(Aired on June 28, 2010)
A woman who is accused of murdering her two newborn sons has been ordered not to have sex. This woman was released on $200,000 bail and court imposed 17 conditions on her. She is accused of two counts of second-degree murder. The body of her first son was found in 2009. The body of her second son has never been found. The court wants to avoid having her get pregnant again, and imposed the rather unheard of condition that she not have sex with anyone.
Safe sex is one thing, but no sex, that's something totally different. I haven't heard of it being imposed before, and I don't know how you would enforce it. The only telltale sign, of course, would be if she became pregnant again. She also can't be in the presence of her boyfriend unless someone else is around.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is concerned about the conditions, and they think it might be the start of a slippery slope. But I say to that, if indeed the charges against the woman are true, and she is convicted of killing her newborns, where do the child's civil liberties get exercised as opposed to the mother's? It might well be a slippery slope, but sometimes you have to travel down these slopes for the greater good. No one wants to see civil liberties denied, but is the Civil Liberties Association suggesting that murder is a better option?
As this case plays out, the facts will become more evident, and we'll get a better picture of what happened. In the meantime, I really don't think it's unreasonable to have the woman's rights curtailed somewhat until due process is done.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
When is an Announcement not an Announcement?
(Aired on June 25, 2010)
It must be really challenging to write press releases for the provincial government - especially if you're boss is Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid. This week, for example, we received a release touting over $600,000 was spent to buy our local school district five new state-of-the-art cleaner burning diesel school buses. But talking to district officials gives you a little bit of a different story.
You see, every year the district evaluates its buses to see if they are too old and too used. For example, if a bus meets a certain mileage criteria, it has to go. This year, five buses expired. So in essence, the government did exactly what it had to do. The government was obligated to replace the old buses. Hardly something worth crowing over. Not only that, the buses are in no way cleaner running than any other new buses out there. They are diesel buses that simply comply with current emissions standards.
It's nothing new, of course. The provincial government regularly trumps up mundane obligations as if it is saving the world. It also routinely re-announces funding that has previously been committed, trying to fool those of us in the media who don't pay attention. Sometimes it works.
And the tricks worked for some in the media this time, too. The first dead giveaway that there was something fishy here should have been the mere fact that it's funding for education. We should all be skeptical when that's announced.
It must be really challenging to write press releases for the provincial government - especially if you're boss is Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid. This week, for example, we received a release touting over $600,000 was spent to buy our local school district five new state-of-the-art cleaner burning diesel school buses. But talking to district officials gives you a little bit of a different story.
You see, every year the district evaluates its buses to see if they are too old and too used. For example, if a bus meets a certain mileage criteria, it has to go. This year, five buses expired. So in essence, the government did exactly what it had to do. The government was obligated to replace the old buses. Hardly something worth crowing over. Not only that, the buses are in no way cleaner running than any other new buses out there. They are diesel buses that simply comply with current emissions standards.
It's nothing new, of course. The provincial government regularly trumps up mundane obligations as if it is saving the world. It also routinely re-announces funding that has previously been committed, trying to fool those of us in the media who don't pay attention. Sometimes it works.
And the tricks worked for some in the media this time, too. The first dead giveaway that there was something fishy here should have been the mere fact that it's funding for education. We should all be skeptical when that's announced.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Recall the Wrong Course of Action for Anti-HST Forces
(Aired on June 24, 2010)
I have to tell you. Enough is enough. It is one thing to campaign to have the Harmonized Sales Tax reviewed by the B.C. government. Anti-HST organizers have enough signatures in every riding to force the government to have a review, or maybe even a referendum on the tax. I have no issue with their efforts. In fact, I applaud their initiative. That's what democracy is about.
What democracy is not about is trying to target 24 MLAs for a possible recall just because they voted in favour of the HST. That is going way beyond what the recall initiative should be about. And if Bill Vander Zalm carries out this recall initiative, I think he is destroying anything good that the anti-HST initiative was supposed to accomplish.
To recall an MLA, the MLA should stand accused of some gross wrongdoing, maybe facing some criminal charges, or perhaps unethical behaviour of some sort. That's the kind of thing that the recall laws were meant to deal with. To try to recall an MLA simply because you disagree with the government's policy on something is wrong. And way beyond the scope of what the legislation was intended to deal with.
The time to disagree with the government's policies is at a provincial election, and there's one coming three years down the road. If, at that time, you think the government was wrong in putting some sort of policy or tax in place, that's where you deal with it. To target a whole group of potentially vulnerable MLAs because you happen to think the HST is bad is not the right approach. And if organizers in our area try to do that, I hope people will give the anti-HST forces the message that they're carrying things a little too far.
I have to tell you. Enough is enough. It is one thing to campaign to have the Harmonized Sales Tax reviewed by the B.C. government. Anti-HST organizers have enough signatures in every riding to force the government to have a review, or maybe even a referendum on the tax. I have no issue with their efforts. In fact, I applaud their initiative. That's what democracy is about.
What democracy is not about is trying to target 24 MLAs for a possible recall just because they voted in favour of the HST. That is going way beyond what the recall initiative should be about. And if Bill Vander Zalm carries out this recall initiative, I think he is destroying anything good that the anti-HST initiative was supposed to accomplish.
To recall an MLA, the MLA should stand accused of some gross wrongdoing, maybe facing some criminal charges, or perhaps unethical behaviour of some sort. That's the kind of thing that the recall laws were meant to deal with. To try to recall an MLA simply because you disagree with the government's policy on something is wrong. And way beyond the scope of what the legislation was intended to deal with.
The time to disagree with the government's policies is at a provincial election, and there's one coming three years down the road. If, at that time, you think the government was wrong in putting some sort of policy or tax in place, that's where you deal with it. To target a whole group of potentially vulnerable MLAs because you happen to think the HST is bad is not the right approach. And if organizers in our area try to do that, I hope people will give the anti-HST forces the message that they're carrying things a little too far.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
For the Sake of National Security, Shut Up!
