(Aired on May 28, 2010)
Having cancelled the Edmonton run, it's hard to imagine that Westjet will be increasing service out of Kamloops again any time soon. A spokesman for the company said the passenger numbers just weren't there for the Edmonton route, and the seasonal Vancouver flight wasn't doing well either before it ended.
Airport Society John O'Fee mentioned in passing that it would have been nice if the airline would have given the city a fighting chance instead of cancelling the run just a few weeks after it first took off. O'Fee is not in a position to raise a stink about it, but really, that deserves more attention. The airline said with pre-bookings happening since December, it had plenty of time to gauge customer interest. But the initial decision to start the flight in the spring and summer was probably flawed. Enough people who want to travel to Edmonton will decide to drive in the nice weather. It's the winter when the roads are treacherous that people would more likely make the decision to fly. Now, they won't get a chance.
And while some people may book as far in advance as December for flights in May, that's not nearly the entire market. There are a lot who wait for the smokin' deals that come from those rare seat sales. That's when the bookings start to pile up.
I'm not saying I can read the market better than Westjet, but what I am saying is that it's clear that there is little margin for failure in this industry right now. Westjet needs something as close to certain as it can get. Sometimes you need to spend money to make money, but Westjet likely can't afford the first part of that equation. And that's why I wouldn't expect a whole lot of expanded service in the near future.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Privacy or Protection?
(Aired on May 27, 2010)
There is a fine line somewhere that says "here’s the line over which you don’t cross, and here’s what’s acceptable." We waver around that line continually when it comes to privacy. What’s private, what’s not, and when is it reasonable to assume that the public good is more important than the rights of the individual.
We’re facing that scenario right now when it comes to the fight against crime, particularly against gangs and drugs. The Court of Appeal recently ruled that a program designed to shut down grow ops was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That program would allow Fire Inspectors to trace power spikes and then enter homes without warrants to try and find grow ops.
It seems pretty draconian at first glance. That’s unfair, the civil libertarians cry. But on the other side of the coin, grow ops are causing increasing problems. They’re becoming more sophisticated, they lead to many people getting involved in criminal activity, either to reap the profits of the sales, or getting hooked on these illicit drugs. They allow gangs to flourish, and they cause untold amounts of physical damage to homes, not to mention the theft of hydro, threat of fires from poorly set up systems, and the list goes on. So whose rights are more important? The individual who gets searched, or the rights of the many who suffer at the hands of the drug dealers and the gangs? It’s not an easy question to resolve, and the Courts wrestle with a tough decision.
If I had my way, I’d vote in favour of protecting the many at the expense of the few. I’m all for the greater good. But protecting the greater good can also open the door to things we might not find as favorable. How much power do you put in the hands of Big Brother? The program at issue here has resulted in a dramatic increase in marijuana grow-ops. So it seems like the right thing to do. But what the Courts have to wrestle with, and here’s the crunch, is how many other doors does that open. And those other doors may lead us to such destruction of our rights that we would find repugnant.
There is a fine line somewhere that says "here’s the line over which you don’t cross, and here’s what’s acceptable." We waver around that line continually when it comes to privacy. What’s private, what’s not, and when is it reasonable to assume that the public good is more important than the rights of the individual.
We’re facing that scenario right now when it comes to the fight against crime, particularly against gangs and drugs. The Court of Appeal recently ruled that a program designed to shut down grow ops was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That program would allow Fire Inspectors to trace power spikes and then enter homes without warrants to try and find grow ops.
It seems pretty draconian at first glance. That’s unfair, the civil libertarians cry. But on the other side of the coin, grow ops are causing increasing problems. They’re becoming more sophisticated, they lead to many people getting involved in criminal activity, either to reap the profits of the sales, or getting hooked on these illicit drugs. They allow gangs to flourish, and they cause untold amounts of physical damage to homes, not to mention the theft of hydro, threat of fires from poorly set up systems, and the list goes on. So whose rights are more important? The individual who gets searched, or the rights of the many who suffer at the hands of the drug dealers and the gangs? It’s not an easy question to resolve, and the Courts wrestle with a tough decision.
If I had my way, I’d vote in favour of protecting the many at the expense of the few. I’m all for the greater good. But protecting the greater good can also open the door to things we might not find as favorable. How much power do you put in the hands of Big Brother? The program at issue here has resulted in a dramatic increase in marijuana grow-ops. So it seems like the right thing to do. But what the Courts have to wrestle with, and here’s the crunch, is how many other doors does that open. And those other doors may lead us to such destruction of our rights that we would find repugnant.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
BP Turning into the Big Bad Wolf
(Aired on May 26, 2010)
Between right now and the time I finish this editorial, 7 barrels of oil will have flowed from the Deepwater Horizon spill into the Gulf of Mexico. And that's if you use numbers provided by British Petroleum. If you use numbers being put forward by other experts, the spill is increasing by 20-times that rate. That means during the duration of this editorial, 140 barrels of oil will have spilled.
Today, BP started pouring heavy mud into the wellhead to see if it can stem the flow. That would be followed by concrete, and then supposedly we'd never hear of that well again. It is becoming more and more unbelievable that safeguards weren't in place to prevent the environmental catastrophe that continues to unfold. As I mentioned shortly after the well explosion happened, the installation of a $500,000 acoustic switch likely would have prevented this spill.
But then again, the lack of regard for anything but pure profit seems to be what BP is all about. Five years ago, BP was sued when some of its employees died in a refinery explosion in Texas. It was alleged that the company was housing employees in structures that were vulnerable to explosion during the workday. As a lawyer was researching the suit, he found an internal BP memo that crassly plugged the employees lives into a cost benefit framework. In other words, each lost life was assigned a dollar value and measured against the cost of protecting that life by upgrading the structure. The memo used the Three Little Pigs as a metaphor - in other words, what would it cost to build a straw house, a wood house, or a brick house?
In the end, the memo concluded that fully protecting its employees lives was not worth the lost profits the company would incur. BP fundamentally reneged on its responsibility to protect its employees, and now it has done the same for protecting the environment.
Having said that, there's another 140 barrels of oil down the drain.
Between right now and the time I finish this editorial, 7 barrels of oil will have flowed from the Deepwater Horizon spill into the Gulf of Mexico. And that's if you use numbers provided by British Petroleum. If you use numbers being put forward by other experts, the spill is increasing by 20-times that rate. That means during the duration of this editorial, 140 barrels of oil will have spilled.
Today, BP started pouring heavy mud into the wellhead to see if it can stem the flow. That would be followed by concrete, and then supposedly we'd never hear of that well again. It is becoming more and more unbelievable that safeguards weren't in place to prevent the environmental catastrophe that continues to unfold. As I mentioned shortly after the well explosion happened, the installation of a $500,000 acoustic switch likely would have prevented this spill.
But then again, the lack of regard for anything but pure profit seems to be what BP is all about. Five years ago, BP was sued when some of its employees died in a refinery explosion in Texas. It was alleged that the company was housing employees in structures that were vulnerable to explosion during the workday. As a lawyer was researching the suit, he found an internal BP memo that crassly plugged the employees lives into a cost benefit framework. In other words, each lost life was assigned a dollar value and measured against the cost of protecting that life by upgrading the structure. The memo used the Three Little Pigs as a metaphor - in other words, what would it cost to build a straw house, a wood house, or a brick house?
