Maximize freedom of expression

Korean and English signs, North Road/Austin.

This afternoon, my council colleagues and I received an email from a Coquitlam resident who is upset with the growing number of non-English signs in the Austin-North Road area. The resident called on City Council to take immediate action to ensure that signage is in English. The note declared, "...something needs to be done now before it gets any worse." Here is my response:

Thanks for your note re foreign-language signage. We read about language issues most often in relation to Quebec's stringent pro-French laws. Whenever I think about the situation there, I recall the fundamental principle of freedom of expression that is embedded in our Charter. Quebec has skirted the Charter, however, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, which is any province's right.

Here in BC, I think we have a greater respect for free speech, free expression and free thought, and we are not so threatened by "other" languages. Personally, I also like to see free markets at work, and do not want to micromanage people's businesses. I therefore would view any attempt to force business operators to advertise in English as an unjustifiable assault on some of the basic freedoms that we so cherish in Canada.

UPDATE (March 15): Some Richmond residents are in the news this morning, complaining there's too much Chinese-language signage in that community. They will be appearing before Richmond council next week, armed with a 1,000-name petition, calling for mandatory English or French content.

Horne stands with Clark

You might have seen a story in yesterday's Coquitlam Now, headlined with the declaration that BC Liberal MLA Doug Horne was refusing to support Premier Christy Clark. The exact words were, "Horne won't back premier." I was quite surprised to see those words, and in carefully reading through the text of the story, I concluded that there was a strong possibly Horne had been misunderstood.

Today, Horne, who represents the riding in which I live, made it clear that he continues to support Premier Clark. He has now released the text of a letter he has sent to the editor of the Now, setting the record straight. Given the import of this issue, I have concluded that it would be in the public interest for me to share the full text with readers of this blog, so here goes:

Horne released this photo today to show his support for Clark

I feel that it is important for me to set the record straight and clarify my position. The headline that appeared on the front page of Wednesday’s NOW is misleading and simply not true. I do support Premier Christy Clark and our Party. I am and will be the BC Liberal Candidate for Coquitlam – Burke Mountain. Based upon my record of service to our community, including the Evergreen Line, new and expanded schools, more beds at Eagle Ridge Hospital and funding for local arts, sports and community organizations , I hope to be re-elected May 14^th and have the privilege to continue to serve as your MLA in Victoria.

Douglas Horne, MLA Coquitlam – Burke Mountain

Celebrate Coquitlam River success

Page from the City's Coquitlam River Water Quality Monitoring Report

Ponderous, doom-and-gloom predictions from the sky-is-falling eco-hysterical crowd are routine fare in the mainstream media, even as increasing scientific evidence shows that we have reason for optimism. I’ve been chronicling many of the good-news reports over the past year on my Facebook page.  And I certainly hope to add another link to this list of good-news stories tomorrow, when our two local newspapers publish. [Yup, here's a link to the Tri-City News' story. And here's a link to the Now's story.]

That’s because the City of Coquitlam has just released a report finding that, contrary to the impression left by the annual ritual of naming the Coquitlam River to the list of the province’s “most endangered rivers,” the river is actually exceedingly healthy.

I personally am gratified with this finding because, as chair of the Coquitlam River Aggregate Committee (which seeks to balance the needs of the important gravel-extraction operations along the river, with those of the environment), I stuck my neck out last spring when Mark Angelo, Rivers Chair of the Outdoor Recreation Council, once again slapped the “endangered” label on the river.

I responded by saying that everything I was hearing at the committee—from groups as diverse as our own environmental experts to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans—had led me to conclude that the river was not, in fact, endangered. My decision to speak up, for the good work that had been done by the committee and many others, led to no small bit of controversy.

It also led directly to my decision to press the City to conduct its own, unique water-quality tests. After all,  the City has a great many storm-sewer outfalls that pour water directly into the river; it only made sense that we should know what’s coming out of them.

Yesterday, we found out.  The Coquitlam River Water Quality Monitoring Update report declares that “sampling results for the 2012 Coquitlam River water quality monitoring program indicate overall positive watershed health, with the majority of parameters being achieved at all locations during both dry and wet weather conditions.”  Significantly, the few problems that were identified (slightly low dissolved oxygen levels throughout the river and an elevated dissolved-copper level in the Riverbend area) cannot be attributed to the aggregate operators.

Let there be no misunderstanding: this is great news! It shows that the gravel operators are acting responsibly; it shows that committed, focused efforts by government workers, environmentalists, nature lovers and ordinary volunteers can make a difference; and it shows that the Coquitlam River is alive, vibrant and healthy. Truly, this is something to celebrate.

The cult of the pink shirt

Well, I survived Pink Shirt Day yesterday without wearing pink. But that doesn't mean I wasn't thinking about the pernicious practice of bullying and also about the troublesome aspects of the current anti-bullying climate. I'm glad to see that the Province newspaper is also on my wavelength; its front-page featuring of Jon Ferry's column (which I Facebooked about yesterday) was right on the mark.

Tellingly, at a meeting of a local organization yesterday, a pink-shirt-wearing board member congratulated me on the nice pink shirt I was wearing. He did it with such a straight face that I thought for a moment that maybe I had made a mistake and had actually worn one. Turns out he was just ribbing me, but it was the sort of "kidding on the straight" or "happy-faced criticism" that is designed to make a point.

But what exactly is going on when this sort of thing happens -- when you know you're taking a brave step by not wear a pink shirt? And where is it leading? On the latter question, I think that, given the direction we're going, popular culture will soon be treating bullying victims as quasi-celebrities. And, perversely, that will only encourage more vulnerable people to assume the mantle of victimhood. Can we be far from the day when emotionally needy teens willingly take on the role of bullying victims so they can be "special" and stand out? Remember: "that which you celebrate you encourage."

And given this, can we be far from the moment when we see a youngster strolling in the mall wearing a button reading: "PROUD to be a victim of BULLYING."  It seems far-fetched, but it may yet come to pass.

Ever since the media frenzy over Amanda Todd's suicide, I have been increasingly concerned about the simplification, sensationalization and politicization of the bullying issue. One of the concerns, specifically related to Todd, was a possible unintended consequence of publicizing teen suicides -- that of perversely persuading teens to contemplate taking their own life. Call this the contagion effect.

On the general issue of bullying, I sense we are in the midst of some sort of moral panic, in which everyone is running around with their pants on fire, united only by their hyperventilated mantra that “we have to do something”.  As one writer put it recently, this has consumed all too much “cultural oxygen.”

Do we really think that wearing a pink shirt will do much more than increase the ratings of the sponsoring radio station and pad the bottom line of clothing retailers? Oh yes, we’ll be seen to be “taking a stand”. But what will we do back home, in the workplace, at the community centre, or in school on the other 364 days of the year?

Slate.com editor and New York Times writer Emily Bazelon has written an important new book called Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy. In a recent interview with the National Post, Bazelon said she believes people at large are ready for a more nuanced discussion about bullying and less hysteria.  “I feel like [it] was so overblown and sensationalized that there’s a pushback. [Bullying] is a serious problem; it’s just not an epidemic,” she said.

So what’s the discussion we need to have that goes beyond the simple pink-shirt message of “standing up to bullies and stopping bullying when we see it happening”? Is it looking into whether we should enact a bylaw allowing police officers to ticket people who are being impolite or offensive – the sort of talk that could be construed as bullying? A neighbouring city is looking at just such a bylaw. But I, for one, think such a bylaw smacks of Big Sister, nanny-state-ism that sends exactly the wrong sort of message.

What we need to encourage is not rules from on high about how to be polite to each other, but personal responsibility and character-building. And that starts at the home, and then in community gathering places such as churches, synagogues and temples, and then in schools and the workplace. Respect and love others as you respect and love yourself.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you – that’s the golden rule, and that’s a fundamentally moral stance that we  -- and by we, I especially mean mothers and fathers – have to inculcate in our children.