(Aired on June 23, 2010)
I guess you could blame the media. But when you are a top official involved in maintaining your country's national security, you should probably know when to keep your mouth shut. In an article slated to come out later this week, the man in charge of the American presence in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, criticizes and disrespects the Obama administration. Not a good decision when that's your boss, no matter what your opinions are. Is it really the media stirring things up when you knew that the Rolling Stone reporter was getting access to you and your staff for weeks on end?
Then today, the country was abuzz repeating comments made by CSIS head Richard Fadden. He says there are multiple politicians and bureaucrats in Canada controlled by foreign powers. This sounds a lot like something a person like him says when he's drunk, though that apparently wasn't the case. Failing that option, Fadden's comments are totally out of line. If this is really the case, and is not something out of a Robert Ludlum novel, Fadden should have kept it quiet until arrests are made.
Don't get me wrong - we in the media love it. I'm already looking forward to asking Peter Milobar whether that Uji delegation coming to Kamloops next week is bringing him his instructions. But for the sake of national security in both the U.S. and Canada, it's best that these chatty Cathies be removed from their jobs without any hesitation.
I guess you could blame the media. But when you are a top official involved in maintaining your country's national security, you should probably know when to keep your mouth shut. In an article slated to come out later this week, the man in charge of the American presence in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, criticizes and disrespects the Obama administration. Not a good decision when that's your boss, no matter what your opinions are. Is it really the media stirring things up when you knew that the Rolling Stone reporter was getting access to you and your staff for weeks on end?
Then today, the country was abuzz repeating comments made by CSIS head Richard Fadden. He says there are multiple politicians and bureaucrats in Canada controlled by foreign powers. This sounds a lot like something a person like him says when he's drunk, though that apparently wasn't the case. Failing that option, Fadden's comments are totally out of line. If this is really the case, and is not something out of a Robert Ludlum novel, Fadden should have kept it quiet until arrests are made.
Don't get me wrong - we in the media love it. I'm already looking forward to asking Peter Milobar whether that Uji delegation coming to Kamloops next week is bringing him his instructions. But for the sake of national security in both the U.S. and Canada, it's best that these chatty Cathies be removed from their jobs without any hesitation.
Do We Really Oppose Tanker Traffic?
(Aired on June 22, 2010)
Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has certainly gained support among many British Columbians for his announcement yesterday that his party is opposing oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coast. Ignatieff says it only makes sense to protect a very sensitive area of the province.
While environmental groups, and certainly the big percentage of the citizens of the province, 80% of us in a recent poll, oppose the traffic, big business isn't so happy with Ignatieff's remarks. They come as Enbridge is working through the red tape trying establish an oil pipeline that would wind up in Kitimat, and ship oil by tanker down the coast. Enbridge officials are crying foul, claiming that tanker traffic has never been a problem in B.C. Of course, by that same token, no one working on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico had any problems before last month's oil spill that is currently devastating the environment in that area.
In fact, there were 25 million barrels of oil shipped by tanker from B.C. ports last year. It's a sensitive issue. On the one hand, we are so dependent on oil, and unless we want to stop driving, we have to get the oil from somewhere. Most of it is shipped somewhere by tanker. So a spill of the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska is always possible. No one wants to see the disaster caused by such a spill. But what are we prepared to sacrifice if oil sits in the ground instead of our gas tank? What price are we prepared to pay to stop oil tanker traffic? It's easy to talk the the talk, but at the end of the day, are you willing to pay the price? And that's the issue the government has to deal with. You're concerned about gas at the pumps in Kamloops today rising to 1.06 a liter? What happens if it doubles or triples because we shut down tanker traffic?
The principle is a good one. I support it. But I honestly don't know how many of us would if push came to shove and we had to put our money where our mouth is.
Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has certainly gained support among many British Columbians for his announcement yesterday that his party is opposing oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coast. Ignatieff says it only makes sense to protect a very sensitive area of the province.
While environmental groups, and certainly the big percentage of the citizens of the province, 80% of us in a recent poll, oppose the traffic, big business isn't so happy with Ignatieff's remarks. They come as Enbridge is working through the red tape trying establish an oil pipeline that would wind up in Kitimat, and ship oil by tanker down the coast. Enbridge officials are crying foul, claiming that tanker traffic has never been a problem in B.C. Of course, by that same token, no one working on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico had any problems before last month's oil spill that is currently devastating the environment in that area.
In fact, there were 25 million barrels of oil shipped by tanker from B.C. ports last year. It's a sensitive issue. On the one hand, we are so dependent on oil, and unless we want to stop driving, we have to get the oil from somewhere. Most of it is shipped somewhere by tanker. So a spill of the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska is always possible. No one wants to see the disaster caused by such a spill. But what are we prepared to sacrifice if oil sits in the ground instead of our gas tank? What price are we prepared to pay to stop oil tanker traffic? It's easy to talk the the talk, but at the end of the day, are you willing to pay the price? And that's the issue the government has to deal with. You're concerned about gas at the pumps in Kamloops today rising to 1.06 a liter? What happens if it doubles or triples because we shut down tanker traffic?
The principle is a good one. I support it. But I honestly don't know how many of us would if push came to shove and we had to put our money where our mouth is.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sadie Villars' Story All Too Common
(Aired on June 21, 2010)
The sad story of a young woman charged with smuggling drugs across the border is a far too common one, and unfortunately, we're only scratching the tip of the iceberg. Sadie Villars was arrested after border agents found her carrying bags of ecstasy tablets under her clothes as she crossed the border into the U.S. last week. Apparently, she was carrying the drugs for the quick cash, according to her mom.
These so-called drug mules are roped into the job for a variety of reasons. They may be trying to pay off a debt, either a personal debt or a debt to some criminal element who wants payback. Or they may do it because they think they'll get some quick cash for some baubles and toys and live the high life.
Many think they'll do it a couple of times and get out, but the problem is that once they start, getting out is difficult even if you put aside the attraction of the quick cash. Drug lords can put a lot of pressure on you once you're in. And as the drug trade heats up, more and more of these mules are being used to transport drugs, not just across the border between the U.S. and Canada, but around the world. And criminals are finding more and more tricks up their sleeves to avoid detection. But if these mules are ever caught, they're likely too scared to squeal on those who hired them, if they even know who hired them. And those higher up the ladder are so far removed from the chain they will never be associated with some kid who is picked up crossing the line.