In the end, the memo concluded that fully protecting its employees lives was not worth the lost profits the company would incur. BP fundamentally reneged on its responsibility to protect its employees, and now it has done the same for protecting the environment.
Having said that, there's another 140 barrels of oil down the drain.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Coke Toll Revenue Could Be Helping BC Right Now
(Aired on May 25, 2010)
Driving home from the coast yesterday, I couldn't help but reflect on the vast increase in traffic on the Coquihalla Highway. I've driven the highway extensively the past three years, at all times of day, in all seasons of the year. The volume of traffic is up substantially. Heavy truck traffic has really climbed. In fact yesterday, it was as busy between Kamloops and Hope as it was between Hope and Vancouver.
While I was driving, I wondered how many lives we could have saved in B.C. hospitals, or how many kids we could have given a proper education to, if we had not removed the tolls on the Coquihalla Highway a couple of years back. In retrospect, it was one of the stupidest moves ever by a government bent on trying to get votes for re-election. The money lost from the tolls on the highway, millions and millions every year, was lost because the government decided votes were more important than using the money for the good of the province. What if we had taken that money and used it to provide services in our hospitals, or kept more teachers on the job. Wouldn't that have been a great thing?
I know it's just another form of taxation, but it's no different than the tax on booze or cigarettes or gas, or any of the other hidden taxes we have to pay. But I would certainly rather pay the toll and have health services than not. The other side of the coin, of course, is that many of these taxes simply go into general revenue, and I'm not in favour of that. I prefer taxes go to specific items, like that transit tax on the Lower Mainland.
The government has put itself into such a hole economically, and much of it they've dug themselves with poor planning, and politically expedient moves like the removal of the toll on the Coke. They really could do a lot better.
Driving home from the coast yesterday, I couldn't help but reflect on the vast increase in traffic on the Coquihalla Highway. I've driven the highway extensively the past three years, at all times of day, in all seasons of the year. The volume of traffic is up substantially. Heavy truck traffic has really climbed. In fact yesterday, it was as busy between Kamloops and Hope as it was between Hope and Vancouver.
While I was driving, I wondered how many lives we could have saved in B.C. hospitals, or how many kids we could have given a proper education to, if we had not removed the tolls on the Coquihalla Highway a couple of years back. In retrospect, it was one of the stupidest moves ever by a government bent on trying to get votes for re-election. The money lost from the tolls on the highway, millions and millions every year, was lost because the government decided votes were more important than using the money for the good of the province. What if we had taken that money and used it to provide services in our hospitals, or kept more teachers on the job. Wouldn't that have been a great thing?
I know it's just another form of taxation, but it's no different than the tax on booze or cigarettes or gas, or any of the other hidden taxes we have to pay. But I would certainly rather pay the toll and have health services than not. The other side of the coin, of course, is that many of these taxes simply go into general revenue, and I'm not in favour of that. I prefer taxes go to specific items, like that transit tax on the Lower Mainland.
The government has put itself into such a hole economically, and much of it they've dug themselves with poor planning, and politically expedient moves like the removal of the toll on the Coke. They really could do a lot better.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A Penny Saved... Ain't Worth It
(Aired on May 21, 2010)
Above my desk sits a rather large coffee mug. Said mug is about 7/8s filled with change. Not the good kind of change, mind you. The kind of change that might as well not exist. If my mug was in fact filled with a tasty beverage and not change, the pennies would constitute the mocha and the silver change would constitute the delicious whipped cream on top.
The fact is, I haven't made a concerted effort to pay with something using pennies in years. I only collect them, I never divest myself of them. If by some chance I happen to have one in my pocket and I'm paying for something with change, I may have one penny less. But usually I don't have pennies on me - I put them in my mug you see - and it's more pennies I get back.
My penny collection has convinced me that it's finally time the penny be taken out of production. Here are some numbers to consider, care of the CBC. Depending on whom you believe, it costs somewhere between 0.8 and five cents to produce one penny. In 2007, a survey conducted by the Canadian Mint found that 63% of retailers were in favour of ridding the economy of the one-cent coin. It seems crazy to think that there would be no way to pay for the smallest measure of currency, but there's nothing you can buy for less than a nickel anymore. And if there is, it's a case of the exception proving the rule.
There are enough pennies in circulation already, so you wouldn't necessarily need to adjust pricing up front. It could be phased out over time so we can all get used to it.
That's my thought. And I won't charge you a penny for it.
Above my desk sits a rather large coffee mug. Said mug is about 7/8s filled with change. Not the good kind of change, mind you. The kind of change that might as well not exist. If my mug was in fact filled with a tasty beverage and not change, the pennies would constitute the mocha and the silver change would constitute the delicious whipped cream on top.
The fact is, I haven't made a concerted effort to pay with something using pennies in years. I only collect them, I never divest myself of them. If by some chance I happen to have one in my pocket and I'm paying for something with change, I may have one penny less. But usually I don't have pennies on me - I put them in my mug you see - and it's more pennies I get back.
My penny collection has convinced me that it's finally time the penny be taken out of production. Here are some numbers to consider, care of the CBC. Depending on whom you believe, it costs somewhere between 0.8 and five cents to produce one penny. In 2007, a survey conducted by the Canadian Mint found that 63% of retailers were in favour of ridding the economy of the one-cent coin. It seems crazy to think that there would be no way to pay for the smallest measure of currency, but there's nothing you can buy for less than a nickel anymore. And if there is, it's a case of the exception proving the rule.
There are enough pennies in circulation already, so you wouldn't necessarily need to adjust pricing up front. It could be phased out over time so we can all get used to it.
That's my thought. And I won't charge you a penny for it.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Don't Cut Too Many School District Managers
(Aired on May 20, 2010)
Kamloops School District is finalizing its staff cuts for the fall, and so far, seem to have a pretty good handle on what needs to be done to make ends meet without hurting the product in the classroom. There will be some teacher cuts, but that's not unexpected in the face of declining enrollment. Some support staff will also be axed. Seven principals' jobs will go, again because some schools won't be operating and others face reduced levels of staffing. And in an effort to ensure that the critics are silenced, there's also a restructuring at the top. Some senior administrative positions will be going, and job functions will change.
Perception is important, I suppose, and it must appear that the District is cutting top management as well as teachers in the classroom. All well and good, but I would caution that senior cuts need to be limited, or the long term result will be even more chaos and disruption than we have now. It's fine to keep teachers in the classroom, and provide the best service to students. That's what education is about. But without the planners and the senior people to look ahead and make decisions for the future, you have to have the senior administrators too. And to cut one or two positions at a senior level, where you only have a handful of people in total is a much more significant cut than cutting 30 teaching positions out of hundreds within the district.
If you have no managers, you have anarchy and chaos. Teachers can't and won't do the planning for the future. Neither will support staff or Parents Advisory Groups. You need the administrators to keep things running. No principals, no direction. No senior administrators, no future.
