in this week's budget. But for the past few weeks, we turned our best face to the world, and we did ourselves proud.
A week ago, I sat here criticizing those who were decrying the lack of success of Canadian athletes at the Olympics, people who criticized the Own
the Podium campaign. I said that we were successful with what we had already accomplished.
A week later, I sit here again, proud of our country not only as a country which has run a remarkable Olympics, but one in which our athletes did, in fact, Own the Podium in so many ways. We had the most Olympic gold medals of any host country at the Winter Olympics. Not only that, we had the most gold medals of any country in the Winter Olympics. We finished third overall behind perennial powerhouses Germany and the U.S. and less than a handful of medals short of second place overall. If you wish to call that unsuccessful, I would suggest you give your head a very serious shake.
But more than the medals, the coming together of the Olympics after a bit of a shaky start, and tragedy on the luge run, was the coming together of the community. Vancouver's games will be rememebered for the tremendous community spirit, the awesome display of pride evident everywhere you walked in downtown Vancouver. It was truly a memorable event, and you can say what you will, these Olympics will go down as some of the best Winter Olympics ever. There is no question about that. Were we perfect? No. But did we perform? Absolutely. In virtually every respect. Did we draw attention to our country in a positive way? Despite the best efforts of some naysayers, we did exactly that.
Our province is not without fault. We have work to do to improve social conditions for many down and out. We have to come back from an economic downturn. We await with interest the government's view for us in this week's budget. But for the past few weeks, we turned our best face to the world, and we did ourselves proud.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Hockey Gold Would Wrap it Up
(Aired on February 26, 2010)
The giant distraction that has limited productivity in workplaces across Canada throughout the month of February is almost over. And I mean that in the nicest possible terms. As much as I am one of the hated critics of the five-ring circus, my criticisms have been largely directed at the financial push needed to put this event on. Surely, you can put on an athletic event for less than $6-billion in public investment.
But the athletics themselves have been absolutely spell-binding. I've followed the competition closely and have been as swept up in the storylines as everyone else.
-Sliders hurtling down a track that has already proved deadly.
-Canada going gold-silver in two-man bobsleigh.
-Our country's greatest olympic hero, Cindy Klassen, bravely competing after double-knee surgery robbed her of her explosiveness.
-Snowboarder Shaun White showing why he's the most dominant athlete in any sport - but figure skater Yu-Na Kim is not far behind.
-And of course, the triumph and tragedy of women's figure skater Joannie Rochette.
The most compelling story, however, is still to come for this hockey-loving country. There will be no greater feeling of pride for Canadians than if we can win men's hockey gold on our home ice - and no worse feeling of defeat than if we lose to the Americans. But while all of this is of great interest to me, escapism is not what I'm good at.
Monday, we will wake up to find our country is still at war, and our economy is still struggling. While we may have thought the Olympics provided a tonic for our problems, it was indeed only a mild sedative. It's our men's hockey team that has the greatest chance to give us the greatest memories.
The giant distraction that has limited productivity in workplaces across Canada throughout the month of February is almost over. And I mean that in the nicest possible terms. As much as I am one of the hated critics of the five-ring circus, my criticisms have been largely directed at the financial push needed to put this event on. Surely, you can put on an athletic event for less than $6-billion in public investment.
But the athletics themselves have been absolutely spell-binding. I've followed the competition closely and have been as swept up in the storylines as everyone else.
-Sliders hurtling down a track that has already proved deadly.
-Canada going gold-silver in two-man bobsleigh.
-Our country's greatest olympic hero, Cindy Klassen, bravely competing after double-knee surgery robbed her of her explosiveness.
-Snowboarder Shaun White showing why he's the most dominant athlete in any sport - but figure skater Yu-Na Kim is not far behind.
-And of course, the triumph and tragedy of women's figure skater Joannie Rochette.
The most compelling story, however, is still to come for this hockey-loving country. There will be no greater feeling of pride for Canadians than if we can win men's hockey gold on our home ice - and no worse feeling of defeat than if we lose to the Americans. But while all of this is of great interest to me, escapism is not what I'm good at.
Monday, we will wake up to find our country is still at war, and our economy is still struggling. While we may have thought the Olympics provided a tonic for our problems, it was indeed only a mild sedative. It's our men's hockey team that has the greatest chance to give us the greatest memories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