So, join the throngs and wear a pink shirt the next time the big day rolls around, if you must. But if you want to do something truly positive, a better bet would be to follow the example of a group of students from Maple Creek Middle School who visited Council a few weeks ago, and perform a Random Act of Kindness.   

All hail rationality and nuance

The popular culture is drowning in sentimentality and simplification. As an adherent of rational and nuanced thinking, this disturbs me. And it should disturb you, too.

From the gross simplifications surrounding the alleged bullying epidemic to the brainless pap we are constantly fed about climate change, the public understanding about key issues is woefully poor.

Coke's nauseating campaign. (photo from wwf site)

This is why I was heartened, when reading the offerings of two leading Canadian newspapers this morning, to see some clear thinking on the two issues I mentioned above. The National Post's interview with author Emily Bazelon about bullying (not on-line yet, but to be found on A3 of the print edition) is a must read in advance of Pink Shirt Day on Feb. 27. (And, you're correct: I won't be wearing a pink shirt on Wednesday.)

And Margaret Wente's column in the Globe and Mail, about the surprising health of the polar bear population, provides a powerful antidote to the nauseating Coca Cola-WWF save-the-polar-bears commercial pap that's routinely consumed by an easily duped public.

On this latter subject, I wrote an article for the Western Standard six years ago that comes to the same conclusions Ms. Wente has now come to. Here's the link to the story.

Ultimately, the truth will out.

Here's the full text to my polar-bear story:

The bear facts                

Canada’s Inuit say the polar bear isn’t threatened by global warming or hunting

  

Patterk Netser killed his first polar bear when he was 14, bagged about 30 more over the three decades since, and plans to keep shooting even more until he’s no longer able to hunt – come global-warming hell or Arctic Ocean high water. The hunt makes an Inuit male whole, Netser explains, and it’s just too bad for southern politicians and environmental activists who worry that the polar bear is threatened with extinction. “We are going to continue our hunting, yes,” affirms the soft-spoken Inuit, who lives in Coral Harbour, Nunavut with his wife and six children.

Netser’s opinions on this increasingly controversial subject are important because he just happens to be Nunavut’s environment minister. Moreover, his opinion is especially noteworthy because it not only rebuts southerners’ assumptions about the fate of the polar bear, but also directly challenges some key myths that fuel current global-warming concern.

That the campaign against global warming is an emotional one should go without saying. Most environmental campaigns are. Witness the fact that environmental groups have long focused on big-eyed mammals to pluck the right emotional strings in the hearts of prospective donors. That’s why campaigns against the Newfoundland seal hunt seem never to end, while campaigns to save endangered snakes or insects are non-existent.

And so it is that environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund have begun using images of the polar bear to draw the world’s attention to the global warming issue. Their argument goes something like this: 1. Humans should cut back on their emissions of greenhouse gases because, 2. Those gases are warming the atmosphere at an alarming rate, which means that, 3. Temperatures in the Arctic are rising, which causes, 4. Sea ice to form less frequently, which in turn means that, 5. Polar bears are losing the icy platforms from which they can hunt for seals, which means, 6. The bears might die off because of global warming, which leads directly to the grand finale, which is a plea to, 7. Give us money so we can fight global warming and save the polar bear.

Peter Ewins, the WWF’s Toronto-based director of species conservation, believes polar bear are, indeed, threatened, and makes no apologies for the fund’s new anti-global-warming campaign, in which polar bears are given a starring role. “You can call it an icon, a flagship or a canary in a coal mine,” Ewins says. “This is an indicator of some impact of something that humanity is doing, something that is going on, and it’s expressed in a simple way by the polar bear.”

However, all that’s known for sure about the world’s polar bear population is that it is in flux. It is stable in many areas, decreasing in a few and increasing in a few others, according to a new status table compiled by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union. Lily Peacock, the government of Nunavut’s polar bear biologist, reveals there are large gaps in the research, and that experts can’t truthfully say whether the overall population is rising or falling. “That’s why, when we talk about the entire world’s population, we say between 20,000 and 25,000,” Peacock says. But if this figure is accurate, then polar bear numbers have actually more than doubled in the past half century. More than half the world’s polar bears can be found in Canada, and about 90 percent of these make their homes in Nunavut.

Concern over the polar bear is directly linked to a single study of one isolated population in western Hudson’s Bay, which found a 25-per-cent decrease in the group’s population. Now, environmentalists are pressing for the U.S. government to list the polar bear as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. There’s also a push to have the bear listed as a species of “special concern” under the Canada Species at Risk Act. Either designation could lead to the curtailing or elimination of the lucrative sport-hunting industry in Nunavut, which McGill anthropologist George Wenzel says pumps $20,000 into the local economy for each of the 70 or 80 bears killed by well-heeled southern hunters every year. “So it’s a significant amount of money,” he says, “especially in a place where money does not grow.”

Sport hunting accounts for only about 17 percent of the annual polar-bear harvest. The rest are taken by Inuit hunters for food and the sale of furs, which can fetch about $150 per foot, says Wenzel. This hunt is threatened too, but Netser says his people will never give it up because of its profound cultural value to the Inuit. “It gives you a sense of pride on being able to hunt, and I can’t really put it in words, but it is so very important to our culture and society,” he says.

Netser explains that the Inuit have always used their intimate knowledge of their harsh land to manage the polar bear hunt wisely, and they will continue to do so, regardless of outside influence. Their on-the-ground observations tell them that polar bear continue to be plentiful, he says. He acknowledges that the North does seem to be warming: freeze-up comes later and the spring melt comes earlier. But he says the Inuit have always been an adaptable people, and they’ll adapt now. Likewise, he believes the polar bear will adapt too. “In one of the zones, the population is increasing and they seem to be benefiting from the climate change,” he declares.

How so? “They spend more time on land. And there are an abundance of birds nesting in cliffs and in rock. And they hunt them during the summer.” As well, the bear sneak up on seals and walrus that might be basking in the sun. “So they’ve adapted really well.” After all, he agrees, adaptation is the natural way. Science tells us the polar bear themselves used to be land-bound creatures, but adapted to northern climes and to hunting from ice. And so Netser believes there’s no reason they simply can’t adapt again.

Coquitlam loses a cherished citizen

  One of our dear friends, Sue Haberger, passed away a few days ago. Cancer took her away at the relatively young age of 65. I've decided to write about her passing here because Sue was well known in the community in a variety of capacities: as a standout a math teacher at Centennial for many years and then, after "retirement," at Coquitlam College; as a singer with several community groups and as a solo artist with a "genius" memory for lyrics; and, most recently, as a passionate advocate for preservation of the Riverview lands. It was in that context that she and her mom, Liz Rowley, were featured in this Tri-City News story last year. Sue was awarded a Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal last month, but her illness prevented her from accepting the award in person.

  The picture I've reproduced here shows Sue (centre) with her daughter Kristina and mother at Liz's 90th birthday party last month. Sue is survived by those two and her son Erik. Sadly, Sue's husband, Achim (Kim), died last fall, also of cancer. May they rest in peace.
UPDATE: The Tri-City News has now published a lovely remembrance of Sue.

Regional policing? Show me the evidence

Tri-Cities 'regional policing' meeting. Photo by Terry O'Neill

You might have heard that members of the three Tri-Cities councils gathered for a closed-door meeting last night in Port Coquitlam to hear a pair of luminaries speak about regional policing. PoCo Mayor Greg Moore, who organized the meeting (and is chair of Metro Vancouver), blogged about the meeting this morning, so I now feel free to put my oar in the water, as well. And that oar will most definitely splash some cold water on the regional-police idea.

Neither of the two speakers,  Wally Oppal QC, a former BC Attorney-General and head of last year’s Missing Women Commission of Inquiry (which recommended a regional police force), nor Dr. Rick Parent, a former police officer who is now a professor at SFU’s Criminology Department, mounted anywhere near an effective argument in favour of regional policing.