I'm impressed with how the District has handled a pretty dismal situation. But let's remember that if you take the Superintendent, give him more direct responsibility for individual areas of the administration, as Terry Sullivan is taking on, you take away some of his ability to function. And to curtail the ability of the top administer to administrate is a recipe for disaster.
Kamloops School District is finalizing its staff cuts for the fall, and so far, seem to have a pretty good handle on what needs to be done to make ends meet without hurting the product in the classroom. There will be some teacher cuts, but that's not unexpected in the face of declining enrollment. Some support staff will also be axed. Seven principals' jobs will go, again because some schools won't be operating and others face reduced levels of staffing. And in an effort to ensure that the critics are silenced, there's also a restructuring at the top. Some senior administrative positions will be going, and job functions will change.
Perception is important, I suppose, and it must appear that the District is cutting top management as well as teachers in the classroom. All well and good, but I would caution that senior cuts need to be limited, or the long term result will be even more chaos and disruption than we have now. It's fine to keep teachers in the classroom, and provide the best service to students. That's what education is about. But without the planners and the senior people to look ahead and make decisions for the future, you have to have the senior administrators too. And to cut one or two positions at a senior level, where you only have a handful of people in total is a much more significant cut than cutting 30 teaching positions out of hundreds within the district.
If you have no managers, you have anarchy and chaos. Teachers can't and won't do the planning for the future. Neither will support staff or Parents Advisory Groups. You need the administrators to keep things running. No principals, no direction. No senior administrators, no future.
I'm impressed with how the District has handled a pretty dismal situation. But let's remember that if you take the Superintendent, give him more direct responsibility for individual areas of the administration, as Terry Sullivan is taking on, you take away some of his ability to function. And to curtail the ability of the top administer to administrate is a recipe for disaster.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Circumstances Surrounding Giles' Death Shouldn't Tarnish His Life
(Aired on May 19, 2010)
It may seem odd to you that we are devoting time to reporting on a man's suicide today. It may seem just as odd that RCMP held a special news conference this morning to address a man's suicide. Gord Giles took his own life last week, a tragedy that has shocked and saddened the entire community. I can completely see why the public would feel that the police news conference this morning was inappropriate, and would find the media's coverage the same. But in fact, the response is the right thing to do.
Police have a general policy against reporting suicides and the same holds true for those of us in the news media. It's an incredibly sensitive subject and one that is extremely difficult for a family to deal with - even without publicity.
However, circumstances like those that surround Giles' death dictate that it can't be kept quiet. RCMP had no choice but to talk about the investigation into Giles' activities and the resulting admission of guilt. The question surrounding the man's death would then become unavoidable. This morning's news conference dealt with the entire sad situation respectfully and with dignity. It also did not shy away from the wrongdoing that preceded. Inspector Yves Lacasse and Mayor Peter Milobar should receive a great deal of credit for that.
It also must be said that Gord's family wanted the press conference to happen, and participated in it. They had heard some of the nasty rumours that had started making the rounds and they wisely determined that putting those rumours to rest was the right thing to do. They will deal with the pain of the public scrutiny today but won't have to endure outrageous rumours ever again.
The rest of us should not let tragic end of Gord's life affect the way we remember him. Though he did make a mistake, he was a proud and good man, and worked harder than most of us to make Kamloops a community to be proud of.
It may seem odd to you that we are devoting time to reporting on a man's suicide today. It may seem just as odd that RCMP held a special news conference this morning to address a man's suicide. Gord Giles took his own life last week, a tragedy that has shocked and saddened the entire community. I can completely see why the public would feel that the police news conference this morning was inappropriate, and would find the media's coverage the same. But in fact, the response is the right thing to do.
Police have a general policy against reporting suicides and the same holds true for those of us in the news media. It's an incredibly sensitive subject and one that is extremely difficult for a family to deal with - even without publicity.
However, circumstances like those that surround Giles' death dictate that it can't be kept quiet. RCMP had no choice but to talk about the investigation into Giles' activities and the resulting admission of guilt. The question surrounding the man's death would then become unavoidable. This morning's news conference dealt with the entire sad situation respectfully and with dignity. It also did not shy away from the wrongdoing that preceded. Inspector Yves Lacasse and Mayor Peter Milobar should receive a great deal of credit for that.
It also must be said that Gord's family wanted the press conference to happen, and participated in it. They had heard some of the nasty rumours that had started making the rounds and they wisely determined that putting those rumours to rest was the right thing to do. They will deal with the pain of the public scrutiny today but won't have to endure outrageous rumours ever again.
The rest of us should not let tragic end of Gord's life affect the way we remember him. Though he did make a mistake, he was a proud and good man, and worked harder than most of us to make Kamloops a community to be proud of.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Slo-Pitch City in Just the Right Place
(Aired on May 18, 2010)
The city is letting contracts today for the start of work on the new Slo-Pitch City in Rayleigh. While there are still those who think the location is too far out of town, I think it probably is in the right place, considering the amount of land available. In some ways, I would have preferred it to be closer to McArthur Island, where you could quickly drive from one venue to another and be more accessible. But for the most part, tournaments will be held at one location or another, and there probably wouldn't be too many occasions where the location would be an issue.
Some have expressed concern that the new venue is too far away from hotels and that people would have to drive longer distances after consuming alcohol at a beer garden after a game. But when you get right down to it, it's not a very long drive to hotels when you come down the highway, and you wouldn't travel any longer than you would if you were in Kelowna, and certainly no farther than you would if you were in Vancouver. If we're going to do the project right, we have to have a large enough land space to put up the proper fields and ancillary facilities. Otherwise, you won't attract the big championship events. And as the city grows, it will grow up around the facility.
Initially, it may seem like it's out in no man's land, but I remember many years ago, when the Milobar family built the Place Inn in Aberdeen. At that time, there was very little development around it. People said it was too far out of town. Didn't take long to dispel that rumour. And the same will hold true with Slo-Pitch City. I think it's a facility that will set the bar at a new level, the same as McArthur Island did when it was first developed. Just another step forward as we ensconce ourselves as the Tournament Capital.
The city is letting contracts today for the start of work on the new Slo-Pitch City in Rayleigh. While there are still those who think the location is too far out of town, I think it probably is in the right place, considering the amount of land available. In some ways, I would have preferred it to be closer to McArthur Island, where you could quickly drive from one venue to another and be more accessible. But for the most part, tournaments will be held at one location or another, and there probably wouldn't be too many occasions where the location would be an issue.
Some have expressed concern that the new venue is too far away from hotels and that people would have to drive longer distances after consuming alcohol at a beer garden after a game. But when you get right down to it, it's not a very long drive to hotels when you come down the highway, and you wouldn't travel any longer than you would if you were in Kelowna, and certainly no farther than you would if you were in Vancouver. If we're going to do the project right, we have to have a large enough land space to put up the proper fields and ancillary facilities. Otherwise, you won't attract the big championship events. And as the city grows, it will grow up around the facility.
