Getting It Right

Not smelly yet...

2007-07-27T11:44:00.000-07:00

A ray of hope shone late Tuesday evening for those affected by the Vancouver civic strike.

The labour action, which covers everything from day camps and swimming pools to garbage collection and building permits, is only in its fourth day, but the impact is already been felt throughout the City.

The City of Richmond, which bargains separately from the rest of the GVRD municipalities, announced that it has come to a deal which would provide labour stability for five years - until 2011, long after both the Olympics and the civic election cycle have passed.

Although the terms of the agreement weren’t released publically, the media have been reporting it as a rich package and a five year contract.

This puts the City of Vancouver back to the table – they really don’t have a choice now that a junior muni to the south has cut a deal with one of the toughest negotiating unions on the block, CUPE.

The civic worker squabbling is based around a couple of key points: money and benefits, obviously, but also length of contract.

The City owes it to residents to have labour peace during the Olympics.

And CUPE wants to make sure that if the City is aiming for peace, it is going to have to pay through the nose for it.

And that is the key issue that the entire conflict centres around.

Place that big elephant in a council chamber that just voted to increase property taxes and add a smidgen (or dollop) of partisan point-taking by union-funded Cope and Vision Vancouver and you get a situation with the potential to last for months.

Fortunately, the City of Richmond pulled off a deal with its workers in the eleventh hour, which places a whole bunch of pressure on both CUPE and the City to move quickly and find a resolution.

There is nothing quite like pressure from the neighbours to get the deal done.

The first week or two of a civic strike is mostly inconvenience – seniors and kids missing their recreation centres, delays to receiving permits for new construction, slightly fuller garbage cans. But by the end of next week, if this thing drags on, our town will be getting smellier and much less “fun”.

Those of us around during the last strike in 1998 remember the swarms of flies that hunkered down around the city.

The teams in Richmond have shown us that it can be done. It will be expensive – but so will a strike in the middle of tourist season.

Both sides have spent the week taking shots at each other through the media – now it is time to get back to the table and sort it out.

Yes - I'm back...

2007-07-18T15:09:00.001-07:00

I'm back to posting in blogland. And I'm so very sorry for being gone so long.

Thanks to all who encouraged the return after the ugliness of last fall.

Now - onwards...

Erin

Changing the Rules - But Soon Enough?

2007-07-18T15:07:00.000-07:00

Through the spring, the Federal government worked on significant changes to the way the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is governed and appointed.

And just one week after the shocking death of Surrey school principal, Shemina Hirji, in the days following her wedding, these rules came into force.

On July 11, Diane Finlay, the Minister of Immigration, tightened up the methods of appointments to the IRB in an effort to make, in her words, the body “more open and accountable”.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to years of blatant political appointments to the Board, which hears a variety of cases, including those of refugees and immigrants who face deportation.

For years, controversy dogged the IRB, whose members, while political favourites, had little or no experience with highly complicated criminal and immigration case law and theory.

In 1997, the Review Board heard the appeal of Paul Cheema, the husband of the slain Hirji and the prime suspect, according to police reports.

At that time, revealed yesterday in Immigration Canada documents, due to “community and family support” he was allowed to remain in Canada, despite trying to murder the mother of his ex-fiance.

The new rules built on work started in 2004, in the dying days of the Federal Liberal government, which initiated a panel to review applicants for the Board.

The panel was a great idea – but the method of appointing people to it was a terrifying stroke of Liberal brilliance. Under the Liberal system, the chairperson was appointed by the Minister and then that chairperson had sole authority to grant membership to the panel.

No matter how good the chairperson, it was a system just begging out for corruption.

Finlay’s changes are subtle. The first has to do with an exam that all panel applicants need to write. Prior to last week, applicants could fail the test, but still be appointed if the chairperson wanted them badly enough. That has been changed to pass/fail. If you fail, you can’t be appointed.

The second change is around the make up of the panel itself. Gone are the days of the backroom nods through a politically appointed chairperson. The panel is now made up of the IRB chairperson and three panelists appointed jointly by the chairperson and the Minister.

Three more, with at least two of them being senior managers within the IRB, will be appointed by the chairperson alone.

But while Federal Liberals in Ottawa decry the new rules brought in by Minister Finlay, a significant case for why the new structure is necessary is staring them in the face.

The question still to be answered is how many other politically influential criminals won appeal when they really should have been sent away?

Just because you lied...

2007-07-18T15:06:00.000-07:00

It isn’t easy managing an immigration system when you are among the most desirable places in the world to live.

As a country that, without fail, ranks as one of the top nations in United Nations’ surveys, we have much to be proud of. From an international perspective, Canada boasts an excellent education system, opportunities to work, and religious and ethnic freedom.

It is little wonder that each year, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world attempt the move here. They are willing to leave their homes, their families and their own culture behind because they know that their lives and their children’s lives will be better here.

Over 250,000 made the cut last year but 840,000 were still on the waiting list as of the end of 2006.

Generally aspirants are faced with an exhaustive process of paperwork, fees, wait lists and uncertainty. There is no guarantee of admittance to Canada. It depends greatly upon job skills and factors including language ability and education status.

Although it is hard to say no to people who want to become Canadian, our economic, social and government systems could not cope if we had open borders.

And only a very small portion of the immigration to Canada is in the form of refugee claimants.

Which is why the attention being paid to Mr. Laibar Singh’s “refugee claim” is so troubling. His supporters are trying to cast doubt on the entire process, because Mr. Singh wanted a quick and dirty entry to Canada four years ago.

The irony is that if he hadn’t used a forged passport and had instead sought asylum initially, he wouldn’t be in this mess. But by circumventing the process that hundreds of thousands of people wait patiently through, he set himself up for deportation.

His credibility is shot because he lied to get into our country.

So the question comes down to do we owe Mr. Singh a place in Canada because of his medical condition, regardless of how he actually got in? He has four children in India to care for him. He says he has been wrongly accused of belonging to the terrorist group that brought down Air India.

India is a democratic country with a rule of law, much like our own. It isn’t as wealthy and I’m sure he will not receive the same medical service as he does here. But if he has been accused under their law, he needs to return and face the music.

If we don’t deal appropriately with this case, it will open the floodgates to others who wish to jump the queue to the detriment of those who are legitimate refugees and immigrants.

Layton and the Soldiers

2007-07-18T15:05:00.000-07:00

A June 20th poll, published in the Angus Reid Global Monitor, places the NDP in an interesting position.

In the survey, 30% of Canadians responded they would be voting, or would consider voting, NDP in the next election.

Remember that the NDP, under the shaky leadership of Jack Layton, managed to pull out only 17% of the vote in last year’s January election.

This result provided them with 29 seats in the minority parliament, well below expectations in a campaign in which they had hoped to be the middle position for Canadians tired of the Liberals but scared of the Tories.

Eighteen months later, hungry to defray internal mutterings over his leadership and eyeing the faltering antics of Stephane Dion, Layton and his key advisors have clearly decided that the only real wedge issue sticky enough to solidify these numbers for the upcoming by-elections is the divisive battle in Afghanistan.

We seen over 60 young Canadians die in this far-away land fighting a culture so archaic that most rational people find it hard to believe that Taliban “values” can exist in a modern, global world.

Let’s be honest: hacking off limbs, stoning women and ruling by male tribal lineage pretty much went out of favour in the mid-1400s. Ditto sending pre-pubescent boys into battle. And we’re not good with torture. And public executions in soccer stadiums aren’t really our thing either.

Regardless of one’s political stripe in Canada, certain items like rights for women, support for minorities, legalized trade unions and universal education are pretty much given.

But the NDP are showing that they are happy to abandon these hard-fought principles when it comes to others in the world, in a play for more seats right here at home.

Buoyed by snapshot poll numbers, Layton came trotting out yesterday with his trumped up news conference on the heels of the deaths of six Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

We can all disagree about the war in Afghanistan. We can debate whether or not it is appropriate for us to send our young people to fight half the world away. We live in Canada – we have this privilege.

What is distasteful about Layton’s approach is his willingness to play politics with dead boys.

At the same time that grieving mothers were first hearing the news of the deaths, Layton was telling the nation that these courageous volunteers died in vain - that freeing a nation from cultural slavery isn’t worth it.

In politics, timing is everything.

And by his choice of timing, Layton has demonstrated he doesn’t have the tact to be leader of anything more than a ragtag fringe party, regardless of where the poll numbers put him last week.

The Summer Begins

2007-07-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

That sigh of relief you heard from Ottawa was the sound of pleasure uttered by Members of Parliament as the House of Commons rose for the summer and all the nasty unfinished business of a minority government was left on the cutting room floor, so to speak.

Now a long summer on the bar-b-que circuit looms for all the political leaders, from the ultra-green, back-pack toting Stephane Dion, to the “on again, off again” Bloc Quebecois head guy, Gilles Duceppe.

Even Jack Layton, desperate to squeeze votes from a squeezed centre-left, will be glad-handing in the sunshine (if we actually ever get any).

This spring, you will recall, was supposed to be about an election between the struggling new Liberal leader and the Conservatives, as the government tried to leverage its hard-one minority territory into a majority government.

There were moments when the government came very close to being toppled by a non-confidence vote, but at the end of the day, all parties realized that an election would only hurt, not help, their sagging fortunes.

And no wonder. Canadians are tired of elections.

They are tired of provincial elections, municipal elections, band elections and, most importantly, federal elections.

Given voter fatigue, there was a high likelihood of major backlash against the instigator of an election.

The poll results through the spring showed this volatility. Sometimes the Liberals were up, and other times the Conservatives led the pack.

The third parties, generally seen as a safe place to park a vote during turbulent times, didn’t fluctuate much in support either.

Because parties have changed their traditional positions on key issues of the day so much, voters didn’t even bother to really keep track, regardless of how the media pushes or third parties agitated.

Afghanistan, the environment, equalization payments, first nations treaties, and the budget were all treated to a bewildering display of partisan antics in the House.

It seemed often, particularly for opposition parties, that principles came second to political brinkmanship.

During the course of this session in Ottawa, the parties focussed on the game, rather than doing the right thing for Canada. Whether it was in environment committee meetings or debates about the role of Canadian armed forces overseas, the party leaders judged their effectiveness by poll numbers, rather than outcomes.

Perhaps given the fractured nature of Parliament, this was the best that they could hope to achieve – a bump in the overnight tracking or an interview with Kevin Newman.

So, if you run into your MP this summer, give him or her a big hug. And then let them know that you expect some results in the fall, not just more endless positioning for the six o’clock news.

Bono, where art thou?

2007-07-18T15:03:00.000-07:00

Bono is not a fan of Stephen Harper right now.

The lead singer of the edgy pop group, U2, is one of the leading activists committed to raising issues of the AIDS crisis in Africa. He is convinced that Canada is avoiding ponying up our fair share of international aid funding.

Some counties in Africa have an AIDS infection rate over 30 percent of the adult population. Millions of children are orphans. Economies are crippled by lack of skilled workers. The infection rate continues to climb, although there have been isolated success stories in treating pregnant women and young children.

In Bostwanna, the average life expectancy is now around 50 years. In Zimbabwe, it is under 40 years.

Canada has stepped up to the table in a big way to work with other nations in getting concerted action to relieve the worst travesties surrounding the epidemic.

Just this last February, Harper announced a $139 million package with Microsoft’s Bill Gates to fund AIDS vaccine research.

Canada’s current African aid budget is estimated at $2.1 billion.

And at the G8 meetings last week in Germany, the leaders announced at $60 billion package of aid for international hotspots. This is unprecedented attention to struggling nations by the leading industrial economies.

So, why is the new king of pop upset?

It goes back to the 2005 G8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland. At the time, the G8 leaders committed to a doubling of their aid to Africa by 2010.

Bono is frustrated that the recent announcement from this year’s meeting didn’t get more specific.

But more importantly, his feelings are also ruffled because Harper wouldn’t take time out from the international conference to meet with him. Although the meeting would have probably helped Harper’s often stodgy image, Harper’s office contends that there was too much going on during the three-day conference to meet with rock stars, no matter how popular they are.
George Bush, even more desperate for an image overhaul, did meet with Bono, as did the new German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

Harper, who says he is a big U2 fan in addition to his love of the Beatles, did promise to meet with Bono after the conference and he is quoted as saying he believes that the activist is a knowledgeable and sincere person, based on previous conversations.

It is unfortunate, however, that Bono took the scheduling snafu as a reason to slam Canada’s commitment to less fortunate nations. It is ridiculous to suggest, as Bono has, that Canada is trying to derail a G8 AIDS commitment.

Unlike previous governments, Harper understands that helping African nations struggling under the burden of despair isn’t accomplished by photo-ops, but concerted, consistent action.

Helping Business Through the Briar Patch

2007-07-18T15:02:00.001-07:00

Last week, NDP opposition MLA Gregor Robertson put forward a bill suggesting property tax breaks and emergency loans for Cambie Village merchants, and other business in Vancouver and Richmond along the Canada Line corridor.

It was met with a frosty response from the provincial government who fear the precedent in setting payout levels for infrastructure spending and other liability issues.

The federal and provincial governments, Translink, YVR and the City of Vancouver are all spending partners for Canada Line, which is aiming for a 2009 completion date, well in advance of 2010.

But the mess, disorder and delay caused by construction is a sensitive topic – and not just for government.

Business owners don’t want to raise too much fuss, as they fear it will further discourage shoppers from the area. Most, also, are supportive of rapid transit and feel strongly that the project will ultimately make our city a better place to live and do business.

Cambie Business Improvement Association’s Canada Line Construction Liaison, Leonard Schein told me that the BIA supported the property tax grant portion of Robertson’s bill but not the emergency loans.

Merchants along the construction zone have been patient as estimates for disruption in front of any one business escalated from three months to four months to twelve months. As time increases, it is more difficult for small business to manage, according the Schein.
Translink says that they are doing their bit with a million dollar ad campaign.
The City of Vancouver is offering up free parking at the City’s parking lots at Cambie and Yukon.

A retail consultant has been hired to give workshops to local business owners, with the goal of helping attract more shoppers along the chaotic construction corridor.

The reality is, though, losses have totalled some $100 million by mostly small, family-owned and operated businesses.

Now not all of those would have thrived anyway, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that a big, gaping tunnel in the middle of the street, confusing traffic patterns and the dust and noise from heavy equipment might deter weekend and other pleasure shoppers.

Schein admits that businesses close down for lots of reasons. “Any commercial area has vacancies, but people here aren’t making money and their ability to hang on depends on how deep their pockets are.”

Estimates of property tax relief range from $1 million to cover the hard-hit Cambie Village to $10 million for the entire line from Richmond to Vancouver.

Robertson’s well intentioned bill, modelled after a similar situation in Washington State, won’t likely see the light of day. Hopefully, however, the spending partners can find some solution for businesses carrying the bulk of the construction pain.

Cambie Line Business Plan?

2007-07-18T15:00:00.000-07:00

Laura Jones, the BC Vice-President for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, isn’t against the Canada Line. But she does feel it is “outrageous” that businesses along the Cambie corridor are paying the ultimate price for a public project.

She joined with NDP MLA Gregor Robertson this week calling for compensation for business owners and operators along the line who have seen their business revenues decline from 40 to 60 percent, according to Jones.

There is no secret that the Canada Line construction project is very disruptive. Anyone who has tried to journey east to west or back during rush hour knows the impact of taking out an arterial route does to our car-dependent town.

We also all pretty much knew that the construction would be a royal pain. You can’t tear up a major street and expect life to continue as normal.

Despite assertions to the contrary from Translink and the provincial government, Jones feels that those involved in construction are in denial about the state of affairs for Cambie business.

“It is ridiculous to suggest that business isn’t suffering. Long term, established businesses that have been in successful operation for 18 or 20 years are losing staff and moving out.”

The Canada Line team has tried to help out merchants. They have budgeted $1.5 million on advertising campaigns designed to encourage people to continue to shop in the area. They have conducted community consultations to mitigate some of the worse aspects of the project.

But having attended a meeting a few weeks ago at King Edward and Cambie, I can sympathize with folks trying to shop there – parking is a nightmare and restricted left turns took me on a confusing tour through neighbourhood back lanes.

The provincial government fears setting a precedent for major infrastructure projects and are nervous about potential costs to taxpayers every time there was inconvenient construction.
Robertson’s proposal included property tax breaks and low-cost loans that could be applied for by businesses who could demonstrate that the construction had an impact on their operations.

These shouldn’t break the bank – nor set up the government in a liability perspective, which is their other big concern.

Robertson estimated the total cost for property tax relief at $10 million in his private member’s bill which was shot down in the Victoria Legislature this week.

“This is really about a principle: should a small business pay an inordinate amount of the cost for constructing a service for the public at large?” said Jones.

In other words, should business, in effect, subsidize the construction of rapid transit?

The answer, according to the largest association of small business in Canada, is no.

Reserves pt 2

2007-07-18T14:59:00.000-07:00

Canadian aboriginal children are far more likely than other Canadian children to not finish school, become addicted to alcohol and other substances, face abuse and commit suicide.
This is all of our shame and responsibility, regardless of our race. Canadian children are Canadian children and none of them should live in despair and fear.

Aboriginal leaders are meeting in Quebec this week to discuss what Phil Fontaine, the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, calls a “crisis situation”.

The leadership at the meeting considers that one of the cornerstones to resolving native poverty is the resolution of the some 800 outstanding land claims and treaties between the Government of Canada and First Nations.

But they caution that land claim resolution is not enough – a truth that is born out by an examination of the poverty levels of Canadian bands that have completed the treaty and land claim process.

It might also shed some light on the baffling rejection of an historic treaty of the Lheidli T’enneh located near Prince George in March.

Last week, I called the reserve system a failure. I stand by that. They are archaic structures developed in a time when aboriginals were systematically isolated with an intent to annihilate.

A culture and people cannot survive herded onto small tracts of land with no means of economic development. Without access to capital and other resources, the population becomes dependent on whatever money the government of the day wants to hand out.

That dependence is a breading ground for poverty and anger, as we’ve seen with recent threats of sabotage.

The definition of insanity, according to Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Mike Harcourt leaves the BC Treaty Commission this month but his involvement marks sixteen years of recognition of Aboriginal title in BC. There has been ever so slow progress on land claims and treaty, but it hasn’t been fast enough for First Nations or for any right-thinking Canadian.

As we go through this process, which no one denies has to be completed, is it so wrong to look at other solutions as well? Can we not, as a society, apply some creative thinking?

Does it make sense, while we are dealing with complicated and thorny legal issues of land tenure and resource allocation and access, to continue the insanity of isolated, under-developed third-world conditions? Saying that far-flung, rural reserves, with no hope of economic success, are a ridiculous way to deliver core services isn’t racist – it is humane.

Because if we wait for an uncertain treaty process to grind through the corridors of power, more children will die, become sick, lose an education and begin a new cycle of despair and dependence.

The morality of reserves

2007-07-18T14:57:00.000-07:00

All Canadians, regardless of race or gender or any other characteristic, have the freedom to live where they wish and conduct their lives as they please.

What they don’t have is the right for the government to support that lifestyle.

For over a hundred years, Canada has struggled with the right and moral course of action in dealing with our aboriginal populations.

In the late 1880s and early 1900s, the government’s course of action was one of isolation and annihilation. It was considered appropriate at the time to herd aboriginals onto reserves or kill them off, either directly or indirectly through epidemics and neglect. The best example of this was the impregnation of trading blankets with smallpox – an evil, disgusting, inhuman technique which should shame all right-thinking people.

When our fore-fathers recognized that isolation and annihilation were immoral, a newer approach of assimilation took hold. Driven by the Federal Government, it was considered best for everyone, including First Nations, if they could become “like everyone else”. If First Nations would just abandon their traditional family structures, territories and philosophy then we wouldn’t have this “Indian Problem.”

That didn’t really work out either –mostly because of widespread, culturally accepted and promoted racism in a Canada that was far more white and Anglo-Saxon than it is today.

Then during the 1960s, a wave of activism spread among progressive bands. Tired of despair, leaders began to emerge who pushed their children to get an education (yes, a white one) and fight back on their own terms. Bands and Nations became far more politically astute and began to lay the groundwork for what we see today: a strong, educated leadership that fights hard for the benefit of their people.

But we seem to have reached a new plateau. Aboriginal children, and more specifically those living on reserves, are more likely to not finish school, suffer abuse, and live in sub-standard conditions with inadequate food and medical attention.

It is time to revisit the idea that the best place to be Aboriginal in on a native reserve. The native population is very fragmented – there are 198 separate bands in BC, each with its own band council, governance structure and social programs.

The idea of scrapping reserves altogether is rarely discussed – some how it is seen as racist to suggest that the $8 billion Canada spends each year on First Nations isn’t deriving value when is supporting so many local governments and spread-out populations.

We are willing to help all needy Canadians, regardless of race. The question is how do we help people who chose to live hundreds of miles from running water and an elementary school and deny their children the advantages that other Canadians enjoy.

Olympics - the new social planners?

2007-07-18T14:55:00.000-07:00

Over the stormy winter we’ve all just endured, the dream of 2010 has faded a little. Perhaps it was the driving rain on dark February afternoons or maybe it was the sight of ancient toppled trees lining the causeway in Stanley Park, but the Olympic fever has become muted through the combination of a nasty winter, overwhelming expectations and a lack of concrete information.

Of course, the dimming of excitement wasn’t helped by 2010 events plagued by protesters, who went as far as to damage the countdown clock located in the front lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery and defy court orders in the Eagleridge Bluff’s debacle.

Somehow, on the road to the Olympic Games, the monstrous sporting spectacle became responsible for every social ill and poor government planning decision. Hauling away Grandma Betty Kracwcyzk in handcuffs for her illegal actions – let’s pin that on the Olympics. Homelessness in Vancouver, which has been a multi-government problem for years – must be the Olympics.

But the corner has been turned this week and organizers should hope the momentum gathered this summer will carry them through next winter’s nasty weather.

The long-awaited budget and business plan for the 2010 Games has finally been released, putting to rest nagging fears of cost overruns and taxpayers “on the hook”.

Don’t get me wrong, it is a doozy of a $1.62 billion budget. (Yes, billion). The budget beats the estimated costs from the bid budget by almost double but the organizers, led by Jack Poole, have managed to keep the government financial commitment the same by reaching out to sponsors, squeezing more from the IOC in television dollars and employing innovative revenue generation techniques.

