(Aired on July 29, 2010)
They say education is the key to solving a lot of problems these days. But sometimes the best education is a good swift kick in the pants.
Despite all the education, people aren't getting the message when it comes to driving offences. A major intersection safety check yesterday at Summit and Columbia is a perfect example. The results were absolutely terrible. 19 people still haven't heard the educational message regarding seat belt use. 10 charged with texting while driving, 7 more talking on their cell. How much more education do we need to do on these things? 8 people were charged with blowing a yellow light, 13 charged, if you can believe it, for failing to stop at a red light. No wonder ICBC's bills are so high.
Do these people think they're driving in Vancouver? People seem to zone out when they're driving, and many are obviously totally oblivious to what's going on around them. My wife and son were almost wiped out the other night by some woman who turned left right in front of them because she obviously didn't see them coming. Fortunately, my son has quick reactions and avoided what would have been an extremely serious collision, because the woman was obviously trying to speed through the intersection and make the turn before my son got there. If he had been travelling even at the speed limit he wouldn't have been able to stop.
These kinds of intersection checks should be the order of the day until people start to get the message. I know they take resources, but surely having 20 people blow yellow or red lights is in itself justification for having these patrols. And let's raise the fines. I'm not sure how a figure of precisely $167 was arrived at for a fine, but how about upping it to $500? Maybe that will change a few people's thinking.
People are not invincible, and putting other peoples' lives at risk needs to be punished with something substantial. And let's take their licenses away for a year. I don't think running a red light is any less dangerous than drinking and driving. Keep the education. I think that's important. But we obviously need to do more. So let's ramp up the punishment too.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Cigarettes Still Causing Wildfires? Ridiculous!
(Aired on July 28, 2010)
There is some suggestion last night's Barnhartvale fire was started by a discarded cigarette. If that's the case, it's utterly, mind-numbingly stupid.
I'll be quite clear - as of the time I am recording this segment, the cause of the fire has not yet been determined. However, this much we know. It started near a church on Todd Road. There was no lightning in the area. It started under cover of darkness. And to top it off, RCMP this morning issued a stern warning for people not to discard cigarette butts. Police encouraged witnesses to turn in violaters, and threatened to levy fines against people found to be responsible. So it's not far from the realm of possibility that last night's chaos was caused by a simple act of carelessness and/or laziness.
Anyone who has lived in the BC Interior for any length of time should know by now that this is a no-no. And if they haven't had it drilled into their by firefighting public relations types, it should be a matter of common sense.
A spark from a train causing a fire is one thing. It's not inexcusable, but at least in most cases - like last week on the Kamloops Indian Reserve - the railway takes responsibility and tries to make things right. But a cigarette thrown out of a vehicle is pure negligence. It's awful close to being malicious. And the penalties for doing it are not nearly steep enough.
There is some suggestion last night's Barnhartvale fire was started by a discarded cigarette. If that's the case, it's utterly, mind-numbingly stupid.
I'll be quite clear - as of the time I am recording this segment, the cause of the fire has not yet been determined. However, this much we know. It started near a church on Todd Road. There was no lightning in the area. It started under cover of darkness. And to top it off, RCMP this morning issued a stern warning for people not to discard cigarette butts. Police encouraged witnesses to turn in violaters, and threatened to levy fines against people found to be responsible. So it's not far from the realm of possibility that last night's chaos was caused by a simple act of carelessness and/or laziness.
Anyone who has lived in the BC Interior for any length of time should know by now that this is a no-no. And if they haven't had it drilled into their by firefighting public relations types, it should be a matter of common sense.
A spark from a train causing a fire is one thing. It's not inexcusable, but at least in most cases - like last week on the Kamloops Indian Reserve - the railway takes responsibility and tries to make things right. But a cigarette thrown out of a vehicle is pure negligence. It's awful close to being malicious. And the penalties for doing it are not nearly steep enough.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
BCLC Self-Exclusion Program Toothless
(Aired on July 27, 2010)
B.C. Lottery Corporation has a self-exclusion program which is designed to keep problem gamblers out of casinos. Critics of the program say it doesn't work, and two lawsuits currently being initiated point out the problem.
One man is suing because he claims he was denied a lottery jackpot after signing up for the program. Yet he claims he was able to enter a casino over and over without being asked to leave. Another is suing because she says she was able to lose $330,000 over three years despite enrolling herself in the program.
The program doesn't seem to have much power to stop people from going into casinos. There is no way casino operators can identify those enrolled in the program. I suppose if a person is known to staff and known to be in the program, they should have some onus to keep that person out. But the details of the program are somewhat unclear. Interesting to note that when I went online this morning to get some background on the program, the BCLC site told me the page on the self-exclusion program was no longer available.
Perhaps we should look to other areas of the world where everyone who enters a casino has to show ID. If such ID were scanned, then those registered in the self-exclusion program could be flagged and asked to leave. Some would claim that's an invasion of privacy, and gives the government access to information on everyone who goes to a casino. There are some definite privacy issues involved in that scenario. But outside of that, I don't know what can be done to prevent people from gambling.
It's a serious problem, and needs to be addressed, but simply registering for a self-exclusion program that seems to have no teeth may provide false hope for people trying to deal with their addiction. But in reality, how much should BCLC be required to do? Let's face it, they can't be the police, and people have to take responsibility for their addictions and get help.
I guess the unfortunate part of these scenarios is that they thought they were getting it by signing up for this program, a program that really doesn't seem to offer much in the way of a solution at all.
B.C. Lottery Corporation has a self-exclusion program which is designed to keep problem gamblers out of casinos. Critics of the program say it doesn't work, and two lawsuits currently being initiated point out the problem.
One man is suing because he claims he was denied a lottery jackpot after signing up for the program. Yet he claims he was able to enter a casino over and over without being asked to leave. Another is suing because she says she was able to lose $330,000 over three years despite enrolling herself in the program.
The program doesn't seem to have much power to stop people from going into casinos. There is no way casino operators can identify those enrolled in the program. I suppose if a person is known to staff and known to be in the program, they should have some onus to keep that person out. But the details of the program are somewhat unclear. Interesting to note that when I went online this morning to get some background on the program, the BCLC site told me the page on the self-exclusion program was no longer available.
Perhaps we should look to other areas of the world where everyone who enters a casino has to show ID. If such ID were scanned, then those registered in the self-exclusion program could be flagged and asked to leave. Some would claim that's an invasion of privacy, and gives the government access to information on everyone who goes to a casino. There are some definite privacy issues involved in that scenario. But outside of that, I don't know what can be done to prevent people from gambling.