Initially, it may seem like it's out in no man's land, but I remember many years ago, when the Milobar family built the Place Inn in Aberdeen. At that time, there was very little development around it. People said it was too far out of town. Didn't take long to dispel that rumour. And the same will hold true with Slo-Pitch City. I think it's a facility that will set the bar at a new level, the same as McArthur Island did when it was first developed. Just another step forward as we ensconce ourselves as the Tournament Capital.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
1984 26 Years Later
(Aired on May 17, 2010)
I'm sure when George Orwell wrote his book "1984", he didn't really imagine how extensive his prophecy would become. Nor that the cause of that prophecy's fulfillment was the need for public safety. In his book, Orwell talked about "Big Brother" and how the government would be watching us every time we turned around. But while the theory in Orwell's book centered around the government wanting to keep an eye on everything we do for its own nefarious means, the reality has been totally different.
While the government definitely wants to keep an eye on you, the reason Big Brother is out there is to protect public safety and provide control over crime. Surveillance cameras are everywhere these days, more so in the U.S. than anywhere, but we're not far behind. Cameras that take pictures if we run a red light, cameras on many intersection corners, cameras in every fast food and convenience store around, cameras at ATM's, cameras in school buses, in schools and in classrooms. The list never ends. Why are they there? Because the criminals have put them there. If we didn't have bullying in the schools, or vandalism around the city, if we didn't need to surveil ATM's to catch crooks, these cameras wouldn't be necessary. But unfortunately, they are.
While some of the uses of cameras to track the movements of crooks that you see on TV might be just a little far-fetched, it's not that much away from reality. We use satellite tracking to zoom in on just about anything, GPS keeps track of us on our cells, in our car, wherever we happen to be. That's good in some ways, if we get lost, if we get attacked, but it's still Big Brother keeping an eye on us. If George Orwell were alive today, I wonder if he would says to himself "I sure didn't envision this when I wrote the book."
I'm sure when George Orwell wrote his book "1984", he didn't really imagine how extensive his prophecy would become. Nor that the cause of that prophecy's fulfillment was the need for public safety. In his book, Orwell talked about "Big Brother" and how the government would be watching us every time we turned around. But while the theory in Orwell's book centered around the government wanting to keep an eye on everything we do for its own nefarious means, the reality has been totally different.
While the government definitely wants to keep an eye on you, the reason Big Brother is out there is to protect public safety and provide control over crime. Surveillance cameras are everywhere these days, more so in the U.S. than anywhere, but we're not far behind. Cameras that take pictures if we run a red light, cameras on many intersection corners, cameras in every fast food and convenience store around, cameras at ATM's, cameras in school buses, in schools and in classrooms. The list never ends. Why are they there? Because the criminals have put them there. If we didn't have bullying in the schools, or vandalism around the city, if we didn't need to surveil ATM's to catch crooks, these cameras wouldn't be necessary. But unfortunately, they are.
While some of the uses of cameras to track the movements of crooks that you see on TV might be just a little far-fetched, it's not that much away from reality. We use satellite tracking to zoom in on just about anything, GPS keeps track of us on our cells, in our car, wherever we happen to be. That's good in some ways, if we get lost, if we get attacked, but it's still Big Brother keeping an eye on us. If George Orwell were alive today, I wonder if he would says to himself "I sure didn't envision this when I wrote the book."
Monday, May 17, 2010
Crime Prevention Initiatives Well Worth the Money
(Aired on May 14, 2010)
Earlier this week, I talked about the fact that we can solve lots of things with money. We can fix health care, we can fix doctor shortages, we can fix education woes. All it takes is the bucks.
Same with crime. We can solve lots of crimes if we want to spend the money. Vancouver Police and Kamloops RCMP both came out with releases this week indicating the prolific offender targeting programs have had a major impact in reducing crime. That's exceedingly good news, especially at the coast where crime activity is in the news almost every day. Here, police target prolific offenders, they keep a close watch on them, and when they screw up, away they go back to jail.
In Vancouver, their focus is a bit different. Although they really target the offenders in a variety of ways, they also make a major push towards finding them help. Working with a variety of groups, police are working to divert the prolific offenders and hopefully give them a chance for the future by redirecting their lives. So far it seems to be working. Again, all the result of money. Increasing surveillance cameras, more human eyes in high crime areas, more anti-crime expenditures by business, all seem to be helping in the fight.
It's not a battle that's easily won. Police chiefs have to determine how much resources they can put into a program like this. Businesses and city governments have to decide how much they want to spend to get the job done. I do believe the effort is worth it. It certainly gives me a better sense of security when someone tells me property crime is down substantially, that my chance of getting mugged on the street has been reduced, and that the small percentage who commit most of the crimes are being targeted, and kept on the run.
It's taken a lot of money to get this far, it will take more to take the bar to the next level, but in my view, every penny is worth it. Protecting our safety is one of the highest priorities we have, and the money spent makes the results very worthwhile.
Earlier this week, I talked about the fact that we can solve lots of things with money. We can fix health care, we can fix doctor shortages, we can fix education woes. All it takes is the bucks.
Same with crime. We can solve lots of crimes if we want to spend the money. Vancouver Police and Kamloops RCMP both came out with releases this week indicating the prolific offender targeting programs have had a major impact in reducing crime. That's exceedingly good news, especially at the coast where crime activity is in the news almost every day. Here, police target prolific offenders, they keep a close watch on them, and when they screw up, away they go back to jail.
In Vancouver, their focus is a bit different. Although they really target the offenders in a variety of ways, they also make a major push towards finding them help. Working with a variety of groups, police are working to divert the prolific offenders and hopefully give them a chance for the future by redirecting their lives. So far it seems to be working. Again, all the result of money. Increasing surveillance cameras, more human eyes in high crime areas, more anti-crime expenditures by business, all seem to be helping in the fight.
It's not a battle that's easily won. Police chiefs have to determine how much resources they can put into a program like this. Businesses and city governments have to decide how much they want to spend to get the job done. I do believe the effort is worth it. It certainly gives me a better sense of security when someone tells me property crime is down substantially, that my chance of getting mugged on the street has been reduced, and that the small percentage who commit most of the crimes are being targeted, and kept on the run.
It's taken a lot of money to get this far, it will take more to take the bar to the next level, but in my view, every penny is worth it. Protecting our safety is one of the highest priorities we have, and the money spent makes the results very worthwhile.
Kamloops a Good Place for a Headquarters?
(Aired on May 13, 2010)
The provincial headquarters for forest fire fighting was officially opened in Kamloops today. Starting this year, all co-ordination of forestry fire suppression operations in the province will take place out at Fulton Field. This, of course, only makes sense. But give credit where credit is due; the provincial government finally did something that makes sense.
Kamloops - in the heart of the province and a major transportation hub - really should be more of a base of operations than it already is. We've already spoken about oversight of Royal Inland Hospital being transferred to Kelowna. While that may not be as much of an issue as first feared, it's not a great omen either. And what really concerns me is the situation over at the BC Lottery Corporation. Kamloops is still the headquarters for BCLC. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the location of its leader.