As with most billion dollar budgets, there is something for everyone to criticize, but examined in aggregate, the budget (posted at www.vancouver2010.com) is conservative, well-considered and leaves lots of room for last minute cost increases – which are bound to occur.

Even critics will have to admit that the organizers have done their job and done it well.

But let’s be honest, most Olympic detractors are never going to support the games. They have an ideological opposition to building community in this manner and loath the idea of corporate sponsorship, sports (all that sweat and testosterone) and leveraging a global event for the benefit of a region.

They will continue to push the 2010 Games to provide for social programs that are outside their mandate, a no-win situation for the Olympics and a disingenuous ploy for the social activists.

But with the budget out of the way, the rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief and start thinking about how to get our hands on some gold medal round hockey tickets.

The Penalty Box

2007-07-18T14:53:00.001-07:00

It turns out that hockey in British Columbia is a lot like politics in British Columbia.

There are moments of sweeping euphoria, times of utter despair, backroom deals with dollar signs written on napkins and, when all else is failing, both just blame the General Manager for the sorry state of affairs.

In a twist of fate far more suited to the machinations in a Zalm-era Premier’s office, the debate over the ownership of the Canucks finally popped up in BC Supreme Court this week.

This is a tale as old as time with allegations of double-crossing, unfair bargaining and advantage being taken by well-heeled and well-connected establishment sons. The scene is set against a backdrop of an unpopular leader (Brian Burke) and a money-losing sports franchise struggling to make it to the playoffs.

But just like party politics, these spats really only get interesting to the rest of us when the combatants take their brawls public. Would the Paul Martin versus Jean Chretien war for the Federal Liberals have been nearly as fascinating if both sides had managed to keep the riding association power plays and short-handed goals under wraps?

There is something in all of us that thrills to a fight, especially one that we don’t expect to see displayed. Maybe it is a throw-back to earlier times of brutal survival, but it takes a strong person (or a liar) to turn away from a little blood on the ice.

Which is why politics and hockey in BC have such a following. They are bloodsports, without the bodies. There may be the odd broken nose, but we don’t have to feel terribly guilty about our lust for the next chapter in the story.

Of course, anyone who has been through the meat-grinder that is Canucks management or provincial politics has a slightly different perspective. Some of them, decades later, are still recovering from often fatal career blows. They might not be actually dead, but I’m sure some of them have wished to be from time to time.

You may ask why the pitched battle over the ownership of the Canucks? That one is easier than following the paper trail of the fast ferries or the brown paper bags of cash. Losses incurred by sports teams can be written off by their owners against other revenue.

It’s basically a way to get your million dollar tax bill reduced at the same time that you get the ego boost of owning the city’s sports soul.

So until icing can be called during Question Period and diving in politics and business is not tolerated by over-worked refs, we can look forward to more twisted tales of games gone wrong.
And we wouldn’t want it any other way.

Using Past to Teach the Future

2007-07-18T14:52:00.000-07:00

Should we whitewash our history as a nation, or should we display our past, warts and all, even if it is offensive and embarrassing, both to ourselves and others?

That was the question facing the BC Legislature this week as it grappled with the question of what to do with the historic murals, painted by artist George Southwell, depicting the role BC aboriginals played in the construction of the early days of our province.

The murals, which cover the walls of the lower rotunda in the BC Legislative building in Victoria, show aboriginals, in various states of undress, lugging heavy loads of stones and other construction materials.

Powerful art? Yes. Flattering? No.

BC First Nations’ leaders condemned the murals as reinforcing negative stereotypes about the relationships between aboriginal communities and early settlers to British Columbia. They are concerned that these murals, from an earlier, less sensitive time, will lead children and tourists who visit the buildings today to believe that this is how our aboriginal population still lives.

Best, they say, to paint over these pieces of art to lessen the hurt that remains from those times.

And, of course, the MLAs in Victoria, always looking to be as politically correct as possible, quickly bowed to the pressure of the powerful interest group and voted to do exactly that.

This is very disturbing.

Totalitarian regimes from time immemorial have destroyed works of art that didn’t jibe with the prevailing “wisdom” of the day. Some went so far as to jail or kill artists and thinkers whose works were deemed inappropriate or subversive.

If we started to ban all the art that hurts feelings of various groups, there might not be much left hanging on the walls of art galleries in Canada.

We’d have to start by removing the fantastic Emily Carr permanent exhibit of the Vancouver Art Gallery.

In fact, by the time we burned, or painted over, or melted down various art work depicting unflattering depictions of women, old men, war heroes, farmers, and Ukrainians, we might be only left with non-threatening landscapes of flowers found naturally occurring in nature.

I believe that the MLAs, by bowing to this special interest group, have done a grave disservice to an important historical artefact. The reality is that settlers to B.C. did treat First Nations in a deplorable manner. Why would we pretend that this never happened? Removing the murals doesn’t take away those sad facts – it just buries them so that future generations might not even remember our history.

And, frankly, what better way to discuss the injustices of the past than by standing before these powerful murals?

What better teaching aide than these larger than life images haunting visitors when they leave our capital?

Staunching the Flow

2007-07-18T14:51:00.000-07:00

Political success by a party leader can be achieved with a few key attributes, which are easy enough to write about, but far more difficult to actually deliver.

Carole James, the NDP head-boss under whose tenure the NDP have slipped back down to popularity levels not seen since before the last election, has struggled with leadership, team-building, vision-setting and adaptability.

In this week’s Ipsos-Reid poll, the popularity of the party has sunk even further to 32%, almost 20% behind that of the governing BC Liberals. Let’s not forget there was a time, just about three year ago, when observers predicted a return of the NDP, phoenix-like from the ashes of the humiliating election of 2001.

The numbers also show, more importantly, that James’ personal approval has slipped 18% from her all time high to 51%, and now sits just two points behind that of the Premier.

While two points doesn’t sound like much, it is unheard of for the Opposition Leader to trail the governing Leader in this regard. The Premier of the province does tough work, regardless of political stripe, and has to make decisions that turn people off his party and his person.

In one respect, there are issues beyond her control that make it very difficult for her to push an NDP agenda, if in fact there is one. The economy is booming and that success has been linked in voter’s minds to the 2001 dismissal of the NDP from government and the turn-around seen since.

That being said, there are gaps in government policy in Victoria big enough to drive a truck through– there always is. And NDP members can see these and cannot understand why their leader can’t focus her team on the short-comings of the government.

After being elected to bring a new, kinder, gentler face to the NDP, she has been slow to learn that politics isn’t the same as the sandbox, and that people desire decisiveness and action – they want to feel protected and cared for in a primeval sense by their leaders. If the storm comes or the army invades, they want to know that the leadership will be on the front line brandishing the biggest sword.

Unfortunately James’ team doesn’t see the problem that way, and she is further hampered because she won’t rein in her caucus who, in fighting for their own political lives, are firing randomly on issues, like road potholes, which do little to help build that sense of a team working together.

The piranhas are happy to circle after sensing the blood from flesh wounds. James doesn’t have much time left to bandage the cuts before she will be turn apart from her own team.

Teaching what?

2007-07-18T14:50:00.000-07:00

Every once in awhile a public sector union does something so over the top that I can’t help but react.

Yesterday, Kid #1 arrived home from school with a flyer in her backpack proclaiming “FSA testing can be harmful to students”. The material, put together by the BC Teacher’s Federation, was highly critical of the standardized testing that takes place in BC schools in grades 4 and 7.

We then spent €a very enjoyable hour explaining the concept of sensationalistic literature to a nine year old in a way that maintained respect for her fantastic teacher, while at the same time exploring the mysteries of baseline research, curriculum development and the need to benchmark general student achievement over a period of time.

Lovely.

The BC Teacher’s Federation, which put together this alarming piece of propaganda, is perfectly within its rights to politically engage around the issue. The BCTF can take out newspaper ads (which it has) and the leadership can discuss, debate and decry the measurement student progress on talk radio and in newspaper articles.

There are many avenues of advocacy and activism open to the union without the group needing to stoop to employing our children as their messengers.

Teachers have a sacred trust with students and parents. We hand over our most precious treasure and expect that they will be taught the curriculum prescribed by the province in a way that best suits their learning style. We hope they will learn “the rules” and will emerge from the public system with a democratic and broad-based education

We do not want them caught up in the middle of a political fight between the union and the government. It is just not appropriate to insert children into a policy discussion of this nature.
And in cases where the parents disagree with the BCTF, it puts children in the position of feeling uncertain about two very important sets of people in their lives.

Our family has had an amazing experience in Vancouver public schools which is why I find this action so profoundly disturbing. I know the teachers we have worked with put kids first. They want them to be successful and support them at every turn. Some teachers feel compelled to go along with their union, rather than rock the boat.

Personally, I support the Foundations Skills Assessment. I think it provides valuable data about the state of the education system in BC with year over year information. But until the BCTF ceases this inappropriate and, frankly, bullying tactic, it is difficult to debate the guts of issue at all.

I hope the BCTF will see the error of this ill-considered action and circulate a formal apology to parents of students who received the material.

2007-07-18T14:49:00.000-07:00

I’m of two minds about the purchase of social housing units announced this week by Premier Gordon Campbell and Minister of Housing, Rich Coleman.

A big part of me cheers at the thought that now, perhaps, we can finally break out of the partisan bickering that has defined this issue and focus on the cause of the despair.

The $80 million investment in single occupancy units and supported housing is an excellent step on the path to truly helping damaged lives.

However, unless we deal with the root of this epidemic of hurt and hungry people on our streets, we will soon fill these beds and still need more.

As I wrote last month, the GVRD estimates there are 3000 homeless in the lower mainland – most of those in Vancouver.

A survey of them shows that the vast majority are coping with mental illness, substance abuse and, more often than not, some variation of both conditions at the same time.

New supported housing, with dedicated teams of mental health workers, addiction counsellors and life skills trainers will go a long way to helping people who can be helped.

If, through this housing, we can stabilize a druggie’s life so that she isn’t selling her body for crack or breaking into your car, then we have made a real difference. If she gains skill enough to go confidently into the real world, away from her old life and work to support her family, that is success.

And success will occur one broken life at a time.

But if the plan is to warehouse the poor, the mentally ill and the addicted in downtown eastside ghettos, we have just made a terrible mistake. Although those making their living from the creation of a concentrated homeless population may disagree, social housing isn’t going to fix the problem.

We need to accept the government’s purchase of marginal housing stock for what it is: a short-term band-aid to the gaping wound that plagues our cities.

Some of the homeless should be incarcerated into mental institutions. Some of the homeless are excellent candidates for drug replacement therapy. Others need to be supported to return to their homes and their families elsewhere.

Because as crazy as it sounds, building more ghetto housing is not a sustainable solution to homelessness, because most people without a roof have complex reasons for their situation, other than a simple lack of housing stock.

So kudos to government for staunching the flow of blood. Now we all need to work through the underlying issue that caused the haemorrhage in the first place.

Island Dead Ahead

2007-07-18T14:48:00.000-07:00

The internal report by BC Ferries on the sinking of the Queen of the North a year ago has now been released and the results point squarely to poor practices by the crew members manning the bridge that dark night as a major key to the tragedy.

After a year of silence by the BC Ferry and Marine Workers Union and two of the employees directly involved, what has long been suspected by many observers has now been confirmed: crew members were so lax on March 22, 2006 that the music they were playing could be heard over the radio by the marine traffic controller in Prince Rupert.

The report softens the situation as “human error”, but I suspect the families of Shirley Rosette and Gerald Foisy, who died that night in the cold northern waters, might beg to differ if they were to review of the transcripts and the “black box” recordings.

“Human error” includes misunderstanding the equipment or getting confused in the heat of the moment.

I’m not sure that human error includes being so distracted that a ship could run off-course for 14 minutes and that highly trained crew members wouldn’t notice an island looming before the vessel.

Anyone who has been on the bridge of a BC Ferry would know that the equipment is top-notch and the crews are remarkably well-trained. They receive paid time off from their regular schedules for additional training on equipment and procedures related to their position.

The Ferries Union, led by the fiesty Jackie Miller, has fought to include this training time in workers’ contracts.

The Ferries Union has done what all good unions do. It has fought for competitive wages and benefits. It has worked to ensure that workers have the proper training. And it has protected workers from the spectre of unfair management practices. Jackie Miller may rub a few folks the wrong way, but you couldn’t suggest that she wasn’t doing her job.

But by sheltering employees shown now to bear a large measure of responsibility for that night, she has devalued the gains she made over the past decade.

I expect that most ferry workers do not condone colleagues who don’t follow proper procedure and I can’t see how they could support the asinine position of their union in protecting employees who have messed up.

The report from the Transportation Safety Board is now being circulated in draft form to BC Ferries, the Union and other interested parties.

Given that two of the employees involved didn’t have the guts to face their own employer with what happened that night, it will be interesting to see what they will say under the cover of the anonymity provided by the Board.

Puffy Egos

2007-07-18T14:46:00.000-07:00

Minority governments are difficult to navigate at the best of times and many a good ship government has been scuttled on the shoals of a skittish budget. Ask Joe Clark how it felt to lose his nascent minority by a couple of lousy votes back in 1980.

Here is a little secret: the Conservatives could have given $10,000 to every man, woman and child in Canada and the Liberals and NDP still would not have voted for this week’s budget.

They could have banned all fossil fuels, or opened daycares on every street corner, or funded a Starbucks in every Canadian basement and the opposition would still have not supported the budget.

There is something for everyone to disagree with in the $200 billion in program spending.

There usually is.

However, the Conservatives had to balance on the edge of a keen political reality. Knowing that Stephane Dion and Jack Layton were unlikely to vote for a Conservative budget left Harper and his team little choice but to reach out to the Bloc Quebecois.

If they hadn’t been able to muster support for a budget, we would be pounding election lawn signs into our grass by month’s end.

By crafting a budget that was seen as a boost for Quebec, Harper has assured passage of the positive items in the document. These include income splitting for families, additional child tax credits, debt repayment, more money for low income seniors, funding for alternative energy and incentives to purchase fuel efficient vehicles.

The other provinces are beside themselves, as they see yet another budget built around subsidizing Quebec.

All this kerfuffle could have been avoided if the Liberal and NDP had shown some guts and worked with the government during this minority parliament. But because playing politics was more important to the opposition than running the country, the Conservatives have no choice but to work with the separatists in Quebec.

Layton’s and Dion’s inability to set their puffy egos aside means that Canadians, yet again, have a budget that provides a heavy dollop of sucking up to Quebec.

This time the finger of blame goes right to the opposition. There is no doubt in Conservative minds that Dion is desperate for an election. His flailing around on the opposition benches highlights his ineffectiveness as a parliamentarian. His people hope that the election circuit, built on meaningless sound bits and cheesy photo ops, will be a more effective platform for their guy, who just can’t seem to connect with the beer and popcorn crowd.

In the meantime, Dion and Layton seem quite willing to abdicate their responsibilities to a strong federation in the hopes that playing politics will yield them a magical election result.

Introducing Dion...

2007-07-18T14:43:00.000-07:00

If you were listening on Monday to CBC radio man Rick Cluf’s interview with embattled Federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion, you are forgiven if you spewed your breakfast over the breakfast table.

To back up a bit, each Monday morning I sit on a political panel at the CBC Vancouver studios. My partners in radio crime are two former BC environment ministers: Moe Sihota, a long-time NDP activist and the controversial Rafe Mair, a mentor for any aspiring radio hack in the skills of not pulling punches and having the facts on hand to back up an argument.

Because of this panel, I am fortunate to meet a wide range of other Early Edition guests, ranging from social activists, to labour leaders and, yes, to the odd politician stumping for votes. We sit and have our coffee in the “green room” waiting for our time at the microphone.

Meeting politicians of different stripes is something I greatly enjoy. Because we are all in the same industry, we generally have more in common with each other than not, if one can get past the diametrically opposing views on how to govern our nation.

However, once in awhile, a politician comes along that bucks the camaraderie that defines the political realm and actually buys into the spin being pushed by his staff and party.

And unfortunately, that dangerous slippery slope to ridiculous has claimed Stephane Dion.

It all started well enough during the late November leadership. Stephane Dion looked a political marvel with his ability to skate past his far more popular rivals and claim the Liberal crown. His intellectually folksy ways seemed democratic and non-threatening. Initially voters were willing to overlook the failed environmental policy of his time in office because of the approachable aura that surrounded him.

Those days have clearly passed.

Dion now travels with a full-size entourage, larger than any I’ve seen from a Leader of the Opposition.

And, as he told Rick Cluf more than once, Dion feels he is the most influential Leader of the Opposition in Canadian history. Given that he’s only been in the job four months, that is quite an accomplishment. Don’t worry about his “common man” backpack, Dion clearly has the ego required for the role.

I’m not sure what he is trying to achieve. I would have thought that his polling numbers alone would be enough to have him revisit his failing strategy of reminding Canadians of the dismal environmental record of the Liberals. To reinforce the good work of the Conservatives – even by saying it is all his doing – is a political tactic of the desperate.

Arrogance and desperation. What a lovely combination on a Monday morning.

Tax Cuts Welcome Here

2007-02-22T06:56:00.000-08:00

There is nothing like news of an unexpected tax cut to focus attention on a provincial budget.

Between the 10% tax cut in this budget and the 25% tax cut in 2001, most BC income earners have seen their provincial tax burden decrease between 33% and 100%, with the majority falling in the 33-34% category.

For example, a person earning about $30,000 per year used to pay $1,606 in provincial income tax prior to Gordon Campbell coming into government. Now, that same person pays $1023 per year – a reduction of 36%.

An extra $50 or so a month makes a big difference when we live in such an expensive part of the world.

And if that person also happens to be a single parent or the sole-wage earner for a family, he or she is also eligible for day-care subsidies, rental assistance support, reduced MSP premiums and other provincial programs aimed at further helping out his or her family.

It is difficult to craft a budget in a time of relative prosperity. Every advocacy group from business to health care to welfare reform believes that their cause is more deserving than that of any other for a government handout.

The news coverage this week was dominated by one group or another telling us the budget wasn’t good enough.

Let’s keep in mind what this budget provided.

The largest increase ever in welfare rates – not good enough. New funding for health care – not good enough. Additional money for shelter spaces and homeless initiatives – never good enough. .

Most advocates are doing very good work and pushing the government for money is part of that job.

It is, however, disingenuous to suggest that this budget is a disappointment to everyone because that opposite is true.

Most British Columbians get up in the morning, go to their jobs, work hard all day long, and come home to their families or their communities. Frankly these are the people this budget helps – people trying to get ahead in our province and who deserve more in their pockets at the end of the day.

The fact that the government has provided tax relief at the same time they’ve raised welfare rates, provided money for housing and increased funding to health care by 7% speaks for the good fiscal times and the prudent decisions by Carole Taylor.

Tax cuts are just not possible when times are tough – we usually get the opposite during a bad economy, which piles hurt onto hurt.

There is an old saying that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy but I hope that most British Columbians will not buy into the special interest rhetoric and instead enjoy another unprecedented return of their hard-earned dollars.

As seen today in 24 Hours

Don't give away the farm (or brand)

2007-02-08T11:34:00.000-08:00

Opinion polling completed last fall by Justason Market Intelligence asked residents of Vancouver to name, without prompting, the major municipal political parties.

A staggering 36% couldn’t name one single party and another 11% named parties that no longer exist or that aren’t active on the municipal level, such as the NDP.

Besides the obvious gap in civic knowledge, comes fascinating details about the brand strength of each of the main parties duking it out.

Of the 64% who could name a party, 46% of respondents named the NPA, 36% named COPE and way down the list was Vision Vancouver’s awareness at 20%.

It becomes clear from the research the dangerous path COPE is treading by considering disbanding itself in favour of the opportunistic Vision Vancouver crew which fiercely eviscerated COPE in the lead up to the 2005 campaign.

The small but well-funded Vision force with its four councilors wants to take-over the remnants of COPE, which holds one council spot and five seats on School Board and Parks Board.

Nice trick, but if the left folds COPE into Vision, they will lose years of hard-fought branding – something that the right in Canada has learned isn’t worth forfeiting lightly.

The Reform Party went through a similar ill-thought exercise in 2000 when it re-surfaced as the Canadian Alliance. Voters didn’t have a clue what the organization stood for and, while leader Stockwell Day did well in the 2000 election, it wasn’t as good as the result when it adopted the well-known “Conservative” brand by reaching out to long-time Progressive Conservatives.

Vision Vancouver scores particularly badly among self-identified ethnic voters, with less than 6% of South Asian and Chinese voters able to name the group. COPE scores more than double that, at 13%, among this important and growing demographic.

The NPA, perhaps as a result of Mayor Sullivan’s language skills and outreach, is known by 31% of self-identified South Asian and Chinese respondents.

One myth that both COPE and Vision have cultivated is their supposed support among younger Vancouverites. Ironically, COPE is known by just 25% of those under the age of 45 and Vision by a mere 13%. The NPA beats out the others at 36%.

I understand the appeal that Vision’s slick approach and high-roller backers must have to COPE loyalists tired of slogging it out with small fundraisers and committed ideals. It is difficult to build political infrastructure without cash, and Vision seems to have lots of it.

But COPE, formed in 1968, is wise to play coy for some time in order to discover if Vision can build itself a wider base of awareness, before it sacrifices its name for political expediency.

www.erinairton.com

Public Health Care on the Skids

2007-02-01T09:26:00.000-08:00

Not surprisingly, health care in BC is on the front burner again.

If you are shocked by the machinations in the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Valley Health Authorities, you shouldn’t be.

Simply put, our health care system doesn’t work.

We are like a family living in a neighbourhood far beyond our means and buying our groceries on a maxed-out credit card.

Anyone who has lived with a stretched budget knows sooner or later the elastic is going to snap.

Throwing more money at this problem isn’t going to solve anything, other than forestall the inevitable for another election cycle.

Health spending in BC has increased over 25% since 2001 and spending alone this year will increase over 7%, with the pre-budget announcement from the Health Minister last week. In raw numbers, the Ministry of Health will spend $13.1 billion in this fiscal year, including a $100 million for a Health Innovation Fund.

Health care spending accounts for 42% of our provincial budget. Some projections have it at 70% by 2017.