Tracking down illicit drugs is almost like a crap shoot these days. The police do their best, but search warrants aren't easy to come by, privacy laws are so bad that the guilty often get more protection than the innocent, and unless police get lucky, many of these criminals continue to walk free. We will see many more stories about people like Sadie Villars. Unfortunately, it's a sign of the times we live in.
The sad story of a young woman charged with smuggling drugs across the border is a far too common one, and unfortunately, we're only scratching the tip of the iceberg. Sadie Villars was arrested after border agents found her carrying bags of ecstasy tablets under her clothes as she crossed the border into the U.S. last week. Apparently, she was carrying the drugs for the quick cash, according to her mom.
These so-called drug mules are roped into the job for a variety of reasons. They may be trying to pay off a debt, either a personal debt or a debt to some criminal element who wants payback. Or they may do it because they think they'll get some quick cash for some baubles and toys and live the high life.
Many think they'll do it a couple of times and get out, but the problem is that once they start, getting out is difficult even if you put aside the attraction of the quick cash. Drug lords can put a lot of pressure on you once you're in. And as the drug trade heats up, more and more of these mules are being used to transport drugs, not just across the border between the U.S. and Canada, but around the world. And criminals are finding more and more tricks up their sleeves to avoid detection. But if these mules are ever caught, they're likely too scared to squeal on those who hired them, if they even know who hired them. And those higher up the ladder are so far removed from the chain they will never be associated with some kid who is picked up crossing the line.
Tracking down illicit drugs is almost like a crap shoot these days. The police do their best, but search warrants aren't easy to come by, privacy laws are so bad that the guilty often get more protection than the innocent, and unless police get lucky, many of these criminals continue to walk free. We will see many more stories about people like Sadie Villars. Unfortunately, it's a sign of the times we live in.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Braidwood Report Must Lead to Action
(Aired on June 18, 2010)
The results of the inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's death released today should not be a surprise to anyone. Retired Justice Thomas Braidwood laid the wood to the four RCMP officers involved in the incident. He said they could not reasonably have perceived the Polish man as a threat when they arrived at YVR, and when Dziekanski picked up a stapler. The report also said they weren't justified in using their taser and called the officer's conduct "shameful".
It's not always true, but in this case, the video told the story. We all saw what happened thanks to the cellphone video taken by the bystander. At the time, I'm sure that bystander had no idea the impact of the video he had taken. By the time we all saw the video, we knew that the officers in question had to be taken to task. Some decided to tar the entire RCMP by extension, but I always thought the majority of the blame should lie on the four cowboys who walked into the airport that day. I'd like to think different officers in the same situation would react differently.
The big question does pertain to the entire force, though - what will really change as a result of this whole process? Will there be any safeguards put in place as a result to ensure an incident like this doesn't happen again? We've heard promises surrounding the creation of a civilian body to investigate the RCMP. But that's not enough. And besides changes to RCMP training and policy, there must be changes to the way Vancouver International and other airports deal with confused people who don't speak english. Good customer service is one thing, but in this case, it could have saved a life.
The results of the inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's death released today should not be a surprise to anyone. Retired Justice Thomas Braidwood laid the wood to the four RCMP officers involved in the incident. He said they could not reasonably have perceived the Polish man as a threat when they arrived at YVR, and when Dziekanski picked up a stapler. The report also said they weren't justified in using their taser and called the officer's conduct "shameful".
It's not always true, but in this case, the video told the story. We all saw what happened thanks to the cellphone video taken by the bystander. At the time, I'm sure that bystander had no idea the impact of the video he had taken. By the time we all saw the video, we knew that the officers in question had to be taken to task. Some decided to tar the entire RCMP by extension, but I always thought the majority of the blame should lie on the four cowboys who walked into the airport that day. I'd like to think different officers in the same situation would react differently.
The big question does pertain to the entire force, though - what will really change as a result of this whole process? Will there be any safeguards put in place as a result to ensure an incident like this doesn't happen again? We've heard promises surrounding the creation of a civilian body to investigate the RCMP. But that's not enough. And besides changes to RCMP training and policy, there must be changes to the way Vancouver International and other airports deal with confused people who don't speak english. Good customer service is one thing, but in this case, it could have saved a life.
Friday, June 18, 2010
UFC Spawning Violence? It's Possible
(Aired on June 17, 2010)
Does violence spawn violence? That's often a hotly-debated topic. But sometimes, I do believe some who are prone to violent acts can be triggered by watching violence. I believe when the adrenaline starts to pump, a person can react just about any way humanly possible. That's why I'm against gratuitous violence on television, that's why I believe Ultimate Fighting matches should be banned.
I suppose some might get a high out of watching someone literally kicking and punching someone else's head in. Some may not get affected, but if circumstances were right, I bet someone could easily walk out of a match, walk down the street and crank someone for no reason at all. Don't tell me that people don't react that way to things. They do. Not everyone. But some do. And we have to put those matches under wraps because of the greater good.
Screaming fans yelling for blood does something to unnerve me. It's the same with dog fighting or cock fighting or whatever else someone wants to tell you is really OK and not as violent as you think.
I've never thought of myself as a violent person, in fact, as I grow older, the opposite is more and more true. I boxed a lot as a youngster, and very seldom lost. I took karate too. But as I got older, I began to enjoy it less and less. Now I can very seldom watch a boxing match on TV. And I would never watch an Ultimate Fighting match. It just seems so senseless all of a sudden. When I think of those people fighting those matches, I wonder how many of them will be still alive twenty years from now. I don't want to seem like a prude, but aside from the fighters' health, I worry about the reaction the fights cause in others.
Scientific evidence is somewhat lacking on this issue, but I can't see how one could avoid being swept up in the violence when watching these things. And when the body is pumped, who knows what might happen?
Does violence spawn violence? That's often a hotly-debated topic. But sometimes, I do believe some who are prone to violent acts can be triggered by watching violence. I believe when the adrenaline starts to pump, a person can react just about any way humanly possible. That's why I'm against gratuitous violence on television, that's why I believe Ultimate Fighting matches should be banned.