In fact, while several of my colleagues and I entered the meeting with open minds on the subject, we left having been persuaded that there was precious little to support the idea of regional policing. I doubt that this outcome was the intent of the meeting, but it was surely the result among the Coquitlam Council members with whom I discussed the proceedings.

Mr. Oppal himself admitted, “a regional police force is not a panacea for everything, and they can make mistakes;” nevertheless, the many systemic communication and investigatory failures associated with the Missing Women case made it clear to him that a regional force is needed.

I asked Mr. Oppal whether he actually had any evidence to support this contention—whether it was a theoretical supposition he was making that a regional force would perform better than the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team that is now in place regionally (albeit without the participation of Vancouver, Port Moody and Delta*).  He offered no evidence, but did argue that a regional force would at least have a proper civilian oversight body in place.

Similarly, Dr. Parent was short on objective information. When he asserted that current “best practices” argued for regional policing, I said that “best practices” was one thing, but I was more interested in outcomes. I asked what the comparative outcomes are. He had no answer.

The fact that the professor’s PowerPoint presentation contained some annoying spelling errors (“two-tired” instead of “two-tiered,” for example), certainly didn’t help his case.

And neither Mr. Oppal nor Dr. Parent’s cause was helped by Assistant Commissioner Norm Lipinski, head of the RCMP in the Lower Mainland, who took it upon himself at meeting’s end to walk to the front of the room and provide some detailed information about the many steps undertaken by the RCMP in recent years to improve communication and coordination—integrated teams dealing with homicides, and the PRIME information-gathering system being in the forefront.

He also explained that a provincial intelligence centre now exists and that, in April, a Real Time Intelligence Centre will open, similar to New York’s increasingly famous Real Time Crime Center.

The bottom line is that much has already been done to modernize policing in the region, and that much of this modernization deals with issues that might be handled by the proposed regional police force. In light of this, and in light of the high approval rating that our police force receives in Coquitlam, not to mention the very good value-for-the-dollar, the ever-decreasing crime rate, and the excellent relationship Council has with our detachment, I’m prepared to declare that I am opposed to regional policing at present.

*I learned later that West Vancouver is also not participating in IHIT.

Towards housing affordability

Well, we were hard at it again this afternoon, talking yet again about affordable housing in response to this report. I had originally planned to deliver a formal speech in response to the report, but the discussion ended up being directed towards six specific questions, so I put my speech aside and dealt with the questions one by one. Much of the content of my address paralleled the speech I had prepared, however, so I've decided to reproduce it here. I should add that I was quite satisfied with the direction our discussion took this afternoon, as it is clear that council supports a move away from the vision statement I critique below, and also embraces the idea that we should focus our attention on "housing affordability" instead of the creation of subsidized "affordable housing." Progress is most definitely being made.

Graphic created with wordle.net

“The Reformer is always right about what's wrong. However, he's often wrong about what is right.” ― G.K. Chesterton

So here we go again. This is at least the third time we have been asked to have a wide-ranging discussion on affordable housing – albeit, one of those occasions being centred on the more defined issued of rental housing.  We have heard many broad policy philosophies and just as many narrow policy points from staff and from around the council table. Now is the time to refine our discussion even further.

Let’s start by looking at the framework in which we operate. It is important to note that, constitutionally, we are creatures of the Provincial Government, and our particular provincial government has enacted the Local Government Act. In turn, this act says that every community such as ours must have an Official Community Plan, and moreover, that every Official Community Plan must include local government policies for affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing. [Interestingly, Table 1, on Page nine, the “municipal scan” shows that several municipalities, including our immediate neighbor to the east, do not have Affordable Housing Strategies.] The LGA does not, however, say what those policies must be.

A previous council here in Coquitlam adopted an Affordable Housing Strategy in 2007, and it is that document we are now revisiting. There is much good in that strategy and I congratulate those who came before me – some of whom are still here on council today – for their fine work.

However. …..I believe that the 2007 policy has a fundamental flaw at its very heart – and that is its vision statement, which envisions a community in which, QUOTE, “All residents of Coquitlam will be able to live in safe, appropriate housing that is affordable for their income level.”  The discussion paper before us today asks whether this is still an appropriate vision to have. My answer, in a word: NO.

It is completely unrealistic, wholly untenable, absolutely unreachable – as long, that is, as we living in a free society in which our residents are taxed at a reasonable rate, and in which our desire to serve the less fortunate in our community is balanced with our ability to pay,…. and with our desire NOT to bring havoc to natural market forces that give birth to our economic prosperity and quality of life.

This vision statement is actually dangerous. Dangerous, not only because it would make micro-managing activists of city planners and cash cows out of taxpayers, but also because, in its breathtakingly broad imprecision, it blinds us to more practical, more targeted and, ultimately more attainable goals.

It is clear to me that, as it now stands, the vision statement would have the City enact a strategy that would see the city waste time and energy trying to reach a Utopian goal. Let’s back up for a minute and put this into context: Land prices are very high in Metro Vancouver. Our land supply is limited because of two natural and two man-made barriers, the natural being the ocean to the west and the mountains to the north, the man-made being the US border to the south and the agricultural land reserve, primarily to the east.

The problems associated with our limited land supply are exacerbated by our temperate climate and pleasing geography. Simply put, people want to live here, it’s getting crowded, and land values are skyrocketing because of it.  In a healthy economy, as ours is, this is entirely natural and unavoidable.

Where such circumstances lead to decreasing affordability, I suggest that there are limited actions that a municipal level government can and should embark upon, and one of them certainly isn’t to strive to ensure that, essentially, anyone at any income level who finds themselves in Coquitlam should be able to live in “appropriate housing” – whatever that means.

Moving forward with such a Utopian policy would have many adverse effects: it would surely put upward pressure on property taxes; it would surely divert resources from areas which are a city’s proper field of endeavor; and it would distort the social fabric of our community.

Why the latter? Because, it seems to me that it is inevitable that the burden of paying for an aggressive housing-affordability scheme would be shouldered by average-income property owners. But we know that the property-tax burden is already straining our typical homeowner’s resources. Adding to that burden will only make living in Coquitlam that much more unaffordable for them.  Ultimately, it will drive evermore middle-income families out of Coquitlam.

A further distortion occurs regarding land use. Every parcel of land that we give away or subsidize to allow “all residents to live in appropriate housing” will be taken out of the free market. Those parcels of land that are left in the market will, of course, be that much rarer, and, as a result, their price will rise.

Another way of looking at this is to recognize that if the market is deprived of downward pressure (which would normally be provided by lower-income people, but would have now left the market because their needs would have been met by subsidized housing), then prices on open-market lands will be higher, thus making them even more unaffordable for middle-income earners.

I am also concerned about the diversion of resources away from projects and programs that are more properly in the civic purview. I’m speaking here of such fundamental things as police services, fire protection, parks, recreational and cultural facilities, and maintenance of transportation networks.

Look at our annual Ipsos Reid poll. These are the areas the people of Coquitlam want us to focus our energies on. We should do what we were elected to do, not carry out the schemes of social alchemists.

So what do I see a commonsense Affordable Housing Strategy entailing? The primary answer is already alive and well in Coquitlam, and that is the city’s densification and housing-choices policies. Our recent decision to reduce parking-stall requirements for two-bedroom apartments in rapid-transit zones will also help.  We can do more. We must redouble our efforts to reduce red tape in all areas of civic endeavor.  Time is money, and, for example, the more efficiently homebuilders can do the job in Coquitlam, the more affordable housing will be. Finding ways to fast-track a non-profit agency’s plan for an affordable rental project is a great example of the work we should be doing.

Let’s also take a fresh look at how we can encourage the construction of secondary suites in our community.   We’re already doing a pretty good job of it, but tapping more deeply into this resource could prove to be a bonanza. I support the report’s suggestion to explore “lock off suites”.