If almost half of your household expenses were taken up with one item, you might feel some pressure to get innovative on spending.

You might choose not to participate in some activities, or sell your car, or not eat out very often. Maybe you would get a roommate. Perhaps you would even have to move to a less expensive city.

What many find frustrating about this situation, which exists across Canada, is the unwillingness of governments to consider innovative solutions because of fear of a vicious lashing from voters who have bought into the mythology of public health care.

Public sector unions, among other vested interests, are threatened by public/private mixed health care, although they operate in many European countries relatively successfully. They point to the U.S. and tell us that is what we’d get with health care reform. How ridiculous. Why don’t they reference Germany or Norway?

Why not consider that our grocery stores are all privately run. No one is starving in our country because of private grocery stores. In fact, due to the competition and efficiencies of the private sector, we have the opposite problem: an abundance of cheap food. We get flyers in the mail every week encouraging us to visit a new grocery store and check out the bargains.

Thankfully, no one is suggesting that governments should run the grocery stores. Or book stores. Or Laundromats.

So how is it we believe that health care is the only part of society for which market economics don’t apply, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

There is no doubt we will have to reform our precarious health care system. Let’s start now, rather than wait for the creditors to start pounding on the door.

As seen today in 24 Hours

Just say no to homelessness...

2007-01-25T09:39:00.000-08:00

It is finally time for innovative solutions for the homeless in our province. Years and years of throwing money at the problem hasn’t worked – the number continues to grow and taxpayers are weary.

In fact, what we’ve done is develop a whole network of government and non-profit agencies devoted to helping the homeless stay homeless. They provide emergency food, emergency shelter, and emergency medical care.

There is an old adage in economics: if you want to encourage something, subsidize it; if you want to discourage something, tax it.

Right now, in a sad way, we are encouraging homelessness, making it “bearable” to be homeless by providing these “emergency” services.

Now, before you get all twisted up, I’m not saying it is pleasant to be homeless and I’m not saying anyone wants to be homeless.

But let’s not forget we have built up a substantial industry of well-meaning people who make their livelihoods and defend their funding on the basis of supporting a homeless population.

The 2005 GVRD counted the total homeless population (in a 24 hour counting period) at 2174. I would suggest the number is higher, just because of survey techniques. I doubt the counters climbed through the bushes in Stanley Park enumerating all the tent dwellers, for instance.

Let’s say 3000 people in the GVRD are homeless. These, of course, are the truly homeless without access to a friend’s spare sofa and not knowing from night to night whether they will be sleeping in a crowded, fetid shelter or over a vent at Georgia and Burrard.

From the GVRD research, they are likely medically or mentally ill and struggle with some form of addiction. Most startling was the information that 55% of homeless had some form of income support from welfare, a pension or disability benefits.

So here is one radical idea and I’m sure there are more.

Why don’t we gather together each and every homeless service organization at BC Place along with each and every homeless person? Why not take each person, one at a time, diagnose the issues at the root of their inability to find or maintain housing and then put a plan in place for each?

More money for homeless services isn’t going to rid us of homelessness. In fact, it will do the opposite. If we take those funds and direct them to removing each person individually from the streets, we may actually make some lives better.

In the short-term, we can house them at BC Place while we sort it all out.

It is not right to help people stay on the streets. The only moral course of action is to remove them, forcibly if necessary, and assist them in building a new life.

As seen today in 24 Hours.

Paying Us Back

2007-01-22T13:20:00.000-08:00

If the Government of Canada were a bank, do you think they would stand for only 17% of their outstanding loans being repaid or would you expect to have some heavy handed knocking on doors demanding the money be returned?

Over the past 23 years, more than $18 billion has been loaned to various corporations and businesses – and only 7% of that total has ever been recouped. It is important to understand that this $18 billion does not include distributions through other
departments, or the three primary federal regional development agencies in Atlantic Canada Quebec, and western Canada, or through other government sources.

This $18 billion comes solely from Industry Canada.

The first question is why have successive governments lent almost a billion dollars per year to business?

Now, in fairness, some of these transactions take place as loan guarantees for Canadian companies operating abroad and some of this grand total is for grants that are not expected to be recouped.

Loan guarantees shouldn’t cost taxpayers a cent, unless the Canadian company defaults.
Grants are a policy decision by government to encourage certain behaviours, like locating to a certain province or hiring unemployed workers.

But with both of these out of the mix, we are still left with $7.1 billion of payable loans handed over to corporate Canada, of which just over 17% has been returned to government coffers.

The worst offended is a program called Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC), which the Liberal government formed in 1996. In ten years, it has given out $3 billion and seen only $169 million returned – less than 6%. When TPC was formed, the government of the day predicted that $1.74 would return to Ottawa from every dollar doled out.

The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (CTF) calls the whole scheme “Corporate Welfare” in a scathing report issued last week. The report is a stunning tale of handouts gone terribly wrong and a general lack of accountability and oversight – all things, of course, that were brought to light in the 2005 SponsorGate scandal that help to topple the Liberal government.

According to the CTF, the Technology Partnership Council requires loans over $10 million be authorized by Treasury Board. Their report reveals that just about 10% of the funds distributed fall suspiciously under this threshold and therefore don’t require political approval.

In the words of the John Williamson, the National director for the CTF: "By getting out of the subsidy and regional development business, Ottawa could reduce the corporate tax burden. Savings of $2- to $4-billion could be realized annually if Ottawa recognized that corporate welfare was not a suitable role for the government.”

You can read their full report at: The 30-page report can be viewed at:
http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/2007_corporate_welfare_report.pdf

At What Point Comes "The Past"?

2007-01-22T13:19:00.000-08:00

Do we bear, collectively, the responsibility for the historic wrongs of Canada?

How do we weigh the claims of past discrimination by the government and society towards our aboriginals, Chinese migrant labour, Japanese interred in war camps, and Dukabours stripped of their children, among others?

The majority of these less than savory moments occurred long before most of us were born or even lived in this country.

Jack Layton was back in BC this week and called again for an official apology for the Komagata Maru incident. MP Ujjal Dosanjh said that the Liberals would have done it, but they just didn’t get to it during 11 years of majority government.

For background, almost 93 years ago a ship of primarily Sikhs from India attempted to land in Vancouver. Held in the harbour for months, they were finally sent back to India, where there was a skirmish with police and 20 died.

At that time in our history, Canada had “Exclusion Laws”, which made it almost impossible for non-whites to immigrate to Canada – mostly as an effort to protect jobs of white Canadians in factories and lumber mills.

The laws of the time said that Indians had to have $200 to enter BC and must travel non-stop from India – highly unlikely as the average daily wage in India at the time was 10 cents and there was no ship making direct passage that would sell tickets to Indians.

A wealthy Indian businessman, Gurdit Singh, chartered a Japanese boat to make the journey, via Japan, in an attempt to circumvent the unfair laws. It didn’t work.

This scenario just wouldn’t happen today. We have policies in place to assist refugees seeking asylum and we have immigration rules that don’t discriminate on the basis of race.

Given that we have learned from our mistakes, is it necessary to formally apologize for the Komagata Maru or pay redress, as we have done with Chinese head tax survivors?

At some point, we have to close the books on the past and build on our legacy of an open, tolerant nation or risk playing pandering, race-card politics.

Almost any group in Canada can claim some kind of systemic discrimination. Women, for example, couldn’t vote until 1918. Should Canadians of the female gender receive an apology and compensation for this? Frankly, it doesn’t particularly bother me; we’ve learned from history and I can vote and my daughter isn’t in any danger of losing that right before she turns 18.

But in the race for seats in a minority parliament, sometimes politicians grasp for dangerous straws. A country must be about more than just the sins of its past.

Let’s move forward together rather than picking at the wounds of history.

Nurses Union: Politics Before Debate?

2007-01-22T13:18:00.001-08:00

In the midst of the provincial government’s landmark “Conversation on Health Care”, the BC Nurses Union has shown that it has no interest in trying to find solutions to BC’s health care conundrum and would rather play politics with court cases.

On December 20th, the BCNU filed a revised argument in BC Supreme Court that basically called for a moratorium on private involvement in our health care system.

Fair enough opinion I guess from an entrenched public sector labour group whose driving aim is to grow its membership working in public facilities like hospitals and clinics.

It would be one thing if the government was cutting the health care budget. It isn’t. In 2006, the government spent $3.6 billion more on health care than just six years ago. The total health spending now sits at $12.8 billion or approximately 40% of the provincial budget.

It is no secret that we could spend more on health care. That’s one option. Of course, it would mean spending less on public transit, or education, or policing or welfare.

I don’t see the BCNU’s Supreme Court filing addressing those tough budget decisions instead they are rehashing old, tired rhetoric.

This overly politicized environment does nothing to serve the future sustainability of our health care system. It makes for good headlines, but doesn’t actually do much to deal with the looming spectre of an aging population reliant on public health services.

The average spent by government on health care for a 45-64 year old is $2364. This increases tenfold to $20,878 per senior 85 years and older. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know about the aging baby boomers who are starting to hit retirement age and approaching the time of their greatest impact on our system.

There are other factors in the increase of provincial health costs: more expensive drugs and new technology are among them. Fortunately, people are surviving health crises that even ten years ago would have killed them due to these phenomenal advances. We don’t want to turn back the clock, but we need to figure out some ways to lesson the impact on public coffers so that those who need services get them in a timely manner.

The BCNU is obviously mistrustful of the “Conversation on Health Care”.

Because the government is engaging directly with the public who aren’t traditional special interests, they can gain ideas untainted by public sector agendas.

This is probably quite nerve wracking for the BCNU who seem to have decided that instead of constructive solution making, court cases would make better public policy.

Find out more about the Conversation on Health Care at : www.bcconversationonhealth.ca. The BCNU filing can be found at: www.bcnu.org

Common Sense and Green

2007-01-22T13:18:00.000-08:00

For some reason, the left gets all the credit about environmental progress in our country.

Stephane Dion, the newly elected Liberal leader waltzes in a green agenda that he couldn’t advance when he was actually the Environment Minister and now most of the media are acting like Canada will be saved from our mess of emissions and air pollution.

Let’s not forget that Canada has some of the worst air pollution in the OECD and some of the highest emissions of greenhouse gasses. We have all sorts of excuses, but the fact remains we need to do better.

You are right in thinking that this isn’t news, but we didn’t exactly see a lot of concrete action under the last Liberal government, even when it was propped up by Jack Layton’s NDP.

The fact remains that a significant amount of practical environmental legislation has been brought in by conservative governments, rather than ones on the other side of the fence.

It was John Fraser and Brian Mulroney who were able to leverage well-developed relations with the US into a successful bi-lateral acid rain treaty. A key issue of the 80s, emissions causing acid rain were responsible for devastation of Eastern and Central Canadian lakes and forests. While recovery has been slow, it took decisive action to end the degradation and begin the clean up.

The last conservative government in Canada also brought in the Environmental Protection Act, a thoroughly practical and common sense piece of legislation aimed to protect Canada from environmental problems like chemical dumping and water pollution.

History has shown that large, international environmental treaties are not effective in combating major pollution and environmental problems. One could argue they don’t accomplish much in the realms of child poverty, peace or disease either. They do make for interesting travel schedules for Environment Ministers, though.

The Kyoto Treaty is a very good example. While well-meaning, it has had to address so many competing agendas and various national development levels that it isn’t going to solve anything. It just isn’t practical.

The Federal Liberals, with Dion at the cabinet table, wasted over a decade and untold millions trying to make this treaty work when instead they should have just strapped on some guts and tried to improve Canada’s dismal performance in practical ways that wouldn’t hamstring industry job creation.

Perhaps the difference is in approach. The Liberals want the big-ego boosting bang that comes with pats of the back from around the world, even if it doesn’t actually fix anything for average Canadians and our precious environment.

The Conservatives don’t care so much about the glory or gratuitous pandering to voters around environment issues, they just want to get the job done in a common sense fashion.

What Maketh a Canadian - Part 2

2007-01-22T13:16:00.001-08:00

Last week, I wrote about “Canadians of Convenience” – those citizens living abroad but keeping a Canadian passport as an insurance policy against civil strife or natural disaster. These dual citizens contribute nothing to Canada, but are happy enough to jump on a Canadian vessel when the bombs are falling, only to return to their true “homes” the next month.

There was no shortage of reader comment on that column. Some of you agreed whole-heartedly, some disagreed so vehemently my computer sizzled when the email arrived. Some readers felt I was bashing dual-citizens living here in Canada instead of those who have no intention of being “Canadians” but like the cache of the blue passport.

However, I also received two separate letters that have haunted me since they showed up in my inbox last weekend.

They were both passionately written by individuals who had wanted to immigrate to Canada.

They sold their homes, gave up their jobs, amassed their life savings, pulled their children from their schools and friends and launched themselves towards the great land of Canada.

Both were highly educated as engineers; both were confident after a short period of adjustment, they would find work and be able to support their families.

It just didn’t work out that way.

In a country crying out for skilled workers, their qualifications were questioned and their professional designations denigrated. There was no way to gain credit for their existing education and skills and support their families at the same time.

After six months, one was working as a security guard for $12 an hour, a long way from the career his education – and Canadian Immigration – had suggested would be his. They tried to stick it out, became Canadian citizens, enrolled their children in schools and tried to assimilate.

And, finally, after a number of hard years of not getting ahead, both letter writers returned to their native countries where they would be able to raise their families to a higher standard of living.

Both feel utterly betrayed by the Canadian government which encouraged them to apply, levied large immigration fees and didn’t breathe a hint of the challenges that would face them.

We all know nurses who are working as house cleaners and doctors who are driving taxi cabs. There is something very wrong about encouraging skilled workers to immigrate to Canada, and then refuse them the opportunity to work in their fields once they arrive.

There have been some efforts recently to right these inequalities. There is a plan on the table to put in place a process for the recognition of international educations and skills.

I don’t know how many of our citizens living abroad are those that chose to leave because they were mislead by the promise of Canada but I appreciate the letter writers who reminded me that not all who leave Canada are cut from the same cloth.

What Maketh a Canadian?

2007-01-22T13:16:00.000-08:00

Sometimes an issue permeates to the top of Canadian consciousness so gradually that before you know it, everyone seems to be talking about it – and with a large measure of agreement.

The issue du jour? Dual citizenship.

It began last summer with the embarrassing spectacle of “Canadians of Convenience” clambering onboard whatever ships our government could commandeer during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon only to turn around and return once the rockets had stopped falling.

We were shocked with the level of entitlement that these non-resident, non-taxpaying “citizens” showed.

How big a problem could we have?

Unfortunately Statistics Canada only tracks dual-citizens living in Canada – and there were just under 700,000 of these in 2001. However, as the Lebanon conflict showed, there are hundreds and thousands of Canadians living in other countries happy to avail themselves of the comforts of Canada when expedient.

As a state, we don’t track the citizenship status of Canadians living abroad. Goodness knows how many potential Lebanons are lurking in the future.

A great number of people from Hong Kong became Canadians during the days leading up to the take over of that region by China, with many staying and building lives for themselves here. However, many also returned to Hong Kong and currently about a quarter of a million Canadians live there. Close to a million Canadians live in the US. What if they needed to exit in a hurry?

Just to be clear, my quibble is not with those Canadians working or living abroad, but remaining engaged citizens of our great country. Instead I take exception to those who consider themselves nationals of another country first – but like the cachet or benefit of an extra passport in their pockets.

A Canadian citizenship, which doesn’t require military service or tax collection on foreign income, is a handy insurance policy to have. Canadians are also able to enter a significant number of other nations without entry visas.

And, as this summer’s events demonstrated, paying $85 million to evacuate “Canadians of Convenience” was not what we were aiming for with our very liberal citizenship policies.

In the perplexing Stephane Dion red herring case, the issue of his being both a French and English citizen is pretty much moot as there is a section of the French civil code that disallows French citizens from holding government or military positions in another country.

What isn’t known is if this was enforced during his time in the Chretien and Martin cabinets but it would certainly come into effect if he ever became Prime Minister.

Stephane Dion isn’t the problem. He is clearly Canadian, with his life and roots here.

The problem is the hundreds of thousands of “Canadians” who are Canadian in passport colour only.

The Final Choice

2007-01-22T13:15:00.000-08:00

Such variety of riches is laid before the Liberal membership this weekend.

Oh but who to chose as leader?

Who best to unseat that evil pretender Stephen Harper and return milquetoast and liberal values to a nation crying out – screaming, really – for safe, comfortable, paternalistic leadership?

There are four noble knights arrayed before us in hues ranging from pinko orange to deep, majestic, federalist blue.

From left to right we survey the contenders – or from top to bottom, if you prefer, after all the Post-Martin Liberals are nothing if not completely flexible in position, as well as principle

First due mostly to his capture of key Ontario seats and the easy scoop of those time-honoured gimme votes from long time party glitterati who mustn’t dirty themselves with something so…democratic….as a delegate selection meeting, is the academic Ignatieff.

Sitting in a hotel room this week, counting and recounting votes, must be a disheartening task for man quite sure that 20 years in the US teaching liberal radicals at Harvard had prepared him for the difficult task of waltzing away with one of the biggest rings in Canadian politics.

Unfortunately, Alberta Liberals (all eight of them) and those in BC felt quite differently. Hence the tough math lesson – similar to the one faced by Preston Manning and Jean Cherest in their quest for leadership glory. Just because you are convinced you are the right choice, doesn’t mean those pesky commoners are going to vote for you.

BC Liberal delegates are strangely attracted to Bob Rae. Not strangely, of course, if you consider our penchant for radical mid-stream conversions on the political road to Damascus.

Forget Bob Rae, the NDPer who brought Ontario to its knees, a la Ujjal Dosanjh. Think, instead, of Bob Rae the underdog battling against the odds of an unlikely comeback and an electorate trying to erase from their minds the sight of his naked knees on national tv diving into frigid waters with Rick Mercer.

Yep. That sounds like great Prime Minister material.

It is hard to place Gerard Kennedy on the winner’s podium. As a good critic, sure, battling it out the House of Commons but Liberals are not as keen to see him caretaker of our great nation.. He might be better, perhaps, as an earnest, geeky science teacher in a crowded middle school classroom..

I’ve held out hope that Stephane Dion will cross the line first. I predicted as such, even up until a month or so ago. But the tide has turned in Liberal Quebec and now I am not so sure. Distinct society, regardless of the name, steels the soul of the Quebecois.

A deal with the devil will be struck. Someone will emerge victorious. Balloons will fall and ringing speeches given. People will kiss – some on both cheeks.

It is hard to imagine any of these men strong enough for the heavy yoke of Canada.

Only Nixon Can Go?

2007-01-22T13:14:00.000-08:00

The politics of China have broken more careers of warriors and statesmen than any other nation.

For some reason, the behemoth that is China threatens and fascinates business leaders, politicians and royalty alike. There is a strange mythology, especially in the four decades since Nixon’s surprise visit, that one shouldn’t criticize the world’s most populous nation.

There are two stark theories circulating in respect to the biggest remaining communist state and how we frame our relationship with it.

One is to pretend China is an open democracy like the rest of us and trade away, hoping that the flow of wealth and a growing middle class will bring true freedom to the nation.

In other words, if we get enough BMWs into the hands of the Chinese people, maybe they will spontaneously rise up and slough off the stain of communism.

The other option, which is currently out of favour by most observers, is to shut off the tap of metals, timber and coal and stop importing goods manufactured in China. In other words, force revolution by starvation.

Both theories are dangerous and remain just that - theories.

But there is a reality about China we have to face as freedom and truth loving people.

Although its progress in terms of developing a strong middle class is marvelous, China operates political prison camps for those opposed to the regime, suppresses religious freedom (including the plucky Falun Gong it calls a cult), displays aggressive and possibly genocidal policies in Tibet and, most importantly of all, does not allow free and fair elections.

Stephen Harper’s visit to Asia this last week has highlighted the gulf between the two approaches and the political risk in even a moderate shift in how Canada engages with China.

Unlike the previous obsequious approach taken by Canada, Harper was not willing to meet with the Chinese Leader, Hu Jintao, unless they could discuss human rights issues.

Hu initially declined to “lose face” and the Chinese propaganda machine kicked into high gear. Remember, these are the people that denied the slaughter of students in Tiananmen Square – they can spin pretty much anything. Finally China backed down and Harper got his meeting, but not before Bill Graham and the rest of the Liberal caucus gleefully brought out the knives.

For some reason, the Federal Liberals bought the Chinese spin that China should not be held to account for the imprisonment of Canadian citizens and the organ harvesting allegations of its own.

Stephen Harper put his reputation on the line in the international sphere because he believes otherwise and reminded all of us that sometimes standing up to the bully is the first step to building a better relationship.

Stumbling and Running Towards Montreal

2007-01-22T13:12:00.000-08:00

Two more desperate weeks of campaigning lay ahead for the Federal Liberal leadership candidates as they eye the finish line in Montreal at the end of the month.

This race has been running so long that most of us can only remember the highlights: Volpe’s kiddy cash donations, Ignatieff’s professorial chats about Israel, Bob Rae’s naked plunge off a dock with Rick Mercer, and the only westerner Hedy Fry’s abrupt entry – and exit- from the contest.

But now, we’ve got the nasty little mess that the Liberals have contrived for themselves on the never-ending, party-splitting topic of Quebec nationalism.

This issue has torpedoed more politicians than any other – the wreckage left by the Charlottetown Accord and Meech Lake are excellent reminders of how foolish the Liberals are being to taint a shiny new leader just trying to get out of the gate.

The Federal Liberals have been masters at massaging the issue of Quebec’s status in Canada since the days of Trudeau’s one-fingered salute.

By balancing that province’s need for ready cash with their ambition for recognition within our sometimes precariously balanced country, the Liberals have managed through slush funds, alternating Francophone and Anglophone leaders and sheer dint of determination to hold a commanding presence in the vote-rich province.

So why the Liberal membership felt it a good idea to bring forward a policy proposal to give Quebec official “nation” status within Canada is beyond most political observers in the country.

First of all, who knows what it even means?

Would the proposal actually give Quebec something new? Is it a fresh take on Confederation and a gutsy move to re-open potentially painful constitutional debates?

Or is the proposal, brought forward by the fiery Quebec wing of the party, just an attempt to staunch the vote bleeding in that province?