I suppose some might get a high out of watching someone literally kicking and punching someone else's head in. Some may not get affected, but if circumstances were right, I bet someone could easily walk out of a match, walk down the street and crank someone for no reason at all. Don't tell me that people don't react that way to things. They do. Not everyone. But some do. And we have to put those matches under wraps because of the greater good.
Screaming fans yelling for blood does something to unnerve me. It's the same with dog fighting or cock fighting or whatever else someone wants to tell you is really OK and not as violent as you think.
I've never thought of myself as a violent person, in fact, as I grow older, the opposite is more and more true. I boxed a lot as a youngster, and very seldom lost. I took karate too. But as I got older, I began to enjoy it less and less. Now I can very seldom watch a boxing match on TV. And I would never watch an Ultimate Fighting match. It just seems so senseless all of a sudden. When I think of those people fighting those matches, I wonder how many of them will be still alive twenty years from now. I don't want to seem like a prude, but aside from the fighters' health, I worry about the reaction the fights cause in others.
Scientific evidence is somewhat lacking on this issue, but I can't see how one could avoid being swept up in the violence when watching these things. And when the body is pumped, who knows what might happen?
BP's Payout Fund Completely Irrelevant
(Aired on June 16, 2010)
BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10. BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10.
BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.
BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10. BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10.
BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Master Plan May Not Have Prevented Monday Accident
(Aired on June 15, 2010)
An incident yesterday afternoon near Aberdeen Mall is already being used as a sounding board by groups wanting changes to bicycle routes in Kamloops. And I say "put aside the politics" until at least we know what happened.
A 57 year old Kamloops man was riding down Hillside Drive yesterday, when he collided with a transit bus making a left turn from Aberdeen Mall onto Hillside. Already those with political agendas are suggesting that such accidents require the City to make its bicycle plan a reality. One advocate says it's sad that we have to have a situation like this to draw attention to the lack of bike facilities in the city. I say that's trying to take advantage of a terrible accident to make a case for something that may or may not have resolved the problem.
I'm not going to talk about the Aberdeen accident yesterday in any detail, because no one knows what happened exactly. I will say that bike riders often come down that road way too quickly, as they do Columbia Street, Summit Drive and many other hills in the city. I will say that the interchange where the accident occurred is a bad one. It's one of several places in a block and a half where people have to make turns across two lanes of traffic, sometimes into glaring sunlight, and it's a wonder more accidents don't happen. I'm not suggesting for a moment that bicyclists shouldn't have a safe route to the downtown, something the master bike plan is designed to do. But there have to be other considerations too.
A safe bike route doesn't guarantee that people will always use it. Bike riders aren't always cautious. Their machines aren't equipped to stop on a dime, and if a motorist doesn't see them, they can't slow down quickly enough to avoid a collision. They often don't obey the rules of the road.
Let's push for the master bike plan, but let's not use a sad situation that resulted from an accident that may have been hard to prevent as some kind of leverage, when in fact the bike plan may not have had any impact on the situation anyway. I hate it when people do that.
An incident yesterday afternoon near Aberdeen Mall is already being used as a sounding board by groups wanting changes to bicycle routes in Kamloops. And I say "put aside the politics" until at least we know what happened.
A 57 year old Kamloops man was riding down Hillside Drive yesterday, when he collided with a transit bus making a left turn from Aberdeen Mall onto Hillside. Already those with political agendas are suggesting that such accidents require the City to make its bicycle plan a reality. One advocate says it's sad that we have to have a situation like this to draw attention to the lack of bike facilities in the city. I say that's trying to take advantage of a terrible accident to make a case for something that may or may not have resolved the problem.
I'm not going to talk about the Aberdeen accident yesterday in any detail, because no one knows what happened exactly. I will say that bike riders often come down that road way too quickly, as they do Columbia Street, Summit Drive and many other hills in the city. I will say that the interchange where the accident occurred is a bad one. It's one of several places in a block and a half where people have to make turns across two lanes of traffic, sometimes into glaring sunlight, and it's a wonder more accidents don't happen. I'm not suggesting for a moment that bicyclists shouldn't have a safe route to the downtown, something the master bike plan is designed to do. But there have to be other considerations too.
A safe bike route doesn't guarantee that people will always use it. Bike riders aren't always cautious. Their machines aren't equipped to stop on a dime, and if a motorist doesn't see them, they can't slow down quickly enough to avoid a collision. They often don't obey the rules of the road.
Let's push for the master bike plan, but let's not use a sad situation that resulted from an accident that may have been hard to prevent as some kind of leverage, when in fact the bike plan may not have had any impact on the situation anyway. I hate it when people do that.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
New Sun Peaks Council Has Big Challenge Ahead
(Aired on June 14, 2010)
Sun Peaks residents voted themselves a new council on the weekend, and starting later this month, they will move forward on the long process of putting a community together. It's a tough process. They have to put bylaws in place, they have to determine how they will deal with policing issues, fire issues and other public safety issues. They have to deal with the issue of noisy renters, an issue that could really threaten the new community if it isn't handled properly. Right now, the community couldn't handle any enforcement even if they wanted to. They have to put proper taxation structures in place, they have to ensure that they have a community plan. They have to hire an administrative officer. They have to have offices. The list is endless.
In many ways, it's a neat challenge and a great opportunity. To be in on the ground floor. But can be daunting too. Residents of the community will find that things won't be just status quo. Because they are now the masters of their own fate, they have some control of what happens, more so than if decisions were made by someone like the Regional District. But it also means they have to be accountable, and if they want services, they will have to pay for them.
While the new mayor is anxious not to increase taxes, that doesn't normally happen in new municipalities. The new council has community history and community involvement. They have examples nearby like Clearwater and Barriere, from whom they can probably get some good advice on what pitfalls to avoid in establishing their new community.
A resort municipality is not the same as a normal community. Many of the issues are unique, and must be dealt with differently than they would if we were talking about Kamloops or Ashcroft. One of the biggest challenges is to ensure that the needs of a resort area also mesh with those of the general population. I believe Al Raine and his council will be up to the challenge. But they will have to communicate frequently with the community to ensure they keep everyone up to date on everything they're doing, to ensure that they get things off to a good, positive start. If they do that, they will be well on their way.