It's a serious problem, and needs to be addressed, but simply registering for a self-exclusion program that seems to have no teeth may provide false hope for people trying to deal with their addiction. But in reality, how much should BCLC be required to do? Let's face it, they can't be the police, and people have to take responsibility for their addictions and get help.
I guess the unfortunate part of these scenarios is that they thought they were getting it by signing up for this program, a program that really doesn't seem to offer much in the way of a solution at all.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Common Sense Bikers are Welcome
(Aired on July 26, 2010)
There has been much discussion in the past week centering on motorcycles. In particular, the noise the bikes make and whether or not there should be restrictions placed on that noise. Some suggest the decibel rating is beyond acceptable limits.
For me, the issue is not the noise level per se, it's where the noise is made. If there are mufflers and noise kits put on bikes that put the level above the danger rating for a person's hearing, that's obviously something that needs to be examined. But the bigger issue is whether or not bikers should be exercising some common sense and decency in dealing with motorcycle noise.
Out on the highway, noise shouldn't be an issue. Let it fly. In the City, that's another story. In my opinion, bikers need to be educated to rein in the noise when traveling down quiet residential streets. If they don't, fine them.
I know full well that bikes can be kept quiet. Even the big bikes that we traditionally blame for the problem. I live on a street right now that has bike owners, and in the past, one particular home used to have lots of the big Harleys come to visit. We never, ever had a problem. The bikes came into the cul-de-sac behind us, noise down, and you didn't hear them any more than you would a car or truck. Other people have totally different issues. People come riding down their streets early in the morning, full bore, and there's no excuse for that.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the city's noise bylaw. It has simply to be enforced strenuously when there are complaints.
One final note - I don't know why owners of the big Harleys seem to be the focus of much of the discussion. They aren't the only bike that makes noise. In fact, much of the noise I hear from the arterials and the highway nearby my home come from those crotch-rockets as they're called, the smaller street bikes that whine like a banshee when they're going at full tilt. They're much worse than any Harley I hear.
Noise is always an issue. And for some, it's much more concern than for others. Common sense is the order of the day here. If the bikes make unreasonable noise, fine the owners. Make them pay for their stupidity. But a certain amount of noise is going to happen. That's the nature of an urban neighbourhood.
There has been much discussion in the past week centering on motorcycles. In particular, the noise the bikes make and whether or not there should be restrictions placed on that noise. Some suggest the decibel rating is beyond acceptable limits.
For me, the issue is not the noise level per se, it's where the noise is made. If there are mufflers and noise kits put on bikes that put the level above the danger rating for a person's hearing, that's obviously something that needs to be examined. But the bigger issue is whether or not bikers should be exercising some common sense and decency in dealing with motorcycle noise.
Out on the highway, noise shouldn't be an issue. Let it fly. In the City, that's another story. In my opinion, bikers need to be educated to rein in the noise when traveling down quiet residential streets. If they don't, fine them.
I know full well that bikes can be kept quiet. Even the big bikes that we traditionally blame for the problem. I live on a street right now that has bike owners, and in the past, one particular home used to have lots of the big Harleys come to visit. We never, ever had a problem. The bikes came into the cul-de-sac behind us, noise down, and you didn't hear them any more than you would a car or truck. Other people have totally different issues. People come riding down their streets early in the morning, full bore, and there's no excuse for that.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the city's noise bylaw. It has simply to be enforced strenuously when there are complaints.
One final note - I don't know why owners of the big Harleys seem to be the focus of much of the discussion. They aren't the only bike that makes noise. In fact, much of the noise I hear from the arterials and the highway nearby my home come from those crotch-rockets as they're called, the smaller street bikes that whine like a banshee when they're going at full tilt. They're much worse than any Harley I hear.
Noise is always an issue. And for some, it's much more concern than for others. Common sense is the order of the day here. If the bikes make unreasonable noise, fine the owners. Make them pay for their stupidity. But a certain amount of noise is going to happen. That's the nature of an urban neighbourhood.
What to do with $50-million
(Aired on July 23, 2010)
What would you do with $50-million?
The Lotto Max draw will take place in about a half an hour. The jackpot is back up to $50-million, and with multiple spinoff million dollar prizes thrown in for good measure. And even though it may not be smart to come within shouting distance of anything connected to BCLC right now, I must admit, I've bought a ticket. I only tend to buy tickets when the prize is obscenely large - which doesn't make sense, I know, but leave me be.
Buying a ticket gives you license to dream. It's like voting gives you license to dream about good government. Just the other day, the people in the office were fantasizing about what they would do if they won the big prize. Would you keep working? Most people wouldn't. Of course everyone would help out friends and family, and make sure the people they care about are taken care of. How much would you donate to charity, and to which causes would you donate? How would you protect yourself from people trying to take advantage of you?
And finally, how much would instant wealth change the actual substance of your life? I look at friends and acquaintances in upper income brackets, and it quickly becomes evident that money doesn't solve all of a person's problems. There is as much misery and unrest among the rich as there is anywhere.
So to the person who wins the big prize tonight - or whenever its awarded - try to keep some perspective. And if you'd like, I'd be willing to discuss this further, for a small fee.
What would you do with $50-million?
The Lotto Max draw will take place in about a half an hour. The jackpot is back up to $50-million, and with multiple spinoff million dollar prizes thrown in for good measure. And even though it may not be smart to come within shouting distance of anything connected to BCLC right now, I must admit, I've bought a ticket. I only tend to buy tickets when the prize is obscenely large - which doesn't make sense, I know, but leave me be.
Buying a ticket gives you license to dream. It's like voting gives you license to dream about good government. Just the other day, the people in the office were fantasizing about what they would do if they won the big prize. Would you keep working? Most people wouldn't. Of course everyone would help out friends and family, and make sure the people they care about are taken care of. How much would you donate to charity, and to which causes would you donate? How would you protect yourself from people trying to take advantage of you?
And finally, how much would instant wealth change the actual substance of your life? I look at friends and acquaintances in upper income brackets, and it quickly becomes evident that money doesn't solve all of a person's problems. There is as much misery and unrest among the rich as there is anywhere.
So to the person who wins the big prize tonight - or whenever its awarded - try to keep some perspective. And if you'd like, I'd be willing to discuss this further, for a small fee.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Moving Companies Need Better Standards
(Aired on July 22, 2010)
Canada's moving companies are trying to decide if they want to adopt a bill of rights to protect customers. The proposal would ensure customers receive a written quote and get plenty of notice about delays. The bill would also ensure movers are trained, bonded and have adequate insurance. The new plan would weed out operators who have victimized families moving from one place to another.
