Recall campaign all fun and games

The recall campaign is being compared to the TV reality show Survivor. It’s more like rock, paper, scissors, played by children.

Fight HST is threatening to vote Liberal MLAs “off the island.” Kamloops-North Thompson isn’t an island, exactly, but Terry Lake is telling Fight HST to “stuff it.”

Such is the current state of our democracy. Ordinary people with brains that think logically gave up some time ago trying to figure out what Fight HST is really trying to do with recall. The group has changed its strategy so many times I’m starting to lose track, but here are a few highlights:

Last May, local anti-HST organizer Chad Moats declared that if the “bill portion” of the petition was not passed by Oct. 31 of this year, a recall on Terry Lake would go ahead. He said either the government must pass the bill scrapping the HST or put it to a referendum.

In June, petition organizer Bill Vander Zalm announced a “hit list” of 24 Liberal MLAs who would be targeted for recall if the HST was not withdrawn. Both Lake and Kevin Krueger were on it.

In August, after the successful petition was stalled in the Elections B.C. office, Vander Zalm declared there would be “total recall” of the entire B.C. Liberal caucus. Moats said he would gear up to recall both Lake and Krueger.

After Lake’s committee ignored Fight HST’s demand to refer the issue to a debate in the legislature, the group demanded that the government hold the referendum early or recall would proceed.

This week, it’s no longer all 48 Liberal members, nor even 24 Liberal members, but a “competition” among 18 ridings to create a new hit list. Lake is among them; Krueger is not.

Gone is outright reference to ditching the HST; all demands now relate strictly to the referendum.

Lake, who, at times, has sounded almost conciliatory to the anti-HSTers, is anything but these days. “I think (Fight HST organizer Chris) Delaney is a bully, quite frankly,” he’s quoted as saying. “He’s not going to be satisfied until he gets his way like a petulant child, and as far as I’m concern, he can get stuffed.”

And your mother wears army boots, and my dad can beat your dad.

As she leads the New Democrats in support of Vander Zalm’s Survivor Game, Carole James says, “It’s time for the premier to stop playing games.”

Right, and we’ll all stop playing politics while we’re at it.

Of course, there’s a caveat to the latest iteration of the Fight HST Game. All the Liberals have to do now is obey an expanded ultimatum and — says Fight HST — recall will go away.

One, the referendum must be decided by a simple majority. Premier Campbell has already said that will be the case.

Two, it must be binding on the government. Campbell says it will be, but he doesn’t want to put it in writing.

Three, it must be held under the “legally binding” Referendum Act. No problem there.

Four, the question must be drafted by Elections B.C. and be approved by both the government and Fight HST. Campbell hasn’t gone that far, but says the question will be simple and absolutely clear.

Five, the referendum must be held this year.

Oops. The last is a non-starter. So, recall will go ahead based on this strange new set of Survivor guidelines. That is, until Fight HST changes the rules of its own game once again.

FOX NEWS WINNIPEG: Who do you suppose is a good friend of Charles Adler, the Winnipeg radio mouth heard locally on CHNL, and invited to join the Canadian version of Fox News? None other than that other familiar Winnipeg resident, Kim Sigurdson of Aboriginal Cogeneration Corp. The two often go walking together to catch a bit of fresh air and exercise.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

http://www.armchairmayor.wordpress.com

If long-tun registry is broken, just fix it

When I was a kid, I walked into our hometown hardware store and bought a Lee Enfield .303. The Lee Enfield was the main weapon of British and Canadian soldiers in two world wars; with alterations to the heavy wooden stock, it became an effective hunting rifle.

It had an eight- or 10-round detachable magazine, as I recall, and packed quite a wallop. It tended to be a bit finicky accuracy-wise, but, all in all, it was an efficient killing machine.

Though it might have killed some people in war, I don’t remember it hitting anything other than tin cans while in my possession, partly because neither I nor the rifle was very accurate, and because I soon gave up on the whole notion of killing things as a legitimate hobby.

When I think about it, though, the ease with which I became the owner of a high-powered killing weapon is a bit scary. No training was required, no permit for the gun, no rules on storage.

You walked into a store, laid down your money, and left with a rifle, tossing it in the back seat of your jalopy or carrying it home.

Some might call that the good old days. Things are different now. Now, you have to go through quite a rigmarole to own and keep a long gun. Rules, lots of them. Some would like to see a return to the good old days; at least the days before long-gun registration.

The return to work by our MPs started out with an exchange in the House yesterday on the long-gun registry, a preview of what’s to come tomorrow when they vote on whether to keep it or scrap it.

The Conservatives want to scrap it, though I haven’t yet figured out how that fits in with their avowed determination to get tough on crime. Opposition parties appear to have the numbers now to keep the registry, though changes to it are likely.

