Despite Conservative tough dumb-on-crime rhetoric, allowing people a clean and safe place to use the drugs they would anyway grants them respect, dignity, and a way out of dangerous cycles. It’s about acting grown-up about our public health issues and taking responsibility for the issue.
Now, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agrees
The appeal and the cross?appeal are dismissed. The Minister of Health is ordered to grant an exemption to Insite under s. 56 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act forthwith.
…
In order to make use of the lifesaving and health?protecting services offered at Insite, clients must be allowed to be in possession of drugs on the premises. Prohibiting possession at large engages drug users’ liberty interests; prohibiting possession at Insite engages their rights to life and to security of the person.
It’s not clear yet if Harper and his TheoCons will continue to fight this, but hopefully he’s smart enough to know when he’s lost and walk away.
This is an important ruling and hopefully now InSite and its supporters can continue their life-saving work, and look to replicate their success.
In the BC NDP leadership race, I ranked my top candidates as Simons, Farnwroth, Horgan, Dix, and Larson.
While I had been disappointed with Carole James’ approach as leader, and her generally ineffectiveness, I found Adrian Dix’s campaign to be too harsh and likely to lead to an opposition of negativity. I specifically said “His style is too closed and divisive for me to support him.”
My criticisms of the possibility that he might stifle the grassroots will either be born out or refuted at this December’s convention (which I’ll be attending), but my fear that he’d be a relentless attack dog with little positive progressiveness to offer was off the mark.
And I’m glad I was wrong.
Thus far, I am more than happy with the performance of Adrian Dix as BC NDP leader.
This latest article by Vancouver Sun legislative correspondent Jonathon Fowlie is almost glowing praise for Dix. Specifically it highlights that coupled with every criticism that Dix offers up for Christy Clark’s leadership, he provides a positive position – be it offering to support a letter demanding a good contract on the RCMP from the federal government or his promise to push policy on jobs and the economy forward over the coming months.
I won’t be so proud as to say that I wish Dix hadn’t won, as it looks like he’s doing a fine job mending the wounds of a year ago and focussing on pushing forward in the manner that would make Jack proud.
Congratulations are oddly in order for David Hahn.
I say oddly because it’s extremely rare to see an overpaid executive of a crown corporation fall on his sword like Hahn did as he quit BC Ferries to save the corporation upwards of $1 million per year.
Hahn had previously announced that among his attempts to cut costs at BC Ferries that he would recommend that the province cut several hundred sailings annually. He quickly came under criticism for his huge compensation package relative to the company’s $11 million deficit.
What’s most interesting though is that Hahn decided to just leave BC Ferries, rather than offer to take a pay cut.
It makes me wonder what else is out there for him?
Regardless, his decision to take BC Ferries away from being an infrastructure extension of the highway system, toward some weird luxury tourist service was short-sighted and a complete misreading of the market for the service. The accompanying absurd rate increases only exacerbated the issue for those who rely on the service to actually serve them.
Hopefully BC Ferries can bring on a new CEO that has some appreciation for the ferry system’s place in BC as a service, not a profit venture. Although until the BC Government is willing to bring the corporation entirely back under provincial jurisdiction, I’m sceptical of its chances for success.
Tonight I attended the BC NDP Point Grey General Meeting.
The meeting was fairly well attended, given there’s no threat of a general election until 2013 and this was not the annual general meeting. Around 15 people made it out.
The primary purpose of the meeting was to add a few new members to the executive. A number of vacancies had existed and a few more spots opened over the past year, but nearly all were filled, with new representatives for policy, women’s, and members-at-large. I was elected as the Young New Democrat representative – a position I can only hold until the end of next year (when I become too old).
The second purpose was for preparation for the 50th anniversary BC NDP convention coming up in December. We elected a full slate of delegates, with the only spot in contention being the YND delegate, since they get a reduced rate ($25 versus $375).
I also won this spot by a vote of 8-7 over Gabe, another student (who was elected to the exec). We did approve spending a bit of money to financially support some of our delegates, so hopefully everyone is able to go. I’ll be sure to live-blog and tweet the convention when the time comes.
Finally, we approved a few resolutions for the convention. While no formal resolutions had been submitted in advance, we still managed to keep the spirit of Point Grey alive by filling out the rest of the allotted meeting time suggesting ideas for resolutions for the exec to submit.
I’m proud to say that my resolution – to end funding to charter schools – was met with much support from the other members and was passed unanimously (basically all suggestions put forth were passed unanimously).
It was a good meeting, and I’m looking forward to being involved with the Point Grey NDP.
I love the idea of an integrated, community-based, electric-powered public transportation system. It just pushes us toward sustainability and makes us actually appreciate the neighbourhood we live in.