Let’s not forget the last twelve years were not happy ones in Quebec for Liberals, capped off as they were by the sponsorship scandal which exchanged political donations for taxpayer money.

And stumbling front-runner Ignatieff, who embraces controversial and weighty issues as opportunities to pull on his gown and cap for sophomoric lectures, has fallen for the bait with his comments this week that back up the proposal.

Surely his campaigners know better than this.

Unless they have some pretty good tracking showing this is the only way to pull second round votes off of the other candidates, they’ve made a serious error in judgment.

Or maybe, just maybe, the whole thing is a devious plot hatched in some dark backroom to flush the candidates out from behind their well-constructed message machines.

In which case – it’s good to have the Liberals back.

What's wrong with fat kids?

2007-01-22T13:11:00.000-08:00

This week US medical journal, Pediatrics, released a startling study reporting that our kids aren’t just obese, they are packing on the pounds in their abdominal region.

We no longer have middle age spread, we have primary school spread.

Which means that formerly age-related conditions like diabetes, hardening of the arteries and liver disease are expected to balloon among our young.

One can of pop a day can cause weight gain of 15 pounds a year in an adult. Just imagine what it could do to a child.

Add to that a small bag of chips or a so-called energy bar, and the caloric needs of your child are met and they haven’t even gotten to dinner yet.

The solutions aren’t easy, and require more than government taxing junk food or banning vending machines in schools, though those are a good start.

It comes down to this: moms and dads need to step up to the plate and stop feeding their kids too much. We aren’t growing prize winning pigs, here.

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends 90 minutes of physical activity per day for each child and limiting “screen time” to less than an hour a day. They also suggest five servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

Before you say that your kid won’t eat them, remember a serving is a medium sized apple or a handful small carrot sticks.

Pop can be a treat, like birthday cake or an unexpected day of sunshine in November.

And perhaps talk to your children about health and nutrition. As an overweight teenager myself, I could have used stricter guidance from my folks about eating habits.

I am amazed how much kids today already know – the schools are doing an excellent job of teaching the right way to eat. But right after the lesson, many are pulling high calorie, high fat, high sugar snacks from lunch boxes packed by their loving parents.

Because of changes to our lifestyles and our increasing access to food, long gone are the days when we could coast through our days with a natural balance of food and exercise.

The underlying message from the Canadian Pediatric Society and the Canadian Medical Association, among many others, is this: there is no easy way to navigate through the new food world. Just as we discipline our children to not hit or steal, we need to discipline them to get regular exercise and eat consciously.

Or there will arise two classes of people: those who are healthy and long-lived and those who die young, plagued by disabling side effects and chronic pain.

Commenting on Comments

2006-11-07T08:09:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately I have had to disable the comment function due to some ongoing nasty and ugly remarks.

This frustrates me because there was a very interesting debate happening on the "house arrest" thread with well-reasoned and well-argued postings from a variety of sources, including members of a local Criminology class.

Perhaps I am naive to believe that people can engage in debate without it becoming personal. However, I am hopeful that once this individual has found other other sport, I can re-open the comments and we can try again.

Best wishes,
Erin

Ahhh.. leadership

2006-11-03T04:20:00.000-08:00

For one blessed moment in our city, the finger pointing over homelessness has stopped.

It may not last long, but in the past week both Gordon Campbell and Sam Sullivan have stepped up to the plate and made serious, considered commitments to deal with the scandal of homelessness among the most vulnerable and mentally-ill members of our society.

Just last week, Gordon Campbell announced he would be funding increases to the shelter allowance component for income assistance, the first time since 1994 that this has happened.

The shelter allowance currently sits at $325 per month – an almost impossible figure to find a place to live, at least in downtown Vancouver. The new provincial budget will increase that number. It still won’t be luxurious, but hopefully it will be enough for those on welfare to find a safe place to lay their heads.

Welfare recipients may have to share an apartment, or move further out of the city core, but at least they won’t be choosing between food and a bed.

Another important question is what to do with the severely mentally ill individuals who, when removed from institutional care under the NDP, stumbled into the clutches of drug dealers and pimps.

Part of the solution for these people is new non-market housing. The City of Vancouver has 500 units on the way, scattered between a number of hotel conversions, Woodward’s and South East False Creek. These have been funded in partnership with the provincial government, the Vancouver Coast Health Authority and private developers.

Quite honestly, we also need to selectively re-institutionalize our sickest. If my son or daughter were living on the streets in filthy conditions and strung out on crack, I would be happy to commit them against their will and fight about their free choice after the fact.

I would hope there isn’t a parent in Vancouver who feels differently.

In addition to the commitment by the city to purchase a new SRO each year – this year’s is on Carroll Street – Councilor Kim Capri will be asking Council to approve “fast-tracking” three downtown sites earmarked for non-market housing and additional emergency housing funds from the province.

She is also asking for relaxation of the regulations governing the size of social housing units. The rules in Vancouver stand far and above those in the rest of the province, making them just too expensive to build.

People just need roofs over their heads – not 500 square foot mini-condos.

Vancouver’s Homeless Action Plan and the Housing Plan are an excellent first step, as is additional funding for emergency shelter and increases to the base shelter allowance.

Sam Sullivan has also called a shelter roundtable to convene in two weeks.

Here’s hoping that the leadership on this issue will continue and the finger pointing become a distant memory.

As Seen this Thursday, November 2nd in 24 Hours

Why is "doing the time" so wrong?

2006-10-26T10:32:00.000-07:00

Canada’s opposition parties just don’t get it.

Ordinary law-abiding people are tired of hearing about sex offenders released from prison just in time to target another child. We hate reading in the news about a guy arrested for stealing a car who sits in jail for a couple of hours and then gets back on the street to steal another one.

And we are really, really sick of convicted criminals of serious crimes who, instead of receiving hard jail time, get an ankle bracelet and house arrest.

I know that we aren’t supposed to think like this in kinder, gentler Canada but if bad guys do the crime, frankly, they should do the time.

And if they are whining the jails are too crowded, too bad.

Criminals and their pals should get used to sharing a bed if they insist on breaking the rules that the rest of us manage to follow.

Just this week, NDP, Liberal and Bloc Quebecois Members of Parliament from the House of Commons Justice Committee decided to gut the new Conservative crime bill.

This new law included such controversial elements as minimum mandatory sentences for gun crimes, limits on house arrest for serious crimes and automatic dangerous offender classification for criminals on their third spin through the justice system.

Hmm, I don’t know about you, but these seem pretty common sense to me.

The NDP and Liberals have decided that house arrest is appropriate for serious crimes and want to allow judges the right to impose it when they feel that the criminal shouldn’t face the music because of whatever pathetic justification his or her lawyers trot out.

Hurt someone else, destroy a child, ruin property and do it over and over again, or with a gun - hard jail time sounds pretty good to me. I don’t care how drug addicted you are or how awful your childhood was – sit in jail until you figure out that hurting others won’t fix your own pain.

Academics and others admit that the new crime bill will protect people and our property but they are afraid it will make it harder to bring the bad guys to the good side of the force.

They would rather follow them around after the crime spree and sugar coat the damage done to their victims.

The guy that broke into our house and stole my grandmother’s jewelry – nothing expensive, but oh so valuable to me – was a pro. He did it all the time. And guess what, after his next court appearance, I’m sure your house or apartment could be next.

Let’s give judges the tools to lock these guys up – four to a cell if necessary. It might hurt their precious feelings, but at least the rest of us will be safe for another night.

As seen today in 24 hours

Taking Back Birth

2006-10-19T09:18:00.000-07:00

Women who have caesarean sections for the births of their babies are more likely to end up with future ectopic pregnancies and stillbirths, issues around infertility, and increased newborn breathing difficulty.

These major side-effects don’t seem to stop the growing number of BC women handing over the most important physical moment in their lives to their obstetricians who blind following a medical program rather than standing up for normal birth.

Driven by fear, women have bought into the “as long as the baby is healthy” mantra espoused by doctors too impatient to allow births to unfold as they should.

The World Health Organization thinks that 10-15% maximum of all births warrant a caesaren section. In Vancouver, the rate is 27% - almost one in the three births is conducted as surgery, rather than a loving, natural experience. In some BC communities, the rate is over 40%.

Dr. Jan Christilaw from BC Women’s Hospital spoke earlier this year at a conference aiming to get to the bottom of this sad phenomenon. She feels that women are scared of birth and because of this fear, they are more likely agree to drugs to speed up labour and numb the pain.

Known as a “cascade of interventions”, this scenario often ends up in a c-section for the mother, giving her permanent physical and psychological damage.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard women announce that they refuse to labour without an epidural not knowing the negative outcomes that could flow from this choice.

Doctors care more about getting the birth done quickly than supporting a woman emotionally through the most amazing experience in her life. If they could knock us out completely, as they did during the 1950s, it would make their jobs much easier.

Due to this approach, less than 45% of women believe birth is a natural process that should be left alone. The path to normal birth isn’t like following a road map, it unfolds like a story, with unexpected plot twists.

Unfortunately, many doctors want a predicable straight line and aren’t trained nor have the patience to just let it happen, no matter how long it takes.

According to Dr. Christilaw, the main factor that predicts c-section rates is the obstetrician. Some doctors have rates as low as 8% and others are way above even our high provincial average.

Pregnant mothers need to shop around for an obstetrician with a low c-section rate. Or better yet, look into midwifery care which, using standards supportive of womens’ needs and a different understanding of birth, reduces much of the fear and pain that can lead to unnecessary caesarean sections.

This week Canadian midwives are meeting in Ottawa for their annual conference. More information about the midwifery option in Canada can be found at: www.canadianmidwives.org

Published today in 24 Hours Daily

It isn't easy being green

2006-10-12T08:11:00.000-07:00

Mandatory curbs on carbon dioxide, tax credits for leaving the car at home and funding for the development of renewable fuels.

These announcements from…drum roll… the Conservatives? I don’t blame you for being confused, especially since you’ve been told over and over how the Federals Liberals and Greens are the official environmental stewards of Canada.

Of course the Liberals fail to mention under their watch there was a 31% increase over Canada’s targets under the mangled Kyoto Accord, that air quality declined in all major Canadian cities and that Canada slid in a spectacular fashion to 28 out of 29 in the OECD’s pollution rankings.

But this week’s announcement in Vancouver by Harper flies in the face of the “green police” rhetoric.

Let’s not forget that Canada’s greenest Prime Minister was none other than the much-maligned Brian Mulroney. Awarded by Corporate Knights, the honour demonstrates that when it comes to action on environmental and pollution issues, you are better off with a Conservative government.

Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada’s Green Party was unstinting in her praise for Mulroney, who she says focused on the environment by signing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, finalizing an acid-rain treaty and establishing the $3 billion Green Plan.

Apparently Ms. May only has nice things to say about former Prime Ministers, because she sure ripped into Harpers’ new Clean Air Act.

In a disingenuous opinion article printed yesterday she completely ignores the new mandatory emission standards, like those found in California, and pretends this Act sidesteps the Canadian government’s commitment to greenhouse gas reduction.

Clever politics, Ms. May, but blatantly and purposely inaccurate. Too bad you were willing to sacrifice truth on the altar of partisan play.

The new Act deals with pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions together – as they should be – not in the isolation they’ve been handled in the past.

The biggest source of emissions come in the form of carbon dioxide and sulpher dioxide from vehicles. Mandatory standards will go a long way to reduce these.

How I can tell that this is the right move? The Ontario auto industry is crying the blues about the new rules.

There is an old saying that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

The Conservatives have been clear from the beginning that the Kyoto Protocol was a pipe-dream. Now they’ve brought this act, in addition to rules dealing with mercury release, environment land banking and reductions on release of toxic substances from base metal smelters.

No doubt Elizabeth May is justifiable angry that the Conservatives have stolen pages from her policy book. I just wonder if she’ll sing the praises of Stephen Harper when he gets his green PM award.

As seen today in 24 Hours

Just because all your friends are doing it, doesn't make it smart

2006-10-05T11:28:00.000-07:00

Just as the Commonwealth was formed to keep its colonies aligned globally with Great Britain, La Francophonie was established in 1970 as a way to foster cooperation among states with some French heritage and protect the vestiges of France’s imperialist past.

There are 53 member countries, 2 associate members and 13 observers, all with various levels of French culture, language or historic ties. Canada, as a country is a member, as are the governments of New Brunswick and Quebec.

Canada has always been an important player at La Francophonie meetings, partly as a sop to our own French-linked population in Quebec, and partly because we offer both British and French pasts in an increasingly mono-culture world.

Generally at its biannual meetings, La Francophonie devotes itself with topics including arts and culture and development opportunities among its very poorest members, including Rawanda and the Congo.

However, at this year’s meeting in Bucharest, Romania, members of La Francophonie presented a resolution calling for support for Lebanese citizens from this summer’s mini-war between Hezbollah/Lebanon and Israel.

That’s right. The motion, led by Eygpt, called for alignment with Lebanon and, effectively, censure for Israel.

Stephen Harper, attending the conference, was having none of it.

Let’s remember that both sides experienced deaths during July and August– the only difference was the Israeli army didn’t hide out in civilian bedrooms, like Hezbollah.

Harper took a strong stance and forced a compromise expressing the suffering of all people in war is wrong, regardless of their nationality or religion. The revised resolution was accepted unanimously, though grave reservations were expressed by Egypt and Lebanon.

Reading through the left-wing blogs, you’d think that Stephen Harper, in suggesting both sides had suffered during the conflict, had personally held a gun to the heads of Lebanese children.

His impassioned appeal for intervention in the Sudan, as well as Canada’s contributions to the discussions in education and technology were brushed over.

Stephen Harper questioned the anti-Israel bias of the international community. What kind of Canadian does that?

Well, for starters, one that isn’t going to bow down to world pressure. It takes guts to go in front of 68 world leaders and say no. Canada was the only one who raised issue of equal suffering, which says more about the other countries, frankly, than anything else.

This meeting afforded us another glimpse into Stephen Harper, the Prime-Minister.
And it showed very clearly that he’s a guy that will take the hard, unpopular road – if it’s the right way forward.

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily.

Homes for Kids Real Solution

2006-09-29T11:12:00.000-07:00

Foster parents and social workers from BC’s Ministry of Children and Families are professional and well-meaning people, but a life in care is not the best solution for BC’s vulnerable kids.

Children in BC’s foster care system are more likely to be hospitalized, on anti-depression medication, get pregnant, have respiratory ailments and die between the ages of 19 and 25 than kids from the general population.

These grim statistics were included in a joint report on the health and well- being of children in care released last week by Children and Youth Officer Jane Morley, and Provincial Health Officer Dr. Perry Kendall.

It was, in the words of the new Minister of Children and Families: disturbing, but not surprising.

This report was commissioned to provide some baseline data on the situation of our most precarious children. By gaining a clearer picture of children in care, as a society we can work to improve their situation and ensure that the tools given to foster parents and social workers are appropriate and adequate.

But a quick read of this report really tells us that the best place for most children is in a well-supported home environment – not in permanent government care.

One troublesome number that reminded me just how vulnerable these children are was the statistic that kids in foster care are eight times more likely to be on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs.

It is important to appreciate that children who end up in foster care have had, in all likelihood, horrific childhoods. They have most certainly experienced moments no child should be exposed to.

There are usually very good reasons that they were removed from their families and became permanent wards of the province.

These childhood experiences alone are probably enough to require medication
for depression and anxiety. Add to that a new environment, a new school, new
rules (maybe rules for the first time), new authority figures and it is a
wonder that all children in care aren’t medicated.

Is it possible to bring those numbers down? I don’t know, but as time passes hopefully we will have less children in care – and more kids in stable, family
environments.

The Province of BC has an active adoption program for kids in permanent foster care. These are children who have no one. They often have physical, emotional or developmental delays in growth. They have been, effectively, abandoned to a difficult, lonely and dangerous life.

A good family can make all the difference, regardless of the age of the child. Info about the adoption program can be found at: http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/adoption/

This report shows that foster care isn’t a good, long-term solution for our
kids – we need to give our children real homes to give them a real chance.

(As seen today in 24 hrs)

Adrift at Sea...

2006-09-21T06:39:00.000-07:00

The NDP and the shipbuilding industry in our province can’t make up their minds.

We all remember the NDP’s tenure with respect to their “stellar” performance with BC Ferries: little funding for upgrades, money poured into fast ferries that just didn’t…well…float.

In fact, five years later we are just starting to see the costs for taxpayers of ignoring the aging fleet for those ten, long years.

Duct tape aside, many ships in the fleet require massive retrofits or outright junking.

The shipbuilders unions are demanding that BC Ferries spend more than necessary on fleet upgrades because they feel it is their right to be able to build any type of ferry they want.

It also helps them justify soaking the taxpayers to prop up an industry that isn’t competitive, beyond a few profitable niches.

This whole mess was thrown into focus after the sinking of the Queen of the North.

Initially Gary Coons, the NDP MLA for the North Coast said that the government should spare no expense in getting a replacement boat in the water right away – that the livelihoods of countless northerners depended on a new vessel as soon as possible.

We all agreed with him on that point.

BC Ferries is subsidized on its North Coast service by the taxpayers. Those runs don’t make money, but provide a much-need service to isolated coastal communities.

After the tragic sinking of the Queen of the North, BC Ferries and the BC Government sprang into action in order to replace the boat quickly, just like Coons wanted.

Now, six months later, having remembered that unions provide the bread and butter for his campaign funds, he is singing another tune.

He’s using the same set of messages that the President of the Shipbuilders in using: that it is unfair that BC shipyards didn’t make the cut for the new northern boat because they couldn’t build it fast enough.

They would put the livelihood of Northern BC residents on the line in order to line their own pockets.

BC ship builders have not, frankly, had it so good in many, many years.

Over the last year alone, BC Ferries spent $180 million in BC’s shipyards. Workers are busy retrofitting boats and building some of the new, smaller ferries.

But because no BC shipyard was able to meet the requirements for building the new, bigger ferry that is being constructed in Germany, they are on a public relations tear.

One of the reasons they couldn’t meet the timelines? They are so busy booked with work from other countries.

No wonder they are struggling to keep their messages straight.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

First a park...then the world (evil laugh)

2006-09-14T13:42:00.000-07:00

If you had told me a year ago that a plan to build a few lodges and other accommodations in our provincial parks would have gotten the environmentalist’s knickers in a knot, I wouldn’t have believed you.

Instead, I would have thought they would welcome the chance for more people to be exposed to our beautiful and remote protected spaces.

Surely if folks experience the wilderness, more will want to ensure it is protected in perpetuity.

This was the theory that helped spur the formation of our first national parks in Banff in Jasper – which, incidentally, came complete with large hotels providing a base for tourists exploring the wild.

There are many foreign travelers, older British Columbians and, frankly, those who prefer not to spend their vacation in a tent (sorry, Dad), who want a comfortable bed along with our adventure.

British Columbia has the largest system of parks and protected areas in North America – almost 14% of our land area.

Currently there are about 160 accommodations in them, ranging from the Manning Park Lodge and Resort (used recently for the NDP’s caucus retreat) to bare-bones hiking shelters scattered through the back country.

A total of twelve requests for proposals have been issued by the Environment Ministry for Mount Robson, Elk Lakes, Wells Gray, Cape Scott, Mount Assinboine, Fintry, Silver Star, Myra Bellevue, Nancy Greene, Maxhamish Lake, Foch-Giltoyees, and Golden Ears.

From the names, you can tell they are all very different areas: some host large ski hills, some are alpine and some are based around lakes. They are an interesting cross-section of experiences that the die-hard, anti-business anywhere types would like to prevent you from visiting if you can’t handle a 30 pound backpack.

An example of the kind of proposal is a 20 bed lodge, with heli-pad and boat launch for access, in Wells Gray Park in the Thompson region of the province.

For those who haven’t been to this magnificent park, Wells Gray is 1.3 million acres. Yes, million. It’s huge – although it only ranks fourth by size in our park rankings.

Collen McCrory from Valhala Wilderness Watch calls it the beginning of “a huge private business empire.”

I know a few businessmen and none of them would call an eco-tourist lodge with room for 20 guests in the middle of nowhere an “empire”.

One of the best memories for visiting international guests is time spent in our beautiful parks. We are so lucky to have them right here.

But let’s not allow knee-jerk ideology (all private business bad) to prevent those who prefer a little comfort or simply can’t canoe all day before lying down for the night in a tent, to access our incredible wilderness.

(as seen today in 24 Hours)

Common Sense - Please Prevail

2006-09-07T09:52:00.000-07:00

Week after week, we all read the headlines proclaiming the high employment and high rates of growth right here in our province.

Because much of it has centred around building, the entire construction industry is in a panic to find workers. Contractors and developers are desperate to keep the sky rocketing costs of their projects under control – and that means finding workers now, before delays push the prices of materials even further into the stratosphere.

However, with the squeeze on the supply side has come a call from some construction projects that the federal government allow them to bring in foreign workers to help fill the needs.

In some countries, foreign workers are a huge and accepted part of the working mix. In countries like United Arab Emirates, they make up 90% of the workforce.

Some have very skilled positions, like engineer or scientist, but most spend hard hours providing the heavy labour for both day-to-day activities and huge construction projects.

Having up to 90% of a country’s workforce from abroad makes for an uneasy social framework, especially in a nation not renowned for its progressive labour policy. It’s not a model that one would want to emulate.

But back here at home, we can’t forget that some of the construction industry is in a bind.

A good example of this is the $1 Billion Golden Ears Bridge project spanning the North Fraser between Langley and Maple Ridge. It is the largest bridge built in the congested Lower Mainland since the Alex Fraser.

Replacing the archaic Albion Ferry which has operated since 1957, the bridge is scheduled to open in 2009 – if the builders can come up with the 6500 person years needed for construction.

The Federal Government in Canada has strict rules around hiring foreign workers. First of all, employers need to apply and demonstrate a real labour shortage. The job needs to be comparable in terms of benefits, wages and working conditions to those that a Canadian would receive. And, of course, provincial Employment Standards apply.

The labour movement in BC hates the idea that companies, scrambling to complete work under budget with taxpayers money are able to look outside the province for workers. The reality is in boom times we still need to get the job done. If there aren’t workers here who can do the work, it’s not a crime to bring some into the country to cover the gap.