When Michael Graydon was hired to lead the Lotto corporation, the initial thought was of course that he would move to Kamloops. It hasn't happened. Graydon still essentially works in Richmond. It's curious, really. After all, why would the president and CEO not reside and work in the same city as the headquarters? In fact, what is a headquarters if not the place where the leader is? While there's nothing more than this situation to substantiate it, my gut tells me if it's allowed to continue like this, the BCLC home base is not long for Kamloops.
Maybe it's a good thing I'm not a betting man.
The provincial headquarters for forest fire fighting was officially opened in Kamloops today. Starting this year, all co-ordination of forestry fire suppression operations in the province will take place out at Fulton Field. This, of course, only makes sense. But give credit where credit is due; the provincial government finally did something that makes sense.
Kamloops - in the heart of the province and a major transportation hub - really should be more of a base of operations than it already is. We've already spoken about oversight of Royal Inland Hospital being transferred to Kelowna. While that may not be as much of an issue as first feared, it's not a great omen either. And what really concerns me is the situation over at the BC Lottery Corporation. Kamloops is still the headquarters for BCLC. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the location of its leader.
When Michael Graydon was hired to lead the Lotto corporation, the initial thought was of course that he would move to Kamloops. It hasn't happened. Graydon still essentially works in Richmond. It's curious, really. After all, why would the president and CEO not reside and work in the same city as the headquarters? In fact, what is a headquarters if not the place where the leader is? While there's nothing more than this situation to substantiate it, my gut tells me if it's allowed to continue like this, the BCLC home base is not long for Kamloops.
Maybe it's a good thing I'm not a betting man.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Nothing Beats Chains for Institutionalized Incompetence
(Aired on May 12, 2010)
Forget oil spills, plane crashes and houses sinking into the earth. Forget political scandals, drug busts, and the Harmonized Sales Tax.
The biggest story of the past few months has got to be the fact that Kamloops is getting a Burger King once again. Kamloops This Week this week reported that the new fast food restaurant would be popping up in Valleyview, and that the person behind the King wants to find a second location in Kamloops as well.
Burger King's website lists the Triple Whopper with cheese as packing 1240 calories and an artery-busting 83 grams of fat, numbers I think we can agree are both magnificent and completely horrifying. If lawyers chase ambulances, this is where they'll find them.
And while I sincerely do welcome more choice in our restaurant market, not all of the big franchises are demonstrating they are wonderful corporate citizens. Home Depot announced this week that it has been charging Provincial Sales Tax on all sorts of items that are supposed to be PST-exempt. That means if you have some Home Depot receipts lying around, it's probably best that you scrounge them up and head on over to Hillside Drive for a refund.
You can do it, and they can help.
The point of me bringing this up is, sometimes the chains have their place. After all, if I had grown a taste for the 1830 milligrams of sodium known as the Mushroom and Swiss Steakhouse Burger back in Winnipeg, I'd have been quite sad not to find a Burger King in Kamloops.
But there's another side to that flame-broiled patty. A big box store is the only place you'll be able to find large scale institutionalized incompetence like charging PST on items that are supposed to be exempt. It's a whopper of a screw-up, and one that the store won't easily repair.
Forget oil spills, plane crashes and houses sinking into the earth. Forget political scandals, drug busts, and the Harmonized Sales Tax.
The biggest story of the past few months has got to be the fact that Kamloops is getting a Burger King once again. Kamloops This Week this week reported that the new fast food restaurant would be popping up in Valleyview, and that the person behind the King wants to find a second location in Kamloops as well.
Burger King's website lists the Triple Whopper with cheese as packing 1240 calories and an artery-busting 83 grams of fat, numbers I think we can agree are both magnificent and completely horrifying. If lawyers chase ambulances, this is where they'll find them.
And while I sincerely do welcome more choice in our restaurant market, not all of the big franchises are demonstrating they are wonderful corporate citizens. Home Depot announced this week that it has been charging Provincial Sales Tax on all sorts of items that are supposed to be PST-exempt. That means if you have some Home Depot receipts lying around, it's probably best that you scrounge them up and head on over to Hillside Drive for a refund.
You can do it, and they can help.
The point of me bringing this up is, sometimes the chains have their place. After all, if I had grown a taste for the 1830 milligrams of sodium known as the Mushroom and Swiss Steakhouse Burger back in Winnipeg, I'd have been quite sad not to find a Burger King in Kamloops.
But there's another side to that flame-broiled patty. A big box store is the only place you'll be able to find large scale institutionalized incompetence like charging PST on items that are supposed to be exempt. It's a whopper of a screw-up, and one that the store won't easily repair.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
New Snowmobiling Regs Needed
(Aired on May 11, 2010)
Last week, I didn't agree with Kevin Krueger over his thoughts about banning big rigs from Highway 5A. Today, I am agreeing with him on another topic, the need to impose some rules against high-marking and other high-risk back country behaviour.
High marking, for those who don't know, is a popular activity performed by snowmobilers in mountainous terrain, where the snowmobile operator tries to ride as far up a steep mountain slope as possible, then turn around and come back down the hill without getting stuck, rolling the snowmobile or losing power. It's extreme, and for those who enjoy that kind of activity, probably gives them a huge rush. But it can be very dangerous, and it's time some kind of regulations were put in place.
I agree with Krueger when he says you don't want more regulation than you need, and you don't want regulations you can't enforce. The problem is that those who want the thrill are going to do it anyway. Back country activity, whether it's winter or summer fun, always carries an element of risk, and we shouldn't prevent people from undertaking that risk if they understand it, and still want to partage. But the rub comes when other lives are put in danger. When a snowmobiler or a a high country skiier, or a mountain climber has an accident, people have to go in and rescue them. And that's just as dangerous as the original activity. And why should rescuers put their lives in danger because some goomba was out for a weekend thrill? That's the fine line the government has to deal with.
We have helicopter skiing companies taking people to remote areas to ski. These companies are well trained, have good safety records and are well-prepared for emergencies. Still doesn't avoid accidents, but certainly reduces the chance. But what do you do when a group of snowmobilers decides to head out and do whatever they want on their own, with no guidelines or rules? Those are the people Krueger and the Liberals should be targeting.
We don't want to punish responsible riders for the sake of a few. Unfortunately, that might be hard to avoid to rein in the goofs who are causing most of the problem.
Last week, I didn't agree with Kevin Krueger over his thoughts about banning big rigs from Highway 5A. Today, I am agreeing with him on another topic, the need to impose some rules against high-marking and other high-risk back country behaviour.
High marking, for those who don't know, is a popular activity performed by snowmobilers in mountainous terrain, where the snowmobile operator tries to ride as far up a steep mountain slope as possible, then turn around and come back down the hill without getting stuck, rolling the snowmobile or losing power. It's extreme, and for those who enjoy that kind of activity, probably gives them a huge rush. But it can be very dangerous, and it's time some kind of regulations were put in place.
I agree with Krueger when he says you don't want more regulation than you need, and you don't want regulations you can't enforce. The problem is that those who want the thrill are going to do it anyway. Back country activity, whether it's winter or summer fun, always carries an element of risk, and we shouldn't prevent people from undertaking that risk if they understand it, and still want to partage. But the rub comes when other lives are put in danger. When a snowmobiler or a a high country skiier, or a mountain climber has an accident, people have to go in and rescue them. And that's just as dangerous as the original activity. And why should rescuers put their lives in danger because some goomba was out for a weekend thrill? That's the fine line the government has to deal with.
