Translink. What are the first three words which come to mind when I
say this? If you're anything like me, you probably thought of
inefficient, mismanaged, and secretive.
Or you're
probably a normal person, and thought slow, tardy, and under-serviced.
Either way, you're probably fed up like me, and their latest proposal,
backed by a majority of their Mayors' Council (made up of Metro
Vancouver mayors), is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I am
livid, and when I tell you why, you probably will be too.
Back
in June, the Mayors' Council decided (with Burnaby, West Van, and Maple
Ridge opposing) that in order to fund all their pet projects, Translink
would need $7.5B over the next 10 years. This would require Translink's
operating budget to be increased from $1.4B to $2.2B per annum, a
massive increase of over 50% to maintain and expand bus service, build a
light rail to Surrey and a subway extension to UBC, replace the Patullo
Bridge, and other odds and ends.
What wasn't clear was
how they planned to fund this, since the province steadfastly refused
to reallocate tax dollars. None of these are bad ideas, but this is the
very epitome of spending money you don't have, which we can all agree is
not a very smart thing to do.
Last month, the
Council announced that they had found a solution. They would put it up
to the good people of BC, in a referendum this spring, to decide whether
or not to approve a 0.5 percentage point hike in the PST, which would
then go toward their plans. By their calculations, that would add about
$250M each year into the provincial coffers.
Herein lies the problem. Ten years multiplied by $250M/year is not $7.5B. It is not even close
to $7.5B. It is so far off that even the pollsters who said the NDP
would win a majority in 2013 are looking great. Translink and the mayors
apparently operate in a fantastical land of pixies and stardust where
$250M over 10 years magically turns into $7.5B.
Do you know what you get in the real world when you are 200% off, to the tune of 5 billion dollars? As Donald Trump would say, "YOU'RE FIRED!"
Undoubtedly,
Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson, the biggest backer of this plan, is
trying to use this to fulfill a campaign promise for a subway line down
the Broadway corridor to UBC. In the council's own report, this would
take $2B, never mind Translink's history of projects going over-budget.
By my calculations, the proposed PST hike would leave the city barely
enough money to extend the existing line a couple of stations to join up
with the Canada Line at Cambie St.
Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan is right when he says this leaves more questions than answers. Questions like "[how] are we going to decide
which line goes first? Will it be Vancouver with the new
tunnel down Broadway or will it be a light rail line into Surrey?" West
Vancouver mayor Mike Smith told reporters that if his municipality kept
the money they gave to Translink, he could provide free bus service for
his constituents.
Translink
has long been known to be one of the most wasteful organisations in the
province. The Independent Transit Commissioner describes Translink's
funding formula as the best in the country, yet year after year
Translink complains that they don't have enough money to support their
operations. Why? Because they misallocate millions of dollars,
not least of which goes toward 6-figure salaries for over 400
employees, including an extremely bloated board of directors, not
including benefits. And that's only the beginning...
Constant harsh criticism has prompted Translink to respond, saying “[we] do not have the resources to investigate each one of [the]
claims, nor is the public purse well served by going down such dirt
trails when we have important operations and communications matters to
pursue.”
Well, other people have now been so kind as to
do it for you. The lack of any sort of responsible governing of
Translink is appalling, and the provincial government is to blame as
well. Translink operates with all the benefits of a public corporation,
complete with tax funding, and none of the accountability. If these
reports surfaced about any government department, heads would have
rolled. Instead, it's business as usual for Translink, after which the
directors vote themselves great whacking bonuses.
If
you look at Translink's 2014 budget, you'll find to no surprise that
despite the best funding formula in the country, they have a $52M
deficit. The Golden Gate Bridge is losing money, and there's not a
single word about the Port Mann. When we take away everything that could
fall under the purview of the provincial government (i.e. only looking
at Translink and transit costs vs. revenue from transit operations),
that shortfall grows nearly tenfold.
The province
obviously can't be trusted to fix this; they're they ones who let it
degenerate to this state in the first place. It's high time to privatise
Translink and leave them to the mercy of private citizens, and force
them to streamline.
In the meantime, when that
referendum comes out, BC voters need to say "NO!" No to flowery promises
of unlikely new transit lines, no to the continued smoke and mirrors
finances of Translink, and no to another hand in our pockets. If they do
get the money, it won't be long until they tell us that it wasn't
enough (as if we didn't already know that). Then, they'll tell us that
since they started already, it's too late to stop, so could we very
kindly, pretty please, with a cherry on top let them stick another hand
or three in?
Apparently, Translink thinks we're all
idiots. If we let them have their way, this just might be the one thing
they've ever gotten right.
Showing posts with label ranting and raving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ranting and raving. Show all posts
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Open letter
Dear student leaders:
For some reason, the people protesting with you seem to actually respect you. Validate them.
Two days ago, you accepted the government's overtures and agreed to opening dialogue. Do not use the scuffles with anti-protestors as an excuse to renege on this. The government had nothing to do with that, and you know it. These are people who are frustrated that Hong Kong has been brought to a standstill. And you know what? They, too, have a right to express their opinions.