At the same time, we can and should continue to help the most vulnerable and needy in our society. Our donation of the property at 3030 Gordon, for a homeless shelter and transition home, is the best example of a well-targetted, well-intentioned, well-delivered action. So too the Como Lake single-mothers’ building being run by the Y.

And this leads to a related point. The city is growing an affordable-housing fund which has now reached $1 million. Yet, this fund remained untouched while the city participated in the two projects I just mentioned. I don’t understand why. Could not the fund have been used to reimburse the city – that is, the taxpayer – for the land it donated to the two aforementioned projects?

It’s also important to note that the discussion paper before us today suggests that even if the fund were to reach $25 million or so, it would be able to make only a very small dent in the affordability issue. Perhaps, then, the best course is to collapse the fund, move the monies into general revenue for the benefit of all citizens, and concentrate our direct efforts elsewhere. I think the time has come to see how this money can be put to better use – in the service of all Coquitlam residents and for the common good.

Eagle Ridge Hospital to open new thrift shop

Passing along info about a new charitable enterprise in the Tri-Cities:

VOLUNTEERS WANTED FOR NEW EAGLE RIDGE HOSPITAL AUXILIARY THRIFT SHOP

For 37 years, Eagle Ridge Hospital Auxiliary has been diligently raising funds to support the equipment and patient comfort needs at Eagle Ridge Hospital.

Hospital Auxiliary members.

The Auxiliary will be opening a Thrift Shop business in Port Coquitlam as a means of expanding funding resources to meet some of the increased funding that will be necessary for the planned expansion of Eagle Ridge Hospital.

This business venture is in addition to the many current projects undertaken by the Auxiliary and, for that reason, numerous additional volunteers are needed beyond our current membership base.

Volunteering at the thrift shop will provide an opportunity to give back to the community, work in a friendly environment, receive job training, develop and practice work skills and be given the opportunity to experience a variety of duties.

THE THRIFT SHOP

Location: 2811B Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlam, BC 

OPENINGS FOR ALL SHIFT POSITIONS

Cashier, Customer Assistant (Floor Clerk), Sorting Clerk, Pricing Clerk. Shift Hours ­ Tuesdays to Saturdays 9:30-1:00 or 1:00 ­ 4:30 pm and Sundays from 11:30-3:30. No Experience Necessary ­ Training Will Be Provided As Needed

VOLUNTEER TODAY! - PLEASE CALL 604-939-9594

DONATIONS:
Please note that we are not able to accept donations until approximately the
first week of February.   Please call Vivian at 604-544-1470 if you wish to
be contacted when we are ready to take donations.

THINGS TO SAVE FOR DONATION: Housewares (no cracked or chipped); Clothing ­ clean, gently used, no tears or stains; Small appliances (clean and in working order); Baby and children clothing (no cribs or car seats); Pictures, frames, games, toys, sporting goods; Lamps, books, records, CDs, jewelry, purses
Greeting cards, wrapping paper, stationery; Craft supplies, fabrics, sewing accessories
Sheets, blankets, comforters, TV Trays; Pet dishes, small furniture and more.....
No electrical items (TVs, DVD players, etc.); No computers or monitors;  No microwaves; No baby car seats, cribs, walkers or strollers; No sofas, upholstered chairs or mattresses; No large furniture (entertainment units); No pillows.

Local gov't AG opens office

Good news from the Province. Most of the current Coquitlam council did not support the establishment of this office, but I was -- and remain -- a big supporter.

Auditor General for Local Government opens office

Basia Ruta

SURREY - British Columbia's first office of the Auditor General for Local Government (AGLG) has opened its doors, announced Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Bill Bennett today with B.C.'s first AGLG Basia Ruta alongside.

Recommended by the five-member Audit Council that oversees the office and subsequently appointed by government, Ruta took up her position on Jan. 15. The AGLG will conduct performance audits of local government operations and provide recommendations regarding economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The opening of the office fulfills a commitment made by Premier Christy Clark as part of her Families First agenda. It is also an example of how the government listens to British Columbians, as the idea was originally suggested by B.C. business groups to provide an additional level of accountability and transparency for taxpayers.

The first audits will begin by April 30. It will be up to the AGLG to choose what local government operations to focus on within the framework of the Auditor General for Local Government Act.

The AGLG will publish an annual service plan that will lay out the goals and objectives for the coming year and the following two years. The annual service plan will include the criteria used to determine the need for and priority of performance audits.

Quotes:

Bill Bennett, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development -

"This office is going to make a difference for B.C. families by making sure local governments are maximizing taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars. The bottom line is that it's about accountability to taxpayers. Basia Ruta is highly qualified and will be an asset for local governments. I look forward to the benefits Ms. Ruta's work will bring to local governments and taxpayers alike."

Basia Ruta, auditor general for local government -

"I'm excited to get started in this important and challenging position. I intend to make sure the AGLG is a valuable and objective resource for all of British Columbia's local governments, helping them provide the greatest possible value for every tax dollar they spend. Under my leadership, this office will be independent, accessible, fair and transparent as we carry out performance audits of local governments."

Laura Jones, executive vice-president, Canadian Federation of Independent Business -

"B.C.'s business owners are pleased the government has shown leadership by establishing an independent Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. Taxpayer accountability is always welcome. We are hopeful that municipalities will recognize the opportunity to provide British Columbians with greater transparency on how their tax dollars are spent and focus on providing the best value possible."

John Winter, CEO, BC Chamber of Commerce -

"Taxpayers and local governments will see real tangible benefits with the establishment of the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. Taxpayers will see increased transparency and accountability on how their tax dollars are spent while local governments will have a resource to enhance their decision-making process through the sharing of best practices."

Peter Fassbender, mayor of Langley -

"As a mayor of a local community I look forward to working with the new Auditor General for Local Government as we find ways to validate and improve the efficiency of local government finances. I know local governments are doing a good job and this office will show their commitment to serve all taxpayers and citizens interests!"

Learn More: www.aglg.ca

Multi-generational consultation

Concept sketch, from Coquitlam.ca

There aren't many times when a city gets to design an entire new neighbourhood from scratch, especially one that could end being home to 20,000 new residents. But that's the opportunity Coquitlam now has with the Partington Creek neighbourhood, which is being planned for the eastern slopes of Burke Mountain.
With neighbourhoods along the western slopes already well underway (and experiencing some growing pains too, I might add), it's important that the city gets Partington Creek, a good chunk of which the city itself owns, done right.
When the draft Neighbourhood Plan was unveiled late last fall, planners told Council they would present the plan to various stakeholder groups. But the thought struck me that all the usual suspects, including builders and residents' associations, weren't actually going to be the people living in Partington Creek; those folks are now in their teen or early 20s.
I therefore suggested that our planning department engage local high school and college students; let's hear what they have to say about shaping the future of Coquitlam.
With all this in mind, I was pleased that a list of upcoming public open houses, released this week, includes consultation meetings with both high school and college students, including a meeting at Douglas College. It will be very interesting to hear what they have to say.
Here is a list of some of the upcoming consultation events regarding the draft Partington Creek Neighbourhood Plan:

• Tonight (7 pm-9 pm, Council Committee Room): staff meeting with the PCNP Neighbourhood Working Group (staff will present the draft PCNP for feedback, similar to the presentation to the Dec. 10 2012 Council-in-Committee meeting). 
• Thursday, January 17 (7 pm-8 pm, Victoria Hall): North-East Coquitlam Ratepayers Association meeting - staff have been invited to present the draft PCNP. 
• Tuesday, February 19 (4 pm to 8 pm, Victoria Hall): Public Open House #1 
• Thursday, February 21 (11 am to 3 pm, Douglas College atrium): youth/student-focused Public Open House #2 (emphasis on engaging Douglas and Pinetree Secondary students) 
• Thursday, March 7 (4:15 pm-5:15pm): staff meeting with Coquitlam Youth Council.