Of course, we need to ensure they are looked after properly – just as we need to ensure they aren’t undercutting our home grown talent.

When economists are predicting that labour shortages could soon start hindering growth, we need to start thinking creatively about ensuring our necessary capital projects don’t lose out in the construction boom.

As seen today in 24 Hours

What a Surprise!

2006-08-31T08:11:00.000-07:00

This September, the Federal NDP will meet in Quebec for their national chinwag and policy debate.

Big union boss Buzz Hargrove is set on pulling traditional labour support out from under their feet and now another scandal is brewing.

The Trinity Spadina riding association of Olivia Chow has put forward a resolution calling for the restoration of funding for Hamas in Palestine and condemnation of Israel.

This ill-conceived claptrap coming from the wife of the NDP leader makes me wonder if Buzz Hargrove has it right.

It isn’t the first time the NDP have ended up cheering the terrorist side of the Middle East conflict, but if their convention passes the resolution, Canada could end up paying for the suicide attacks killing Israeli women and children.

That’s right – your tax dollars at work buying bomb belts and funding jihadist websites.

Hamas believes that there are no “innocent” Israelis – that they are all military targets to be destroyed along with their state. Hamas spokespeople defended Monday’s attack of a Tel Aviv café as “a natural reaction”.

There was a time when the NDP was the primary bastion of anti-corporate, pro-regulatory and big labour activists. It always painted itself as standing up for the little guy against “The Man”.

But somewhere along the way, it has lost that focus and has now meandered into radical international policy.

The best interests of unionists and the working poor are not served waging a proxy battle against the U.S. by paying for attacks on Israel.

The resolution calls for “a halt to military aid and economic trade with Israel until all the above demands are met, and that the NDP campaign for an end to the rule of apartheid laws that make Palestinians and Israeli Arabs second and third class citizens under occupation".

The biggest irony of this idiotic resolution is that the NDP seems bent on destroying the only fully-functioning democracy in the region.

Israel is a beacon in the Middle East for those who embrace freedom.

Women have rights in Israel. Labour unions aren’t outlawed. Gays are not censured or murdered. Muslims and Christians and Jews live and work side-by-side. The social safety net isn’t run by terrorists giving infant formula with one hand and lobbing rockets with the other, like Hezzbolah in Lebanon. Elected officials have to face fair and free elections.

Israel is much like B.C. would be if it were faced with constant threat from Washington State militia who still hadn’t got over the fact that they don’t own our province.

For whatever reason, Olivia Chow has decided to champion this immoral cause. Perhaps it will be the final reason Buzz will need to turn his back on his souring former party.

I will be guest hosting on CKNW over the Labour Day weekend on Saturday from 4-6pm and Sunday from 3-6pm.

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily.

Sell-Out This, Layton

2006-08-24T08:43:00.000-07:00

Many said that a softwood deal couldn’t be crafted by the Federal government. Many said the provinces would never support one if they did. Many said that industry would never come onside.

Who are these “many”? The members of the BC Federal NDP caucus, of course.

Now we know that their concerns are completely altruistic. They are not concerned with minor matters like winning more seats. Oh no, they care deeply about the sector.

They care so deeply they are willing to sink the government and go against the wishes of a majority of the industry in order to prove their point.

The new softwood package isn’t the perfect deal.

The industry is only able to claim back 80%of the illegal duties paid, not the entire amount. There are concerns around the export tax and the new duty structure.
But let’s remember that until two weeks ago it looked the deal might collapse altogether before some fancy footwork by the Federal government gained additional concessions from the Americans on termination clauses and the “anti-circumvention” rules.

Industry has gradually come around, motivated as much by the relief of getting the never-ending saga behind them, as by the fear that if they didn’t take this deal, the Feds might hand over the file and walk away.

Various company spokespeople have said, while it doesn’t provide the ideal solution, the agreement at last provides some certainty to the troubled industry.

In an interview yesterday, Seth Kursman from Abitibi-Consolidated said: "In a negotiation, it is about getting enough of what you want and need. And we believe that's the case here. It is time to bring peace to this contentious issue."
That sentiment seems to have permeated the companies involved in the dispute – it is time for peace.

The battle was costly for the sector. It sucked time, money and management focus away from their core business. It cost thousands of forestry workers their jobs, including up to 15,000 here in BC.

It also carved deep divides through the forestry sector, between those who wanted to fight to the death and those who wanted to negotiate a settlement as quickly as possible.

Everyone has come to the table, talked it through, argued their points and accepted some compromise.

And now the NDP are screaming “sell-out”.

Thanks, Jack Layton. That is really, really productive.

If the industry hadn’t agreed to support the deal, then the NDP might have had grounds for squawking.

But if they would prefer some other magical deal, let’s see it. I’m sure out-of-work forestry workers would love to keep sitting on their butts for the next twenty years.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

True, NORTH, Strong...

2006-08-17T09:23:00.000-07:00

During the 2005-2006 federal election campaign, US Ambassador David Wilkins stated the United States doesn’t think Canada owns the north: “We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."

Pardon me?

Last I checked there is a perfectly good map showing Canada’s boundaries extend up through the Artic and run smack dab into Russia up there in the land of eternal winter.

In military circles it is well known that other countries do submarine reconnaissance through our (yes, our) northern waters without our permission.

If you buy there is some kind of global warming underway, and most of us do, the potential for an open waterway and easy access to rich resources, including oil and diamonds, is a siren call for other nations. Some suggest the waters could be fully open by 2015, 170 years too late for Franklin’s ill-fated expeditions but just in time for the rest of us.

Other nations have been perfectly happy to let Canada steward the region when it wasn’t accessible, but now that our north is becoming steadily more valuable, the Americans and Danes are sniffing around like dogs in heat.

Up until recently, the most we’ve done to protect our northern border was the odd research mission and the frequent flying of supplies into isolated Inuit communities. Canada also placed radar stations across the north, mainly to measure electrical fields and currents.

Beyond that, it didn’t really seem all that important for generations of Canadian politicians. The three northern territories have a combined population of 140,000 – about the same as Kelowna or Abbotsford – they are hardly a political epicentre.

Last weekend, Prime Minister journeyed to the North to launch a 12 day military operation to fulfill a campaign promise that his government will not tolerate other countries messing around on our real estate.

Because the Northwest Passage is 7,000 kilometres shorter than the route through Panama, the US and European countries would like to see it declared international waters. Canada maintains that international waters start 200 kilometres outside our borders.

By asserting our sovereignty, Harper is ensuring that Canada won’t just roll over and capitulate to international pressure when it starts to ramp up over the next decade.

Beyond the economic concerns about handing away the Passage, come grave environmental worries.

The government has recently introduced tough new marine regulations governing the shipping industry. After this week’s oil spill near the Philippines, controlling shipping through this sensitive area becomes as important as ownership.

Canada needs to be vocal and strong about our boundaries or they will gradually be eroded, even by our friends.

The Slippery Slope to Protecting Life

2006-08-10T08:36:00.000-07:00

In Canada, you cannot be charged for the murder of a baby still in his or her mother’s womb.

In other words, you could stab a pregnant woman in the abdomen, killing the child and if the mother didn’t die, the worse you could be charged with would be assault.

In the last year, at least two Canadian women have been murdered, along with their unborn children.

But in the deaths of Liana White and Olivia Talbot, their killers were not held to account for the deaths of their babies.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that babies, unborn, are not persons.

I appreciate that there are some in our nation who fear if we convict murderers for killing unborn babies, abortions are next on the chopping block.

Their argument goes like this: if it is murder to kill an unborn child, then are doctors who perform abortions murderers? Are mothers who seek abortions open to charges of murder – like those who set up a contract killing?

Our understanding of the growth and development of unborn children has changed radically over time.

Given that babies are surviving premature births as early as 23 weeks (approximately six months), it is ridiculous to assert that a “fetus” is not a person one day and the next day her or she is.

Of course, in Canada, there are no restrictions on abortions at any time during pregnancy. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada maintains that only 0.5% of abortions occur after 20 weeks gestation. 105,154 abortions were performed in Canada in 2002, according to Statistics Canada. This means over 500 babies were aborted very close to viability. (Please note there was a typo in this section in the published version.)

Given these numbers, you can understand the hesitation in passing legislation that would begin to draw lines in the sand – something the pro-choice movement has fought against for years.

The issue came to a head this week because more information was released about a Private Members Bill brought forward in May by Leon Benoit, a Conservative MP. The Justice Minister, Vic Toews, was told at that time by his department advisors that allowing Benoit’s legislation to move forward “could have the effect of criminalizing abortion.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made it very clear that changes to abortion access are not on the table for his government – and so Bill C-291 died a quick and quiet death.

The Conservatives have bowed to public sentiment on abortion, something that the rabid pro-choice crowd said they would never do. Voters who want status quo in Canada obviously have nothing to fear.

But it leaves many of us sad that, in this round of the battle for “women’s right to choose”, killers of wanted and beloved unborn children are let off the hook for their crimes.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

Remarks From University of Haifa President at Commencement Last Week

2006-08-09T14:36:00.000-07:00

Prof. Ben-Ze'ev also addressed the war's complexity from a moral perspective. "Today the criticism is leveled at Israel that our response lacks proportion. This claim may appear true if we make a superficial comparison between the number of fatalities that the Hezbollah has caused us and the number of fatalities that have been caused to the organization by our actions. However, this comparison is patently immoral because morality cannot accept as a given that it is permitted to kill and thus it is permitted to kill to the same extent for revenge. The comparison must be far more complex and touch upon the roots of the problem and that is – fundamentally, what is the intention that Hezbollah's murderousness is spawning all the time? The answer is the resolve to annihilate Israel. In this case, Israel's response must be assessed against this intention to annihilate and not against the number of people that they have murdered at this opportunity or another. In light of this consideration, there is no doubt that Israel's response is reasonable and appropriate for the size of the threat," he said.

Prof. Ben-Ze'ev summed up by saying that we must continue to wish for peace. "Although we speak at the moment of a distant dream, it is forbidden to us to stop dreaming even for a moment. The capacity to dream and to sustain hope are hallmarks of human conduct. I am certain that even in these dark and trying hours, already it is possible to discern tomorrow's light."

Teaching Empathy

2006-08-08T08:39:00.000-07:00

Is it possible to teach our children to be caring and compassionate, or is empathy innate – you either have it or you don’t?

Mary Gordon, a recent Order of Canada recipient believes that babies are the key to introducing and reinforcing the ideas of compassion.

As the founder of Roots of Empathy, an innovative program that puts babies in classrooms, Mary Gordon believes that seeing helpless children build bonds with a loving parent over the course of a school year, lessens incidences of bullying.

With rashes of teenage “swarmings” near Skytrain stations and other suburban locations, and the beating death of Reena Virk still fresh in our minds, the newest generation of young adults seems slightly lost.

Of course, there are many teenagers and children who are caring, contributing members of society, but it only takes one or two anti-social ones to wreck havoc on a community.

Roots of Empathy is a simple concept. At the beginning of the school year, a mother (or father) brings a newborn baby to visit a classroom. The visits are repeated once a month until June. In between encounters with the baby, a trained instructor uses the baby’s interaction with his parent and the children as a springboard for discussions about caring, compassionate, kindness and other empathy-related topics.

In previous generations, children would have been far more likely to observe their mother or father with one of their ten younger brothers and sisters, but because of smaller families with two working parents, children can grow up without having even held another baby.

Kid #1 had “Bremmen” and his mom visit her classroom in grade two. As she related to me: “I learned that babies need a lot of help and they change fast.” What she probably wasn’t able to verbalize was the changes in behaviour that post-program research has revealed.

Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl, an associate professor at UBC’s Department of Education, has been studying the results of Roots of Empathy, both here in Canada, as well as in New Zealand and, more recently, Taiwan.

Universally, children who go through the program emerge far less likely to bully and more likely to intervene if they observe the victimization of the fellow classmate, rather than passively observing.

Over 68,000 Canadian children in eight Canadian provinces have participated in a Roots of Empathy program. It is funded by private foundations, private corporations and the public education systems.

It isn’t the only solution to raising an emotionally healthy caring generation, but Roots of Empathy type programs are an excellent addition.

Mary Gordon and Kim Schonert-Reichl are both participating in the Dalai Lama’s Educating the Heart Dialogue in early September, when the Dalai Lama returns to open his new centre in Vancouver. More information can be found at www.dalailamacentre.com

Erin Airton is guest hosting for Sean Leslie on CKNW Saturday and Sunday 4-6pm.

As published August 3, 2006 in 24 Hours.

What a lovely, lovely man...

2006-07-27T14:26:00.000-07:00

From CP Story (my emphasis):

Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."

In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

...

"It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails . . . from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere."
...

He said Arab governments were accomplices to Israel. "My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit . . . and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies . . . make yourselves martyrs."

Do we ALWAYS have to ask Government to do it for us?

2006-07-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

Last week’s WorkSafeBC random study of over 366 gas stations found “significant” levels of non-compliance with safety regulations.

The inspections were held in response to the terrible dragging death of a young man named Grant DePatie last March. Grant had been working overnight at an Esso station when he tried to stop two teens who had filled their tank with $12.30 of gas – and decided not to pay.

Now Mr. DePatie, Grant’s father, is on a mission to ensure that gas stations that don’t implement “pay before you pump” rules are put out of business.

He argues that the 200 “gas and dash” events over the past year in Surrey alone are reason enough to bring in the rules.

Gas stations are supposed to have a safety plan that includes rules about what to do in these kinds of situations. These are there to ensure attendants don’t chase after people who don’t pay. Instead, they should call the police.

We all know that all the rules in the world are only as good as the training provided to employees. WorkSafeBC found that employees have not been getting the right types of training. WorkSafeBC, with premiums provided by BC’s employers, is working on developing new standards.

Probably the easiest way to prevent “gas and dashes” is to institute a “pay at the pump” policy.

But does the government have to legislate this or should it be an industry-led initiative?

It is in the best interest of gas stations to do this on their own, to prevent gasoline losses. As gas prices keep creeping higher, the cost of the stolen gas must start to add up.

When politicians are feeling the heat from a grieving father and special interest groups, it is a quick fix to make a new law. But in this case, the rules exist and a law would serve political rather than practical needs.

Do we really need a separate set of laws saying we can’t peel out of a gas station at two am with our tanks full of stolen gas? What else do we need a law for - that we can’t steal plums from a fruit stand between midnight and four am?

The BC Federation of Labour seems to have grabbed Grant’s death to drive their own agenda, which is strange because few, if any, stations are unionized. But whether their ultimate goal is unionization of station employees or something more political, they don’t seem to mind slapping more and more rules onto gas station employers to meet their end game.

Gas sellers really do need to step up to the plate and institute industry standards on overnight payment and WorkSafeBC should continue their programs educating employers and employees about what is safe conduct and what is not.

Because if stations don’t bring forward industry standards about night-time fill-ups, we are just going to see another round of rules and regulations gathering dust on a book shelf until the next tragedy.

Guest Host Gig

2006-07-26T13:57:00.000-07:00

I will be guest hosting on CKNW for the next two weekends, filling in for a vacationing Sean Leslie. The Sataurday show runs from 4-6pm and the one on Sunday airs from 3-6pm.

There will be a call-in segment or two, so please phone up and discuss the issues that matter to you (or even just some kind words on my first gig!)

Best,
Erin

Saving the Rare and Vanishing American Liberal

2006-07-20T09:28:00.000-07:00

(A friend forwarded this to me - I have no idea of authorship)

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The unflinching arrogance of the Bush Administration is prompting the exodus among liberal citizens, who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted, and hungry. "He asked me if I could spare a latte and
some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. I didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay."

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border, and leave them to fend for themselves.

"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions,"an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload withouta drop of drinking water. They did have a pleasant little Napa cabernet,though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing reeducation camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

Liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen
passengers. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said. "We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out."

Gassing Faint Hope

2006-07-20T09:27:00.000-07:00

It is pretty hard for most Canadians to feel like protecting a guy like Clifford Olsen’s right to walk on the same earth as the mothers and fathers of the children he killed.

In 1980 and 1981, Olsen went on a sick one-man killing spree across BC. Over nine months, the self-proclaimed “Beast of BC” murdered at least 11 children, between the ages of nine and eighteen.

He killed them with hammers, or strangled them, or stabbed them with knives.

He was finally apprehended as he was closing in on two young teenage girls. They survived the encounter as the RCMP chased him to the ground.

At the time of his arrest near Long Beach on Vancouver Island, only three of the children’s bodies had been found.

What followed was a sick, but probably necessary, deal with the devil. Olsen revealed the locations of the bodies and details about the killings in exchange for $100,000 per child payable to his family.

He relished the limelight of his notoriety.

The judge, Harry McKay, said at the time of his sentencing, “I don’t have the words to describe the enormity of your crimes and the heartbreak and anguish you have caused so many people. No punishment a civilized country could give you could come close to being adequate….You should never be granted parole for the remainder of your day. It would be foolhardy to let you at large.”

He was sentenced to life in prison.

It should have been, frankly, the last we heard of this worm.

But this is Canada and in 1987 he was granted leave to appeal for parole under the “faint hope clause” or Section 745 of the Criminal Code. Designed to provide truly rehabilitated men and women an opportunity for early release, it was never meant to be used by a sick and vicious man to gain even more attention for himself.

Now, after serving twenty-five years (or two years for each child he killed) the Canadian justice system will reward him for his horrific actions by allowing him to apply for parole every two years.

And he will - what else does he have to do with his time?

Conservative Justice Minister, Vic Toews, is looking at options to summarily dismiss gratuitous parole applications. Hopefully that’ll happen before the next Olson circus in 2008. Beyond the financial cost to the system, there is the emotional turmoil faced by the families of the murdered children.

Remarkably, there are people who oppose this change – who feel each and every criminal, regardless of their crime or their conduct, deserve a chance to try and re-enter normal society.

Hopefully, these, like those at the John Howard Society, are the minority.

Because when Olson was asked in the 1980s, what he would do if he got out again, he answered, “I’d take up where I left off.”

And that should be enough to keep him in a dark, dark place for the rest of his pathetic life.

Francis Drake

2006-07-19T11:24:00.000-07:00

By way of Kevin Dixon, the Rector at St. Mary's:

Disturb us, Lord, when we are too well pleased with ourselves.
When our dreams have come true because we dreamed too little.
When we arrive safely because we have sailed too close to the shore.
Disturb us, Lord.

Prayers for Carole James

2006-07-13T15:11:00.000-07:00

Today news broke that Carole James has a treatable form of uterine cancer. My thoughts and prayers are with her for a rapid recovery.

Kick for Touch

2006-07-13T09:45:00.000-07:00

After four long sessions in city council chamber, hearing the boosters and the opponents of the proposed Whitecaps soccer stadium on the downtown waterfront, Vancouver Council decided to kick the ball down the field, so to speak.

The unanimous decision to, well, to make a decision later could be viewed by both sides as a victory of sorts.

But just because the Whitecaps made it through the preliminaries is no guarantee that they’ll make it to the finals – just ask Portuguese soccer team how that works.

There are significant – and perhaps overwhelming – issues facing the stadium proposal. Although Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot owns the six acre parcel, the site cannot be re-zoned from industrial use without an exhaustive 24 month process.

And that is the least of the challenges facing the project.

Others include site access for fans, the need to acquire additional property from the Vancouver Port Authority and requirements to ensure safety with the proposed above the tracks location.

Raymond Louie moved that the City work with the Whitecaps to examine other sites, including False Creek Flats or BC Place.

Of course, the big hitch for those locations is that the Whitecaps don’t actually own them.

Larry Beasely, the land-use guru at City Hall, indicated that he felt the stadium would need to move further north if it was going to fit into the downtown waterfront landscape.

Of course, with all these strikes against them, it would be easy to count the ‘Caps out.

That would be very foolish.

If anything, these guys have proven that they can fight the good fight. They have, after all, kept professional soccer alive in hockey-obsessed Vancouver since the previous heyday of the sport.

And in the nine months since the project was first brought before the City, the Whitecaps have developed strong community support for the concept. In a wonderful kismet way, all the attention on the World Cup in the lead up to the Council meetings only helped their cause.

On the surface of it, they have a great project. Who wouldn’t want to see a beautiful, open-air stadium right at the waterfront, close to transit and all those new downtown residents?

Think “Bard on the Beach” for the sporty set.

But it will be in the devilish details that the project will fail or succeed.

The city staff report states that the concept needs to be re-visited in “some fundamental ways” if it is going to work at all.

These include dealing with inadequate street frontage and road infrastructure which may require more financial resources than the Whitecaps are willing to front.

Round one may be over for the Whitecaps but the fight for the waterfront is just getting started.

As seen today in 24 hours

These dastardly acts were perpetrated by the enemies of humanity - Lashkar spokesman

2006-07-12T15:49:00.000-07:00

When will it stop?

CKNW Tonight (980 AM)

2006-07-06T12:30:00.000-07:00

With Mike Smyth at 8pm. Talking about labour peace under the Liberals. And other stuff.

Teachers and Piss

2006-07-06T11:21:00.000-07:00

So much has happened in the past week, it was hard to choose a column topic.

First of all, kudos are due to the BC Public Employees Association, the Province and the BCTF for coming to an agreement on the teacher’s contract.

The teachers received 16% over five years and a bigger $4000 signing bonus, as well as additional preparation time. The settlement was fair to teachers and in-line with the other public sector settlements.

Since 1993 when province-wide bargaining began, there hasn’t been a negotiated teacher’s agreement. This historic deal provides parents a guaranteed five years without teacher job action.

There were many who said it couldn’t happen and that the two sides were just too far apart. I was among them. I am happy to be proven wrong.

On a less pleasurable note, this week was also marked by the deplorable behaviour by drunken louts in Ottawa on Canada Day.

For some reason, it would have been more bearable if these idiots were urinating on the National War Memorial out of some misguided protest against the Canadian military. At least it would have served a purpose of sorts.

But they weren’t.

They were intoxicated and boorish. I wonder what their mothers said when they saw their little darlings immortalized on the front pages of Canada’s newspapers?

These boys, the same ages as the ones whose deaths are remembered with the War Memorial, ought to be forced to spend their summer in the military. Maybe in Afghanistan, building schools and ducking potshots from the Taliban.

Or perhaps they should be sent to North Korea, to see what would freedoms they’d enjoy in that insane corner of the globe.