Sun Peaks residents voted themselves a new council on the weekend, and starting later this month, they will move forward on the long process of putting a community together. It's a tough process. They have to put bylaws in place, they have to determine how they will deal with policing issues, fire issues and other public safety issues. They have to deal with the issue of noisy renters, an issue that could really threaten the new community if it isn't handled properly. Right now, the community couldn't handle any enforcement even if they wanted to. They have to put proper taxation structures in place, they have to ensure that they have a community plan. They have to hire an administrative officer. They have to have offices. The list is endless.
In many ways, it's a neat challenge and a great opportunity. To be in on the ground floor. But can be daunting too. Residents of the community will find that things won't be just status quo. Because they are now the masters of their own fate, they have some control of what happens, more so than if decisions were made by someone like the Regional District. But it also means they have to be accountable, and if they want services, they will have to pay for them.
While the new mayor is anxious not to increase taxes, that doesn't normally happen in new municipalities. The new council has community history and community involvement. They have examples nearby like Clearwater and Barriere, from whom they can probably get some good advice on what pitfalls to avoid in establishing their new community.
A resort municipality is not the same as a normal community. Many of the issues are unique, and must be dealt with differently than they would if we were talking about Kamloops or Ashcroft. One of the biggest challenges is to ensure that the needs of a resort area also mesh with those of the general population. I believe Al Raine and his council will be up to the challenge. But they will have to communicate frequently with the community to ensure they keep everyone up to date on everything they're doing, to ensure that they get things off to a good, positive start. If they do that, they will be well on their way.
Feel Free to Make Good Use of My Taxes
(Aired on June 10, 2010)
They call it "Tax Freedom Day." Every year, the Fraser Institute determines which day of the year the average Canadian has earned enough money to pay for all the taxes they will be charged that year. This year, tax freedom day was last Saturday. So everything you earn from Saturday on out is pure profit, baby. That's almost seven whole months that the money you work hard for is actually yours.
Taxes really aren't a bad thing - unless of course you would enjoy paying a user fee for every road you drive on, every park you walk through, or every doctor's visit you make. Or maybe the people who ensure our air is clean to breathe and our water is clean to drink should work for free. If that's not what you think, then taxes are okay.
But as much as the Fraser Institute gets my goat from time to time, this particular initiative makes a good point. We spend almost half of our lives working for the government. Hopefully, by extension, the government is working to improve the lives of everyone. Our MP Cathy McLeod boasts that Tax Freedom Day has moved earlier in the year since the Conservatives took power. What she doesn't mention is what her government is doing with the money that is being collected those first five months of the year. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why it will take over $1-Billion to host a handful of world leaders at the upcoming G8 and G20 summits. I literally cannot fathom what could cost that much money, short of replacing the bathrooms with gold-plated diapers for all.
If the Conservatives want to crow about how little they're charging us in taxes, they have to be putting the taxes they do collect to good use. Tax Freedom Day could be January 2, and if they were wasting the money they made, they'd still have no reason to brag.
They call it "Tax Freedom Day." Every year, the Fraser Institute determines which day of the year the average Canadian has earned enough money to pay for all the taxes they will be charged that year. This year, tax freedom day was last Saturday. So everything you earn from Saturday on out is pure profit, baby. That's almost seven whole months that the money you work hard for is actually yours.
Taxes really aren't a bad thing - unless of course you would enjoy paying a user fee for every road you drive on, every park you walk through, or every doctor's visit you make. Or maybe the people who ensure our air is clean to breathe and our water is clean to drink should work for free. If that's not what you think, then taxes are okay.
But as much as the Fraser Institute gets my goat from time to time, this particular initiative makes a good point. We spend almost half of our lives working for the government. Hopefully, by extension, the government is working to improve the lives of everyone. Our MP Cathy McLeod boasts that Tax Freedom Day has moved earlier in the year since the Conservatives took power. What she doesn't mention is what her government is doing with the money that is being collected those first five months of the year. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why it will take over $1-Billion to host a handful of world leaders at the upcoming G8 and G20 summits. I literally cannot fathom what could cost that much money, short of replacing the bathrooms with gold-plated diapers for all.
If the Conservatives want to crow about how little they're charging us in taxes, they have to be putting the taxes they do collect to good use. Tax Freedom Day could be January 2, and if they were wasting the money they made, they'd still have no reason to brag.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Coalition? Please no.
(Aired on June 9, 2010)
Every time I hear about a the possibility of a coalition government, I cringe a little bit. Thankfully, Michael Ignatieff today shot down suggestions of a coalition between his Liberals and the federal NDP to take down the Harper Conservatives. I'm not thrilled with the job the Conservative government is doing in Ottawa right now - not thrilled, but not absolutely irate to the core of my being either. It's only once I get that upset that I would even consider a coalition a decent option to throw the Conservatives to the other side of the Commons floor.
When Canadians went to the polls, those who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the NDP, and vice versa. They didn't even vote for an option that says "not the Conservatives," even though I suspect that option would be quite popular. Instead, they voted their individual preference, and we are left with the Conservatives leading parliament in a minority government situation.
If there was widespread outrage at the Conservatives, there may be a more realistic mandate to form a coalition. But opinion polls continue to show Harper's party with a healthy lead over any other party in public support. Once again, "not the Conservatives" is not an option.
Finally, the NDP and the Liberals are often on far extremes of the political spectrum - usually even farther apart than the Liberals and the governing Tories. They say politics make strange bedfellows, but a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals would be like sleeping with the enemy.
Every time I hear about a the possibility of a coalition government, I cringe a little bit. Thankfully, Michael Ignatieff today shot down suggestions of a coalition between his Liberals and the federal NDP to take down the Harper Conservatives. I'm not thrilled with the job the Conservative government is doing in Ottawa right now - not thrilled, but not absolutely irate to the core of my being either. It's only once I get that upset that I would even consider a coalition a decent option to throw the Conservatives to the other side of the Commons floor.
When Canadians went to the polls, those who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the NDP, and vice versa. They didn't even vote for an option that says "not the Conservatives," even though I suspect that option would be quite popular. Instead, they voted their individual preference, and we are left with the Conservatives leading parliament in a minority government situation.
