Playing hard ball pays off for local bands

It’s no coincidence this week’s big announcement of a $30-million tax windfall for the Tk’emlups and Skeechestn Indian Bands came on the eve of the 100^th anniversary of the Laurier Memorial.

The memorial — actually a compellingly worded letter written to then-Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier and presented to him at a meeting in Kamloops on Aug. 25, 1910 — outlines First Nations grievances against “whites,” and demands fair treatment.

The deal worked out for the sharing of tax revenues from the New Afton Mine is expected to put $2.5 million into the combined coffers of the two bands every year for at least the next 12 years — longer if the ore lasts.

The money will be split evenly between the TIB (population about 1,000), and Skeetchestn (population about 500). If the City of Kamloops were to receive a similar deal pro-rated by population, it would pretty much pay the annual property-tax bill of every city homeowner for the next dozen years.

When the other shoe drops — the province promises to make a similar deal for Highland Valley Copper, potentially worth several times more than the New Afton agreement — one would have to think local First Nations are getting pretty close to the fair share and fair treatment talked about in the Laurier Memorial.

Randy Hawes, the minister of state for mining, told me this week taxes from the New Afton deal will be put into a joint trust account to be divvied up as the two bands wish.

The only string, he said, is that “We want to make sure it’s going toward building an economic base and community development.”

While the New Afton agreement is based on a 37.5 per cent cut of total taxes, that’s not a number that will necessarily be used for Highland Valley and other such deals in the province, he said. Each one will be negotiated to a dollar amount.

TIB chief Shane Gottfriedson and Hawes acknowledged that negotiations were difficult. “They drive a hard bargain,” said Hawes.

Indeed, the TIB and Skeetchestn have been particularly skilled at arm-wrestling various levels of government.

Through tough negotiating, for example, the TIB came away from the City’s Rayleigh slo-pitch project not only with 20 gratis hectares at the project itself (City taxpayers were billed $240,000 for 112 hectares), but with another 16 hectares of Crown land straddling Westsyde Road on the opposite side of the river. Both chunks are enclaves within City boundaries.

There was no public consultation on the transfer; when adjacent property owners complained, all levels of government gave them a “too bad, so sad” brushoff.

The Tobiano development on Kamloops Lake has been another source of income for both the TIB and Skeetchestn bands. Almost 10 years ago, the province gave them $1 million; three years ago, they negotiated further compensation — Skeetchestn got a quarter of a million for an access from the highway to its Big Sky fuel stop, while the TIB was compensated $62,000 to pay for an interchange on the Yellowhead Highway, plus other incidentals.

Such concessions are based on the concept that when Crown land is “alienated” from traditional First Nations territory, compensation is in order.

Then there are those contentious land claims, which include private land. The TIB doesn’t want to scoop them, but it does want the feds to pay compensation for those, too.

By now, the TIB must be one of the richest bands in the country due to its happy location adjacent to a major B.C. community, excellent developable land, and a progressive band council.

Projects on the books in recent years have included a new administration building, a $1.5 million carwash, a $100-million commercial-residential project, new water and sewage plants, and a major new industrial-commercial subdivision. Never mind the Mount Paul industrial park cash cow, and the booming Sun Rivers golf and residential lease development.

Once in awhile, the TIB’s aggressive approach backfires. When it got pushy with the City and threatened to jack up lease rates on the aging KXA agriplex, the City called its bluff and walked away, leaving the band scrambling to do something with what had become a white elephant. When the band lowered the boom on the struggling exhibition association with a demand for $100,000 in extra taxes, it deservedly reaped a mountain of ill will and bad PR.

While Indian band spending isn’t subject to the same accountability and transparency as municipalities, the band claims it generates 80 per cent of its own revenues and injects $250,000 into the local economy each year.

Across the nation, more than $8 billion of federal money annually goes into supporting First Nations, though the recipients point out some of that is for federal administration. Their own numbers show federal support as amounting to $7,200 for each status band member.