But the fight will only recess to another day, a month, a year or five years from now. Central to the argument against a registry is that “criminals don’t register their guns.”

Okay, but there’s a first time for every criminal. The objective of a long-gun registry is to do something about the first-timers who use legal rifles and shotguns to do something bad.

Restricting handguns isn’t enough. Most deaths involving firearms are caused by rifles and shotguns, not handguns.

Every cop knows that one of the most dangerous calls to answer is a domestic dispute. Knowing whether or not there are firearms in the house is important information, and a registry is the only way to get it.

Being able to make a home safer via a pre-emptive removal of firearms when a family is degenerating toward violence can also be a lifesaver.

Let’s not forget, either, that many suicides of “law-abiding citizens” are carried out with long guns. Most, by the way, occur in rural areas, the supposed stronghold of anti-gun-registry sentiment.

The fact guns are registered isn’t always going to be enough, and nobody’s saying otherwise. But the police chiefs of Canada, as well as doctors and victims’ groups, believe it’s an important tool against the use of firearms for criminal purposes.

And the poll that supposedly showed rank-and-file police oppose the registry has pretty much been discredited.

A few years ago, there was an incident in a rural area not far from Kamloops in which a young man holed up in a house threatening to shoot people.

More recently, a teen killed himself with a rifle.

In the first case, the situation was diffused without harm. I’m guessing one of the first things police did was to check the registry to see what guns were in the house.

In the second case, had authorities been aware this young person was at risk, they could have checked the registry. They weren’t, but without a registry there’s less chance of heading off a tragedy in such a situation.

If the registry is wasteful and inefficient, fix it through the politics of cooperation. Instead, the Tories are playing the politics of division, rolling the dice in hopes of scoring an advantage by painting supporters of the registry as urbanites out of touch with rural constituents.

I’d say it’s the Tories who are out of touch.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

http://www.armchairmayor.wordpress.com

When is an enviro appeal not an appeal?

I’m still scratching my head over the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board’s decision in the Ruth Madsen-ACC case.

For months, Madsen says she doesn’t trust ACC president Kim Sigurdson’s promise not to build his cogeneration plant in Kamloops. For this reason, she says over and over, the appeal must be pursued.

Then comes last week. Suddenly, she believes Sigurdson when he says he won’t build here. Therefore, the appeal should not be pursued. But her lawyer, Glen Bell of Vancouver, says Madsen’s appeal should be kept on file at the appeal board just in case.

In my view, the board should have said, “Look, either you’re appealing or you are not. If ACC ever says it’s going to build in Kamloops, then you have a right to file a new appeal. But you can’t just keep an appeal around forever without acting on it. Make up your mind.”

But this appeal board, time after time, has given Madsen what she wants. Here are some excerpts from the decision:

“[16] This is an unusual application for the Board. It is unusual because there is no indication that the rights under the permit will ever be exercised and yet the Permit Holder wants the appeal to proceed, despite the time and expense involved in preparing for and attending an appeal hearing and the uncertain outcome. 

 ”[17] In considering this application, the Board finds that the factors that weigh in favour of the adjournment are as follows: 

1. the permit authorizes emissions from a specific site/facility in Kamloops; 
2. the focus of the appeal, as evidenced by the grounds for appeal, is on the impact of the emissions on the residents and environment of Kamloops – it is this particular air shed and environment that will be the focus of the evidence and argument; 
3. if ACC has no intention of building the facility in Kamloops, the relevance of the evidence and argument, and the appeal generally, is lost; and 
4. the hearing of this appeal will require the expenditure of public money. 

“[18] At the present time, there is no evidence that the permitted plant will be built on the Kamloops site; in fact, the best evidence before the Board is that it will not be built there. As a result, if the Board accedes to ACC’s request for the hearing to proceed in December, the Board’s decision, whether it confirms, reverses or varies the permit, becomes purely academic. While the decision may be of some general interest, it comes at significant expense not only to the Appellant, but also to the BC public. 

“[19] The Board has considered the submissions of ACC that the existence of a suspended appeal is a significant encumbrance to ACC because it hinders future actions by the company in BC and other jurisdictions. However, ACC does not explain how the appeal encumbers ACC or what those “future actions” may be. Therefore, the Board is unable to evaluate or assess the likelihood or extent of the alleged impact. 

 ”[20] Conversely, what is known is that the Ministry considered ACC’s application and ultimately decided to issue the permit. Although there is an appeal of the permit, the appeal does not operate as a stay and no stay has been ordered. In other words, ACC has a valid enforceable permit and may lawfully exercise those rights regardless of whether there is an appeal. ACC’s statement that the appeal poses a significant encumbrance is therefore questionable, particularly if ACC does not intend to exercise the rights under this permit in Kamloops. Further, there is no legal prohibition to ACC obtaining a similar permit from the Ministry or a regulatory agency in another jurisdiction in order to construct a similar facility in a different location. Each permit application is decided on its own merits. 