If there was widespread outrage at the Conservatives, there may be a more realistic mandate to form a coalition. But opinion polls continue to show Harper's party with a healthy lead over any other party in public support. Once again, "not the Conservatives" is not an option.
Finally, the NDP and the Liberals are often on far extremes of the political spectrum - usually even farther apart than the Liberals and the governing Tories. They say politics make strange bedfellows, but a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals would be like sleeping with the enemy.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Capilano Tragedy Should Make Us Think
(Aired on June 8, 2010)
Sometimes things happen that make you wonder... why? The case of a 17-year old California teen who fell from the Capilano suspension bridge on the weekend, has everyone in shock. The sad part is that the tragedy seems totally unrelated to the safety of the structure. What went through the teen's mind, what kind of activity was happening when he fell 30 meters to his death, we will likely never know. His fellow students aren't saying much. Safety was not an issue. That bridge has strong, high fences. It would have taken something out of the ordinary to make that happen. Oftentimes when you have accidents of this nature, someone is claiming that safety is a factor. It doesn't appear that way here.
Teenagers often think they're invincible. That's one of the reasons they pay higher driving insurance premiums and get into more accidents. They take more chances. They do more goofy things. I remember doing a lot of that kind of thing. How I didn't do something more serious, I'll never know.
If nothing else, this tragedy goes to show us that the best-laid plans can go astray. We don't know what happened in Vancouver. We do know that something unexpected must have occurred. A young man's life was lost. An unnecessary risk? Perhaps. Accidents do happen. But if indeed this could have been prevented, we need to use this as an educational tool to show others the dangers that just a slight mistake can happen. If we saved just one other person from taking an unnecessary risk, it will have been worth the effort.
Sometimes things happen that make you wonder... why? The case of a 17-year old California teen who fell from the Capilano suspension bridge on the weekend, has everyone in shock. The sad part is that the tragedy seems totally unrelated to the safety of the structure. What went through the teen's mind, what kind of activity was happening when he fell 30 meters to his death, we will likely never know. His fellow students aren't saying much. Safety was not an issue. That bridge has strong, high fences. It would have taken something out of the ordinary to make that happen. Oftentimes when you have accidents of this nature, someone is claiming that safety is a factor. It doesn't appear that way here.
Teenagers often think they're invincible. That's one of the reasons they pay higher driving insurance premiums and get into more accidents. They take more chances. They do more goofy things. I remember doing a lot of that kind of thing. How I didn't do something more serious, I'll never know.
If nothing else, this tragedy goes to show us that the best-laid plans can go astray. We don't know what happened in Vancouver. We do know that something unexpected must have occurred. A young man's life was lost. An unnecessary risk? Perhaps. Accidents do happen. But if indeed this could have been prevented, we need to use this as an educational tool to show others the dangers that just a slight mistake can happen. If we saved just one other person from taking an unnecessary risk, it will have been worth the effort.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Performing Arts Centre Should be Top Priority for Kamloops
(Aired on June 7, 2010)
What a welcome relief to hear someone say something positive about the Arts. Councillor John O'Fee suggesting this morning that a new Performing Arts Centre should be high on the list of projects for the city to consider. Such a centre would go a long way to attracting more artists here, and it would definitely be an attraction when people are coming to the city to live. When you survey professionals who are considering moving, one of the major factors is the amenities. We have some great amenities in Kamloops, but we can certainly do more in certain areas. Music and theatre are big attractions to professionals.
What form a new Centre might take is up for debate. When I was on the Arts Commission a few years back, one of the big discussion points was the need for a space seating somewhere between 300 and 400 people. A space kind of like the Pavilion Theatre, but properly designed for performance. Pavilion is a great space, but it's not designed for concerts and the like.
Most people know me as a big fan of the arts. Long before my kids became known for their artistic work, I was heavily into the performing arts areas. I grew up backstage listening to many of the big groups of the 50's and 60's because my dad was involved in that field for a time. I could see the value of the arts even then. While some feel the arts play a secondary role to other critical needs, they nevertheless have a big role to play, and they can't be hung out to dry like the provincial Liberals are doing.
I agree with Councillor O'Fee that a new Centre is a big priority for our city. We're working on new recreational amenities like a new bike path, and slo-pitch city and upgrading McArthur Island. I think it's time we moved the arts a little higher up on our priority list.
What a welcome relief to hear someone say something positive about the Arts. Councillor John O'Fee suggesting this morning that a new Performing Arts Centre should be high on the list of projects for the city to consider. Such a centre would go a long way to attracting more artists here, and it would definitely be an attraction when people are coming to the city to live. When you survey professionals who are considering moving, one of the major factors is the amenities. We have some great amenities in Kamloops, but we can certainly do more in certain areas. Music and theatre are big attractions to professionals.
What form a new Centre might take is up for debate. When I was on the Arts Commission a few years back, one of the big discussion points was the need for a space seating somewhere between 300 and 400 people. A space kind of like the Pavilion Theatre, but properly designed for performance. Pavilion is a great space, but it's not designed for concerts and the like.
Most people know me as a big fan of the arts. Long before my kids became known for their artistic work, I was heavily into the performing arts areas. I grew up backstage listening to many of the big groups of the 50's and 60's because my dad was involved in that field for a time. I could see the value of the arts even then. While some feel the arts play a secondary role to other critical needs, they nevertheless have a big role to play, and they can't be hung out to dry like the provincial Liberals are doing.
I agree with Councillor O'Fee that a new Centre is a big priority for our city. We're working on new recreational amenities like a new bike path, and slo-pitch city and upgrading McArthur Island. I think it's time we moved the arts a little higher up on our priority list.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Don't Write BC Liberals Off Too Quickly
(Aired on June 4, 2010)
Yesterday, Doug Collins tried to convince you that the BC Liberals are doomed when the next election comes around in 2013. He said their gaffes are piling up to the point of absurdity. While I agree with the latter statement, I cannot agree with the former.
The Liberals are not doing themselves any favours these days. Cuts to funding are going deep and to the wrong services, MLAs are showing remarkable flexibility in being able to put their feet in their mouths while having their heads buried somewhere else. The Kash Heed scandal was a major gong show, and the jewel in the crown of shame for British Columbians is the Harmonized Sales Tax.