Before Mr. and Mrs. Redneck shout, “Right on, Mel, when are those people going to stop bleeding us white folks dry,” let’s keep in mind that Aboriginal communities have disproportionately high rates of poverty, incarceration, alcoholism and unemployment, and less education.

It’s shameful that 100 years after the chiefs wrote their letter to Laurier, their grievances haven’t been answered. Admittedly, some “whites” have trouble keeping it all in context when they see ever-sweeter deals being signed under new sets of rules, and chafe under threat of being labeled “racist” if they ask too many questions.

Former TIB chief Manny Jules sees a different answer. He’s been crusading for years to get private property rights for the country’s 600,000 status Indians on band land. Jules says under the current system that land is “dead capital” but would increase many times in value if band members obtained private property rights.

His critics, on the other hand, say that approach runs counter to native culture.

Bottom line, though, the TIB is doing pretty good, and so is Skeetchestn. When I asked Hawes if they and other Interior bands are getting close to the ideals stated in the Laurier Memorial, of past wrongs righted, of a fair share, he replied with a hopeful,  “We’re looking for that.”

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

http://www.armchairmayor.wordpress.com

HST decision a victory for direct democracy

Armchair Mayor column for The Kamloops Daily News, Saturday, Aug. 21, 2010

Chalk one up for direct democracy.

Not everybody’s a fan of direct democracy, including MLA Terry Lake, who said so recently.

The comment was in connection with the anti-HST petition, which won big in court on Friday. And the decision by B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman says, in effect, that if we’re going to legislate a direct democracy process, those who avail themselves of it deserve latitude.

Perfection isn’t part of the direct democracy vocabulary. It is, by its nature, clumsy and sometimes obstructive.

Bauman (his written judgment is there in full on the Internet for anyone who enjoys wading through such things) rejects the argument of a business coalition that the petition should be ruled invalid. The coalition claimed the HST is outside the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

“That is not the test,” writes Bauman. Several paragraphs later, he adds, “But whether the draft Bill, however it may or may not be finally worded in adopted legislation, will be effective in its stated purpose of extinguishing the HST, is not the question to be answered. . . To reiterate, that question is whether the Bill is with respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Legislature, and . . . it clearly is.” 

In other words, once Elections B.C. approves a petition as properly submitted, it must go to the legislative committee (currently chaired by Lake) set up to deal with it, period. It’s for the legislature to decide the outcome, not a judge.

This is a lesson in manners for chief electoral officer Craig James, who declined to forward the petition to Lake until Bauman dealt with it, and a slap in the face to the six business organizations that took the thing to court.

Many viewed the legal challenge as the corporations using deep pockets to thwart the wishes of everyday British Columbians. In truth, businesses back the HST for practical reasons, but sometimes perception trumps valor.

* * *

If Ruth Madsen loses her appeal against the Aboriginal Cogeneration Corp. environmental permit — and I suspect she will — it won’t be for lack of help from the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board.

Yesterday afternoon, the board went along with another missed deadline from Madsen. Not only that, it gave her three more months to get her act together.

This appeal has been a calamity of errors from the beginning. Let’s review, shall we?

In February of this year, Madsen sent notice to the appeal board that the Thompson Institute of Environmental Studies intended to appeal ACC’s permit to build a gasification project.

The Thompson Institute of Environmental Studies did not exist.

She filed the appeal after the deadline.

She was late with the fee.

The appeal board concluded Madsen’s appeal was “deficient.” Nevertheless, she was given an extension, to March 2, to fix it. Board chairman Alan Andison acknowledged Madsen — who has been involved in environmental issues for decades — was “inexperienced.”

The B.C. government legal services branch said Madsen had no grounds for an appeal and asked the appeal board to dismiss her application. The board demurred.