What those assessments mean

Central Coquitlam residential high rises. (Photo by Terry O)

A friend of mine who is a long-time Coquitlam resident approached me at a party a few days ago and said he wanted to shake my hand. I asked why, and he said that it was obvious that I was doing a great job helping to run the City because he had just learned that the assessment on his home had risen by more than $60,000 and so he was pleased that his net worth had risen so sharply, so quickly.

As appreciative as I was of the compliment, I had to tell him that the increased assessment of that magnitude also likely means that he will be facing a higher-than-average property-tax increase this year -- not in the realm of Port Moody's average 6.65% jump, mind you, but still above the average 3.34% hike that Coquitlam homeowners will face this year.

He seemed a bit confused by my comment, so I did some explaining. And the thought then struck me that many other homeowners may be somewhat perplexed by our property-tax system as well, so here's an explanation.

When I joined with the majority on Council in the late fall in voting 8-1 in favour of adopting our most recent budget (more about which I'll discuss below), I did so knowing full well that the 3.34% residential increase would be applied exactly against only those whose property value rose (or fell) by the exact same figure that the average residential property's value in Coquitlam rose (or fell). And it turns out that the average Coquitlam home enjoyed an increase of 5.59% in its value, according to assessment figures made public earlier this month.

With this assessment figure now in hand, and with the knowledge of what its ultimate revenue needs for the year are, the City will now set one universal residential mill rate (which is amount of tax payable per dollar of the assessed value of a property) and apply that rate evenly against all residential properties. Follow the logic, and you'll see that if your home rose in value more than the average 5.59%, your tax increase will be more than 3.34%, and if it rose less (or even fell somewhat), your increase will be less or maybe you'll even enjoy a decrease.

I'm guessing that my friend's $60,000-plus assessment increase represents something like a 7% or 8% increase in assessed value, so his property-tax increase will be greater than the 3.34% average. For my part, our now-long-in-the-tooth Eagle Ridge home recorded an assessment increase of just under 1%, which means our property-tax increase will be lower than the 3.34% average.

(You find more details about the City's five-year financial plan here.)

And, while we're on the subject of the budget, I'd like to take this opportunity to get a few more things on the record. First, Council actually passed a budget increase of 2.95%.  The average homeowner faces the higher, 3.34% increase, because Council embraced a one-point "tax shift" that sees the commercial/business sector facing an increase of only 2.34%. We did this because the business-tax rate in Coquitlam is among the highest in the region, and we are attempting to lower it to somewhere around the middle of the pack.

Some readers might recall that, in the last election, I signed the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses' pledge, promising to work towards business-tax reductions. I am happy to report that, for the second year in a row, the majority of Council has voted for a one-point tax shift.

I am also pleased that, for the second year in a row, we have reduced the overall rate of property-tax increase in the City -- another one of my promises. As stated above, the average increase for 2013 is 2.95%; in 2012, it was 3.16%; and in 2011, it was 3.18%.

I believe we are headed in the right direction, and I will continue to work towards greater fiscal responsibility and a lower rate of property-tax-increase growth, while also meeting the legitimate needs of Coquitlam residents.

Transit optimization explained

Most of my council colleagues and I just spent the past 90 minutes talking with Translink folks about "service optimization" in Coquitlam. This is the latest step in a months-long process leading up to some significant changes by mid to late 2013.
The biggest sticking point involves service to Burke Mountain. A new direct route linking Coquitlam Centre to the intersection of Coast Meridian and David is being planned. That is good. But concerns were expressed that the service isn't keeping up with the fast pace of growth in the area, and that some better community-bus-type service into the neighbourhoods is needed now.
Apparently, the same general conversation took place at an open house a few weeks ago, and some residents left with the impression that one Translink official had said that if people want front-door service, they should move into existing medium or high density neighbourhoods that are already getting such service, and that they should never expect such service on Burke Mountain. This alleged declaration was repeated at council.
We brought this up at our meeting today, and the official in question issued a mea culpa, saying that his remarks came in the midst of what he considered to be a philosophical discussion, and that he never meant to say that Burke Mountain would never get good transit service.
In fact, as explained by session leader Marisa Espinosa, Translink is working diligently, by way of annual optimization and service performance reviews, to try to keep up with changing and growing population. Apparently, the last time the Tri-Cities area enjoyed an Area Transportation Plan update was 12 years ago. A new one is now in the works, though.
All in all, a good meeting.

Committee and board appointments are set

I am pleased to report that I will be taking on more responsibilities around City Hall in the coming year. That's because, in addition to retaining all my current committee and board appointments, I will also be City Council's representative on the board of the Coquitlam Public Library for 2013. Here's the complete list of my posts:

Coquitlam Public Library: council representative
Coquitlam River Aggregate Committee: chair
City/School Board Liaison Committee: chair
Arts and Culture Advisory Committee: vice-chair
Parcel Tax Review Panel: vice-chair

As well, Council has put my name forward to serve on Metro Vancouver's Regional Culture Committee. And, finally, my turn as Acting Mayor will be May 2-June 10.

Good news about the Coquitlam River

You might remember that, several months ago, an enviro-activist included the Coquitlam River on a list of allegedly "endangered" rivers in B.C., and I responded in council by saying that, in fact, the river was doing very well.

Heavy natural runoff in a Coquitlam stream in
the Westwood Plateau area, Dec. 4. (photo by Terry O)

However, I was challenged by some local residents to explain how I could conclude this when the City itself didn't know what was being discharged into the river from its storm sewers. It turns out that they had a good point.

One thing led to another and, after some meetings with City staff during which I, acting as chair of the Coquitlam River Aggregate Committee, pressed for the sort of testing that the residents were suggesting , I am proud to say that the City has now started a comprehensive testing program.

This should finally be able to determine to what extent any siltation that gets into the river (and much less siltation is taking place in recent years, anyway) is attributable to natural sources, storm-sewer discharges, or the aggregate (gravel) operations alongside the river in the north-central portion of the City.

Here's the text of the press release that the City issued about the testing program this morning:

Coquitlam River Water Quality Monitoring Underway


COQUITLAM, BC, December 4, 2012 – City of Coquitlam has begun water quality monitoring of the Coquitlam River to help build a reliable and current database of water quality information. The resultant data will be a huge tool to inform the community about the watershed's health in its urban environment.

“The City has looked at the monitoring and habitat restoration projects that have been undertaken along the Coquitlam River in recent years by various agencies and the many stewardship groups to see what kind of water quality monitoring data is available. While there's great work being done, consistent monitoring of the lower reaches of the River from the Coquitlam Dam to Colony Farm has not been occurring, so the City has developed a sampling program to help fill that gap," confirms Steffanie Warriner, Manager, Environmental Services.

The program involves a series of five sampling days at seven locations along the length of the Coquitlam River. Sampling will take place in the the late spring and the late fall so that both dry and wet season conditions are captured. The tests were selected on the basis of their importance to fisheries values and as indicators of healthy streams.

“Coquitlam River is a vital local asset, and Coquitlam has been taking the lead on a number of environmental stewardship projects for the river,” says Coquitlam Mayor, Richard Stewart. “One important activity is the role the City plays chairing the Coquitlam River Aggregate Committee, an advisory body with a mandate to monitor responsibility by all levels of government, the aggregate industry and other stakeholders to improve the health of the Coquitlam River. This work is contributing to some of the important improvements we're starting to see in the river."

Other improvements the City will be undertaking in 2013 include upgrading existing culverts on Fulawka Creek that flows into Coquitlam River in order to prevent flooding and debris jams. A larger project includes compiling a repository of information on the activities that the many different groups within the watershed have been involved in as they relate to gathering data or restoring habitat along the River.These groups include: stream keepers, BC Hydro, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Metro Vancouver and representatives of the aggregate industry.