But let's remember, the election will not take place tomorrow, this fall, or even next year. By the time we go to the polls, much - not all - but much will be forgotten. And as I have said before, for the Liberals to fall, they have to have some decent competition. The New Democrats have yet to show they can provide that.
All you have to do is look at the federal scene to see this principle in action. The federal Conservatives are in power simply because they're the least of the evils in most Canadians' eyes. Their competition, the federal Liberals specifically, haven't convinced the public that they are any competition whatsoever. I'm not willing to predict victory or defeat for either party when the next provincial election campaign. There's a long time before 2013, and there's a lot more than can go right, or wrong, before then.
Yesterday, Doug Collins tried to convince you that the BC Liberals are doomed when the next election comes around in 2013. He said their gaffes are piling up to the point of absurdity. While I agree with the latter statement, I cannot agree with the former.
The Liberals are not doing themselves any favours these days. Cuts to funding are going deep and to the wrong services, MLAs are showing remarkable flexibility in being able to put their feet in their mouths while having their heads buried somewhere else. The Kash Heed scandal was a major gong show, and the jewel in the crown of shame for British Columbians is the Harmonized Sales Tax.
But let's remember, the election will not take place tomorrow, this fall, or even next year. By the time we go to the polls, much - not all - but much will be forgotten. And as I have said before, for the Liberals to fall, they have to have some decent competition. The New Democrats have yet to show they can provide that.
All you have to do is look at the federal scene to see this principle in action. The federal Conservatives are in power simply because they're the least of the evils in most Canadians' eyes. Their competition, the federal Liberals specifically, haven't convinced the public that they are any competition whatsoever. I'm not willing to predict victory or defeat for either party when the next provincial election campaign. There's a long time before 2013, and there's a lot more than can go right, or wrong, before then.
Friday, June 4, 2010
BC Liberals Self Destructing
(Aired on June 3, 2010)
The B.C. Liberals continue to wind their way to self-destruction. It's hard to imagine circumstances that will prevent the Liberals from either losing the next election, or at the very best, holding on to a minority.
Let's look at a few of the things just in the last few weeks that have caught the public's attention. We already know about the HST, and whether it's a good thing or not, the end result of the petition initiative will be that the Liberals will do nothing. It may be the right decision to do nothing, that's another story, but the perception among the public is that the government doesn't care. We have the "let them eat cake approach" to school funding and health care. Again, editorials we've done before. This week, arts groups find out they're going to be hit hard again, losing funding that they were promised just weeks ago. Again, the government hitting out at groups that desperately need help. This week, a new group is formed to try to keep sports and arts programs alive in schools. These programs again decimated by the province. The Liberals continue to push Ottawa to again permit offshore drilling, even in the face of what's going on in the Gulf of Mexico. How stupid a move is that? What's next?
If I were interested in politics, it would be a good time to put my hat in the ring to run for the NDP. I don't think even the Premier is safe.
Now of course, we still have three years to go before the next election, and the Liberals are banking heavily on that to change their fortunes. They're going to count on a resurging economy, and hopefully a reduction in the deficit to allow them to spend money leading up to the vote in May of 2013. Whether the NDP can capitalize on the government's miscues remains to be seen. If they can, look for major changes in Victoria three years down the road.
The B.C. Liberals continue to wind their way to self-destruction. It's hard to imagine circumstances that will prevent the Liberals from either losing the next election, or at the very best, holding on to a minority.
Let's look at a few of the things just in the last few weeks that have caught the public's attention. We already know about the HST, and whether it's a good thing or not, the end result of the petition initiative will be that the Liberals will do nothing. It may be the right decision to do nothing, that's another story, but the perception among the public is that the government doesn't care. We have the "let them eat cake approach" to school funding and health care. Again, editorials we've done before. This week, arts groups find out they're going to be hit hard again, losing funding that they were promised just weeks ago. Again, the government hitting out at groups that desperately need help. This week, a new group is formed to try to keep sports and arts programs alive in schools. These programs again decimated by the province. The Liberals continue to push Ottawa to again permit offshore drilling, even in the face of what's going on in the Gulf of Mexico. How stupid a move is that? What's next?
If I were interested in politics, it would be a good time to put my hat in the ring to run for the NDP. I don't think even the Premier is safe.
Now of course, we still have three years to go before the next election, and the Liberals are banking heavily on that to change their fortunes. They're going to count on a resurging economy, and hopefully a reduction in the deficit to allow them to spend money leading up to the vote in May of 2013. Whether the NDP can capitalize on the government's miscues remains to be seen. If they can, look for major changes in Victoria three years down the road.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
RIH Saboteur No Prophet
(Aired on June 2, 2010)
The fact that police haven't caught the person who deliberately sabotaged surgical tools at Royal Inland Hospital is unfortunate for several different reasons. First, the crime itself is serious. Had the tools made their way into the surgical theatre, they could have caused an infection. That infection could have had serious health consequences for the patient. Of course, the likelihood of that actually happening is extremely remote.
But maybe the more disappointing aspect of the story is that the person who did this is probably thinking that the point was made without any consequences. It's clear that this was done to make a point. Maybe about access to the central sterilization department or maybe about the failure to replace archaic equipment. It doesn't really matter, because there is a way to make a point, and there is a way not to make a point. RCMP and hospital authorities refuse to disclose how the tools were contaminated, presumably because whatever happened would have reinforced the culprit's objective. Credit to the police for doing that because now the point is lost in the method of delivery. All we know is that it was a criminal act that theoretically could have caused serious harm.
It looks like the culprit here has essentially gotten away with sabotaging surgical equipment. If anything can temper the disappointment, it's that the person responsible looks less like a protester or a prophet and more like a pinhead.
The fact that police haven't caught the person who deliberately sabotaged surgical tools at Royal Inland Hospital is unfortunate for several different reasons. First, the crime itself is serious. Had the tools made their way into the surgical theatre, they could have caused an infection. That infection could have had serious health consequences for the patient. Of course, the likelihood of that actually happening is extremely remote.