After a raucous public meeting March 11, ACC president Kim Sigurdson pulled the plug, saying he’d move the project elsewhere. Madsen said she’d appeal the permit anyway. ACC, on the other hand, said it would not give up the permit.

The appeal board accepted Madsen’s revised application — under her own name — and set a five-day hearing starting Sept. 13.

During the summer, Madsen asked the board to add seven more days to the hearing. The board said it would wait to decide based on the amount of material that would have to be dealt with.

Madsen decided to go looking for a lawyer. In early July, she talked to Glen W. Bell, who has a law firm in Vancouver and who apparently has some experience in environmental appeals.

Bell told her he’d like to do it, but couldn’t commit due to a serious medical issue. On Aug. 10, after emerging from a stay in hospital, he agreed to take the case.

On Aug. 11, he wrote the Environmental Appeal Board asking for a three-month delay, citing lack of preparation time.

He didn’t fax the letter to the appeal board in Victoria until five days later, on Aug. 16, the deadline day for receipt of Madsen’s documentation backing up her application.

Instead of rejecting the request out of hand and reminding Bell and Madsen that she had had more than six months to get her act together, Andison again gave Madsen an out. He gave Sigurdson and lawyer Dennis Doyle of the legal services branch until Wednesday to respond to Bell’s request.

Bell would then have until Thursday to counter.  Friday, a letter went out from Andison saying a postponement is the best way to assure fairness. Assuring fairness, it seems, includes letting an applicant set her own timetable while the proponent must sit around and wait.

Since the appeal board has yet to enforce a rule with respect to this application, one wonders why it bothers having any.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

ww.armchairmayor.wordpress.com

Full text of letter from appeal board on delay of ACC case

August 20, 2010

VIA Fax and Email

APPEALFILE: 2010-EMA 002

Bell Lawyers

Attention: Glen W. Bell

1400-1125 Howe Street

Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8

Aboriginal Cogeneration Corporati In

Attention: Kim Sigurdson

7 Bingham Drive

Winnipeg MB R3R 2W8

Ministry of Attorney General

Attention: Dennis Doyle

POBox 9289 Stn Prov Govt

506 – 1175 Douglas Street

Victoria BC V8W 9J7

RE: Environmental Management Act Appeal – Ruth Madsen v. January 7,

2010 Permit #103943 granted to Aboriginal Cogeneration

Corporation by the Director.

On August 16, 2010, the Board received a request from counsel for the Appellant to postpone the hearing of the above-noted appeal currently scheduled for September 13-17,2010. He asks that the hearing be postponed until the Fall of 2010, or early 2011.

The postponement request was received on the same day that the Appellant’s prehearing submissions and documents were due, thus leaving little time to obtain comments from the other parties and to decide whether the hearing should proceed as scheduled. The explanation for this request was provided by counsel. He states that the Appellant “has been searching diligently for funding and counsel, but without success. She contacted me early in July, and I expressed my willingness to act. However, due to a serious medical issue, I could not give a commitment at that time. My health has since improved and I was able to agree to take on the case yesterday” (August 10, 2010).

Having just confirmed his availability to act for the Appellant, counsel states that he did not have time to prepare the pre-hearing submissions, and the deadline for expert reports had passed. Counsel requests at least three months to prepare for the hearing.

The Board provided the Respondent and the Third Party with an opportunity 10 comment on this request. By letter dated August 17,2010, the Respondentadvised that he does not object to the postponement.

By letter dated August 18, 2010, the Aboriginal Co~enerat~on Corporation (“ACC”) objects to the requested postponement. It states, AAC will be aggrieved by further delay of this appeal process and are not prepared to consent to further economic hardship that will ensue should this adjournment be approved.” The AAC notes that the Appellant has had “ample time and opportunity” to prepare for this appeal and yet only retained a lawyer a few days before the deadline for her Statement of Points. The AAC further notes that the Appellant has failed to provide her pre-hearing submissions as required, and submits that her appeal should be quashed.