But there has to be more than that. Moving is a much more difficult situation than it used to be. Consumer advocates say customers have the responsibility to hire ethical and above-board firms. But how do you know that anymore? It used to be that you could look in the phone book and pick one of the big names you recognized and you could pretty much rest assured you were going to be okay. Not so anymore. Even many of the big moving companies subcontract out the work and there are often all sorts of delays that create nothing but problems.
One of my kids has moved several times because of her husband's job, and each time there have been problems. Frantic phone calls to find out why no one showed up as promised. It added a lot of stress. No matter what firm they picked, they had issues. Most of it had to do with the company keeping their promises to do things by a certain time. There were always delays. And that just isn't good enough. I realize these cross-country haulers can run into problems.
But it seems there are more and more issues trying to get companies to commit to a time line that customers can rely on. I don't know if some kind of bill of rights will help. But it sure can't do any harm.
Canada's moving companies are trying to decide if they want to adopt a bill of rights to protect customers. The proposal would ensure customers receive a written quote and get plenty of notice about delays. The bill would also ensure movers are trained, bonded and have adequate insurance. The new plan would weed out operators who have victimized families moving from one place to another.
But there has to be more than that. Moving is a much more difficult situation than it used to be. Consumer advocates say customers have the responsibility to hire ethical and above-board firms. But how do you know that anymore? It used to be that you could look in the phone book and pick one of the big names you recognized and you could pretty much rest assured you were going to be okay. Not so anymore. Even many of the big moving companies subcontract out the work and there are often all sorts of delays that create nothing but problems.
One of my kids has moved several times because of her husband's job, and each time there have been problems. Frantic phone calls to find out why no one showed up as promised. It added a lot of stress. No matter what firm they picked, they had issues. Most of it had to do with the company keeping their promises to do things by a certain time. There were always delays. And that just isn't good enough. I realize these cross-country haulers can run into problems.
But it seems there are more and more issues trying to get companies to commit to a time line that customers can rely on. I don't know if some kind of bill of rights will help. But it sure can't do any harm.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
F35 Purchase Process Flawed
(Aired on July 21, 2010)
Doug Collins told us earlier this week that it's about time Canada spends billions of dollars on new fighter jets to replace our aging fleet of CF18s. Unlike Doug, I'm not going to jump in with both feet.
First, I'm not the happiest about a multi-billion dollar contract going to Lockheed Martin without a bid process. Even at the local level, it's important that significant contracts be put out to tender. I'm aware that their aren't too many companies in the world that make fighter planes, but some sort of competitive process would have been helpful. Lockheed Martin has been criticized, and in fact penalized by the US government, because this F35 program has been racked with cost overruns and delays. Unhappily, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to simply follow Washington's lead is coming through here. The United States has ordered 2400 F35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
But more than that, I'll agree with the columnist in the National Post who said the Harper government needs to give Canadians a full and complete vision of what the role of our armed forces will be going forward before making these purchases. If the war in Afghanistan is the new model for what we can expect in world conflict in the future, we have to realize that our country didn't use the CF18s in Afghanistan.
However, if the primary mission for the new F35s will be to defend the homeland, is that really the best use of taxpayers' money? I think the smarter money would go into beefed up security at ground crossings and airports. Even smarter money would go into promoting diplomacy as a means of diffusing conflict. If we really want to eliminate our enemies, the best way to do it isn't killing them, but by turning them into friends. Call it naivete, but too many of us are outgrowing our idealism.
Doug Collins told us earlier this week that it's about time Canada spends billions of dollars on new fighter jets to replace our aging fleet of CF18s. Unlike Doug, I'm not going to jump in with both feet.
First, I'm not the happiest about a multi-billion dollar contract going to Lockheed Martin without a bid process. Even at the local level, it's important that significant contracts be put out to tender. I'm aware that their aren't too many companies in the world that make fighter planes, but some sort of competitive process would have been helpful. Lockheed Martin has been criticized, and in fact penalized by the US government, because this F35 program has been racked with cost overruns and delays. Unhappily, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to simply follow Washington's lead is coming through here. The United States has ordered 2400 F35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
But more than that, I'll agree with the columnist in the National Post who said the Harper government needs to give Canadians a full and complete vision of what the role of our armed forces will be going forward before making these purchases. If the war in Afghanistan is the new model for what we can expect in world conflict in the future, we have to realize that our country didn't use the CF18s in Afghanistan.
However, if the primary mission for the new F35s will be to defend the homeland, is that really the best use of taxpayers' money? I think the smarter money would go into beefed up security at ground crossings and airports. Even smarter money would go into promoting diplomacy as a means of diffusing conflict. If we really want to eliminate our enemies, the best way to do it isn't killing them, but by turning them into friends. Call it naivete, but too many of us are outgrowing our idealism.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Changes to Family Law Act Bring it Into the 21st Century
(Aired on July 20, 2010)
It's certainly about time that B.C. Family Law Act was revamped to take it out of the Stone Age. Many of the measures introduced yesterday will go a long way to solving family difficulties. One of the biggest changes will change the way property is divided in common law relationships. Living together outside of marriage will have much more definable boundaries. Another area will bring same-sex marriages under the Act with respect to determining who the legal parent is. The thrust is to make the law more realistic given the changing nature of marriage and family relationships.
The Act hasn't been changed in 30 years, but relationships sure have. The courts will now not be the only primary source of resolving disputes. There will be much more emphasis placed on mediation and a broader range of non-court dispute resolution options. Less adversarial terminology is being advocated.
But in making all these changes, let's continue to remember that family disputes are just that - dispute, and in most cases they are adversarial in nature. When couples split up, the issue of property, of access rights to children, all take on a highly explosive role, and just changing things on paper doesn't mean the changes will make their way down the line when people are arguing over which days a parent gets access to children.
I have watched with increasing sadness the number of children torn apart by their parents splitting up. By having one parent in Trail, another in Kitimat, and the child having to split time with both parents, going to school in two cities, and so on. The split is bad enough, but the way courts rule in many of these cases is just plain stupid. So with the rewriting of the act has to come a new approach, new points of reference. If the child's interests are going to be paramount, as the new act states, a whole lot of people behind the bench, a whole lot of people in Family Services and a whole lot of support services personnel have to change the way they think too. Otherwise, all the work put into the changes will be just a waste of time.
It's certainly about time that B.C. Family Law Act was revamped to take it out of the Stone Age. Many of the measures introduced yesterday will go a long way to solving family difficulties. One of the biggest changes will change the way property is divided in common law relationships. Living together outside of marriage will have much more definable boundaries. Another area will bring same-sex marriages under the Act with respect to determining who the legal parent is. The thrust is to make the law more realistic given the changing nature of marriage and family relationships.