But they won’t be forced to face this kind of music.

They’ll be excused from their rotten display because young adults in our country are treated as babies – not as the grownups they should be by their mid-twenties.

The shock in the eyes of veterans interviewed about this debacle made my stomach clench. These old men shouldered their responsibilities and went off to fight.

Was it fun? No. Was it easy? No. But they did it because it was the right thing to do.

Police are still looking for these louts, who haven’t even had the courage to turn themselves into authorities.

At this point, a heart-felt apology and some suggested amends would be a good start to mending broken old hearts.

I remain deeply embarrassed by members of this generation who apparently care so little about our elders that they would desecrate such an important monument to their hard-fought battles.

I hope they get some guts, own up to their behaviour and reach out to the men whose sacrifice for freedom they forgot in their drunken Canada Day partying.

As seen today in 24 Hours

It works...in emergencies

2006-06-29T14:53:00.000-07:00

It’s so easy as a columnist to always criticize – to find the gaps in the delivery of service or nit pick the details of some ridiculous government program.

In our health care system, for example, there is so much that could be done better or differently. Collectively as Canadians, we shouldn’t be afraid to examine more private involvement in primary and preventive care and more activity by nurses in roles currently provided by doctors, just for starters.

But when push comes to shove, as it did for our family this week, the emergency health system holds.

Kid #2 had an emergency this week. It was something with his brain and eyes and we took no chances.

Not a family who accesses health care gratuitously (Kid #2 had never been to a hospital before in his five years), we rushed to Children’s Hospital.

It was the same night that some kind of vomiting bug was sweeping through Vancouver babies. The emergency room was packed.

Less serious cases waited and waited. Some did leave, as their kids started to feel better from their playground bumps and bruises.

We waited, as well, but not terribly long. It took about an hour from the time we came in the door until we were met by the emergency room doctor.

From the first interview with the admitting nurse at eight o’clock, through to the last meeting with the neurologist at one-thirty in the morning, we were treated with friendly courtesy – manna from heaven for worried parents.

Tests were done kindly. The pediatric nurses and doctors were cheerful and loving to the children.

Even Kid #2’s Star Wars t-shirt was discussed and admired, to great effect.

At some point of the evening, a child with very serious trauma was brought into Children’s. On top of an already busy night, the doctors and nurses swung into real emergency mode. Even though a child was severely hurt and needed all hands on deck, the staff still made a point of telling each family that things were going to take a little longer that evening and why.

Babies were crying, children in pain, parents were nervous, waits were long – but the professionals from nurses to doctors and specialists were polite, helpful, honest and prioritized each case to the best of their abilities.

Children’s Hospital sees 35,000 emergency cases a year and 150,000 other patient visits. Many of the emergency cases are probably not true emergencies – these kids could probably wait until morning and see their family doctor, if they have one.

As we all know, a system that is relying on emergency rooms for non-emergency health care is a hurt system.

But when there is an emergency and a child needs help right away, I am thankful for the great care, delivered with compassion and kindness, at our Children’s Hospital.

As seen today in 24 Hours

It doesn't quite sound as tempting some how...

2006-06-26T13:29:00.000-07:00

Beware - this is an edgy little piece that is bound to get anyone who circulates it denouced as anti-muslim and, probably, a racist.

I think it's worth thinking about.

Will Teachers Get Their Bonus?

2006-06-22T10:57:00.000-07:00

The teachers have eight days left to get the signing bonus doled out to the rest of the public service employees in BC.

It looking increasingly likely that isn’t going to happen.

Teachers and their employers, the BC Public School Employers Association, have never reached a negotiated settlement and there is nothing to indicate that this year’s talks are going to end any differently.

That’s right. They have never reached a settlement. The terms of their contracts have always been imposed by the Provincial Government.

Can you imagine a situation in your workplace where you and your boss are so far apart on deciding your salary that an outside body needs to come in and tell you what you are going to make – not just once but each and every year?

Right now the teachers are asking for 19% over three years, down slightly from their opening position of 24%. Yes, that is as rich as it sounds, especially compared to other public sector settlements this spring.

The employers are offering 10% over four years. If they can come to agreement by the end of the month, teachers also get the extra $3000 and change signing bonus.

You can see from the numbers that these two groups aren’t even in the same building, much less at the same table.

And, worst of all, we are exactly where we were nine months ago when the Provincial Government ordered the teachers back to work.

The hope was that through the fall, winter and spring the Province, employers and teachers would be able to get together and hammer out a new model of cooperation.

To some extent, it has worked. Class sizes, the stated reason for last fall’s job action, haven’t been an issue for the teachers this time around.

Of course, the BCTF has a responsibility to its members to push for the best settlement that it can get. In the same fashion, the employers have the responsibility to sign a contract that is financially sustainable for the long term – and not just buy peace for a couple of years.

The challenge – to find common ground.

Teachers argue that they are underpaid compared to other jurisdictions. That may very well be true.

But if that were a reason to strike, British Columbia’s 79 MLAs should have taken job action years ago. BC MLAs make less than their counterparts in five jurisdictions, include Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. I don’t see anyone crying for them.

Both sides need to figure this out, within the framework of the other negotiated public sector settlements. The teachers decided to become part of the public sector union structure and that means falling in line with other public sector workers. It’s only fair.

Otherwise there will be a further erosion of support for teachers, a great and honourable profession providing amazing work to our most important citizens – the future.

(As Seen Today in 24 Hours)

Health Care 101 - Canada Style?

2006-06-20T11:03:00.000-07:00

What is Canadian health care supposed to look like?

Are Canadians well-served or not?

What are our responsibilities for our fellow Canadians? For the poor? For the children?

Can market-based health care work for those least fortunate?

Is health care like groceries - and will we need "health banks" like foodbanks for those that can't afford it?

Is health care a human right?

Discuss...

I'm working on a series of columns about the state of health care in BC and your comments would be most welcome.

Most sincerely,
Erin

Carole James - Reaching Out To the Masses

2006-06-14T11:51:00.000-07:00

The Carole James unbelievable bus has just left the station.

Remember her?

It’s been over a year since last spring’s election catapulted her into short-lived prominence.

Today, most British Columbians could be forgiven for not being able to pick her out of a police lineup.

Issue after issue has passed into the public sphere without the official opposition weighing in. Perhaps they have commented in press releases, but they have yet to seize an issue and make it their own.

The media clearly think that the NDP have little to add to the public discourse.

Teacher’s bargaining? Nothing from Carole James.

Transportation? Nothing from Carole James.

Child care? Nothing from Carole James.

Joy McPhail and Jenny Kwan, on their own, were a far more effective opposition than the current crew of 33.

The kicker, of course, is that while Carole James hasn’t reacted in a meaningful way to any of the critical issues facing the province, last week she ventured into an NDP heart of darkness: the mining industry.

Her mission? To reassure miners in BC that an NDP government would be a friend.

I wonder what her increasingly restless caucus thinks about that move?

Given that during the 1990s mining investment declined in BC from $227 million to $32 million, it seems very strange that this would be the issue on which she attempts to gain some public profile.

Last week, she spoke at a breakfast held by the Association of Mining Exploration in BC.

Most of the attendees appeared to be there for the entertainment value of seeing an New Democrat politician squirm. And she did, especially when many in the audience reflexively groaned when it was suggested that BC mining had nothing to fear from a return of the regulation-drunk New Democrats.

David Caulfield is the past-president of Association and president of locally-based Rimfire Minerals Corporation. He declares there is risk to the industry if the NDP gets back in because the previous NDP tenures weren’t good times for the mining business.

“The overtures from Carole are really good, but the proof will come only if they form government. There are some pretty radical fringe members in her group. The BC Liberals have worked their butts off for this industry and good government policy is a big part of the recent growth.”

Carole James remains silent or unheard on important decisions facing our province – issues on which the opposition should be ensuring a full debate.

Instead she takes her formidable intellect and uses it to make nice with the industry least likely to want a return to discredited NDP policy.

It’s either political brilliance or ineptitude on a massive scale.

(As seen today in 24 Hours)

Quote for the Day

2006-06-13T16:10:00.000-07:00

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Speech

Can Canada Stay the Course?

2006-06-08T09:34:00.000-07:00

The recent shocking arrest of 17 Muslim men from the Toronto area has sent an arrow into the hearts of Canadians who believe that a multicultural Canada is a wonderful gift worth cherishing.

But with the idea that born and bred Canadians were actively plotting the beheadings of our political leaders, many are wondering where the line should be drawn between diversity and integration.

In a disturbing documentary shown on CBC Tuesday night, a young journalist, full of the naive tolerance possessed only by a Canadian weaned on the promise of a de facto United Nations in our his land, traveled to Europe to see the damage being wrought by un-integrated immigrant populations.

It wasn’t pretty.

Young men in France and England, from both sides, swaggered through no-go zones threatening death.

A Dutch filmmaker was murdered for a producing a film about Muslim women by a Dutch-born Muslim.

All over Western Europe, whole towns are divided into two camps.

There is a revival of nationalist, anti-immigration political parties fanning the flames of intolerance.

Over and over the journalist asked: could it happen in Canada?

Unfortunately, events of the past week have shown that it already has.

There have always been, in our country built by the sweat, blood and tears of successive waves of immigrants, those who wanted to lock the gates after their chosen group had established a foot-hold.

Growing up in our country, we all learned the pejoratives for various ethnic groups: wops, japs, chinks, micks, pakkis. Sometimes we learned them from our fathers and sometimes on the playground.

Until now, however, it seems our country has been able to absorb each new surge of immigration. Children grew, were educated in Canada, married into settled families and provided their children a new Canadian identity – sometimes hyphenated, but often not.

Even the Irish and English immigrants who battled for decades in Southern Ontario seem to have relinquished their tribalism.

Do these arrests mark just a new, more difficult phase on the same path to immigrant integration in Canada or are we facing a new road – one where communities don’t assimilate and instead ghettoize? Are we on a path where angry young men, isolated by their faith and their culture, find an outlet in destruction and mayhem?

Most Canadians are very open and tolerant as new arrivals settle, acclimatize and begin the process of integration. But there will be a backlash if the events of this week are repeated.

It would be a shame to lose our unique commitment to diversity because of one group’s unwillingness to join Canadian culture or the over-reaction of existing Canadians to a community’s struggle to adapt to a new land.

As seen today in 24 Hours

Vancouver Aquarium Expansion

2006-05-31T14:43:00.000-07:00

Last year my daughter held her birthday party at the Vancouver Aquarium. It was just a couple of days after the arrival of two new dolphins from Japan and spirits were high among staff and visitors alike.

The highly-trained birthday guides combined a tour through the public galleries, a “behind the scenes” salmon feeding opportunity and a good old-fashioned scavenger hunt to make it a party worth remembering.

For many years, our family has held an aquarium membership. On rainy winter days it is a great way to escape the house and for the kids (and adults) to learn more about our unique coastal ecosystem.

We’ve also participated in the Great Canadian Shoreline Clean Up held each summer. This program aims to keep our shores free from materials hazardous to birds, fish and other wildlife- including people.

Needless to say, our family is very supportive of the aquarium’s efforts to revitalize its Stanley Park site with new habitat for the Steller sea lions, sea otters and sea birds, as well as enlarged pools for the belugas. The aquarium is also planning an expansion onto land once occupied by the Stanley Park Zoo and moving the salmon run exhibit that my daughter so enjoyed during her birthday visit.

Being Vancouver, these plans are not without controversy.

The Coalition for No Whales in Captivity is a vocal group that has long pressured the aquarium and Parks Board to develop in a direction that doesn’t include large sea mammals.

The Coalition is aghast that the Parks Board this week voted to rescind an earlier resolution that called for a public referendum before any further aquarium expansion could occur.

Instead the Parks Board has decided that a thorough public consultation process is far more effective than a one-off vote, which could be subject to high-jacking by special interest groups.

Because of the passion around the issue, one could foresee a referendum campaign dominated by shots of sad-looking dolphins behind bars – a very different reality from what one experiences at the well-run Vancouver Aquarium.

Of course, it would have been far easier for the Parks Board commissioners to pass the buck on the aquarium expansion and not take responsibility for the decision.

Instead, they are facing the public directly and will jointly manage a public consultation process which will be marked, I’m sure, with protests and a negative publicity.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Vancouver Aquarium. In those 50 years, it has evolved from a traditional zoo-like experience into a marine science centre known internationally for its commitment to research and conservation.

The expansion before the public is the logical next step on that journey.

You can learn more about the Aquarium’s activities at www.vanaqua.org.

(As seen today in 24 Hours)

But what ARE Canadian values?

2006-05-23T19:21:00.000-07:00

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ignited a debate that we haven’t seen waged in Canada for a generation around the question of what it means to be Canadian.

In other words: what are Canadian values?

Or to consider another perspective, are there actually uniquely Canadian values or are we just a random collection of people with different backgrounds and beliefs connected by shared geography?

Our constitution refers to “peace, order and good government”, or “POG” as it is known to the British North America Act intelligentsia.

Individual Canadians when asked, speak of compassion or public-sector health care or equality for all. Other cite our pervasive social safety net or our penchant for international peace-keeping.

Canadians who have fled dictatorship or economic slavery, celebrate the freedom they find in this country.

Until, of course, their first tax bill.

My mother is quite certain the good manners are the hallmark of a Canadian, especially abroad. But then again, my mother is quite keen on polite behaviour in general.

Looking back, what were values that built our country? And, almost more importantly, are they still relevant today?

Not that long ago, as far as nations are measured, ours was a physically demanding one, with a widely dispersed and diverse population. From the first days of settlement, we’ve had to learn to work together with folks that didn’t necessary share our religion or our culture or our ethnicity.

It has mostly worked.

When you are building a barn and it needs to be ready before the fall harvest, are you really going to refuse help from your Ukrainian neighbour, even if he speaks a different language?

There was a bias towards self-reliance. “God helps those that help themselves” wasn’t just a platitude in the early days of our country.

Work hard. Raise your family well. Help out your neighbour if she needs an extra hand. Follow the teachings in the Bible. Be brave. Don’t back down from a fight. Support your country and the King (before 1953). Mind your own business. Save for a rainy day. Build your community.

The question is, of course, are these values still relevant today or has our country shifted in a way that makes them antiquated, like buggy whips or hoop skirts or vcrs?

More importantly in my view, is if or how these historic values mesh with our current overactive government trying to solve each problem facing every Canadian.

A starting place for any discussion of national values should begin with our proud past.

So, what are your Canadian values? And do you feel most Canadians share them with you?

As seen today in 24 Hours

Daycare or Mom: What's Best?

2006-05-17T12:58:00.000-07:00

In the numerous emails I have received since my column last month on the Conservative government’s Child Care Allowance, none struck a nerve so much as the one from a mother frustrated that her daycare costs aren’t covered 100% by the government.

So, instead of working, she “has” to stay home with her kids while her husband works alone in the paid workforce.

Fifty years ago, this letter never would have been written. But after decades of writers, media figures and government-funded advocates like National Action Committee on the Status of Women shouting on the airwaves, some women have bought the message that bringing kids into the world is something that can be done without sacrifice.

How ridiculous.

It is impossible to combine small children and a career without one or both suffering the effects. To pretend otherwise is to set up our daughters for failure at home or at the office.

The myth of universal, nationalized and state-funded daycare touted by the left is nothing more than a sop to those who don’t value the important work of mothers at home with their babies.

This is not politically correct of me – especially as a working mother of two – but I’ll say it anyway: unless it is not an option, children deserve loving care by a family member or close acquaintance until they can at least speak for themselves.

It may mean putting off buying the first house or the winter trip somewhere warm, but it is the least that our precious children deserve.

Before the angry letters start, I understand that sometimes there isn’t a choice and that many mothers must work for food and a roof over their heads. I’ve been there and it was very difficult.

However Statistics Canada research shows the majority of mothers want to care for their own children and, if that is not possible, prefer family do it for them. Failing that option, most choose small, home-run daycares.

If there was truly the crushing demand for daycare spaces, I can guarantee that supply would be created - look at the private clinics springing up offering knee surgery in another sacred cow busting move.

Let’s not forget that the provincial government subsidizes spaces for those that need the support. Parents who earn under $30,000 a year can apply for almost a full subsidy of their daycare fees and partial subsidies are available for higher incomes.

It is the height of lunacy to suggest that the 13% of kids in institutional daycare are the tip of hidden daycare demand and that a state-run and union-staffed daycare centre is where Canadian parents want their kids spending their first precious years.

As seen today in 24 Hours

New SES Polling

2006-05-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Our most recent national survey of Canadians completed by SES Research Tuesday Night (May 9) has the Conservatives with a comfortable lead over the Liberals (Conservative 38%, Liberals 28%) on the national ballot. NDP support is at 19% followed by the Bloc Quebecois at 9% and the Green Party at 6%. The Conservatives have picked up support in Quebec (+11 points) and are now in a statistical tie with the BQ. Currently, Ontario is also a statistical tie between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

“Our last national poll was conducted at the time of the Emerson-Fortier cabinet announcements – at that time the Conservatives and Liberals were statistically tied. The Conservatives now have pulled ahead in the post budget period. There seems to be minimal political blow-back on the Emerson-Fortier appointments,” said Nik Nanos, President of SES Research. “The Harper-led Conservatives have also realised noticeable 90-day gains in Quebec at the expense of all the other parties. Harper’s focus on Quebec seems to be moving the Conservative numbers.”

Methodology
Polling between May 4th and May 9th, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of Canadians, 18 years of age and older). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. The change in brackets is from the last SES National Survey completed February 9th, 2006.

Decided Canadian Voters (N=930, MoE ± 3.2%, 19 times out of 20)

Conservatives 38% (+5)
Liberals 28% (-6)
NDP 19% (+1)
Bloc Quebecois 9% (0)
Green 6% (-1)
Undecided 8% (+5)

The detailed tables with the regional sub-tabs and methodology are posted on our website at: http://www.sesresearch.com

Fighting for Free Speech

2006-05-11T10:32:00.000-07:00

On days like today, I am reminded of our truly precious right to freedom of speech in Canada.

Take 24 Hours where I have a weekly column.

On Tuesdays, can you read Bill Tielemen’s columns, written from a terribly mis-guided, left-wing, unionist, and narrowly anti-capitalist perspective.

And then on Thursdays, you can read my columns, written from a terribly mis-guided, right-wing, corporatist, and narrowly capitalist perspective.

Depending, of course, on your point of view.

But regardless of your opinion of each of us, neither Bill nor I have to fear being jailed for our writings, even though we’ve both taken anti-government positions from time to time.

This is in stark contrast to political commentators in other countries.

And very unlike Egyptian political blogger, Alaa Abdel Fatah who was arrested last weekend for his anti-government political website and peaceful pro-democracy protests.

Bloggers are folks who host a website where they journal news and other views – often they are political. In some countries, they are forced to be anonymous.

Another Egypian blogger, operating under the pseudonym, “Sandmonkey”, hosts a busy website, but can never reveal his name for fear of persecution. He is pushing for Alaa’s release, even as Egyptian government officials cruise his own website looking for clues both to his identity and other writers who are pushing for a more democratic Eygpt.

Of the 48 latest arrests in the wake of recent protests in Eygpt, six of them are bloggers. Three of these bloggers are women.

In a country with only 30 active political bloggers, the arrest of 20% of them is more than coincidence; it is a deliberate action to silence peaceful protest and free speech.

Now, of course, there is no “right” to free speech in Eygpt. And, actually, there is no “right” to free speech in much of the non-democratic Middle East.

Some argue, in the wake of the refusal of most mainstream press to publish the controversial Danish “Muslim” cartoons, that Canada doesn’t have free speech, either. But the difference is clear.

I can post what I want to my blog without fear of hearing a heavy knock on my door in the middle of the night. And Bill can do the same.

But tonight, Alaa will spend another fearful night in an Egyptian prison, an unfortunate new martyr to the cause of freedom and democracy.

More information can be found at: http://freealaa/blogspot.com or www.sandmonkey.org

The address for the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt is:
454 Laurier Ave. East, Ottawa, ON K1N 6R3, Tel (613) 234-4931
www.egyptembassy.ca

(As seen today in 24 Hours)

But what about the pantyhose?

2006-05-04T09:07:00.000-07:00

As I struggled into my nude pantyhose on the day after the Federal Budget tabled, I wondered to myself if soon I would be able to add up the packages of control top and claim them under the $1000 new Employment Tax Credit.

This credit aims to help us employed folks recoup some of the costs associated with being employed. Pantyhose has to count – I’d never buy the stuff if I didn’t need to present a polished self each and every morning at the office.

It’s like a uniform, albeit an uncomfortable, itchy one.

In a budget marked by the unsurprising (the new 6% GST) and the unique (the $150 per year transit tax credit for monthly Skytrain and bus riders), my favourite measure has to be the employment credit.

Well, that and the Fitness Tax Credit, which helps defray the soccer league fees for my rather active preschooler.

The three highest profile items won’t have a big impact on my family.

I’m sure you recall that my moans about coordinating a bus schedule with two separate school drop-offs and, fortunately, my income means most of my child care allowance for my youngest will go back to the government.

And, finally, we’re not big consumer spenders, so the GST reduction won’t make a huge difference day to day.

But that’s how this budget seems to slice. There is something for almost everyone in the form of direct tax relief.

In a stark contrast to the previous Liberal budget, this Conservative one has decided that instead of building new monumental programs for bureaucrats in Ottawa to administer, that it would be better to hand us back our hard-earned dollars.

Altogether there are 28 tax reductions and one tax increase.

While not pleasant, the tax increase raises the amount we pay on our first $38,000 of income to 15.5% from the 15% brought in last year by the election-hungry Liberals.

However, in a smart move for low income Canadians, the Conservative budget also increases the basic personal amount to $10,000 by 2009. A single parent with a child would have to pay no tax, therefore, on her first $17,000 of income, once the dependent amount is included.

Add in a provincially subsidized daycare spot, a GST cut, tax credits for sport activities and transit passes, and that $1200 a year child care allowance is suddenly making a big difference in the life of a struggling family.

Tradespeople also are getting a credit to help out with purchase of tools and equipment.

Which, after thoughtful consideration, is probably more important than my never-ending pantyhose purchases.

But on behalf of all nylon-bound women everywhere, I’m still going to file for it!