We have helicopter skiing companies taking people to remote areas to ski. These companies are well trained, have good safety records and are well-prepared for emergencies. Still doesn't avoid accidents, but certainly reduces the chance. But what do you do when a group of snowmobilers decides to head out and do whatever they want on their own, with no guidelines or rules? Those are the people Krueger and the Liberals should be targeting.
We don't want to punish responsible riders for the sake of a few. Unfortunately, that might be hard to avoid to rein in the goofs who are causing most of the problem.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Actually, Money IS the Answer
(Aired on May 10, 2010)
Small town medicine has been much in the news lately. A number of communities around Kamloops are searching for doctors to fill vacancies. It's not an easy problem to resolve, and it's not going to get any easier. The reality is, I don't think the problem will be resolved until the government realizes people aren't going to go to small towns unless they get paid, and get paid well. They aren't going to go to a place where they get burned out and are on call 24/7 and get relatively little compensation.
We tried years ago to regulate new doctors and force them to work in smaller communities when they first got out of school. Didn't work. We have talked about allowing immigrants to enter the country if they agreed to work in small communities. Not the answer. The only answer is to pay really good money to get four doctors in a small community like Chase or Ashcroft, and you might get someone to bite. The old "lifestyle" attraction just isn't there any more. To say "hey, we've got a great rural lifestyle here and you should come and raise your family in the country" just isn't the answer, especially if you don't get the pay and you're working yourself so hard you just can't enjoy the lifestyle.
If you pay enough, more than you would get coming to a larger center, you will attract doctors, and you have to be committed to that to make it work. Otherwise, medical service in small communities will continue to decline, and more and more patients will have to come to larger centers like Kamloops for treatment. Sad to say, but when it comes to rural health care, it really is all about the money.
Small town medicine has been much in the news lately. A number of communities around Kamloops are searching for doctors to fill vacancies. It's not an easy problem to resolve, and it's not going to get any easier. The reality is, I don't think the problem will be resolved until the government realizes people aren't going to go to small towns unless they get paid, and get paid well. They aren't going to go to a place where they get burned out and are on call 24/7 and get relatively little compensation.
We tried years ago to regulate new doctors and force them to work in smaller communities when they first got out of school. Didn't work. We have talked about allowing immigrants to enter the country if they agreed to work in small communities. Not the answer. The only answer is to pay really good money to get four doctors in a small community like Chase or Ashcroft, and you might get someone to bite. The old "lifestyle" attraction just isn't there any more. To say "hey, we've got a great rural lifestyle here and you should come and raise your family in the country" just isn't the answer, especially if you don't get the pay and you're working yourself so hard you just can't enjoy the lifestyle.
If you pay enough, more than you would get coming to a larger center, you will attract doctors, and you have to be committed to that to make it work. Otherwise, medical service in small communities will continue to decline, and more and more patients will have to come to larger centers like Kamloops for treatment. Sad to say, but when it comes to rural health care, it really is all about the money.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Is the BP Spill the Chernobyl of Our Time?
(Aired on May 7, 2010)
With the occurrence of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 - and the subsequent Chernobyl meltdown in 1986 - the nuclear energy debate was never the same. In fact, the potential inherent in nuclear energy has been sullied ever since. It will be interesting to see if the current disaster unfolding off the Gulf Coast of Louisiana will have the same effect on offshore drilling for oil.
Crews are trying to position what's best described as a contraption atop the spill to siphon some of it off into a tanker. But this is the first time it's ever been tried, and there are no guarantees as to its success. The sad thing about this whole mess is that it could have been prevented, and pretty cheaply. British Petroleum chose not install a device called an "acoustic switch" on the wellhead deep beneath the surface. An acoustic switch is a backup safety device that would have allowed officials to have relieved the pressure remotely. As it is now, thousands of barrels of oil are flowing into the Gulf of Mexico every day. Had the switch been in place, much of the damage could have prevented.
And here's the kicker; an acoustic switch costs approximately $500,000. That's absolutely a pittance for a company like B.P., and pales in comparison to the cost of the damage that this disaster has caused. It likely would not have prevented the explosion and the loss of 11 lives, but it could have prevented what may turn out to be one of the worst environmental disasters of our time.
If Canada and British Columbia ever pursue drilling off our Pacific coastline, we can't leave it up to companies to make their own safety rules. This disaster in particular should prove that any and all safety devices need to be installed and maintained in large scale drilling operations. The nuclear debate hasn't recovered since Chernobyl, and offshore oil drilling may never recover from this.
With the occurrence of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 - and the subsequent Chernobyl meltdown in 1986 - the nuclear energy debate was never the same. In fact, the potential inherent in nuclear energy has been sullied ever since. It will be interesting to see if the current disaster unfolding off the Gulf Coast of Louisiana will have the same effect on offshore drilling for oil.
Crews are trying to position what's best described as a contraption atop the spill to siphon some of it off into a tanker. But this is the first time it's ever been tried, and there are no guarantees as to its success. The sad thing about this whole mess is that it could have been prevented, and pretty cheaply. British Petroleum chose not install a device called an "acoustic switch" on the wellhead deep beneath the surface. An acoustic switch is a backup safety device that would have allowed officials to have relieved the pressure remotely. As it is now, thousands of barrels of oil are flowing into the Gulf of Mexico every day. Had the switch been in place, much of the damage could have prevented.
And here's the kicker; an acoustic switch costs approximately $500,000. That's absolutely a pittance for a company like B.P., and pales in comparison to the cost of the damage that this disaster has caused. It likely would not have prevented the explosion and the loss of 11 lives, but it could have prevented what may turn out to be one of the worst environmental disasters of our time.
If Canada and British Columbia ever pursue drilling off our Pacific coastline, we can't leave it up to companies to make their own safety rules. This disaster in particular should prove that any and all safety devices need to be installed and maintained in large scale drilling operations. The nuclear debate hasn't recovered since Chernobyl, and offshore oil drilling may never recover from this.
Removing Trucks from 5A Misguided
(Aired on May 6, 2010)
When I first saw the story in Kamloops This Week, I looked at my calendar to make sure it wasn't April Fools. It wasn't.
MLA Kevin Krueger, reacting to an accident on Highway 5A, the old Merritt Highway, suggested it was time to ban large trucks from the highway. He is quoted as saying that the truckers have outgrown the old route. Typical that the government would react this way when the problem is really the government itself. Trucks speed down that road, they take the sharp turns too quickly. It can indeed be a dangerous route. But the answer is not to ban truckers from the road. The road has handled big trucks for a lot of years. My guess is truck traffic isn't nearly as heavy as before the Coke was built in the 80's. The answer, Mr. Krueger, is to put some government money into policing the situation.