The Act hasn't been changed in 30 years, but relationships sure have. The courts will now not be the only primary source of resolving disputes. There will be much more emphasis placed on mediation and a broader range of non-court dispute resolution options. Less adversarial terminology is being advocated.
But in making all these changes, let's continue to remember that family disputes are just that - dispute, and in most cases they are adversarial in nature. When couples split up, the issue of property, of access rights to children, all take on a highly explosive role, and just changing things on paper doesn't mean the changes will make their way down the line when people are arguing over which days a parent gets access to children.
I have watched with increasing sadness the number of children torn apart by their parents splitting up. By having one parent in Trail, another in Kitimat, and the child having to split time with both parents, going to school in two cities, and so on. The split is bad enough, but the way courts rule in many of these cases is just plain stupid. So with the rewriting of the act has to come a new approach, new points of reference. If the child's interests are going to be paramount, as the new act states, a whole lot of people behind the bench, a whole lot of people in Family Services and a whole lot of support services personnel have to change the way they think too. Otherwise, all the work put into the changes will be just a waste of time.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Billions for War Planes Well Spent
(Aired on July 19, 2010)
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Dam Collapse a Massive Boondoggle
(Aired on July 16, 2010)
We all forget things. It's not hard with the busy life we lead for things to slip through the cracks. I've done it many times, despite my best efforts, and fortunately, it's never come back to bite me seriously. We regroup and try to do a better job next time.
But it's hard to believe that something like that which happened in Oliver could have slipped through the cracks for 40 years, with, I'm sure, many different people responsible, and several different governments in place. A report released yesterday outlines a continuing series of gaffes that ultimately led to a mudslide June 13 that wiped out several homes and a large tract of farm and orchard land. The dam is privately owned, and as far back as the 1960s, the government ordered the owner to make repairs and improve the dam. Those repairs, apparently, we never done. And worse, there was never any followup to ensure the repairs were completely.
That's hard to believe. No one, in all those years, ever checked to see if the guy completed the work. And then there's the case of a phone call from a hiker, who reported the lake behind the dam was overflowing after recent rains. Police called the Ministry, but left a message on an answering machine that wasn't heard until the day after the slide.
I don't want to be overly critical here, but that just seems like a whole series of incomprehensible screw-ups that led to people possibly losing their homes and the life they have built for themselves. They will never get the compensation they deserve, and they could have lost their lives.
This is a massive boondoggle of the highest proportions. Not only should the dam's owner pay if he's found negligent, but the government needs to have a major ministry reorganization so there's proper followup when repairs are ordered. I guess we should be happy no lives were lost, but try to tell that to the families who now have to start over.
We all forget things. It's not hard with the busy life we lead for things to slip through the cracks. I've done it many times, despite my best efforts, and fortunately, it's never come back to bite me seriously. We regroup and try to do a better job next time.
But it's hard to believe that something like that which happened in Oliver could have slipped through the cracks for 40 years, with, I'm sure, many different people responsible, and several different governments in place. A report released yesterday outlines a continuing series of gaffes that ultimately led to a mudslide June 13 that wiped out several homes and a large tract of farm and orchard land. The dam is privately owned, and as far back as the 1960s, the government ordered the owner to make repairs and improve the dam. Those repairs, apparently, we never done. And worse, there was never any followup to ensure the repairs were completely.
That's hard to believe. No one, in all those years, ever checked to see if the guy completed the work. And then there's the case of a phone call from a hiker, who reported the lake behind the dam was overflowing after recent rains. Police called the Ministry, but left a message on an answering machine that wasn't heard until the day after the slide.
I don't want to be overly critical here, but that just seems like a whole series of incomprehensible screw-ups that led to people possibly losing their homes and the life they have built for themselves. They will never get the compensation they deserve, and they could have lost their lives.
This is a massive boondoggle of the highest proportions. Not only should the dam's owner pay if he's found negligent, but the government needs to have a major ministry reorganization so there's proper followup when repairs are ordered. I guess we should be happy no lives were lost, but try to tell that to the families who now have to start over.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Louder, the Better When It Comes To Motorcycles?
(Aired on July 15, 2010)
The debate surrounding obnoxiously loud motorcycles is an interesting one. As someone with young children who go to bed fairly early in the evening, my blood pressure increases every time I hear a loud bike pass by. Some days getting your child to sleep feels like the proudest accomplishment of your day, and there's nothing worse than an outside stimulus ruining that accomplishment.
That's the polarizing factor with motorcycles. People who don't ride hate the noise, but riders love it.
Our newsroom received an angry e-mail in the wake of a city council debate this week over whether the city can regulate the decibel levels produced. The e-mailer said the noise actually saves lives because other drivers know the bikes are coming when they otherwise would not. There is some truth to that, but the real reason people ride Harleys and other loud motorcycles is because they want to be noticed in non-life threatening situations. They want to be noticed for the sake of being noticed. Riders are attracted by the mystique and the rebellious image. As a company, Harley Davidson has done a wonderful job playing up and cashing in on that image. And while the bikes that come off the line are loud enough, you can buy after-market pipes to make them even louder.
The city is pretty much stuck on this one. If council tried to enact a by-law, it would have to be enforced by RCMP, and that's a tricky prospect. Any type of ban on motorcycle use would lead to complaints of a double-standard and be met with massive opposition. Loud motorcycles are a fact of life and are particularly in vogue right now. City council may have to simply hope this is a trend that will go away quickly - if not quietly.
The debate surrounding obnoxiously loud motorcycles is an interesting one. As someone with young children who go to bed fairly early in the evening, my blood pressure increases every time I hear a loud bike pass by. Some days getting your child to sleep feels like the proudest accomplishment of your day, and there's nothing worse than an outside stimulus ruining that accomplishment.
That's the polarizing factor with motorcycles. People who don't ride hate the noise, but riders love it.
Our newsroom received an angry e-mail in the wake of a city council debate this week over whether the city can regulate the decibel levels produced. The e-mailer said the noise actually saves lives because other drivers know the bikes are coming when they otherwise would not. There is some truth to that, but the real reason people ride Harleys and other loud motorcycles is because they want to be noticed in non-life threatening situations. They want to be noticed for the sake of being noticed. Riders are attracted by the mystique and the rebellious image. As a company, Harley Davidson has done a wonderful job playing up and cashing in on that image. And while the bikes that come off the line are loud enough, you can buy after-market pipes to make them even louder.