I know, you believe that you were pushed to these drastic measures because of what the government has allegedly done (or failed to do, it's hard to know with you lot). But now that the government has offered to talk, Hong Kong's continued paralysis is as much your responsibility as the government's. Going back on your word like this is exactly what you have repeatedly accused the government of doing. Nobody likes a hypocrite.
Politics is a game of give and take. It also takes place in the real world, not whatever fantastical land you seem to think exists, where everything is exactly as you want. Take what you can get, certainly; otherwise, learn to cut your losses. You may think you're winning the PR battle right now, but dragging this out cannot possibly be in your interests. The frustration of the public will only grow, and at some point, it will become indiscriminate in its target.
You say you're doing this for the future of Hong Kong. You say you love Hong Kong. Well then, I challenge you this: lift your blockade on the daily lives of average, honest, hard-working people in Hong Kong. Show some real leadership, and walk up to the negotiating table.
Yours,
A disgruntled observer
For some reason, the people protesting with you seem to actually respect you. Validate them.
Two days ago, you accepted the government's overtures and agreed to opening dialogue. Do not use the scuffles with anti-protestors as an excuse to renege on this. The government had nothing to do with that, and you know it. These are people who are frustrated that Hong Kong has been brought to a standstill. And you know what? They, too, have a right to express their opinions.
I know, you believe that you were pushed to these drastic measures because of what the government has allegedly done (or failed to do, it's hard to know with you lot). But now that the government has offered to talk, Hong Kong's continued paralysis is as much your responsibility as the government's. Going back on your word like this is exactly what you have repeatedly accused the government of doing. Nobody likes a hypocrite.
Politics is a game of give and take. It also takes place in the real world, not whatever fantastical land you seem to think exists, where everything is exactly as you want. Take what you can get, certainly; otherwise, learn to cut your losses. You may think you're winning the PR battle right now, but dragging this out cannot possibly be in your interests. The frustration of the public will only grow, and at some point, it will become indiscriminate in its target.
You say you're doing this for the future of Hong Kong. You say you love Hong Kong. Well then, I challenge you this: lift your blockade on the daily lives of average, honest, hard-working people in Hong Kong. Show some real leadership, and walk up to the negotiating table.
Yours,
A disgruntled observer
Sunday, September 28, 2014
The Hong Kong Question
Or, Why the Beijing Proposal is More Practical
Let me say, first of all, that in principle, I am in favour of holding general elections for the Chief Executive.
Let me also say, however, that I am NOT in favour of achieving this by means of Occupy Central, or boycotting school, or striking. Before you bring out the pitchforks, allow me to expound.
The current atmosphere of politics in Hong Kong is best described as fractious. If Beijing allowed open nominations, everybody and his uncle are going to run for office. The result of that will be a campaign of so many contrasting platforms, of such chaos, mudslinging, and extremes that the reputation of any candidate is going to be irreparably tarnished.
At this point, even the eventual winner will be so damaged that he will have lost his mandate to govern before he even takes office. Open nominations for the top job in a city-state is a recipe for perpetual lame duck Chief Executives. Each one will have no political capital to push the often necessary but bitter pills through for the betterment of Hong Kong. What the citizens want and what the citizens need are not always the same things.
What follows is a vicious cycle of incompetency and "quick fix" candidates; winners by virtue of being against the government, and not their own solid plan for the future. Hong Kong will descend into a death spiral, at the end of which lies the cesspool of the failed state.
Occupy Central will not convince Beijing that this will not happen. In fact, it will only strengthen this view, and Beijing's resolve to prevent this fate. If Hong Kong grinds to a halt in protest, it alone will suffer. Its economy will stall, the markets will fall, the entire city will be poorer, and Occupiers will be no closer to their goal.
If they hope to bring Beijing down with them, they are misguided. Hong Kong is but a drop in the bucket to Beijing. They will not be affected, they will not have to back down, and they will not back down, especially with much of the populace also against Occupying. Not only will Occupy Central be ineffective, it will ultimately be self-defeating.
On the topic of police brutality, there were likely faults on both sides. When protestors continue to attempt rushing government buildings and police barriers after repeated warnings, the police are going to react. Do I believe the protestors were mostly peaceful? Yes. But not all of them were, and unfortunately, violence begets violence. It only takes one spark.
At the end of the day, the police are only there to do their jobs. However, they are the easiest to vilify with media, especially social media, for perceived brutality. Were they slightly heavy-handed? Probably. But a violent suppression of the completely innocent? It was not.
Political reform is a complex issue requiring mutual compromise. You wanted the right to choose your own Chief Executive. You were afforded this right. You don't need 5, 6, or 10 candidates. Even the Americans usually only have 2 choices.
Let it not be said that Beijing chooses incompetent people. They may be corrupt, but even democracy is not without corruption. They may be friendlier to Beijing than you like, but do you really think a Chief Executive openly hostile to Beijing can get anything done?
If you grab a handful of cookies, your hand might get caught at the neck of the jar. If you let go of a couple, you might just find you can have your cookie and eat it too.