“[21] Based on the above considerations, the Board simply cannot justify holding a four-day oral hearing, considering technical evidence on the impact of the permit on the air quality and environment of Kamloops, when the uncontested evidence is that the Permit Holder does not intend to exercise its rights under the permit in that location. Accordingly, the application to adjourn the hearing sine die is granted. 

“[22] However, should the facts underlying this decision change, the active status of the appeal may be restored and a hearing scheduled provided the conditions described in the order below are met.”

No sour grapes on the Games: Not!

“The fix was in.”

“Stink town got it.”

This bidding for tournaments stuff is nasty business. Comments came fast and heavy to the provincial government’s Livestream website during and after yesterday’s announcement that Prince George will host the 2015 Canada Winter Games.

The online real-time feedback was the most interesting part of the Vancouver press conference held to reveal whether Kamloops, Kelowna or P.G. would be declared winner of the hosting sweeps.

Many of the comments were good-natured jibes from one city to another; some were unflattering, like the one that said, “Prince George you have to be kidding. What a hole.”

“Big White sucks,” opined another.

Many of the swipes at rivals were based on geography or weather.

“Kamloops is a desert, not a winter capital,” one commenter wrote.

“Lots of snow in Kelowna,” said another. “And fog.”

As Premier Campbell took to the microphone, the tone and focus changed from city-to-city rivalry to political commentary, and there was nothing very light-hearted about it.

“Shut up Gordon and tell us who gets the Games,” one impatient viewer wrote during his speech. Another wanted to know how much the HST would be on the Games.

“He is going to announce the Games decision is going to a B.C.-wide referendum,” predicted one wag.

They even criticized his technique as he applauded a parade of costumed young people who were part of the ceremony. And when he swayed in rhythm to the music, quick reviews came in, concluding that Gordon Campbell can’t dance.

Surprisingly, nobody picked up on the premier’s reference to the 1993 “winter Games” held in Kamloops. Those, of course, were summer Games.

When it was over, and comments of the “stink town” variety subsided, there was something of a reconciliation.

“Can’t we all just get along?” urged one commenter.

“Group hugs,” suggested another.

My two cents: nobody can possibly say politics didn’t come into it, when the city with far-and-away the best sports facilities and organization, together with a proven track record, is passed over.

But let us pity poor Prince George, which has been going through some tough economic times, and besides that is, well, Prince George.

To borrow a line from Winston Churchill, “Tomorrow morning, Madam, Kamloops will be Canada’s Tournament Capital, and you’ll still have to live in Prince George.”

THE TIES THAT BIND: Meanwhile, back at the gasification plant. . . .

In my books, Glen W. Bell, lawyer, is a pretty sharp cookie. He’s the Vancouver attorney who belatedly agreed to take on Ruth Madsen’s appeal of the Aboriginal Cogeneration Corp.’s environmental permit on her behalf.

Faced with an unwinnable appeal, Bell has snatched something akin to victory from the jaws of certain defeat, and — with the co-operation of the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board — stuck it to ACC.

As of Thursday, Madsen’s appeal is on indefinite hold, plunging ACC into never-never land. Bell, it would seem, discovered a couple of weeks ago that ACC has no intention of building a gasification plant in Kamloops, but wants to hang on to the permit to help smooth the way for finding another location and, probably, new investors.

Madsen’s appeal has been irrelevant since the day ACC president Kim Sigurdson promised to leave town. What took Bell so long to become aware of this, I’m not certain, but a conversation on that point between reasonable people might have gone something like this:

LAWYER: Let’s all save ourselves a bunch of time and money. How about you promise in writing not to build in Kamloops, and we’ll drop the appeal.

ACC: Done. Draw something up and we’ll both sign.

That would assuage the fears that ACC might change its mind, and leave ACC unencumbered in looking for a new home.

Instead, Bell made another proposition: “On behalf of the Appellant, I offered to abandon the appeal if ACC would abandon the permit.”

Of course, if ACC didn’t want the permit, it would simply have told the environment ministry months ago. The “offer” was a non-sequitur.

“Rejection of our offer” in hand, Bell went to the appeal board with the claim that Sigurdson was “manipulating the permitting process,” and asked for an indefinite adjournment.

The appeal board, ever ready to accommodate Madsen, ruled in due coarse that it was all right with them. And it went even further, adding an extra set of handcuffs: “This order (for indefinite adjournment) may be rescinded on the presentation of substantive or compelling evidence from any party that the rights under the permit are being . . . exercised in Kamloops. . . .”

So, Madsen doesn’t have to spend another dime, much less prove her case.

As Sigurdson said yesterday, “For a $25 (appeal) fee, you can stop everything.”