The City of Coquitlam has also played a leadership role in the development of the Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable. The Roundtable coordinates and implements activities aimed at promoting the long-term sustainability of the Coquitlam River watershed. Now entering its second year, the Roundtable Core Committee began work on new projects including an educational watershed cafe series, and the first steps towards developing a Coquitlam River Watershed Plan. More information about the Roundtable, and opportunities to become involved, can be found on their website, www.coquitlamriverwatershed.ca

-30-

For more information, contact:
Steffanie Warriner
Mnager, Environmental Services
P: 604-927-3536

Eco-terrorism back in the news

Eco-terrorism? I'd bet most people haven't even heard of the expression, let alone of the existence of this brand of criminal. But, with news of the arrest today in Washington State of Rebecca Rubin, a Canadian wanted in connection with the eco-terrorism-linked firebombing of a Colorado ski resort in 1998, eco-terrorism is certainly in the news.

And it was in the news six years ago in Canada too -- at least if you were paying attention. Below is the unedited version of a story I wrote in August, 2006, on a little-covered, little-noticed outbreak of eco-terrorism in Canada. The story was published in the Western Standard.

The malicious ELFs of central Canada

FBI 'Wanted' poster: Rebecca Rubin

Police are stumped as eco-zealots rampage through southern Ontario

By TERRY O’NEILL

Last January, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that a massive police initiative code-named Operation Backfire had resulted in the indictment of 11 members of a radical environmental group known as the Family, an eco-terrorist gang which was aligned with the outlaw Earth Liberation Front* and which had been linked to 16 arson and vandalism attacks in the U.S. West between 1996 and 2001. Six members of the gang, including Canadian Darren Thurston, who was twice convicted of similar crimes in Edmonton in the early 1990s, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and arson charges in July. The rest, plus two others, are either fugitives or face trial in October.

The criminal proceedings marked an important victory for U.S. law enforcement authorities in their fight against ELF, which the FBI has called the number-one domestic terror threat in the country and which, in conjunction with its ideological fellow travellers in the Animal Liberation Front, has been responsible for attacks causing more than US$110 million in damage over the past two decades.

But even as prison doors were slamming shut on some of the U.S.’s most dangerous eco-zealots, ELF radicals were running riot in southern Ontario, burning partially-built homes and vandalizing construction equipment, all in the name of protecting Mother Earth from human development. Since June of 2005, attacks in Guelph, Brantford, London and Toronto have caused more than $3 million in damage, most of it this past summer [see list below]. No one has been injured in any of the attacks, and the incidents have stayed under the radar of the national media. But that doesn’t mean they’re not extracting a high toll.

“The unfortunate truth is that is costs construction companies and excavation companies a whole lot of money,” says Nathan Lancaster, a project manager with Lanca Contracting Ltd. of Brantford, one of whose sites was hit in mid-July. “There are so many other serious problems out there, you’d think someone would have better things to do with their time.” Vandals typically put sand into the fuel tanks of heavy machinery.

Police have few leads, but it is known that computers linked to the University of Guelph were used three times to send ELF communiqués taking credit for attacks. As well, on August 1, Guelph police charged University of Guelph environmental activist Matthew Soltys, 23, with mischief after they caught a man spray-painting the image of a red dump truck on a wall in downtown Guelph; he was also in possession of a stencil reading, “Eco-Terrorist.” Sgt. Ron Lord of the Guelph police department says he hopes the public will help solve the vandalism and arson attacks, the most serious of which destroyed the Cutten Club golf course’s clubhouse last October. “We’re at a point now where all the files are active,” Lord says. “Fires of this magnitude, I’m sure somebody will talk somewhere, some time.”

Not necessarily. It was only through undercover police work and extensive surveillance that U.S. authorities were able to crack ELF’s criminal conspiracy. Indeed, Lynn Snowden, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, notes that ELF tends to be organized very loosely into independent cells; some lone wolves may even act alone, claiming ELF membership but really just operating on their own. “There’s really nothing to connect them to the movement or anything like that,” she says.

Whether acting alone or in groups, the eco-zealots are usually young, impressionable and believe that civilization is destroying the world, says author Ron Arnold of Bellevue, Washington. Arnold, vice-president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, is one of the continent’s experts on radical environmentalism. He says typical ELF recruits are aged 17 to 22, and begin lawbreaking at least as much as an expression of their generalized anger at authority as in response to their environmental beliefs. “It’s a way to get attention, a way to get even, and revenge is a very powerful motive,” Arnold says.

Motive aside, police in Ontario clearly have a big problem on their hands. Brantford’s Sgt. Lord says his office is sharing information with police departments in other cities hit by the eco-vandals, but the communities have yet to establish a joint task force to tackle the problem. Perhaps they’re hoping the success enjoyed by U.S. authorities will rub off on them.


Ontario’s eco-terrorism hot spots

June 26, 2005. Arson, the Church of Our Lady, Guelph. Cost of damage, $10,000.
June 26, 2005. Arson, Zeller’s department store, Guelph. Cost, $25,000.
October 31, 2005. Arson, the Cutten Club, Guelph. Cost, $400,000.
January 30, 2006. Arson, house under construction, Guelph. Cost, $5,000.
June, 2006. Arson, house under construction, Guelph. Cost, $200,000.
June, 2006. Vandalism, construction machinery, Guelph. Cost unknown.
July 14, 2006. Vandalism, construction equipment, Toronto. Cost, $2 million.
July 18-20, 2006. Vandalism, equipment at five construction sites, Brantford. Cost, unknown.
July 21-27, 2006. Vandalism, equipment at 10 construction sites, London. Cost, $300,000.
July, 2006. Arson, house under construction, Guelph. Cost, $80,000.


*Radical environmentalists belonging to the Earth Liberation Front believe humans are destroying the world. Accordingly, they have pledged to use “direct action in the form of economic sabotage to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment.”
ELF was formed in the United Kingdom in 1992 and has since spread to the U.S., Greece and Canada. Prior to this year’s epidemic of destruction in southern Ontario, ELF’s Canadian activities were mainly limited to B.C., where eco-radicals burned down a wilderness lodge in June 1995 and repeatedly vandalized a Vancouver Island golf course in 2000 and 2001.
A communiqué, issued by ELF following one of its Brantford, Ont. vandalism attacks this July, casts a light on the outlaw group’s warped mindset. It reads: “The day to day lives most of us live are killing our sweet mother earth, that which we all need to survive…Let us RISE UP and fight the machines that destroy the planet. We do not need to fight each other. Working as one we can live lives of LOVE and HARMONY for all humans, animals, plants and the planet.”

Mainstream media have yet to learn suicide lesson

It's been almost  two weeks now since I wrote my blog urging caution about over-publicizing suicide. I am pleased to report that, since then, Charlie Smith, the editor of the Georgia Straight newspaper, decided the piece was significant enough to merit placement on his website, complete with a new graphic from Shutterstock, which is reproduced to the right.

Furthermore, two insightful readers of this blog added their comments to my original piece, further elaborating on the issue. I urge you to read them.

I hadn't thought I'd need to write about the subject again quite so soon, but I feel that, in light of a new controversy, some additional commentary is warranted. My concerns centre on the pulicity over the alleged "suicide pact" among aboriginal children in east Vancouver. As has now been made clear by Vancouver School Board Chair Patti Bacchus, initial news reports grossly distorted the situation, in which, in reality, only a few youngsters were actually contemplating suicide; the rest were merely involved in online commentary about the issue. A radio report of her comments, which I heard earlier today, also quoted Bacchus as saying the media must be extremely careful in reporting on suicides because of the contagion effect, of which I and, moveover, the Georgia Straight, wrote earlier. Good for Ms. Bacchus!

One would think that, of all types of stories the media cover, they would be most careful in writing about suicides. Instead, it now seems that tabloid values have triumphed..

There was a time, of course, when virtually no reporting of suicides took place. I recall very well that, throughout most of my career, editors were aware not only of the need to respect the privacy of the family of the person who had died (not the least reasons for which were because the family was often overwhelmed by feelings of shame and guilt) but also because of the recognized negative impact that such reporting has on vulnerable individuals.