As seen today in 24 Hours

School Trustees Ready to Debate...Mining

2006-04-27T09:44:00.000-07:00

Staring today the BC School Trustees Association is holding its 102nd Annual Meeting in Prince George and one of the motions facing delegates concerns the impact of the resource sector on northern BC.

You may ask yourself what does a meeting of elected school trustees have to do with our newly reinvigorated resource sector?

And it would be a good question, especially given all the challenges actually facing our education sector. But a group of trustees has decided that this sector is responsible for a whole series of social ills facing their towns.

Just to remind you, the industries under attack are characterized by high-paying jobs, good benefits and the potential to bring prosperity to struggling northern communities - communities that traditionally have the highest unemployment rates in the province and the lowest student scores.

AGM motion number 15, oddly filed under the category of “Student/Curriculum”, moves that the BCSTA lobby the provincial government to bring in heavier regulations in the resource sector. The trustees bringing this forward include those representing regions hit hard by the departure of resource companies in this province in the 1990s: Quesnel, Prince George, Peace River North and South, Fort Nelson, Stikine and Nechako Lakes.

What it boils down to is these trustees are afraid that the “boom” times accompanying new mills, mines and port operations expose the kids in the town to all sorts of negative influences.

These include, from their perspective: lack of child supervision, school truancy, increased student drop-out rates as students leave school to go to high paying jobs, increased incidents of suicide, increased transience rates, family violence, migration of disassociated youth to major centres, malnutrition, addiction and other health-related issues.

It seems to me that many of these very negative items could just as easily be attributed to poverty and isolation.

A call to the communications staff at the BCSTA suggested that this basket of accusations was developed from anecdotal experience, not hard research. Calls to the trustee behind the motion were not returned.

Most of all, this motion completely fails to address the important impact that socio-economic status has on student achievement in schools and poverty in general.
Both BCTF and the Fraser Institute studies have shown that students who come from families with good incomes tend to have higher rates of success in school completion, literacy, and numeracy.

If that is the case, and I believe it is, then it seems very strange that those in charge of our schools would prefer to discourage a strong northern economy by adding additional hoops to the bureaucracy a company must leap through before opening up operations.

Why blame the resource sector for this list of societal ills when, for many communities, these jobs will finally provide the economic strength so that the kids living there can succeed in school and in life?

Full disclosure: Erin Airton works with a mining company with no BC-based operations.

Standardized tests? Bad idea, says BCTF

2006-04-21T12:04:00.000-07:00

On CKNW this morning:

Parents are being urged by the B.C. Teachers' Federation to pull their children from provincial tests intended to give a snapshot of performance in the three R's.
A pamphlet sent to parents says some students suffer from test anxiety and can lose their motivation to learn if they don't do well.

The tests have no bearing on grades, but teachers say they feel pressured to teach to the test while ignoring parts of the curriculum.

The B.C. Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association says the tests are relatively short assessments that are intended to gauge whether students are mastering basic skills.

Yes, you read that right. The BCTF doesn't want to measure how students are achieving on basic skills because it might hurt their feelings. How about failing and dropping out of school - do you think that might hurt more?

Not sure how this helps the BCTF's demand for a 24% wage hike, but I'm sure it fits in somewhere.

Helping those that need the help

2006-04-20T10:30:00.000-07:00

Last week in Ottawa, Olivia Chow, an NDP MP who also happens to be Leader Jack Layton’s wife, gathered the national media together to rail on the government’s proposed universal child care subsidy.

She contended that $1200 per child under the age of six is going to do nothing to help working families.

It’s obviously been a long time since an extra $100 or $200 per month meant anything to her budget. Of course, between her and her husband, they bring home $282,000 as MPS plus the $48,200 Layton gets as party leader.

An extra $100 or $200 bucks wouldn’t mean much to them, sure.

But $100 per month really does make a difference for a family just getting by. A few years ago, I had two babies and a husband in school – and I’ll tell you that $200 per month would have had a big impact on our household budget.

Another point that seems have escaped Ms. Chow (not a parent, it should be mentioned), is that most provinces already provide child care subsidies to low and mid-income families.

In BC, for three to five year olds, these subsidies range from $354 for family care to $550 for space in a group facility. A family with an after-tax pay cheque of $2500 per month or less would be eligible for the full amount and the subsidies continue on a sliding scale for families with a take-home income of up to $4100 per month.

My son's group daycare costs $575 per month and he is just turning five. For a family whose take-home pay is less than $30,000 a year, after the subsidy they would pay about $25 per month for a place at my son’s excellent centre.

The hundred dollars from the new Federal program more than covers the cost of this working family’s child care and puts extra dollars into the family for food, rent and other necessities.

It makes a real and meaningful difference to a young family just getting by in our expensive city.

Only about 13% of Canadian kids are cared for in a daycare centre, according to a StatsCanada report of February 2005. Many others are looked after by their mothers, their fathers, their grandmas or friends. Some parents work opposite shifts and develop other creative systems to care for their little ones.

This is not, as some would suggest, because there aren't enough spaces, but rather because many parents prefer not to have their children in daycare.

Because of this innovative program, the extra $100 per child under six makes a difference to these families, as well.

Families earning $50,000 a year will see about $200 of the child care amount clawed back. This is fair. We want to help those families who really need help, not hand out government cash to the wealthiest in our country.

How did you care for your kids when they were young? Does this new funding make sense for you?

Erin.airton@24hrs.ca

As seen today in 24 Hours.

Bad News: Tax Hike on Municipal Budget. Good News: Could Have Been Way Worse

2006-04-13T10:13:00.000-07:00

Folks that ran for council last November must have been slightly crazy.

Due to funding shortfalls from traffic fine revenues, a lower than expected city-share of provincial gaming revenues, a whopping $29 million of un-funded spending commitments from the previous council and new funding requests of $5.7 million, the new council was facing the unpopular decision of raising taxes by up to 7.6%.

Fortunately for all of us, the new council recognized that a tax hike of that magnitude would do nothing for housing affordability – already one of the worst in the country.

Renters and owners all face the consequences of higher municipal taxes. Owners see it directly on their tax bills. Renters see it in rent increases and less money spent on maintenance. We all see it in higher prices at our favourite neighbourhood shops for food and other essentials.

As it is, even with some creative cuts and a pretty balanced approach, we’re all still facing a 4% tax hike. Better than 7.6%, that’s for sure, but certainly higher than inflation.

The City Services and Budget Committee of Council is the first line of Council involvement in budget decisions. Despite the looming deficit, they decided to protect the important programs that really help those in need and key city services that we can’t do without – libraries, community centres, cultural funding, sewer systems, and garbage pick up, among others.

Although Vision and COPE councilors are moaning and groaning about the budget, there is lots of spending for new activities.

The previous council had made an un-funded promise to boost arts funding by $1 million each year for three years. The new council, knowing the importance of balancing cultural spending with affordability, shaved this increase to $700,000.

COPE and Vision scream cut.

Excuse me, since when is $700,000 more per year a cut?

Of course, we expect the opposition to play games with the budget. That’s what they do.

They’ve even criticized the decision to have a contingency fund in place, in case of an unexpected disaster or event. They’d rather spend it all.

COPE and Vision are also saying that the new budget has reduced funding to our vulnerable homeless. If one reads through the budget documents, you can see if is very clear that the funding cut was $100,000 for a consultant’s report for the Homeless Action Plan – not actual services.

I’m very sorry that a consultant isn’t going to be able to bill for his or her time, but I’d rather see funding that actually gets to people living on our streets.

Take a look through the documents. What would you have kept, what would you have cut? Is a 4% increase still too high?

The full budget can be found on the city’s website.

As seen today in 24 Hours

Speech from the Throne

2006-04-06T09:26:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, Prime-Minister Stephen Harper unveiled one of the shortest throne speeches in recent memory.

In stark contrast to the often-meandering Liberal speeches of past years, this one was very focused on the five priorities of the new conservative Federal government.

Expect the mantra of cleaned up government, tax cuts, safe streets, choice in childcare, and shorter health care wait lists to be repeated often over the next few months.

You’ll probably get tired of these priorities. You may even get bored.

But these tough, often unglamorous issues are the focus of Harper’s government. The new conservative MPs in Ottawa know that the way to convince Canadians to give them a majority government in the next election swing is deliver the goods on the things they care about.

Middle-class and working Canadians are pretty sure that, up until now, government wasn’t doing what it was supposed to be doing in Ottawa.

Every year we heard about tax cuts, but they never seemed to actually make it to our savings accounts. Every year we heard about this government friend or that government lobbyist making a fortune with inside information.

Every year politicians stood up and mouth platitudes about reducing crime or better health care. But when the press conference ended, they were off pursuing the next issue and the next photo-op and they never actually made sure their commitments were honoured.

Of course, talk is always easier than action, which is why our country continues to slip down international rankings in health care standards, savings rates, and corruption levels.

This is why Canadians loath politics and mistrust politicians.

Harper’s Conservatives are going to try to change that.

Instead of sucking up to each and every special interest group, they are going to work on these five key tasks.

It isn’t going to be easy, by any stretch.

They are going to have to develop relationships with the provinces. They are going to have to make the kind of tough decisions that send protestors into the streets. They are going to have to compromise against their better judgment to maneuver in a minority parliament.

And, inevitably, some issue will come up and they’ll face the impossible choice of staying the course with these critical priorities, or bending to the political winds.

There are always going to be issues the government isn’t dealing with.

The question is will Canadians accept the five priorities, or will they demand immediate action on everything? Because, as we all know from our own lives, too many priorities are a sure recipe for not accomplishing anything at all.

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily

CKNW with Christie Clark

2006-04-05T12:23:00.000-07:00

Listen in the archives for the group gang-up on the conservative during Bill Good's show this morning with Christie Clark, as host, Joy McPhail and Mike Witherly. It started around 10:18.

City Machinations

2006-03-31T11:06:00.000-08:00

If you only took a quick glance through the recently released campaign contributions for each of the three municipal parties, you might fall prey to the classic Vancouver stereotype that the NPA is the home of the wealthy and the city’s left has to scramble for cash for their campaigns.

Except that, for Vancouver’s Fall 2005 municipal campaign, it simply isn’t true.

Sure the NPA spent $1.9 million.

Vision spent $1.5 million and COPE, still struggling with a debt left behind when Green et al abandoned them, spent $530,000.

But where it gets interesting is when you start to compare seats ran for and won.

Vision Vancouver, headlined by Mayoral candidate Jim Green, contested only five council positions plus the mayor’s seat. They won four of them.

Four seats. $1.5 million dollars. That’s $375,000 per council seat. Those are pretty darn expensive seats.

They won four of the six positions contested. No kidding – with that kind of dough, if you couldn’t spread your message, you might have greater problems.

COPE, on the other hand, didn’t put forward their own mayoral candidate, either because they were happy enough with Jim Green or couldn’t find anyone willing to take him on.

But they also contested seats on all three boards: council, school board and parks board. They won six positions at about $83,000 per position. That’s pretty good.

To place COPE’s success in context, Vision spent $4.50 for every $1 COPE spent to win a seat.

I’m sure COPE would have liked to have raised and spent more, but it just wasn’t possible without a headlining mayoral candidate.

Now, let’s contrast Vision’s record with that of the NPA, supposedly the party of big business and the elite, though last I checked, the elite doesn’t hail from Kensington or other points east - parts of the city that the NPA picked up this time around.

The NPA won five council seats, the mayor’s chair, six school board spots and five parks board positions. A grand total of 17 seats at a total cost of $1.9 million dollars. For those doing the math, that’s $111,765 per seat won.

Again, let’s draw the picture. The supposedly left of centre Vision spent over three times more for each elected position than the NPA did for the seats they captured.

Not only that, Vision’s cost for each candidate was a hefty price tag of $250,000 per candidate. The NPA spent about $70,370 per candidate.

Interestingly, the combined spending of Vision and COPE totaled $2.03 million and exceeded that of the NPA. Of course, COPE will say that’s irrelevant, but given together COPE and Vision made up a full slate, I’m not sure it is.

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily

Important Quote

2006-03-22T16:26:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd reprise this one as a reminder that the responsibility rests in all of us to hold our elected officials (and the unelected ones, too) to account...

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong". ~Thomas Sowell

First step for better water?

2006-03-22T16:22:00.000-08:00

First Nations living on BC reserves face some of the most dangerous drinking water in Canada, revealed Indian Affairs Minister, Jim Prentice, yesterday in Ottawa.

Near to my heart is the Shuswap Band, given my high school years spent in Salmon Arm. There are 8000 Shuswap people still living in BC. Many are found on small, isolated reserves scattered up and down interior river valleys from Soda Creek to Spallumcheen.

Others have moved away from their traditional territory to larger centres like Kamloops or Williams Lake for better employment , education opportunities, and, frankly, healthier living conditions.

Besides the Shuswap, there are six other bands in this province facing the spectre of a water crisis like that which hit the Kashechewan Band in Northern Ontario last year.

Over 1000 residents were evacuated when health problems struck residents.

TV clips of children with disfiguring skin rashes confronted Canadians. Many of us had forgotten, or chosen not to remember, the sub-standard conditions endured by our aboriginal populations.

BC bands at Toosey, Toquaht, Lake Babine (Fort Babine), Canoe Creek, Semiahmoo, and Taku River Tlingit are also highly susceptible to contaminated water.

The package announced this week supplements a $1.6 billion package announced in 2003, but is outside the Kelowna Accord negotiated last fall under the leadership of Premier Campbell.

This water plan calls for a five-point plan to improve standards on all reserves in Canada, but kick-starts work in the 21 communities most at risk:

• Set standards for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of reserve water plants.
• Ensure all systems are overseen by certified operators by 2007.
• Kick-start action plans for 21 First Nations considered most at risk.
• Help develop related legislation with input from First Nations.
• Require regular progress reports.

Uniquely under this plan, first nations themselves will be responsible for ensuring their communities meet the standards – a departure from previous paternalistic approaches to dealing with these often troubled communities.

Prentice reiterated what many have already said – money is not the problem on reserves but accountability and standards are.

Phil Fontaine, Head of the Assembly of First Nations was quick to praise the initiative. His interview on CTV was supportive of the Conservative government’s approach.

"I applaud the decision taken by the minister to address these communities immediately. They are in crisis and their situation requires an immediate response,” said Fontaine, who worked closely with Prentice and the government team to put the plan together.

There are nay-sayers, of course. The Federal Liberal critic pooh-poohs the notion that first nations can govern themselves. The Liberals, of course, have spent decades entrenching government into the lives of First Nations– with little success.

Clean water along with accountability, just might be the first step to a new relationship between the Federal government and our struggling aboriginal communities.

(As seen today in 24 Hours)

Why competition is good - even in healthcare

2006-03-20T15:36:00.000-08:00

Came across this today on one of my favourite blogs:

Brian Ferguson at A Canadian Econoview (bolding is my emphasis):

The Wall Street Journal ran a little editorial piece the other day which you might have thought had something to say to the public-private health care debate in Canada. And it does, but not in the way you might have thought.

No link, since the WSJ keeps these things well hidden behind a subscription wall and I read it in a paper copy of the Journal, but it ran on Friday, 10 March, and was headed LASIK Lessons:

The gist of the piece is that the reason health care costs so much in the US is that health insurance, as presently structured, makes everybody but the insurer insensitive to the price of care (and if the insurers try to do something about the cost of care they're accused of putting profit ahead of people's health, so they settle for passing the cost on in the form of higher premiums). The WSJ points out that LASIK laser eye surgery is generally not covered by insurance, meaning that most patients having it have to pay the whole shot out of pocket. The result is that the market is open and competitive, in the microeconomic textbook sense, and that competition has been driving the price of the procedure down - one of the few cases in which the price of a medical service has actually fallen.

It's not entirely unique. For example, a few years ago, Germany changed the way it covered prescription drugs under its national health insurance system, shifting from a system in which the patient paid a flat prescription fee regardless of the cost of te medicine to one in which the state set a maximum price that it would pay for individual categories of drugs, leaving the patient to pay any excess out of pocket.

Nina Pavcnik of Dartmouth College's Economics Department wrote a National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper on the effect of the change (abstract here) and concluded that .......... producers significantly decrease prices after the change in insurance. Price declines are most pronounced for brand name products. Moreover, branded products that face more generic competitors reduce prices more.

There's also evidence on the same point from the Netherlands (this paper really is the one I mean, even though the abstract doesn't look it).

The Dutch have used a reference pricing system to determine how much the public system will pay for drugs. Basically the reference price set for a class of close substitute drugs is the maximum price the public system will pay for any of the drugs in that category - if a patient wants a more expensive one, the or she has to pay the difference out of pocket. A few years ago the Dutch cut the reference price on a whole range of drugs, so that, if the price of the prescription remained unchanged, the amount the patient had to pay out of pocket would increase. In fact, drug companies cut their prices, something they would only do if the market was very competitive.

So there's evidence from around the world that, when patients are faced with making a significant out of pocket payment for care they become very price sensitive, and, importantly, that suppliers respond to that price sensitivity by cutting prices. Sounds like textbook intro microeconomics because it is textbook intro microeconomics.

Now, one of the loudest claim made by opponents of increased market involvement in Canadian health care is that increased market involvement will drive the cost of health care up - just look at the US, right? So does this evidence give them a moment's pause? Of course not.

I won't name names, since I wouldn't want to embarass the University of Toronto by pointing out the type of logic employed by faculty in their medical school, but anti-market types have been faced with the LASIK evidence before, and their response has been that the fact that competition drives the price of care down is bad because it encourages people to have unnecessary care (by which, of course, they mean care that the individual patient thinks is worth sacrificing purchasing power to obtain but which the experts think he should just do without). So, markets are bad because they drive costs up except when they drive down costs in which case markets are bad because they drive costs down. Got that?

It's much clearer if you start from the premise that whatever markets do must be bad.

My goodness - if people keep writing this stuff, we won't have any sacred cows left in this country.

Labour success...and unrest.

2006-03-16T09:36:00.000-08:00

March 31st looms large on the labour scene these days.

With only 15 days left for public sector unions to grab the $3000 bonus for each of their members, discussions are fast and furious at bargaining tables around the province.

Of the 39 bargaining units that needed to strike a deal by the deadline set by Finance Minister Carole Taylor, four have already reached four year contracts.

These include 1,500 COPE workers at BC Hydro who settled for 10.5 percent over four years. 1,600 electrical workers at BC Hydro have also cut their deal.

SFU and its faculty association have reached agreement and the 1,100 members will be voting over the next week to ratify.

Finally, BC Transit office workers have also reached settlement at 2.2% per year.

All four of these groups will receive their portion of the $1 billion bonus set aside in last month’s budget for workers who come to agreement.

So word on the weekend that the BC Government Employees Union – or BCGEU - had walked from the bargaining table probably isn’t sitting so well with its members who were counting on that extra $3000 this year.

Although 80% of those who voted were in favour of job action to turn up the pressure on their negotiations, it isn’t the union leadership who’ll lose out if the two sides can’t come to agreement – it is the members.

Because the BCGEU contract doesn’t expire until April, a threat of a strike doesn’t hold a lot of sway for the deal that needs to be reached now.

Union leader George Heyman says that he’s fighting over wages and concerns about privatization. But reported on radio from the bargaining sessions this weekend was that the two sides were very close on wages.

The BCGEU, like most public sector unions, lives in fear that the government will contract out services. The spectre of losing union dues and potentially losing members means less money to run campaigns against the government during the election.

The BC Liberals were elected to run government better. There have been screw-ups along the way, but their drive to find the most efficient manner in which to deliver public services to BC residents has been on the right track.

Sometimes that means finding a private-sector partner to work with. Guess what? The private sector employs people too. Some of them even belong to unions.

You’d think from the way the BCGEU was talking, after contracting out, public services are suddenly delivered by robots, rather than by fellow contributing members of society.

Workers absolutely have the right to bargain collectively and that’s the reason the union exists. But their members will lose out if they let their leadership play politics with their pay packets.

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily.

Hard Rock Dreams

2006-03-09T10:51:00.000-08:00

Mining is an important industry in Canada and BC – a fact that was brought home to me this week when I attended the PDAC conference in Toronto, an international mining convention with attendance close to 20,000.

Grizzled old prospectors straight from the bush rubbed shoulders with well-heeled mining executives. Delegate badges read South Africa, Indonesia, Russia, China, India, and Brazil, among many others.

Not surprisingly, the mood was celebratory. Prices for commodities like gold, copper and zinc are reaching or surpassing all-time highs.

Producing mines, while facing increasing costs from fuel and shortages of skilled labour (hence mining wages skyrocketing among the highest in the world), are finding ready markets for their products.

Companies in the exploration stage are snapping up mining claims around the world eager to take part in the exploding growth of the sector.

There to capture their piece of the global mining pie were BC Mining Minister, Bill Bennett and the newly minted Canadian Minister of Natural Resources, Gary Lunn.

Minister Bill Bennett is passionate about bringing mining back to life in British Columbia and his ministry’s team was out in full force. From a booth on the trade show floor to hand-shaking at social events, BC appeared very keen to let the world know that mining doesn’t hold pariah status in the province any longer.

And for those of you who chalk BC’s booming mining sector up to high commodity prices – you are only partly correct, as the Minister told me. While the prices played a role to jump-start exploration and development work in the province, focus on streamlining the regulatory burden and opening relationships with First Nations have also been critical.

BC’s share of Canada’s exploration industry has grown from around 5% in 2001 to just under 10% in 2003 – a number that the Minister said is closer to mid-teens today. This increase is a pretty clear indicator that these changes are having an impact. Mining companies deliver $79 million in direct payments to government, not including the spin off effects from operations and workers.

Earlier this year, at the Roundup Mining Conference held January in Vancouver, Minister Bennett announced a job training program focused specifically on mining. These jobs are highly skilled and pay well, averaging $94,500 a year.

Because of these benefits, attracting mining investment is a competitive business and many countries were at the event showcasing their nations, including troubled spots like Nigeria and Mozambique.

But, as one industry leader told me after hearing the Nigerian Minister of Mines speak, “Unfortunately, flying bullets just don’t make for a great mining environment.”

Just one more factor in our favour as BC builds a strong and vibrant mining industry.

(As seen today in 24 Hours)

*Full disclosure - I work for a Vancouver-based mining company*

Excuse me, I need a phone booth...