But maybe the more disappointing aspect of the story is that the person who did this is probably thinking that the point was made without any consequences. It's clear that this was done to make a point. Maybe about access to the central sterilization department or maybe about the failure to replace archaic equipment. It doesn't really matter, because there is a way to make a point, and there is a way not to make a point. RCMP and hospital authorities refuse to disclose how the tools were contaminated, presumably because whatever happened would have reinforced the culprit's objective. Credit to the police for doing that because now the point is lost in the method of delivery. All we know is that it was a criminal act that theoretically could have caused serious harm.
It looks like the culprit here has essentially gotten away with sabotaging surgical equipment. If anything can temper the disappointment, it's that the person responsible looks less like a protester or a prophet and more like a pinhead.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Too Soon to Raise Interest Rates?
(Aired on June 1, 2010)
The move was not unexpected, but the Bank of Canada is treading on very dangerous ground in moving the interest rate up substantially this morning. The rate jumped from 0.25% to 0.5%, likely the first of several moves to get the rates up from the rock bottom levels set last year. The drop in rates in 2009 was designed to help stimulate the economy. There are signs the economy is starting to bounce back, but in raising the rates, the Bank of Canada is counting on the fact that the economy will continue to rise.
The question is - did they make the move too soon? Are we really far enough into a comeback to be able to raise the rates? The world economy is still on very shaky ground. The stock markets have not rebounded to previous levels. Europe's unfolding debt crisis has shaken expectations of a global rebound. And since we are tied so much to world markets, are we assuming too much in raising our rates?
And let's not forget the impact on the local economy. Those interested in going to the banks to raise money to get back on track will have more trouble with higher borrowing rates. Young people trying to get into the housing market will certainly be affected. While the rates are still pretty low, and there may be some truth to the fact that there is still room for lots of stimulus, the move is still risky given all the criteria.
I don't think you'll find many takers on the streets of any city in our viewing area who feel the economy has bounced back to the point where such a risk is worth taking. Let's hope Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney doesn't regret his actions a few months down the road.
The move was not unexpected, but the Bank of Canada is treading on very dangerous ground in moving the interest rate up substantially this morning. The rate jumped from 0.25% to 0.5%, likely the first of several moves to get the rates up from the rock bottom levels set last year. The drop in rates in 2009 was designed to help stimulate the economy. There are signs the economy is starting to bounce back, but in raising the rates, the Bank of Canada is counting on the fact that the economy will continue to rise.
The question is - did they make the move too soon? Are we really far enough into a comeback to be able to raise the rates? The world economy is still on very shaky ground. The stock markets have not rebounded to previous levels. Europe's unfolding debt crisis has shaken expectations of a global rebound. And since we are tied so much to world markets, are we assuming too much in raising our rates?
And let's not forget the impact on the local economy. Those interested in going to the banks to raise money to get back on track will have more trouble with higher borrowing rates. Young people trying to get into the housing market will certainly be affected. While the rates are still pretty low, and there may be some truth to the fact that there is still room for lots of stimulus, the move is still risky given all the criteria.
I don't think you'll find many takers on the streets of any city in our viewing area who feel the economy has bounced back to the point where such a risk is worth taking. Let's hope Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney doesn't regret his actions a few months down the road.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Hounding the Dealers that Dog Our City
(Aired on May 31, 2010)
When RCMP Inspector Yves Lacasse made a comment a few months back that a particular North Shore property was going to become his "personal project" in an attempt to clean up the neighbourhood, there were many people extremely happy that the police were making a crackdown on a property that was the scene of many problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse and trafficking. I don't know where Yves' mission stands right now, but I hope it's ongoing. In fact, I would recommend that other officers take on "personal projects" of their own.
Residents of another North Shore neighbourhood are up in arms about the high number of drug complaints in an area around Hilltop Avenue and Clapperton. Residents say police are always on the scene there, trying to deal with a number of complaints. And maybe this is another area that should be looked at. Maybe we should be hounding these drug dealers until they eventually get the message, if that indeed is possible. But at least hounding them incessantly will curb some of the use of drugs in those neighbourhood.
Unfortunately, it's not only the high crime areas that need attention. Even areas of the city which have low crime rates have pockets where police are constantly surveilling homes to find out who is dealing and who the customers are. It's a sad part of the increasingly prolific volume of trafficking that goes on. Years ago, police knew all the dealers and most of the customers, but the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds, as more and more people get involved in the gangs that control the drug trade, and those who get addicted. Police resources are slim, and unfortunately, taking on areas as "personal projects" are not going to be the norm.
While police can work at ridding certain neighbourhoods of some of the problem, it won't be entirely eliminated. As people are put behind bars, more people start to get involved. It's a vicious circle. Police are doing their best, but it's a never-ending task, and one that, unfortunately, is going to be tough to eliminate.
When RCMP Inspector Yves Lacasse made a comment a few months back that a particular North Shore property was going to become his "personal project" in an attempt to clean up the neighbourhood, there were many people extremely happy that the police were making a crackdown on a property that was the scene of many problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse and trafficking. I don't know where Yves' mission stands right now, but I hope it's ongoing. In fact, I would recommend that other officers take on "personal projects" of their own.
Residents of another North Shore neighbourhood are up in arms about the high number of drug complaints in an area around Hilltop Avenue and Clapperton. Residents say police are always on the scene there, trying to deal with a number of complaints. And maybe this is another area that should be looked at. Maybe we should be hounding these drug dealers until they eventually get the message, if that indeed is possible. But at least hounding them incessantly will curb some of the use of drugs in those neighbourhood.
Unfortunately, it's not only the high crime areas that need attention. Even areas of the city which have low crime rates have pockets where police are constantly surveilling homes to find out who is dealing and who the customers are. It's a sad part of the increasingly prolific volume of trafficking that goes on. Years ago, police knew all the dealers and most of the customers, but the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds, as more and more people get involved in the gangs that control the drug trade, and those who get addicted. Police resources are slim, and unfortunately, taking on areas as "personal projects" are not going to be the norm.
While police can work at ridding certain neighbourhoods of some of the problem, it won't be entirely eliminated. As people are put behind bars, more people start to get involved. It's a vicious circle. Police are doing their best, but it's a never-ending task, and one that, unfortunately, is going to be tough to eliminate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