It doesn’t cut a city in half like a highway or SkyTrain and its more environmentally friendly and typically a little faster than buses.
It even adds that bit of pizazz that makes a city unique.
So when NPA mayoral candidate Suzanne Anton says she wants to make the False Creek streetcar (Olympic demo pictured) a reality, it makes me perk up.
The proposed line somewhat matches suggestions from Translink plans for the Broadway corridor (a couple of the suggestions utilize streetcars), with routes running from Granville Island, through Olympic Village, to Science World. It then proceeds to Gastown and into downtown. Their map shows extensions into Yaletown and to Stanley Park.
And this all sounds fantastic to me. The potential extensions provide extra lines through downtown, and I could foresee the Arbutus track that runs only a couple blocks from my condo being converted to a streetcar line with little difficulty.
Then comes reality:
According to the NPA, the network would be funded through a public-private partnership, with costs estimated at about $81 million for the track, and another $21 million for the purchase of six streetcars.
Public-private partnerships (P3s) make me take a huge pause.
Their track record (get it?) is spotty at best. Designed to save costs and time, they are trumpeted by right-wing parties as the best way to do infrastructure projects. Some projects, like the Canada Line, were resounding success on this front, while others, like the Olympic Village, failed on nearly every front.
But even despite the successful construction of the Canada Line, the P3 model excluded local consultation, and the ensuing construction along Cambie Street greatly angered local businesses. Similar concerns are very pertinent for a streetcar line through downtown, which would interrupt the day-to-day life of everyone along the route.
The consultation is just the thing though. Anton’s plan, while promising, suggests ramming through a streetcar line with no due process – similar to how she criticized construction of the Hornby bike lane. This is why Vision councillor Geoff Meggs brings us the soggy rag of reality.
Vision Vancouver councillor Geoff Meggs called Anton’s plan to fast-track a streetcar network “a really costly pipe dream”.
Meggs argued the region’s priority should be moving forward with a transit strategy for the Broadway corridor. One option that has been proposed by TransLink, he noted, would incorporate streetcar service from VCC Clark, past Olympic Village to Arbutus and Broadway.
“We have an opportunity to deliver some relief as early as next year to people who are jammed on buses and SkyTrain by pushing through the moving forward supplement that TransLink has proposed,” Meggs told the Straight by phone.
“That’s a much cheaper and more practical alternative for our riders who are underserved on Broadway in a terrible way. We have more ridership on buses right now in the Broadway corridor than the millennium line carries on SkyTrain.”
…
Meggs panned the P3 proposal, arguing that the private sector “doesn’t give money to government”.
“There’s no free ride here, there’s no free lunch,” he said. “We would pay for the line with fare box revenues and that kind of thing.”
“I think it’s the wrong priority at the wrong time, and the streetcar option that we should pursue is the one that’s available if we’re able to move through the current funding discussion and get to the Broadway corridor,” he added.
I almost reluctantly have to agree with Meggs. As much as I really want a streetcar, we need to do things rationally and involve the community in the discussions.
My only qualifier is that at some point I think we do need some vision and leadership. Obviously, it needs to be balanced with some democratic input, but without that ambition to actually get it done, we’ll be stuck in endless debates. Robertson had this when he got the Burrard Bridge bike lane moving forward, and I hope Vision/COPE candidates will not waste the opportunity to move forward on transit in Vancouver.
Sensing that the SFSS has little inclination to respect collective bargaining rights CUPE, representing the locked out SFSS staff, has started fighting the PR war.
Not only that, the CUPE staff working the SFU Surrey Registrar and Information Services centre have joined the lines today, shutting down the office where overdue students can pay their tuition (online and bank payments are still available).
This latest action seems targeted at SFU – a neutral third party in the dispute – and its reputation. Perhaps CUPE hopes by spinning some bad press for the university that the administration will pressure the Student Society to return to the bargaining table.
Its a risky manoeuvre, given the tendency of many universities to outsource, downsize, and union-bust. Perhaps they’re hoping that new university president and former NDP MLA Andrew Petter may show some sympathy.
Staff who operate many of the student services at SFU, including Out on Campus, the Women’s Centre, and the SFSS Print Centre, have been locked out, without a contract for 10 weeks.
The lock-out was initiated by a unanimous vote of the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) board of directors, who decided that they had no more money and should blame the union representing 20 employees – five of whom are students.
A quote from SFSS president John McCann in Xtra! demonstrates their ideological commitment to hold out on any concessions to the union
SFSS president Jeff McCann says the society is broke and the cuts need to be made for the sake of all students.