The city is pretty much stuck on this one. If council tried to enact a by-law, it would have to be enforced by RCMP, and that's a tricky prospect. Any type of ban on motorcycle use would lead to complaints of a double-standard and be met with massive opposition. Loud motorcycles are a fact of life and are particularly in vogue right now. City council may have to simply hope this is a trend that will go away quickly - if not quietly.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Municipal Government More Human
(Aired on July 14, 2010)
I knew there was a reason I enjoyed municipal government. Because it's not sitting in city council meetings, believe you me. Where else but at the municipal level would you be able to find the new, so-called progressive members of council like Nancy Bepple and Denis Walsh voting against affordable housing? Both Bepple and Walsh registered votes against mobile home proposals planned for Ord Road and Dallas Drive. And where else would you find a self-described "free-enterpriser" like Pat Wallace voting for increased regulation of private businesses? The private businesses in question are the two local taxi cab companies.
I don't point this out to rail against so-called hypocrisy and condemn politicians for flip-flopping. On the contrary, municipal government may be the only place where politicians can truly vote their conscience and exercise their own degree of common sense. It's much more human, quite frankly.
At higher levels of government, with partisan politics and mindless block voting, there is no opportunity for rational individuals to consider all facets of an issue and vote accordingly. Of course, you have broader jurisdiction and more money to work with, so it attracts a lot of interest.
But more and more, I'm gaining greater respect for those who try to make a difference on a local level - be it school trustees, city councillors, or even those who volunteer for city committees. As much as a politician might tout one way of thinking, that person should be able to vote in any direction they find most compelling. Progressives won't always be right, and free-enterprisers won't always be right, but those who vote for the greater good can never be wrong.
I knew there was a reason I enjoyed municipal government. Because it's not sitting in city council meetings, believe you me. Where else but at the municipal level would you be able to find the new, so-called progressive members of council like Nancy Bepple and Denis Walsh voting against affordable housing? Both Bepple and Walsh registered votes against mobile home proposals planned for Ord Road and Dallas Drive. And where else would you find a self-described "free-enterpriser" like Pat Wallace voting for increased regulation of private businesses? The private businesses in question are the two local taxi cab companies.
I don't point this out to rail against so-called hypocrisy and condemn politicians for flip-flopping. On the contrary, municipal government may be the only place where politicians can truly vote their conscience and exercise their own degree of common sense. It's much more human, quite frankly.
At higher levels of government, with partisan politics and mindless block voting, there is no opportunity for rational individuals to consider all facets of an issue and vote accordingly. Of course, you have broader jurisdiction and more money to work with, so it attracts a lot of interest.
But more and more, I'm gaining greater respect for those who try to make a difference on a local level - be it school trustees, city councillors, or even those who volunteer for city committees. As much as a politician might tout one way of thinking, that person should be able to vote in any direction they find most compelling. Progressives won't always be right, and free-enterprisers won't always be right, but those who vote for the greater good can never be wrong.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Robertson Gaffe Hearkens Back to Reagan
(Aired on July 13, 2010)
You know the old cliche "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?" Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson is wishing that statement applied to sessions of Vancouver City Council. Robertson is backtracking like crazy after a live microphone used for city council meetings was left "on" after a recent meeting. It was a long, controversial meeting, and Robertson was a bit ticked. So he proceeded to call down one particular group who had spoken against a controversial rental proposal. He called the group hacks, and other inappropriate names.
Robertson has since apologized, but his squeaky clean image has suffered. Not so much by the swearing - hey, it happens - but more for his attitude towards the people who came to have their opinions heard. They had legitimate concerns about the housing proposal, and were worried that the council was going to just rubber stamp the deal before giving it serious thought. How often have we seen that happen?
No one is, or should be, naive enough not to know that these kinds of rants go on. It happens. In this case, however, the Mayor of Vancouver made some comments that were needless, not to mentioned biased and totally uncalled for, lengthy council meeting or not.
Robertson's comments are reminiscent of those made back in 1984 by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. He said: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes."
He was joking around in a voice-level test before broadcast, but it turned out the microphone was switched on.
Reagan never really lived that down, and while I think Robertson will eventually recover, he certainly didn't do himself any favours. We learn early in our business - when there's a microphone around, never assume it's off. Many careers have been saved that way.
You know the old cliche "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?" Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson is wishing that statement applied to sessions of Vancouver City Council. Robertson is backtracking like crazy after a live microphone used for city council meetings was left "on" after a recent meeting. It was a long, controversial meeting, and Robertson was a bit ticked. So he proceeded to call down one particular group who had spoken against a controversial rental proposal. He called the group hacks, and other inappropriate names.
Robertson has since apologized, but his squeaky clean image has suffered. Not so much by the swearing - hey, it happens - but more for his attitude towards the people who came to have their opinions heard. They had legitimate concerns about the housing proposal, and were worried that the council was going to just rubber stamp the deal before giving it serious thought. How often have we seen that happen?
No one is, or should be, naive enough not to know that these kinds of rants go on. It happens. In this case, however, the Mayor of Vancouver made some comments that were needless, not to mentioned biased and totally uncalled for, lengthy council meeting or not.
Robertson's comments are reminiscent of those made back in 1984 by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. He said: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes."
He was joking around in a voice-level test before broadcast, but it turned out the microphone was switched on.
Reagan never really lived that down, and while I think Robertson will eventually recover, he certainly didn't do himself any favours. We learn early in our business - when there's a microphone around, never assume it's off. Many careers have been saved that way.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
U of R Health Care Study Damning, Not Surprising
(Aired on July 12, 2010)
Should it come as any surprise that Kamloops is rated as the health area with the lowest rating in the country? I don't know if I totally agree with the results of a study out today by the University of Regina, but it clearly indicates that health care in B.C. isn't rated very highly.
This study looked at availability of services, level of care and patient satisfaction. I've said for years that we have to totally revamp health care. I think the province has done some things, but most of them seem to have been done to cut costs and not to better health care. If we can change where we put the money to provide better care, all well and good. But that's not the sense I get of what's happening.
I know from personal experience that wait times are very frustrating. I've experienced that, and I can only guess that this kind of thing certainly leads to the patient dissatisfaction mentioned in the survey. But wait times aren't confined to B.C. So there must be other things that were surveyed that didn't pan out well.
Whether you believe the results of the survey or not, there's no question that the health care system is broken, and needs fixing. When surgeries are postponed because you don't have good enough equipment to properly sterilize surgical tools, when you can't get a procedure done because we don't have enough operating rooms functioning, when you can't get to see a specialist and even when you do they can't do anything for you because they don't have operating times, when you hear reports of the hospital being dirty because they don't have enough support staff, when you can't get into the ER because they don't have enough staff to process you, when you can't get care in rural areas because they don't have enough doctors, is it any wonder that we rate so low?