I agree with Paul Landry of the Trucking Association that the problem is a few bad truckers. Years ago, truckers by and large were a pretty good group of drivers. Nowadays it just isn't the case. But if the government put some money into highway patrols that could monitor the truck traffic, could money the safety of the vehicles, could make sure drivers had proper licences and were properly trained, we would go a long way towards solving the problem.
What's the sense of taking stupid, dangerous drivers and moving them from one highway to another. Moving them to the Coquihalla does nothing to solve the problem. They're just as dangerous, and if you look at the stats, there are certainly plenty of truck accidents on the Coke. So why not make the effort to solve the real problem, which is the truckers and not the road? The road is narrow, it has sharp turns, but if you drive it properly, it's safe.
I don't want to suggest that our government is ignorant of reality, but the problem would be better solved in putting some money toward education, training and enforcement, as opposed to the cheaper solution of simply planting a "no fly" zone on a highway.
When I first saw the story in Kamloops This Week, I looked at my calendar to make sure it wasn't April Fools. It wasn't.
MLA Kevin Krueger, reacting to an accident on Highway 5A, the old Merritt Highway, suggested it was time to ban large trucks from the highway. He is quoted as saying that the truckers have outgrown the old route. Typical that the government would react this way when the problem is really the government itself. Trucks speed down that road, they take the sharp turns too quickly. It can indeed be a dangerous route. But the answer is not to ban truckers from the road. The road has handled big trucks for a lot of years. My guess is truck traffic isn't nearly as heavy as before the Coke was built in the 80's. The answer, Mr. Krueger, is to put some government money into policing the situation.
I agree with Paul Landry of the Trucking Association that the problem is a few bad truckers. Years ago, truckers by and large were a pretty good group of drivers. Nowadays it just isn't the case. But if the government put some money into highway patrols that could monitor the truck traffic, could money the safety of the vehicles, could make sure drivers had proper licences and were properly trained, we would go a long way towards solving the problem.
What's the sense of taking stupid, dangerous drivers and moving them from one highway to another. Moving them to the Coquihalla does nothing to solve the problem. They're just as dangerous, and if you look at the stats, there are certainly plenty of truck accidents on the Coke. So why not make the effort to solve the real problem, which is the truckers and not the road? The road is narrow, it has sharp turns, but if you drive it properly, it's safe.
I don't want to suggest that our government is ignorant of reality, but the problem would be better solved in putting some money toward education, training and enforcement, as opposed to the cheaper solution of simply planting a "no fly" zone on a highway.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Still a Glimmer of Hope for Cache Creek
(Aired on May 4, 2010)
The Community of Cache Creek may be getting some allies in their fight to keep taking Lower Mainland garbage. Their allies may be people they didn't expect - the people of the Metro Vancouver area and Fraser Valley area.
Interesting to note a column in the Vancouver Province today by columnist Brian Lewis, whose beat is the Fraser Valley area. He points out that Metro Vancouver, who are responsible for determine how the Lower Mainland waste is taken care of, have adopted a one-solution plan- waste-to-energy incineration.
The Fraser Valley, as everyone knows, is already the recipient of much of the bad air from Vancouver through prevailing winds from the coast. Many communities don't want additional toxins from burned waste, however small in number they may turn out to be. As Lewis points out, the government gave Metro a way out of their one-track mind by agreeing to extend the life of the Cache Creek landfill. Don't forget it was the impending end of the landfill that caused Metro to seek alternatives in the first place.
I like the idea of finding alternatives, and there is no doubt that alternatives have to be found. Landfills are an eyesore, and even if they're well hidden from the public now, as Cache Creek's is, the refuse will be in there forever, generating god knows what gasses as it sits there for decades. But by giving Metro a way to buy some time, the government gave Metro an opportunity to find more acceptable solutions, perhaps better and safer technology. Metro didn't buy into the idea. They're still going full steam ahead with their thoughts of incineration.
But a number of political types have started to speak out against Metro's bullheaded approach to disposal, and in the end, that may give Cache Creek the longer lease on life they would like for their landfill. And if that momentum gathers steam, Metro may have to change its thinking. Time for John Ranta and the boys in Cache Creek to put their lobbying duds on and try to stir up the pot. It might provide some interesting results.
The Community of Cache Creek may be getting some allies in their fight to keep taking Lower Mainland garbage. Their allies may be people they didn't expect - the people of the Metro Vancouver area and Fraser Valley area.
Interesting to note a column in the Vancouver Province today by columnist Brian Lewis, whose beat is the Fraser Valley area. He points out that Metro Vancouver, who are responsible for determine how the Lower Mainland waste is taken care of, have adopted a one-solution plan- waste-to-energy incineration.
The Fraser Valley, as everyone knows, is already the recipient of much of the bad air from Vancouver through prevailing winds from the coast. Many communities don't want additional toxins from burned waste, however small in number they may turn out to be. As Lewis points out, the government gave Metro a way out of their one-track mind by agreeing to extend the life of the Cache Creek landfill. Don't forget it was the impending end of the landfill that caused Metro to seek alternatives in the first place.
I like the idea of finding alternatives, and there is no doubt that alternatives have to be found. Landfills are an eyesore, and even if they're well hidden from the public now, as Cache Creek's is, the refuse will be in there forever, generating god knows what gasses as it sits there for decades. But by giving Metro a way to buy some time, the government gave Metro an opportunity to find more acceptable solutions, perhaps better and safer technology. Metro didn't buy into the idea. They're still going full steam ahead with their thoughts of incineration.
But a number of political types have started to speak out against Metro's bullheaded approach to disposal, and in the end, that may give Cache Creek the longer lease on life they would like for their landfill. And if that momentum gathers steam, Metro may have to change its thinking. Time for John Ranta and the boys in Cache Creek to put their lobbying duds on and try to stir up the pot. It might provide some interesting results.
Kash Back? Re-Heeded? Not So Fast
(Aired on May 5, 2010)
Following the ongoing saga of Kash Heed is becoming a little like watching a ping pong match. As of the taping of this segment Heed is out once again as the province's Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety. That could have changed three or four times before air time, though.
Officially, Heed resigned early in April while police investigated a controversial pamphlet from his election campaign. He was reinstated yesterday, shortly after being cleared of all wrongdoing by a special prosecutor. Then after the reinstatement, that prosecutor - Terrence Robertson - decided to tell the world that his law firm donated a bunch of money to Heed's campaign. You'd think that might have occurred to him before he accepted the job of investigating heed.
So now Kash is out again, resigning this morning, saying he anticipates another special prosecutor will be assigned and the investigation will be redone.
This is extremely embarrassing on a number of different levels. First, it's embarrassing for the Liberal government. Heed was Gordon Campbell's star candidate in the last election, resigning from his post as head of the West Vancouver Police Department. He won his seat by a slim margin after a tough battle. But now the government's Solicitor General has resigned four times in just over two years, dating back to John Les and John van Dongen. It's not that hard to imagine a by-election taking place in Vancouver-Fraserview in the near future.
Second, it's embarrassing for Heed himself - both as a politician and as a law enforcement professional. Conceivably, Heed would have possessed the instincts to recognize the wrongdoing or appearance of wrongdoing taking place around him. Instead, his political career has turned into one big chaotic mess. If Gordon Campbell has learned his lesson from this fiasco, he will plant Heed firmly in the back benches, and we won't see Kash back for a long time.