“It’s kind of interesting when people say, ‘End the lockout because those services aren’t being provided,’” says McCann. “Yes, right now and for the last 10 weeks those services aren’t being provided, but every single year the budget cuts are reducing programming by 40 percent, year after year after year.”
He says that unless the union makes concessions, other cuts will have to be made.
“We need to be able to find that balance,” says McCann. “Otherwise we’re not going to have an Out on Campus. We’re not going to be able to afford it. We’re not going to be able to afford anything that we do.”
There’s several articles in The Peak about the lockout, but in each McCann provides quotes that show little compassion or desire to resolve the situation. In his world, the union has been fired without the awkward confrontation.
While I would generally oppose fee increases at university, student union fees are the one place where you can actually see where the money goes. The portion of the SFU undergrad activity fee used for operations has not risen in 15 years, despite the school expansion and inflation. Revenue for the SFSS is therefore dropping with respect to what they’re spending – so it’s little surprise that they’re running a deficit. The Board’s strict refusal to consider this avenue is further evidence of their hardline ideological stance.
Kelly Thoreson gives a decent run down of the numbers involved for The Peak, whose libertarian-leaning editorial board has had few kind words for the locked out workers.
The lockout is also happening against the backdrop of the potential SFPIRG eviction. SFU’s Public Interest Research Group is a student-run centre that supports environmental and social justice research, education, and action. The SFSS Space and Oversight Committee (a committee of the board), has decided that the space currently leased to SFPIRG would be better used by as student space, despite the fact that SFPIRG is student run and funded.
This move isn’t surprising to anyone who followed the debacle last year when conservatives on campus tried to force “democracy” and “accountability” into SFPIRG by hijacking meetings of the SFSS board. It seems their tactics have changed, but the goal remains the same: stamp out progressive voices on campus.
The one positive in the situation is that the Graduate Student Society is still on the side of students and workers, and voted unanimously in support of the union. The frustration for the GSS is that they partially fund these services – to the tune of $45 000 annually – through the SFSS. So while the lock out goes on, they are simply paying for services not rendered.
Further, the union organized an alternative clubs days for clubs that refused to cross the picket lines. I’m proud to say that the SFU Skeptics were among those who participated.
SFU has a history of being among the most radical campuses in Canada. These recent events threaten that spirit of progress and open debate.
While my time at SFU is coming to an end, students need to stand up for a campus that represents the world we want to see.
It’s continually depressing to see professional denialist Lorne Gunter continue to sap money that could be going to actual journalists and columnists. Yesterday he had this to say:
Over the past decade, global surface temperatures have flatlined. While 2010 was a warm year in the northern hemisphere and 2011 has been warm in much of the U.S., globally temperatures have failed to surpass 1998. Despite all the histrionics about man-made global warming, the predicted temperature rise has failed to materialize even as CO2 emissions have increased. Pat Michaels, a climatologist who is currently senior fellow for research and economic development at George Mason University in Virginia, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in late July, ”there has been no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records.”
That’s great Lorne that you can open the Wall Street Journal, read an economist from the known corporate-apologist Cato Institute (an association Lorne neglects) and decide work of real scientists is bunk.
Let’s actually look at some data to see if Michaels has a clue what he’s talking about:
I share in CalgaryGrit’s confusion at Thomas Mulcair’s continued ambivalence about deciding whether to run for the NDP leadership.
Perhaps he’s hoping to drag out the media coverage as he hums and haws over his chances of winning, allowing him to increase his national reputation as… someone who can’t make a decision?
Regardless, his current excuse is that there’s no Quebec NDP wing, so he doesn’t have the membership to compete (because apparently the only constituency he wants to go after is Quebec) with BC or Ontario NDP members. This of course brings me back to a question of why is there no Quebec NDP anymore?
I understand the historic reasons, but in light of the federal swing in May, and the collapse of the Parti Quebecois, there may be a desire (or at least room) for a strong federalist and progressive voice in the province. Of course, I’m not very in touch with Quebec politics, so the reasons may be more obscure than that, but even every other province has maintained a provincial wing, even when they don’t win any seats.
Perhaps Mulcair is just trying to leverage the party to start a Quebec wing. I’d even suggest he might eye that party leadership, except he seemed quite comfortable as a Liberal cabinet minister.
I still can’t help but wonder what he has to lose by running. Is his ego so soft he couldn’t take a defeat or has he burnt bridges with the other candidates which might weaken his position in the party if he challenges them? Maybe the party brass is strongly opposed to his running so he’s finding excuses? I really don’t know.
Even if he ran and lost, as we have learned from the recent history of the Liberal Party, even the losers of a leadership race can still get to lead the party in due time.