We aren't alone in the province. New West and Burnaby rate just as poorly for larger centers and even places where doctors want to settle, like Abbotsford and Chilliwack, fared poorly. It's a state reflection of our level of care when we're so badly thought of. I'm not confident the government will take notice or even care about the report, but perhaps with some pressure, they can do what needs to be done. And that's conduct a major overhaul.
Should it come as any surprise that Kamloops is rated as the health area with the lowest rating in the country? I don't know if I totally agree with the results of a study out today by the University of Regina, but it clearly indicates that health care in B.C. isn't rated very highly.
This study looked at availability of services, level of care and patient satisfaction. I've said for years that we have to totally revamp health care. I think the province has done some things, but most of them seem to have been done to cut costs and not to better health care. If we can change where we put the money to provide better care, all well and good. But that's not the sense I get of what's happening.
I know from personal experience that wait times are very frustrating. I've experienced that, and I can only guess that this kind of thing certainly leads to the patient dissatisfaction mentioned in the survey. But wait times aren't confined to B.C. So there must be other things that were surveyed that didn't pan out well.
Whether you believe the results of the survey or not, there's no question that the health care system is broken, and needs fixing. When surgeries are postponed because you don't have good enough equipment to properly sterilize surgical tools, when you can't get a procedure done because we don't have enough operating rooms functioning, when you can't get to see a specialist and even when you do they can't do anything for you because they don't have operating times, when you hear reports of the hospital being dirty because they don't have enough support staff, when you can't get into the ER because they don't have enough staff to process you, when you can't get care in rural areas because they don't have enough doctors, is it any wonder that we rate so low?
We aren't alone in the province. New West and Burnaby rate just as poorly for larger centers and even places where doctors want to settle, like Abbotsford and Chilliwack, fared poorly. It's a state reflection of our level of care when we're so badly thought of. I'm not confident the government will take notice or even care about the report, but perhaps with some pressure, they can do what needs to be done. And that's conduct a major overhaul.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Changes to Election Rules Worthwhile
(Aired on July 9, 2010)
New election rules that could be in effect for next year's civic election will provide a bit of a conundrum for people wanting to run for City Council.
There are two issues that are involved here. One is a spending limit for potential candidates. I'm kind of ambivalent but it seems to me there should be some sort of limit on spending to prevent a person from getting elected just because he or she is richer than someone who may be far more qualified but not as well off financially.
The more controversial issue might be the length of terms for a councillor. There seems to be an indication that terms could go to four years from the current three. Councillors we talked to have mixed feelings about it. Those in favour feel it gives councillors more time to get accustomed to their duties and put their ideas into effect.
Councillor Pat Wallace, who's been doing this about as long as anyone in the province, says she always sees a different attitude as we get close to an election, because councillors want to put their best face forward getting close to a vote. Those opposed to longer terms wonder who can make a commitment to four years if they're still working at another job. Would it then limit potential councillors to retirees, those not working or those who have understanding and civic-minded bosses?
The other thought of course is-if we get a turkey in there, and we've been known to have one or two, do we have to put up with their incompetence for four years? Although I guess we already face that in provincial or federal politics too.
The issues aren't as black and white as they might seem. But there are some obviously good changes in the wind. One will make political spending transparent. Anonymous donations would be eliminated. And that's definitely a good thing. While some of the issues are debatable, there's no question that campaign funding is one of the biggest things to be cleared up. And that alone makes the changes worthwhile.
New election rules that could be in effect for next year's civic election will provide a bit of a conundrum for people wanting to run for City Council.
There are two issues that are involved here. One is a spending limit for potential candidates. I'm kind of ambivalent but it seems to me there should be some sort of limit on spending to prevent a person from getting elected just because he or she is richer than someone who may be far more qualified but not as well off financially.
The more controversial issue might be the length of terms for a councillor. There seems to be an indication that terms could go to four years from the current three. Councillors we talked to have mixed feelings about it. Those in favour feel it gives councillors more time to get accustomed to their duties and put their ideas into effect.
Councillor Pat Wallace, who's been doing this about as long as anyone in the province, says she always sees a different attitude as we get close to an election, because councillors want to put their best face forward getting close to a vote. Those opposed to longer terms wonder who can make a commitment to four years if they're still working at another job. Would it then limit potential councillors to retirees, those not working or those who have understanding and civic-minded bosses?
The other thought of course is-if we get a turkey in there, and we've been known to have one or two, do we have to put up with their incompetence for four years? Although I guess we already face that in provincial or federal politics too.
The issues aren't as black and white as they might seem. But there are some obviously good changes in the wind. One will make political spending transparent. Anonymous donations would be eliminated. And that's definitely a good thing. While some of the issues are debatable, there's no question that campaign funding is one of the biggest things to be cleared up. And that alone makes the changes worthwhile.
It's Not That Bad
(Aired on July 8, 2010)
There was a letter to the editor in the Kamloops Daily News today complaining about the number of mosquitoes in Kamloops right now. I agree there are more than usual, but the total is still almost negligible.
It got me thinking about how good we have it here in Kamloops. Talk to anyone from the prairies - like me - about mosquitoes, and you realize it's all relative. Same story goes for complaining about the cold weather in winter time. Things aren't perfect in our city and in our province, but they're getting pretty close. The weather is nice, and the bugs aren't that bad.
Even the economy is doing relatively well. In spite of the downturn, Kamloops just saw record numbers for building in a six-month period and in a twelve-month period. And according to Finance Minister Colin Hansen, BC appears to be recovering better than expected as well. It's not smoking hot, mind you, but it's turning around.
From my perspective, just like the weather, you don't want it to be too hot. I lived in Alberta five years ago when the province was making money so fast it literally did not know what to do with it. At one point, Ralph Klein actually started giving it back in lump sum cheques. While that's all fine and good, the growth of the economy had plenty of negative side effects. No one wanted to work in the service industry because of all of the high-paying jobs in the oilsands. So try getting a table and a lunch in a reasonable time frame. Urban planning in cities like Calgary was completely thrown to the wayside because growth was too quick. And the wealth did not solve the social issues like homelessness and child poverty. In fact, all that wealth in the hands of so many young oilsands workers led to rampant drug use and addiction.
We're doing quite well here in Kamloops, not so well that I won't be able to find something to, shall we say "point out" - but quite well nonetheless.
There was a letter to the editor in the Kamloops Daily News today complaining about the number of mosquitoes in Kamloops right now. I agree there are more than usual, but the total is still almost negligible.