In deciding whether to grant a postponement, the Board considers a variety 0f factors including:

• the adequacy of the reasons provided and the adequacy of any objection to the postponement;

• the number of postponements that have already been granted;

• whether the postponement will needlessly delay or impede the conduct of the hearing;

• whether the purpose for which the postponement is sought will contribute to the resolution of the matter;

• whether the postponement is required to provide a fair opportunity to be heard;

• the degree to which the need for the postponement arises out of the intentional actions or the neglect of the participant seeking the postponement;

• the prejudice to the other parties if a postponement is granted, balance against the prejudice to the applicant if the postponement is not granted

• any environmental impacts that may result from a postponement of the hearing;

• the public interest in the efficient and timely conduct of the appeal; and

• any other factors which may be relevant.

The Board notes that the hearing date was originally scheduled on April 20, 2010, and that there have been no previous postponement requests.

This is a relatively technical case with significant public interest. The assistance of counsel will be beneficial to the Appellant and the Board in these circumstances.

The Appellant advises that she has been trying to arrange for counsel since July. The Board has two letters from the Appellant (June 14, 2010 and July 14, 2010) which indicate that she has been working on her case since the hearing was set down; therefore, her request for a postponement does not appear to be out 0f inattention or neglect.

The AAC says that it will be prejudiced and suffer economic hardship, but does not explain what type of economic hardship or why this will happen as a result of postponement. There is no indication that the AAC is currently attempting to construct the plant and no indication of the actual impact that a three- month delay will have.

Under the circumstances, the Board is satisfied that a postponement of the the hearing is justified to ensure that a fair and full hearing will occur. The Board is also satisfied that no prejudice will result from the postponement to the AAC, the environment, or to human health.

The Board is now cancelling the hearing that is scheduled for September 13-1, 2010. The Board is available to set new dates in December of 2010 or January of 2011. All parties are requested to advise of their availability during those 2 months. A response is requested by August 25, 2010.

New dates for the exchange of Statements of Points, documents and expert reports will be set down once a new hearing date is confirmed.

Yours truly

Alan Andison

Chair

Local Liberals’ biggest challenge is their leader

Sooner or later, we’re going to have another federal election, and the prospects in Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo riding aren’t overly appetizing.

Talk about a shallow gene pool. We’ll have to choose between a sitting Conservative MP nobody had heard of before the last election, a Green Party candidate nobody has heard of yet and never will, a New Democrat who has already lost two elections, and maybe a Liberal if anyone can be talked into it.

Yes, in case you’d forgotten, there is another Liberal party besides the one that screwed up the HST. The federal party has yet to find a candidate for Kamloops but not for lack of trying. After a year and a half of recruiting, the local Liberal association has so far come up empty handed.

This isn’t entirely surprising, given that the party’s leader has been such an under achiever.

Perhaps partly as a result, the Kamloops constituency association doesn’t show any obvious signs it is thriving and ready. It has no communications chair at the moment, Brenda Craig pleading lack of time and focusing her attention in the provincial Liberal realm (where they need all the help they can get). This might help explain the lack of profile for the local federal party.

Federal constituency president Murray Todd, though, says appearances can be deceiving. Membership numbers are “decent” and rising and a new communications chair will be in place after summer. And, a nomination meeting to pick a candidate is “in the offing.”

Reality is, nonetheless, that when federal leader Michael Ignatieff munches a hot dog on Victoria Street a couple of Monday mornings from now, there will be no local Liberal candidate beside him unless he appoints one.

Elections are mostly about the leader, a little about parties and policies, and a tiny bit about the candidate. Exciting, trusted leaders who capture the public imagination attract good candidates. We haven’t had such a leader in Canada for a long time.

The challenges facing the Kamloops federal Liberal party are reflected in its website, in which an anonymous blogger announces Ignatieff’s visit.

“This is Mr. Ignatieff’s third visit to Kamloops in less than two years (unlike Our Dear Leader who has never made an appearance here),” writes anonymous Liberal spokesperson.