Following the ongoing saga of Kash Heed is becoming a little like watching a ping pong match. As of the taping of this segment Heed is out once again as the province's Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety. That could have changed three or four times before air time, though.
Officially, Heed resigned early in April while police investigated a controversial pamphlet from his election campaign. He was reinstated yesterday, shortly after being cleared of all wrongdoing by a special prosecutor. Then after the reinstatement, that prosecutor - Terrence Robertson - decided to tell the world that his law firm donated a bunch of money to Heed's campaign. You'd think that might have occurred to him before he accepted the job of investigating heed.
So now Kash is out again, resigning this morning, saying he anticipates another special prosecutor will be assigned and the investigation will be redone.
This is extremely embarrassing on a number of different levels. First, it's embarrassing for the Liberal government. Heed was Gordon Campbell's star candidate in the last election, resigning from his post as head of the West Vancouver Police Department. He won his seat by a slim margin after a tough battle. But now the government's Solicitor General has resigned four times in just over two years, dating back to John Les and John van Dongen. It's not that hard to imagine a by-election taking place in Vancouver-Fraserview in the near future.
Second, it's embarrassing for Heed himself - both as a politician and as a law enforcement professional. Conceivably, Heed would have possessed the instincts to recognize the wrongdoing or appearance of wrongdoing taking place around him. Instead, his political career has turned into one big chaotic mess. If Gordon Campbell has learned his lesson from this fiasco, he will plant Heed firmly in the back benches, and we won't see Kash back for a long time.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Louisiana Oil Spill a Grim Reminder of What Can Happen
(Aired on May 3, 2010)
The tragedy off the Louisiana coast as a disastrous oil spills threatens wildlife and one of the most beautiful coastlines and wildlife sanctuaries in the world points out that man is more often than not his own worst enemy. As crews try to contain a spill that threatens to make the Exxon Valdez pale by comparison, wildlife is already starting to be hit, and it could be decades before it all plays out.
An oil platform blew up, 11 men died, and this was a rig that had a lot of new technology, supposedly technology to prevent these kind of spills from happening. Didn't work. Now the frantic work of containing the spill takes high priority. The cost will be in the billions. The cost to the coastline and the wildlife in some very fragile eco-systems is priceless. Much of that coastline is sensitive shrimp ground. It could be totally destroyed.
And while you're thinking of this, think of the fact that it will happen in our northern Arctic Ocean once drilling starts up there. And it will start up there at some point in time. The big oil interests already seem to think that it's a foregone conclusion. And more problems will occur. And it will happen off the B.C. coast if the province is successful in lobbying Ottawa to lift the offshore drilling ban.
Much of the concern that has been raised in B.C. and the Arctic deals with tanker spills like the Exxon Valdez, but now we're seeing a whole different side of things with the drilling platform explosion. If these kinds of spills can be triggered by an oil rig explosion whose safety devices didn't work to shut off the flow of crude, that puts a large additional risk when it comes to danger signs. We are ill prepared in this country for a spill of any magnitude, wherever it might occur.
The events in Louisiana should perhaps give us a little bit of incentive to get our act together before we start putting the holes in the ground.
The tragedy off the Louisiana coast as a disastrous oil spills threatens wildlife and one of the most beautiful coastlines and wildlife sanctuaries in the world points out that man is more often than not his own worst enemy. As crews try to contain a spill that threatens to make the Exxon Valdez pale by comparison, wildlife is already starting to be hit, and it could be decades before it all plays out.
An oil platform blew up, 11 men died, and this was a rig that had a lot of new technology, supposedly technology to prevent these kind of spills from happening. Didn't work. Now the frantic work of containing the spill takes high priority. The cost will be in the billions. The cost to the coastline and the wildlife in some very fragile eco-systems is priceless. Much of that coastline is sensitive shrimp ground. It could be totally destroyed.
And while you're thinking of this, think of the fact that it will happen in our northern Arctic Ocean once drilling starts up there. And it will start up there at some point in time. The big oil interests already seem to think that it's a foregone conclusion. And more problems will occur. And it will happen off the B.C. coast if the province is successful in lobbying Ottawa to lift the offshore drilling ban.
Much of the concern that has been raised in B.C. and the Arctic deals with tanker spills like the Exxon Valdez, but now we're seeing a whole different side of things with the drilling platform explosion. If these kinds of spills can be triggered by an oil rig explosion whose safety devices didn't work to shut off the flow of crude, that puts a large additional risk when it comes to danger signs. We are ill prepared in this country for a spill of any magnitude, wherever it might occur.
The events in Louisiana should perhaps give us a little bit of incentive to get our act together before we start putting the holes in the ground.
Monday, May 3, 2010
HST Sold, but not Bought
(Aired on April 30, 2010)
If you felt a mysterious force pulling at your wallet today, you should probably know that Colin Hansen was in town. The B.C. finance minister really does make a compelling argument for the Harmonized Sales Tax. He says the gamut of costs that businesses will save is almost as long as the list of items that will be subject to the full HST.
Hansen's problem is that he was in the wrong room. Speaking at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon will hardly give him any skeptics to sway. If Bill Vander Zalm can mobilize an army of volunteers to oppose the tax, then the provincial government should be able to organize some semblance of a counter campaign. Instead, they have an ill-advertised website and leave it up to government MLAs to sell. Hansen seems a bit like a one-man band, and he needs to mobilize the Liberal faithful if really believes that the anti-HST campaign is spreading misinformation.
----
As I say, Hansen makes a decent argument, but he hasn't convinced me quite yet. Why? Because the benefits to the people of this province are all contingent on businesses passing on their savings to consumers. That's something they have little-to-no incentive to do. I am still extremely skeptical that prices for goods and services subject to the HST won't stay exactly where they are, giving businesses higher profit margins. I'm not signing my name on any petition, but i'm not drinking the Colin Hansen Kool-aid yet either.
If you felt a mysterious force pulling at your wallet today, you should probably know that Colin Hansen was in town. The B.C. finance minister really does make a compelling argument for the Harmonized Sales Tax. He says the gamut of costs that businesses will save is almost as long as the list of items that will be subject to the full HST.
Hansen's problem is that he was in the wrong room. Speaking at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon will hardly give him any skeptics to sway. If Bill Vander Zalm can mobilize an army of volunteers to oppose the tax, then the provincial government should be able to organize some semblance of a counter campaign. Instead, they have an ill-advertised website and leave it up to government MLAs to sell. Hansen seems a bit like a one-man band, and he needs to mobilize the Liberal faithful if really believes that the anti-HST campaign is spreading misinformation.
----
As I say, Hansen makes a decent argument, but he hasn't convinced me quite yet. Why? Because the benefits to the people of this province are all contingent on businesses passing on their savings to consumers. That's something they have little-to-no incentive to do. I am still extremely skeptical that prices for goods and services subject to the HST won't stay exactly where they are, giving businesses higher profit margins. I'm not signing my name on any petition, but i'm not drinking the Colin Hansen Kool-aid yet either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