Sadly, however, those standards have been eroded. A person who commits suicide is now increasingly portrayed as a victim of external forces rather than as someone who has thrown in the towel or lacked the fortitude to face a difficult time. And, rather than search for the root of the nihilistic malaise which infects all too many troubled youth, activists and politicians rush in to try to grab their five minutes in the media spotlight.

Meanwhile, the televised handwringing and gnashing of teeth ends up having the effect of teaching troubled kids that suicide can guarantee a moment or two of fame for them, too, even if it's postumous.

Personal but not political support from the Minister

It appears that my voter-encouragement idea, which would have seen the provincial government enact legislation to allow communities to more fully publicize the names of citizens who vote, has run into another obstacle.

This is because I've just received a letter (the first page of which is reproduced here) from Bill Bennett, the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, suggesting to me that, while he sees some merit in my voter-encouragement idea, the best route to legislating the change would be for me to persuade Coquitlam council to support the idea and then seek support for the initiative from the Lower Mainland Local Government Association and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

But, of course, I couldn't persuade my council colleagues this past September, and so my motion went no further. After that council vote, I wrote a letter to Attorney-General Shirley Bond , who had appointed a panel to look into online voting, asking her to look into my idea too. Ms. Bond referred my letter to Mr. Bennett and he has now declined to pursue the matter any further.

But while the matters is stalled now, I'd still like to respond to a few things Mr. Bennett said. He wrote: "My professional advice is that your proposal would present significant challenges in relation to: the cost to local governments of publishing voter names; the absence of a newspaper in many communities in British Columbia and the limited online presence of other municipalities; and, concerns regarding their right to anonymity in the electoral process. I still like the idea, however."

Regarding Mr. Bennett's concerns about the high costs and lack of outlets for publicity, I must point out that my idea would be to allow municipalities to more widely publicize the names of those who vote, not to force them. Communities with no budget to buy newspaper supplements or who have primitive websites would not have to publish the names if they didn't want to.

And on Mr. Bennett's expression of concern about voters' "right to anonymity in the electoral process," I must point out that no such right exists. The names of people who voted are already published after each election, and are available for public viewing for six weeks; however, the publicity is very limited, as it is restricted to a printed list and is available only to those who have the time and ability to visit City Hall in person. And, even then, the list cannot be reproduced mechanically.

To me, this represents something from the Dark Ages. Surely, if publicity is good in principle (as it clearly is, otherwise we wouldn't have the limited publicity that is in place now), then steps should be taken to apply it equitably, and not to limit the exposure--of the names of those who voted--to those who can spend several hours a day for weeks on end viewing and transcribing the names at City Hall.

Nevertheless, I thank Mr. Bennett for his response and for his personal support of my idea.

Youth suicide calls for careful response

Graphic from teensuicideprevention.org

Amanda Todd’s suicide touched many in our community, and rightly so. If it’s true that the death of even one person represents a loss to all humanity, then the death of a young person such as Amanda amid such troubling circumstances might be seen as an even greater loss.

That being said, we must be careful in how we respond to this case. Yes, it should serve as a clarion call for greater awareness of the impact of cyber-bullying. On this point, and on the related issue of what can be done to stem the tide of cyber-bullying, everyone seems to agree.

At least as important, however, is the overall issue of youth suicide for whatever reason. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among teens after motor-vehicle accidents, according to this online source. Furthermore, this page from the Canadian Children’s Rights Council’s website has some important information about how common the phenomenon is and what can be done about it.

Interestingly, another page from the same site contains the following declaration: “Curriculum or school-based programs which focus on increasing awareness, risk identification and community resources are not effective, and may, in fact, stimulate imitative suicidal behavior…”

This statement leads directly to an event of some interest that took place in Vancouver earlier this week, and that was the provincial government’s Erase Bullying conference—the reporting of which tended to focus on the fact that officials with the Ministry of Education had not invited Amanda Todd’s mother to attend “over fears her presence might upset some of the event’s young speakers.”

I think the ministry made a good decision. Not to diminish the sadness associated with Amanda’s death, I am worried that there has been altogether too much publicity surrounding her suicide. Talk-show hosts, politicians, community leaders and legions of social-science experts have all weighed in, as is their right. But it is also their responsibility to weigh their statements and actions carefully, with their primary concern being the effect of those statements and actions on young people. The “contagion” aspect of suicide is real and everyone in a leadership position must recognize this.

My thoughts regarding this are also guided by something the great American essayist Peggy Noonan once noted when discussing unmarried mothers: “That which we celebrate, we encourage.”

With this in mind, I think we need to be cautious about this Sunday’s memorial and birthday tribute for Amanda. Yes, her family and friends have every right to mourn her passing. Nevertheless, such an event has the potential to add fuel to a fire which, I fear, has already grown far too hot.

Why Canada went into Afghanistan





In the weeks leading up to Remembrance Day, veterans of the wars in which our country has fought visited many schools and community organizations to describe their experiences. I've learned that, in at least one of those presentations, participants expressed considerable confusion about exactly why Canada entered the fray in Afghanistan. To clear things up, here's the edited text of a feature story I wrote for the Western Standard's March 13, 2006 issue. (DND photo at right shows Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay meeting with Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, in November 2007.)

 

Shhhh....we're nation building: Canada has assumed a critical role in rescuing one of desperate parts of the world. So why is Ottawa keeping so quiet about it?

By Terry O’Neill

Western Standard Senior Writer

[Page 41-44, March 13, 2006 issue of the Western Standard]

Within a week of winning the Jan. 23 general election, Stephen Harper talked with Peter Harder, the country’s deputy minister of foreign affairs, and, as Harder recalled in a speech a week later, told him “to stay the course” in Afghanistan. Coming from a politician who had pledged to beef up the Canadian military so it could better “project Canadian values abroad,” Harper’s expression of support for Canada’s mission in Afghanistan was not surprising. A reversal of the former Liberal government’s strategy in the violence- and problem-plagued country would have been unthinkable given Canada’s international commitments and the Conservatives’ robust defence and foreign affairs policies.

Nevertheless, while it seems that there’s currently broad political support across all party lines for Canada’s Afghan strategy, Ottawa has so far been fairly taciturn about why exactly our troops are there —especially compared to the kind of cheerleading we’ve seen from the White House when it reminds U.S. voters, almost daily, why American troops are far away and in danger. By comparison, how many Canadians can claim to be aware of the full nature of the country’s multi-pronged approach to the strife-ridden state—an approach that involves far more than the 2,000 Canadian troops now being deployed in the dangerous Kandahar region?

It’s a role that easily can be described as nation building—though it’s somewhat understandable that, given the imperialist connotations the phrase carries these days, politicians have been reticent to call it that. While Canada’s burgeoning military presence—and the attendant risk to our soldiers—deserves a high profile, we’re also spending hundreds of millions of dollars on development assistance to Afghanistan. The country is now our largest aid recipient, and Ottawa has launched scores of other programs designed to help rebuild what is commonly referred to as a failed state.

The engagement embodies Ottawa’s relatively new “3-D” approach to international engagements—diplomacy, defence and development. The approach was formally enunciated in the former Liberal government’s International Policy Statement, made public April 19, 2005. You might have missed the announcement that day, since it was the same day the Vatican elected the new pope, overwhelming all other news coverage. But the policy, and its Afghan manifestation, are of paramount importance to Canadian foreign policy. Indeed, the Afghan mission, and a similar 3-D engagement with Haiti, mark the first big tests of an international policy that, if successful, will set an expensive and risky template that could last for decades.

The lack of public awareness notwithstanding, Canada’s role in Afghanistan has been growing since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Canadian troops (most famously, members of the elite Joint Task Force 2) fought in the American-led war to oust the al Qaeda–friendly Taliban from power. Canada was also a signatory to the Bonn Agreement of December 2001, designed to help reconstitute a government in Afghanistan. Ottawa ramped up its development aid, increased its military presence, opened an embassy in Kabul, and launched programs aimed at, among other things, fostering democracy and rebuilding the economy.