It got me thinking about how good we have it here in Kamloops. Talk to anyone from the prairies - like me - about mosquitoes, and you realize it's all relative. Same story goes for complaining about the cold weather in winter time. Things aren't perfect in our city and in our province, but they're getting pretty close. The weather is nice, and the bugs aren't that bad.
Even the economy is doing relatively well. In spite of the downturn, Kamloops just saw record numbers for building in a six-month period and in a twelve-month period. And according to Finance Minister Colin Hansen, BC appears to be recovering better than expected as well. It's not smoking hot, mind you, but it's turning around.
From my perspective, just like the weather, you don't want it to be too hot. I lived in Alberta five years ago when the province was making money so fast it literally did not know what to do with it. At one point, Ralph Klein actually started giving it back in lump sum cheques. While that's all fine and good, the growth of the economy had plenty of negative side effects. No one wanted to work in the service industry because of all of the high-paying jobs in the oilsands. So try getting a table and a lunch in a reasonable time frame. Urban planning in cities like Calgary was completely thrown to the wayside because growth was too quick. And the wealth did not solve the social issues like homelessness and child poverty. In fact, all that wealth in the hands of so many young oilsands workers led to rampant drug use and addiction.
We're doing quite well here in Kamloops, not so well that I won't be able to find something to, shall we say "point out" - but quite well nonetheless.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Trustees Unfairly Lampooned for Modest Pay Hike
(Aired on July 7, 2010)
There must be a better way to determine the salary levels of elected officials like school trustees and city councillors. It is never an easy task, and I have never seen a situation yet where the public is happy. In tough times, the officials are getting raises on the backs of the taxpayers and the downtrodden. In good times, they're taking advantage of the situation. How can they win?
For years, the officials had to make their decisions without much of a guideline, so they tried to get around that by having their administration, or in some cases even totally independent bodies, determine appropriate salaries. Methods vary, but the most common method is to examine salaries in similar sized municipalities, faced with many of the same concerns and needs of their own city. It's about the best so far. But it's not accepted by the public.
Take the case of school trustees here. They voted themselves a measly 2% wage hike this week, and they're taking flak for it. They could have taken 7%, which was the recommendation of administration after looking at other districts. I don't think 2% was out of line. School trustees have a tough job. I understand that the raise comes amidst all the budget hassles and school closures this year. But it doesn't negate the fact they were due for an increase.
I didn't see the teachers turning down a raise. Why? Because they thought they deserved it, with all the increased workload with closures and budget restrictions. They've indicated that in a contract year, they're looking for more. And yet our local Teachers' Association President had the gall to suggest that trustees blew an opportunity to do the right thing by accepting a raise. I wonder how he'll react when teachers go after their next increase? Will he have the same view? I highly doubt it.
And to suggest that the method of determining an increase is wrong is simply ludicrous. Unions do it all the time. They look around and see how other locals are doing, many industries have pattern agreements based on a contract with a single company in a particular location. Yet they criticize school trustees for doing the same thing? Talk about a double standard.
There must be a better way to determine the salary levels of elected officials like school trustees and city councillors. It is never an easy task, and I have never seen a situation yet where the public is happy. In tough times, the officials are getting raises on the backs of the taxpayers and the downtrodden. In good times, they're taking advantage of the situation. How can they win?
For years, the officials had to make their decisions without much of a guideline, so they tried to get around that by having their administration, or in some cases even totally independent bodies, determine appropriate salaries. Methods vary, but the most common method is to examine salaries in similar sized municipalities, faced with many of the same concerns and needs of their own city. It's about the best so far. But it's not accepted by the public.
Take the case of school trustees here. They voted themselves a measly 2% wage hike this week, and they're taking flak for it. They could have taken 7%, which was the recommendation of administration after looking at other districts. I don't think 2% was out of line. School trustees have a tough job. I understand that the raise comes amidst all the budget hassles and school closures this year. But it doesn't negate the fact they were due for an increase.
I didn't see the teachers turning down a raise. Why? Because they thought they deserved it, with all the increased workload with closures and budget restrictions. They've indicated that in a contract year, they're looking for more. And yet our local Teachers' Association President had the gall to suggest that trustees blew an opportunity to do the right thing by accepting a raise. I wonder how he'll react when teachers go after their next increase? Will he have the same view? I highly doubt it.
And to suggest that the method of determining an increase is wrong is simply ludicrous. Unions do it all the time. They look around and see how other locals are doing, many industries have pattern agreements based on a contract with a single company in a particular location. Yet they criticize school trustees for doing the same thing? Talk about a double standard.
On an Ominous Anniversary, Gulf Disaster Continues to Grow
(Aired on July 6, 2010)
Do the words Piper Alpha ring a bell? They didn't to me, until I started doing a little research. The Piper Alpha was an oil platform in the North Sea that blew up, killing 167 people. It was 22 years ago today. In terms of loss of life, it was the worst offshore oil well disaster in history.
In the Gulf of Mexico, just over 60 kilometres off the coast of Louisiana, another disaster is evolving. So far, the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill has taken only 11 lives. But the explosion happened on April 20 - more than 75 days ago - and the gusher continues to flow. It is already the worst environmental disaster in American history, and is rapidly becoming one of the worst in the history of the world. In addition to the 6500 square kilometre slick on the surface of the water, there are reports of huge plumes of oil beneath the surface.
The reason I bring up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill once again today is not because there have been any significant new developments. Indeed, the plan is still to get the relief wells in place by August, and then perhaps we can see the flow of oil stemmed. But instead, I bring this up because I know it will take a concerted effort to keep this disaster as a part of our consciousness.
When it's watching news coverage, the public likes to see sexy pictures - oil gushing, rigs exploding, that kind of thing. That's just the way it is. But the pictures in this story are no longer sexy. It doesn't take too long to get tired of watching sludge lapping at the Louisiana shoreline, and that's how the story gets knocked out of the headlines.
So this is me reminding you, cajoling you, drilling it into your head. Please, don't forget.
Do the words Piper Alpha ring a bell? They didn't to me, until I started doing a little research. The Piper Alpha was an oil platform in the North Sea that blew up, killing 167 people. It was 22 years ago today. In terms of loss of life, it was the worst offshore oil well disaster in history.
In the Gulf of Mexico, just over 60 kilometres off the coast of Louisiana, another disaster is evolving. So far, the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill has taken only 11 lives. But the explosion happened on April 20 - more than 75 days ago - and the gusher continues to flow. It is already the worst environmental disaster in American history, and is rapidly becoming one of the worst in the history of the world. In addition to the 6500 square kilometre slick on the surface of the water, there are reports of huge plumes of oil beneath the surface.