2006-03-02T06:43:00.000-08:00

This week the premier is in Europe saving public health-care.

Despite what you hear from the HEU, the NDP and others, the BC Liberal government isn’t hell-bent on destroying your access to health services.

The visits to Norway, Sweden, France and England are aimed to study what these countries are doing right in their public systems and what we can learn from them.

By the way, all of these nations rank above us by the World Health Organization. They are giving their citizens better health care – publicly-funded health care – in a more sustainable fashion.

And, horrors, they all have some private involvement in health care. The government pays, the private-sector delivers.

Carole James’ well-considered answer to our unsustainable health care system is for the Premier to visit BC hospitals.

That would be fine if he wants to check in on the $3.8 billion of additional funding his government has put into the current system, including the $1.5 billion this year alone. Or meet some of new doubled number of medical school graduates or the 6500 new nurses ready for patient care in 2006.

The health vested interests aren’t interested in seeing you and me get better health care. They are focused on their own agendas.

Which is a shame because when 44% of the tax dollars collected goes to health care, and that percentage increases each decade, sooner or later we’re going to hit a wall.

Which begs the question: why are the NDP so afraid to examine other options?

Would they prefer we continue with the unsustainable system we have so that one day it breaks down in a big colossal mess?

The NDP know perfectly well that our nurses and doctors and health care professionals are pushed each day to provide excellent patient care in an environment with never enough resources. Regardless if the government ramps up spending by $1 billion or $2 billion or $3 billion, there is never enough money.

Learning from other countries and jurisdictions which have found innovative solutions to their unsustainable systems is one really good way to go.

Another is the series of public consultations that will be scheduled over the coming year. These will ask what is important to you in our public system.

As Gordon Campbell said from Sweden, “British Columbians should understand that while we have the best health care system in Canada, Canada does not, in spite of all the things we say, have the best health care in the world."

Them’s fighting words in this country.

But kudos to a Premier willing to stand up and challenge us to create a better, stronger, longer-lasting public health care system.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

This pretty much sums it up, actually...

2006-03-01T16:52:00.000-08:00

This was published today in the paper that first brought you the controversial muslim cartoons.

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

When Canadians Decided

2006-02-23T11:14:00.001-08:00

Received this today in my email from SES Research. Looks like the Liberals had the right idea to leave the campaigning to the end...

The recent national survey of Canadians conducted by SES Research shows that a surprising 12% of voters made their decision in the voting booth while another 19% made it on the Saturday or Sunday preceding Election Day.

Canadian voters in the 2006 federal election were also asked to identify the main reason for the Conservative win. Almost one in two Canadian voters (46%) said that Stephen Harper was elected because it was time for a change. Another one in four Canadian voters (25%) said it was due to the fact that the Liberals needed a “time out.” Eleven percent said that the Conservatives had the best platform while 6% said Stephen Harper was the best federal leader.

“With three of ten voters making their voting decision in the last three days of the campaign – the election was really up for grabs. A minority of voters cast their ballot based on the Conservative platform (11%) and on Stephen Harper himself (6%). Change and the need for a Liberal ‘time out’ drove support in the federal election. Polling clearly shows that the Harper mandate is founded on change and punishing the Liberals.”

-Nik Nanos, President, SES Research

Methodology
Polling between February 4th and February 9th, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of 1,000 eligible Canadians, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Question: When did you make up your mind about who you were going to vote for? (Only respondents who voted in the last election, N=818, MoE + 3.5%. 19 times out of 20)

Before the campaign started 39%

Before the holidays 19%

The last weekend of the campaign 19%

In the voting station on Election Day 12%

During the leaders’ debate 9%

Unsure/No answer 2%

Question: In your opinion, which of the following statements best describes the main reason why Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won the recent federal election? [ReadandRotate] (Only respondents who voted in the last election, N=818, MoE + 3.5%. 19 times out of 20)

It was time for a change 46%

The Liberals needed a “time out” 25%

The Conservatives had the best platform 11%

None of the above 8%

Stephen Harper was the best federal leader 6%

Unsure/No answer 3%

The detailed tables with the methodology and regional subtabs are posted on our website at: http://www.sesresearch.com

Provincial Budget

2006-02-22T16:13:00.000-08:00

Yesterday’s provincial budget analysis from all sides was strangely silent on an interesting piece of detail that has certainly captured the attention of public sector union workers.

The largest piece of spending in this year’s budget was a $6 billion set aside for pay increases for government workers.

In addition, a full $1 billion – more than $3000 per worker – has been ear-marked as a signing bonus for those who sign before their contracts expire.

If they can’t come to agreement, those funds go to pay down the provincial debt which is inching upward because of increased infrastructure investment costs.

Ninety percent of unionized government workers have contracts that expire at the end of March.

$6 billion may have been lost in the detail of new funding for children’s programs and skills training and apprenticeships for the booming construction sector, but you can bet your bottom dollar union leaders are trying to figure out how to spin this bonus in their favour.

Yesterday the opposition and duelling special interest group spent the day attacking this year’s budget for spending too much or spending too little or spending too late. Some decried the lack of tax cuts. Others said there was too little money for their pet causes. Others said the debt needed tackling.

The old adage certainly rings true in this case – a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

But interestingly there wasn’t much chatter on the commitment to increase public sector compensation.

Probably because it isn’t in the best interests of the NDP or the unions to dump on a plan that gives their members new cash in their pockets.

The business community, including the small business guys, just wants to make sure that the public sector unions aren’t going to go silly before the 2010 Games and leave a labour black mark on our hosting skills.

I wonder if three grand, plus a wage increase, will cover that?

Or is the province’s debt is going to get its own bonus as union leaders play hardball with a government riding the wave of a strong economy?

Other budget items of note include $421 million for children’s programs and services, increased grants for middle class homeowners, and $400 million to make sure that we’re training trades and other skilled workers.

The province has also increased the contingency fund to $850 million this year, ensuring that drops in commodity prices or an unexpected disaster like 2004’s fire season, don’t throw the good ship BC off course.

What are your thoughts on the budget? Post your comments.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

Health Care Leadership from Victoria

2006-02-16T09:36:00.000-08:00

When was the last time you heard true vision from Canadian politicians? They usually fiddle around the ragged edges of our health care and education systems, but no one seems to have the guts to actually advocate for broad change.

They are just like the rest of us and fall back on trying to keep the least amount of people angry with them at any given time.

That might make for pleasant going in talk show land, but it does nothing for a country crying for decisive leadership.

In the words of Harry S. Truman, “Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

It is fun being a leader? Probably not. Does change threaten vested special interests. Absolutely. Do threatened people get angry and say nasty things? Sure.

Which brings us to the controversial Throne Speech given Thursday in Victoria as the BC Legislature met for its new sitting.

Gordon Campbell, like him or not, has shown some pretty decisive leadership on health care in our province with this speech.

While other provincial leaders pussy-foot around the real and systemic problems of our public system, Campbell and his team have substituted leadership for the habitual provincial government blame game.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadians spent a total of $142 billion for health care in 2005, up from $102.5 billion in 2001. 70% of this spending was in the pure public system and represented an increase of 7.7% over 2004.

So, all this money is going from our pockets to pay for the system. Ask yourself, are we getting better health care?

Across Canada, we’re waiting longer for surgery. It is difficult to find family doctors. Emergency rooms are overcrowded. This is not simply a BC problem or a Saskatchewan problem. Regardless of the stripe of political party in charge, Canadian provinces are struggling to fulfill the unclear principles of the Canada Health Act.

The BC Liberals have launched a “dialogue” program that will ask us: “What are the fundamental changes we must make to improve our health and to protect our precious public health-care system for the long term?”

If you listened to the NDP’s Carol James, the HEU’s Judy Darcy, and the various other bit players in the anti-anything crowd you would think the sky is falling on publicly-funded health care in BC.

Which makes me wonder if they actually listened to the speech or did they simply act with typical knee-jerk fashion because a leader has dared to question how we deliver public health care in BC?

What is the best way to make sure that all Canadians, regardless of income, have access to health care – for the long term?

Let’s have the discussion that Victoria’s leadership has offered. Because public health care in Canada isn’t going to fix itself.

(as seen today in 24 Hours)

To 'toon or not to 'toon?

2006-02-13T13:12:00.000-08:00

The Western Standard is publishing THE cartoons this week. My thoughts are below. What are yours? Why?

As a Canadian when I see something that offends my views, I am perfectly within my rights to protest, wave placards, blog madly, boycott cheese, write letters, organize politically, creatively counter the arguments, launch my own newspaper, etc. There are thousands of peaceful outlets for my outrage.

I am not, however, permitted to firebomb property, murder, loot, and generally rampage around.

People haven't died because of some stick figures. They've died because fundamentalists in the Middle East haven't figured out how to peacefully get their point across.

For all our sakes, I hope they learn this soon because there is nothing wrong with shining a light on our own views and those of others.

And if you feel the need to kill someone for having a different opinion - even if it hurts your feelings - you might not be ready for the give and take of a modern, liberal democracy.

Last thought - Canadian Bible Literalists (aka Fundamentalist Christians) weren't seen firebombing Warren Kinsella's house when he insulted them by hauling out a dinosaur on national TV. How is this different?

So what was the BCTF REALLY fighting for?

2006-02-09T11:54:00.000-08:00

You'll all remember the teacher's strike last fall that disrupted the lives of thousands of students and their families.

Today the BC Government released their audit of class commposition in BC - you can find the news release with links to background here.

Highlights:

"The report shows that, on a provincial level, there is an average of 17.7 students in kindergarten; 20.8 students in grades 1 through 3; 26.3 students in grades 4 through 7; and 25 students in grades 8 through 12. The report further shows:

· Eighty-six per cent of all classes have 30 or fewer students.
· Fifty-six per cent of all classes have 26 or fewer students.
· Twenty-two per cent of all classes have 20 or fewer students.
· One-third of classes have no students with special needs; only five per cent of classes have five or more students with special needs, and the vast majority of those have additional classroom supports.
· More than half of all classes have no ESL students; only 10 per cent have five or more ESL students.

The class-size data also determined that 15 school districts were not in compliance with provincial average class-size legislation in at least one category."

Hardly appears the disaster we were led to believe in September...

Awaiting the BCTF response.

Omni TV

2006-02-09T09:29:00.000-08:00

Friday evening I'll be appearing with a Liberal type and an NDP type on Omni's The Standard.

I wonder if there will be anything interesting to discuss?

Tough Choices at City Hall

2006-02-09T09:27:00.000-08:00

It’s been a busy two months at Vancouver’s City Hall, although you are forgiven if it has slipped your attention, given the Federal election, the holiday season and the extraordinarily bizarre turn of events in Ottawa this week.

While the new council may have started off with a bit of a rocky start, the NPA members have coalesced relatively well and appear to be pulling as team – a critical element when they hold a bare majority of council seats.

Fortunately for them, they’ve focussed on fulfilling a few key election promises which has served to reduce concern for what many saw as a rough and tumble first Council meeting in December.

One promise particularly close to my heart, and that I’ve covered in previous columns, was the cancellation of the proposed two-lane closure on the Burrard Street Bridge.

As a forced commuter – I can’t figure out how to take public transit, get the kids to two separate schools 30 blocks apart and not frustrate my boss’s regular office hours – I applaud the move. To make it up to the bike riders who had lobbied hard for the change, councillors did approve funds to upgrade the bicycle lanes on the bridge.

Emergency services and Translink bus users, also concerned about the initial closure decision made without consultation, have also voiced their approval.

Other decisions taken have included Suzanne Anton’s motion to reduce the amount of waste produced in the city, the return of $50 million to the sacrosanct Property Endowment Fund, Peter Ladner’s innovate proposal to create a wireless Vancouver, a review of volunteer city committees and commissions, and the elimination of the private concerts Councillors used to receive at the beginning of each sitting.

We all like music, but surely we don’t need to pay for Council entertainment on top of everything else.

But the winner for toughest decision for the new crew, but the one that also most clearly demonstrated that a new sheriff is in town?

The previous mayor and council had voted to sponsor travel for mayors from around the world who were attending the upcoming World Peace Forum in Vancouver, along with covering the costs for a hospitality reception (read: party) and other events.

The costing for the event was escalading rapidly from the initial $50,000 offered by the previous council. Without a clear budget, it had to go.

Not an easy choice, especially so early in the mandate. Most mayors would love to play host to their buddies from around the globe and pose for some photo ops. But given the budget increases staring the Council in the face and the inevitable tax increase we’re all going to be asked to pay, is a social gathering for mayors the best use of a six-figure amount?

Uh, no.

At the end of the day, this is why we vote for people – to make the tough decisions for us. And so far, the new Council is doing its job.

City budget consultations will be underway shortly. Make sure your voice is heard.

(as seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

What else is wrong with the Liberal Party?

2006-02-03T10:50:00.000-08:00

If it wasn’t for the billions of wasted tax dollars, the millions stolen from taxpayers to subsidize party operations and the lack of concern for working people in our country, I’d almost feel sorry for the Federal Liberals.

On the heels of their electoral loss on the 23rd, news coverage this week was dominated by big-name Liberal after big-name Liberal gracefully declining the privilege of painting a big red “L” on their foreheads and facing a bitter electorate.

They all had lovely excuses, of course: family, balance, financial obligations.

But none of them stated the obvious. The Liberals are in deep, deep trouble and these elder statesmen had no interest in being the Kim Campbell for the Red set.

The Liberal party has enormous challenges facing it. It carries a huge debt – estimated between $20 and $30 million dollars – almost a dollar for every Canadian. It has a Gomery-sized hangover from the Chretien years and the party faced scandal after scandal in the dying days of their mandate.

Not to mention the pitched brother-vs-brother battle between Chretien and Martin that left excellent Liberal organizers on the side-lines after Martin’s crew took over riding associations and provincial organizations.

Just ask Sheila Copps and Herb Dhaliwal how they feel about the techniques employed by Paul Martin’s acolytes if you are looking for the mythical united Liberal team.

The party knows it can’t choose a leader who served as a Cabinet Minister anytime in the last 12 years of Liberal Government because of that lingering aroma of rot left in voter’s nostrils.

At the same time, organizers are finding leadership a tough sell to provincial leaders resting on their political laurels.

Does Bob Rae or Ken Dryden or Michael Ignatieff or, as I heard chuckled about in a downtown lunch spot yesterday, Hedy Fry, really have the royal jelly to rebuild a directionless and shaky Liberal team?

And then, yesterday Agusta-Westland, an aerospace manufacturer, announced yesterday that it is suing the government for a billion dollars, citing Liberal MPs interfered in the Sea-King replacement helicopter tender process.

I’m not allowed to make this stuff up, you know.

The Liberals must be relived that they waited until after voting day to file suit but one has to wonder if the big three of McKenna, Tobin and Manley had advance notice of the lawsuit. Especially since McKenna neatly resigned as US ambassador and then, suddenly, decided that Federal politics wasn’t his cup of tea.

Mostly, I suspect that the brand name front-runners thought about the challenge and the balance sheet, considered the other nasty Liberal secrets that will be exposed by the new government, weighed the cost to their personal and professional reputations and decided, wisely, to take a pass this time round the ring.

The question is: what else do they know that we don’t about the state of the Liberal Party of Canada?

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily.

The Big Chance

2006-01-26T10:05:00.000-08:00

And then it was over.

The talking heads ceased their blathering and the pollsters quit trying to one-up each other with their inane and inaccurate snapshots of the electorate’s mindset. The politicians and wanna-be politicians slunk back to their campaign offices to store the signs for next time and throw out the Tim-bits boxes.

Suddenly far less coffee is being consumed from sea to shining sea.

British Columbians have experienced democratic overload this year. In the time it takes to grow a baby, on three separate occasions we have waded through our choices, separated fact from spin, discussed the options over Sunday night dinner and marked an X on a ballot.

Most interestingly, since May, we have also chosen free enterprise governments in Victoria, Vancouver and now, in Ottawa.

Is there a fundamental shift occurring in the views of Canadians or are these results sheer coincidence?

These weren’t landslide wins, by any stretch. And it would be a mistake to say that Monday’s results were a wholesale embrace of all things Conservative. But they did follow a pattern that should make any Federal Liberal nervous as he contemplates his options in Canada’s very split minority parliament.

Voters made one of two choices on election night. They either chose to support an incumbent – David Emerson and Ujjal Dosanjh, for example – or else they chose the candidate that they felt best fit their own issues and concerns.

In stark contrast to previous elections, there was little strategic voting.

Canadians who wanted to vote Conservative did so. Voters who liked Jack Layton supported him. Liberals voted Liberal. Seat after seat in BC saw tight three way races.

We didn’t hold our noses and vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives because we knew in our hearts that a Martin Liberal government was worse than anything we could imagine the Conservatives doing.

And this is the shift that Conservatives in our country have been preparing for. Conservatives know that we just needed this chance to show Canadians that we can govern well and honestly.

We actually care about the moms and dads trying to make ends meet. We know the best way to help a family is to give assistance when needed and get out of their way the rest of the time.

So we have our chance. Canadians have said go for it. Let’s hope the rest of the parties in the Parliament respect the voter’s opinion that Conservatives deserve a fair shake to make our country a better place.

As seen today in 24 Hours

Victory...and challenge

2006-01-24T09:57:00.000-08:00

Last night was a night of victory - for the Conservative Party, for Stephen Harper, for the ten miraculous MPs from Quebec and for the marvelous candidates elected from across the whole country.

It was also sad night that left behind some great friends on the path forward to Government.

Conservatives will need courage and vision to navigate this minority parliament - the potential pitfalls are many and loom in the shadows. But Stephen Harper has earned the support of his party with a campaign that was thoughtful, strong, strategic and Canadian.

We have his back.

Losing Sight of Canadian Values

2006-01-19T11:30:00.000-08:00

When the books are written on this Federal Election, what will be credited with the apparently radical shift in voter leanings?

Will it be attributed to the highly controlled Conservative campaign, characterized by few mistakes and missteps? Or is it that a bumbling Liberal campaign reinforced in the electorates’ minds the long legacy of Liberal power-at-any-cost politics?

Or is there something deeper at play?

Early in the campaign, the outpouring of distaste for the comments of Paul Martin’s advisor, Scott Reid, provided some support for the belief that Canadians are tired of a nanny state, cosseting them from cradle to grave – with their own hard-earned tax dollars.

It is a uniquely Liberal conceit that Canadians can’t look after themselves as well as Liberals can for them. I’m not referring, of course, to those truly in need. It is our obligation as fellow humans to help those less fortunate.

I’m talking about you and me.

But, speaking as a conservative mother, I’m also pretty sure that neither of us is going to blow our childcare subsidy on beer and popcorn.

Even though the downtown Liberal crowd with their blue suits looks down on average families doing their best to pay the rent and get nutritious food on the table, Canadians instinctively know that we could do a much better job of looking after our kids than any government ever could.

Don’t forget that the much-vaunted Liberal nanny state doesn’t do a very good job of looking after the poor either – the number of Canadian children living in poverty has increased, according to Stats Canada, since the Liberals have been in power.

The Conservative’s proposal to lower the GST to 5% will help those who need it – the middle class and the poor. Even well-known NDP commentators agree it is a tax-cut that provides immediate relief to those who get by paycheck to paycheck.

Same with the Conservative child-care initiative. Instead of herding our kids into nationalized daycare centres with long wait lists like the similar Quebec system, the Conservative proposal recognizes that parents want to choose care that works best for their families – daycare centre, home-based daycare or family members.

There is a reason that the Liberal negative campaign hasn’t worked in the last
week. Canadians know Paul Martin offers nothing new. He had his shot when the NDP propped up his minority government and he provided no new vision for our country – just more of the same tired ol’ “government knows best” rhetoric.

Polling shows Canadians know that the government needs to change to one that
reflects their values.

So, maybe, finally, we’ll have a government that helps Canadians get their heads above water instead of one that sits on our shoulders pretending to be the lifeguard.

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily

Why Paul Martin Will Lose

2006-01-10T08:27:00.000-08:00

Those of us who were around during the Tory debacle of 1993 remember the feeling of desperation that filled the air of the campaign office each day.

No matter what Kim Campbell said, or how she said it, or where she said it, the result was always the same. Nothing. The momentum from the very start was in Chretien’s hands and the “Red Book” promises dominated the agenda.

Up until the debates on Monday night, this year’s campaign was razor close. With two weeks left until voting day, a concerted push by the Liberals might have edged Martin back into minority government territory.

Dogged as he had been by friendly fire and an unexpectedly highly-disciplined Conservative campaign, his passionate defense of Canada was good for some key Ontario seats and other traditional Liberal territory. The lackluster effort by Jack Layton also provided breathing room for Liberals who might have been under NDP threat.

But in the blink of an eye, with an off-the-cuff remark – because surely to goodness it wasn’t actually scripted - Martin threw out a position so bizarre that I actually gasped. And, frankly, at that moment he sunk his chances of re-forming his minority government.

What could be more powerful than the sponsorship scandal or the Option Canada scandal or the income trust scandal or the myriad of other missteps and bad news that has characterized the Liberal campaign?

The Not Withstanding Clause.

Please stay with me here.

The Not Withstanding Clause allows our democratically elected officials – the people’s representatives – to make laws that might run contrary to a court decision. It is a key element of our Constitution and, in fact, was a critical reason that all provinces except Quebec signed on in 1982. They knew that even if the courts ruled a certain way, they would keep their ability to implement the laws that their citizens wanted.

Do we want judges making laws or do we want elected and accountable people making laws?

And does it get used? Rarely. But it is a key principle of our constitution and can’t get tossed away because Paul Martin is getting desperate. First of all, it takes the agreement of seven provinces with 50% of the country’s population to nix the Not Withstanding Clause. The very fact that he’s raising it in a debate format speaks volumes for his disrespect for the provinces and their duly elected governments.

Paul Martin has been in Ottawa so long that he’s forgotten that Canada isn’t a dictatorship, it’s a federation of provinces – each unique. He’s forgotten that he can’t just steam-roll over Alberta and BC and Quebec because his numbers are tanking and he needs a new wedge issue.

Last night’s ill-conceived remark was the “TSN Turning Point” of the campaign and was as serious as Kim Campbell’s “elections are not the time to discuss policy” declaration in 1993.

And we all remember how well that went.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)