On Feb. 1 of this year, Canada signed the Afghanistan Compact, the successor to Bonn. The new accord establishes a framework for “international community engagement” in Afghanistan over the next five years. The conference at which the agreement was reached took place in London, and it was there that bureaucrat Harder revealed details of his chat with politician Harper. Harder’s little-publicized speech also reminded the international community of the extensive role Canada has played in Afghanistan for more than four years and of its vital goal. “None of us can afford to allow terrorists to ever again find haven in Afghanistan,” he said. “None of us can afford to ignore the desire of the Afghan people to rebuild their country.”

Harder reminded the international audience that nine Canadians have died in pursuit of peace and prosperity in Afghanistan, including eight soldiers and one non-combatant, Glyn Berry, the political director of the Canadian provincial reconstruction team (PRT) in Kandahar, who was killed by a suicide bomber on Jan. 15. “Three Canadian soldiers were seriously injured in that heinous attack,” Harder said. “Canada is not, however, a fair-weather friend. Kandahar remains for us, in Glyn Berry’s own words, ‘the right place to be.’” The reconstruction team of which Berry was a part is an important manifestation of Canada’s 3-D strategy. The PRT comprises about 250 soldiers who work with civilian police, diplomats and aid workers to reinforce the authority of the Afghan government in and around Kandahar, and to stabilize the region. “To achieve these goals, the PRT conducts security patrols, contributes labour and resources to local reconstruction efforts, supports local governance institutions, and facilitates reforms in the security sector,” according to National Defence documents.

In addition, there are all the programs funded by the foreign aid that Canada has been pouring into Afghanistan since 2001. Prior to that year, Canada typically sent about $10 million annually to Afghanistan for basic human needs. Before the Taliban’s ouster, there were rampant shortages of food and medicine (made worse by the Taliban’s blockage of aid workers who were Christian or female).

Since then, Canada has spent or committed a total of $616.5 million, until 2009. The money means, according to CIDA statements, that Canada has taken “a lead role” in several initiatives, including: helping the Afghan government collect and store 10,000 heavy weapons; providing savings and micro-loan services to 140,000 clients; and helping with the destruction of landmines and ammunition stockpiles.

And there’s the Mounties. Supt. Philip Campbell at the RCMP’s headquarters in Ottawa says there are three Mounties in Afghanistan, two serving with PRTs and one involved with the UN mission in the country. “We’re a small cog in a big wheel,” Campbell says humbly.

And it is big—and expensive. In addition to the $616 million in funding from the Canadian International Development Agency, the Canadian Forces say they spent $1.34 billion on Afghan operations to the end of last year, and estimate they will spend an additional $374 million on operations Athena and Archer by the end of this year, for a total of more than $1.7 billion. National Defence spokesperson Cathy Huth explains these figures are “incremental costs” that are above what the Department of National Defence would have spent for personnel and equipment had they stayed in Canada, rather than being deployed to Afghanistan.

The Department of Foreign Affairs was not able to provide any figures for what it has spent on its diplomatic efforts in Afghanistan. But spokesperson Kim Girtel says the department increased the size of its diplomatic presence in Kabul by almost 50 per cent last September, to a total of 20 Canadians. “Strengthening our presence in Kabul reflects an economy of effort and a consolidation of expertise that enables effective Canadian leadership,” Girtel states. “Why are they there? They are there for the same reason [the soldiers, the PRT and CIDA are]. They are there to help Afghanistan become stable, democratic and self-sustaining. It’s the same goal and purpose.”

So, while the soldiers may get most of the public notice, Canada’s personnel deployment in Afghanistan involves much more than uniformed troops. “Our diplomats, our development officers and our civilian police have helped Afghanistan rebuild, retrain, restart,” Harder said in his speech. “These unheralded men and women are on the front lines of the future of Afghanistan. Their dedication to service merits our utmost respect.”

They clearly have a big job ahead. Although its economic outlook has improved markedly since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, the country is still, for the time being, a basket case. “Despite the progress of the past few years, Afghanistan remains extremely poor, landlocked, and highly dependent on foreign aid, farming, and trade with neighboring countries,” according to an annual assessment by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. “It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan living standards from its current status, among the lowest in the world.” Indeed, the CIA calculates the country’s unemployment rate at 40 per cent, with 53 per cent of Afghans living below the poverty line.

Still, Canada’s nation-building efforts in Afghanistan have provoked detractors on the left. For instance, researcher and analyst Anthony Fenton of Vancouver, whose work has appeared in several left-wing journals, including Regina’s Briarpatch magazine, says Canada should pull all its troops and end development projects that, he argues, are designed less to help indigenous people rise above poverty than to
“foster better conditions for neo-liberalism and the type of globalization that powerful countries are pursuing.” Fenton believes Canada’s image as a benevolent peacekeeper is a lie; the truth, he believes, is that Canada is creating conditions that will leave Afghanistan open to being exploited by multinational corporations.

Douglas Goold, president and chief executive officer of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of International Affairs, rejects the arguments, and believes they come only from the far-left political fringes. But, he admits, it’s hard to make any broad claims about Canadian public opinion since there has been “very little” in the way of public debate over Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. “So, does that mean we should have a debate about this in Parliament?” he asks. “It absolutely does. We need to explain to Canadians and to debate in Parliament why we’re there with such a presence.”

In the end, Goold is convinced that the case for being there will win out. “This is a country of strategic importance that is tremendously unstable, that can cause a lot of damage to the rest of the world through terrorism or other means,” he explains. “To the extent that we can help it establish a better infrastructure, establish more stable institutions, end the drug trade, which directly or indirectly affects all of us, then I think that’s a good thing.” (Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium.) “My sense of when I was there was, regrettably, that Afghanistan is a failed state that is going to keep on failing. The problems are so vast. They’ve had 30 years of warfare, the country’s basically ruined. The illiteracy rate is as high as 75 per cent. They’ve got drug lords. They have very limited control of outlying areas beyond Kabul. For all the will in the world, and all the money in the world, it’s going to be very hard to turn that around.”

In other words, Harper may inevitably find himself faced with some hard choices as both our funding and our troop commitments are scheduled to sunset over the next few years—funding commitments are good to 2009, and Canada’s command of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Kandahar is good for about nine months. And without a clear understanding from voters of why we’re there and what the plan is, his options may be limited by public ignorance.

If Canada relents, says Goold, it’s proof that our work in Afghanistan was less about actually trying to rebuild the country, and strictly about offering a make-good gesture to an ally, the U.S., which was disappointed in Canada’s failure to join the “coalition of the willing” in the invasion of Iraq. There are some who believe Afghanistan’s future hangs in the balance. Sima Samar, an Afghan doctor who served as the country’s deputy prime minister after the Taliban fell, is urging Canadians to stay for the long term. “Helping Afghanistan is not just about helping the Afghan people,” she said, on a visit to Canada in February. “It is helping humanity, including Canadians. If we have problems in Afghanistan, the other parts of the world will not be safe also.”

That’s how Canada’s top soldier, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier, put it to the Western Standard in a November interview. When western countries, such as Canada, neglect the opportunity to rebuild failed states, such as Afghanistan, Hillier said, “the instability that results will cause the growth of all those things that we see all the time in failed states: organized crime; the potential for pandemics to develop; refugee columns that pour out of those countries; and a place where terrorism can grow. [Those] results will indirectly affect our nation because of the impact it has on international stability.”

For now, that seems to be the view in Ottawa, too. Our current military presence in Afghanistan is larger than any deployment since the Korean War, our aid package is our most generous, and our overall diplomatic and development commitment unprecedented. Peter Harder said in his speech that Canada will continue “moving forward” and will not be dissuaded by difficulties and deaths. “The struggle for stability is not a choice,” he declared.

That may be. But if Canadians aren’t fully on board when the going gets tough—even if it’s just because they’re unaware of the depth of our commitments in Afghanistan—who’s going to tell them it isn’t?