The reason I bring up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill once again today is not because there have been any significant new developments. Indeed, the plan is still to get the relief wells in place by August, and then perhaps we can see the flow of oil stemmed. But instead, I bring this up because I know it will take a concerted effort to keep this disaster as a part of our consciousness.
When it's watching news coverage, the public likes to see sexy pictures - oil gushing, rigs exploding, that kind of thing. That's just the way it is. But the pictures in this story are no longer sexy. It doesn't take too long to get tired of watching sludge lapping at the Louisiana shoreline, and that's how the story gets knocked out of the headlines.
So this is me reminding you, cajoling you, drilling it into your head. Please, don't forget.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Shuswap Crash Highlights Lack of Enforcement
(Aired on June 5, 2010)
The weekend tragedy on the Shuswap has once again focused peoples' concerns about policing on the lake. I guess not just this lake, but every large lake.
It might be a while before all the details come to light about the weekend accident that saw a speedboat collide with a houseboat, killing one person and sending several more to hospital. So it's hard to say that this is something relating to lack of policing, or whether other issues involved. But when you talk to residents of the Shuswap, or Okanagan Lake, or Kalamalka Lake, or Skaha Lake, one of their big issues is a lack of a police presence. Police presence is negligible.
There are rules against drinking. How many times have you seen boats checked? You have to have an Operator's Card, which is a joke in itself, but nevertheless, how many times are people checked? How many times do you see people speeding dangerously close to other boats, to houseboats, or swimmers in the lake? Where are the enforcement officials?
I'll tell you where they are. Doing the myriad of other tasks that are assigned to them because there just aren't enough officers to go around. Funding is such that we just don't have enough officers to get out to these locations, just like we don't have conservation officers to do their jobs, or staffing in provincial campsites. And I could go on and on.
Many of these tragedies are caused by carelessness, or consumption of alcohol. How many people do you know who go out on the lake with a case of beer or something stronger and laugh about how they're only going to have a couple of drinks. Pretty soon their judgment suffers to the point where they shouldn't be operating a boat at all. The cost of putting enforcement in place is high. I guess it's a question of what value we put on a life to determine whether or not we need to put pressure on our governments to make changes.
The weekend tragedy on the Shuswap has once again focused peoples' concerns about policing on the lake. I guess not just this lake, but every large lake.
It might be a while before all the details come to light about the weekend accident that saw a speedboat collide with a houseboat, killing one person and sending several more to hospital. So it's hard to say that this is something relating to lack of policing, or whether other issues involved. But when you talk to residents of the Shuswap, or Okanagan Lake, or Kalamalka Lake, or Skaha Lake, one of their big issues is a lack of a police presence. Police presence is negligible.
There are rules against drinking. How many times have you seen boats checked? You have to have an Operator's Card, which is a joke in itself, but nevertheless, how many times are people checked? How many times do you see people speeding dangerously close to other boats, to houseboats, or swimmers in the lake? Where are the enforcement officials?
I'll tell you where they are. Doing the myriad of other tasks that are assigned to them because there just aren't enough officers to go around. Funding is such that we just don't have enough officers to get out to these locations, just like we don't have conservation officers to do their jobs, or staffing in provincial campsites. And I could go on and on.
Many of these tragedies are caused by carelessness, or consumption of alcohol. How many people do you know who go out on the lake with a case of beer or something stronger and laugh about how they're only going to have a couple of drinks. Pretty soon their judgment suffers to the point where they shouldn't be operating a boat at all. The cost of putting enforcement in place is high. I guess it's a question of what value we put on a life to determine whether or not we need to put pressure on our governments to make changes.
Monday, July 5, 2010
HST Backlash Continues Because of Deception, not Tax Itself
(Aired on July 2, 2010)
I paid the Harmonized Sales Tax for the first time this morning. My extra-large mocha at Tim Horton's now sets me back to the tune of $2.60 - up about 15 cents from what it cost earlier this week. It was mildly annoying, but on the other hand the world did not end, I paid the extra 15 cents and went on my way.
For most of us in the middle class, that's what the HST will always be - mildly annoying. If you are in the upper income bracketm you may be more irritated than that - at least, that's dealing in stereotypes. Low income people will be impacted the most, of course, but Premier Campbell and the provincial government would argue that those people get a juicy rebate. And, in fact, that's the matrix the government is banking on for survival - that those less impacted will be less annoyed, and that the low income British Columbians can be bought with a rebate.
That's not playing out. Backlash over the HST is stronger than many - including myself - ever thought it would be. That's because, as I've said before, the tax itself is one thing. Most of us know paying an extra 7% on 20% of goods and services will not break the bank. On the other hand, there is little doubt that British Columbians are chafing over how the HST policy was announced and implemented.
They don't care that the HST is a consumption tax and thus supposedly more fair. They don't care that business groups love it. They don't care that it's a federally administered tax, and they don't care that the PST was abolished to bring it in.
They do care that the Liberal government signed on the dotted line just days after winning an election with a platform that did not include a major shift in tax policy. And that may be enough to end Campbell's government.
I paid the Harmonized Sales Tax for the first time this morning. My extra-large mocha at Tim Horton's now sets me back to the tune of $2.60 - up about 15 cents from what it cost earlier this week. It was mildly annoying, but on the other hand the world did not end, I paid the extra 15 cents and went on my way.
For most of us in the middle class, that's what the HST will always be - mildly annoying. If you are in the upper income bracketm you may be more irritated than that - at least, that's dealing in stereotypes. Low income people will be impacted the most, of course, but Premier Campbell and the provincial government would argue that those people get a juicy rebate. And, in fact, that's the matrix the government is banking on for survival - that those less impacted will be less annoyed, and that the low income British Columbians can be bought with a rebate.
That's not playing out. Backlash over the HST is stronger than many - including myself - ever thought it would be. That's because, as I've said before, the tax itself is one thing. Most of us know paying an extra 7% on 20% of goods and services will not break the bank. On the other hand, there is little doubt that British Columbians are chafing over how the HST policy was announced and implemented.
They don't care that the HST is a consumption tax and thus supposedly more fair. They don't care that business groups love it. They don't care that it's a federally administered tax, and they don't care that the PST was abolished to bring it in.
They do care that the Liberal government signed on the dotted line just days after winning an election with a platform that did not include a major shift in tax policy. And that may be enough to end Campbell's government.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Why Hold a Summit in Downtown Toronto?
(Aired on June 30, 2010)
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