He/she is incorrect on one score — Stephen Harper was here to take part in the official renaming ceremonies at TRU — but back to the point.

“Mr. Ignatieff is a different man in person than he is on television. He is personable, humorous, relaxed and outgoing and those of us who’ve had the pleasure of meeting the man in person, and listening to him speak ‘off the cuff,’ know that his TV persona is not who he is. Some of us just don’t film well….”

When a riding association feels it necessary to apologize for its national leader, and Liberal spokespersons prefer to remain anonymous, you know things aren’t totally copacetic.

After Ignatieff visited Kamloops a year and a half ago, I wrote that “Some people are comparing him to Pierre Trudeau as the guy who’s going to capture the imagination of the country and lead the Liberals back to power. Ignatieff doesn’t have the arrogant charisma of Trudeau; he’s certainly self-assured, but his style is much less edgy, more approachable.”

In short, I and many others were impressed. Since then, not so much.

Waiting for a plane at Vancouver airport last January, I picked up a copy of The Walrus magazine, in which political author Ron Graham deftly dissected Ignatieff’s failure to deliver. The article was cover-titled “Lost Leader, why Michael Ignatieff hasn’t knocked our socks off.”

It was a lengthy piece, but Graham summed it up pretty well when he wrote, “If a political leader isn’t exceptionally clear and courageous about what he wants to accomplish in the face of the demands and wrath of the elites, he has to have a transcending connection to the people. Ignatieff has demonstrated neither.”

On comparisons to Trudeau, Graham wrote that there’s no evidence Ignatieff has Trudeau’s sense of purpose and principle in entering public life. “Trudeau could sum up his in one sentence; Ignatieff couldn’t sum up his in a dozen books.”

In short, Ignatieff’s resume looks very attractive, but he hasn’t been able to explain what he wants to do with power if voters give it to him.

So, Ignatieff will come to town, have a decaf at Cowboy Coffee, probably buy a new pair of boots at the Big Boot Inn, and give the local riding association a boost in its efforts to find somebody to run for them when the writ is eventually dropped.

How much easier it would be if Ignatieff had turned out to be The One. There’s not a lot a local riding group can do if the national leader isn’t winning hearts and minds. Throw-away candidates quite often surprise everyone, but they need a leader with big coattails.

Unless Ignatieff catches fire, or Harper becomes even more proficient than he is now at offending Canadians, polls showing the race between Tories and Grits getting tighter will be nothing more than a blip, and we’ll end up with another clinker of a local campaign in which the incumbent is favoured by default.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

http://www.armchairmayor.wordpress.com

Thinking today about the past four decades

“Did it strike you as interesting that, almost 40 years to the day since you started at the paper, you were covering a story a block and a half away?” Syd asked me on the weekend.

I hadn’t thought about it, but it’s true that, Friday night, I spent about three hours at a crime scene on Tranquille Road, just a short walk away from 309 Tranquille Road, the little building that housed the Kamloops News Advertiser when I started work there in 1970.

As reporter Michele Young and I nosed about trying to find people who knew something about the police shooting of 50-year-old Wilbert Bartley, one of those we talked to was Rob Phillips, who owns the car wash  and gas bar where the shooting took place.

Rob’s been in business there for a long time and he  remembered when I and others from the News Advertiser would stroll down Tranquille Road to a coffee shop called Eva’s. We reminisced briefly about those days, in between talking about the terrible shooting incident.

In many ways, Tranquille Road is the same quaint shopping street it was four decades ago, but it, and Kamloops, have grown tremendously.

Today, Aug. 3, is the actual anniversary date of my start at the paper. I’m taking the day off, not in celebration, but only because I needed a day off and it worked out that way. I’m not sure it’s a good idea — it seems as though I should be there on this day.

On the other hand, it’ll give me a chance for some quiet reflection on the past 40 years.