Let me say, first of all, that in principle, I am in favour of holding general elections for the Chief Executive.
Let me also say, however, that I am NOT in favour of achieving this by means of Occupy Central, or boycotting school, or striking. Before you bring out the pitchforks, allow me to expound.
The current atmosphere of politics in Hong Kong is best described as fractious. If Beijing allowed open nominations, everybody and his uncle are going to run for office. The result of that will be a campaign of so many contrasting platforms, of such chaos, mudslinging, and extremes that the reputation of any candidate is going to be irreparably tarnished.
At this point, even the eventual winner will be so damaged that he will have lost his mandate to govern before he even takes office. Open nominations for the top job in a city-state is a recipe for perpetual lame duck Chief Executives. Each one will have no political capital to push the often necessary but bitter pills through for the betterment of Hong Kong. What the citizens want and what the citizens need are not always the same things.
What follows is a vicious cycle of incompetency and "quick fix" candidates; winners by virtue of being against the government, and not their own solid plan for the future. Hong Kong will descend into a death spiral, at the end of which lies the cesspool of the failed state.
Occupy Central will not convince Beijing that this will not happen. In fact, it will only strengthen this view, and Beijing's resolve to prevent this fate. If Hong Kong grinds to a halt in protest, it alone will suffer. Its economy will stall, the markets will fall, the entire city will be poorer, and Occupiers will be no closer to their goal.
If they hope to bring Beijing down with them, they are misguided. Hong Kong is but a drop in the bucket to Beijing. They will not be affected, they will not have to back down, and they will not back down, especially with much of the populace also against Occupying. Not only will Occupy Central be ineffective, it will ultimately be self-defeating.
On the topic of police brutality, there were likely faults on both sides. When protestors continue to attempt rushing government buildings and police barriers after repeated warnings, the police are going to react. Do I believe the protestors were mostly peaceful? Yes. But not all of them were, and unfortunately, violence begets violence. It only takes one spark.
At the end of the day, the police are only there to do their jobs. However, they are the easiest to vilify with media, especially social media, for perceived brutality. Were they slightly heavy-handed? Probably. But a violent suppression of the completely innocent? It was not.
Political reform is a complex issue requiring mutual compromise. You wanted the right to choose your own Chief Executive. You were afforded this right. You don't need 5, 6, or 10 candidates. Even the Americans usually only have 2 choices.
Let it not be said that Beijing chooses incompetent people. They may be corrupt, but even democracy is not without corruption. They may be friendlier to Beijing than you like, but do you really think a Chief Executive openly hostile to Beijing can get anything done?
If you grab a handful of cookies, your hand might get caught at the neck of the jar. If you let go of a couple, you might just find you can have your cookie and eat it too.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Remembrance gone wrong
Lately the white poppy campaign has, again, reared its ugly head. These people claim that the red poppy glorifies war, and that the white poppy is a better symbol, representing peace. They think that they are doing the world a service.
They are vastly misguided. At best.
That they assert red poppies are in celebration of war is indicative of ignorance. It also contains a highly offensive insinuation: that the veterans who hand out red poppies are glorifying and celebrating war. I submit that these very people who experienced the living hell of the battlefield are the ones who most want to put war behind them.
Poppies were never meant to glorify or celebrate war, and neither was Remembrance Day. If these people took a proper look at history, they'd know that Remembrance Day, November 11, is in celebration of the Armistice; that is, the cessation of war, in 1918. That said, maybe it's not their fault entirely. Perhaps some fault lies with our education system. If they didn't feed us the boring tripe that they currently do, maybe students would actually learn Canadian history, and this sort of travesty could be prevented.
The fact that this campaign has taken on a blatantly political overtone, despite Remembrance Day being a day where we are supposed to set aside differences in order to remember those who fought and died for our country, is a further slap in the face to veterans across the country. Are you trying to tell these men and women, who fought and died for our nation, that it is wrong of them to continue handing out the traditional red poppy, in remembrance of, very often, their friends and family?
But at the very heart of this discussion, the entire idea of a peaceful world is steeped in the strongest naivety. These bleeding-heart pacifists are the same voices that join in the call for the felling of dictators across the globe. How, exactly, do they propose to accomplish that feat? With flowers, rainbows, and unicorns? War is a great evil, but it is also a necessary evil, for "peace without justice is tyranny." There can be no true peace without tyranny, but the world is inherently unjust, and there will always be those who aspire to tyranny.
Our very best died so we could live freely. They died so we could speak freely. They did not die so that people with their digestive tracts reversed could speak through their arse and s*** through their mouths.
Lest we forget.
Lest we remember incorrectly.
They are vastly misguided. At best.
That they assert red poppies are in celebration of war is indicative of ignorance. It also contains a highly offensive insinuation: that the veterans who hand out red poppies are glorifying and celebrating war. I submit that these very people who experienced the living hell of the battlefield are the ones who most want to put war behind them.
Poppies were never meant to glorify or celebrate war, and neither was Remembrance Day. If these people took a proper look at history, they'd know that Remembrance Day, November 11, is in celebration of the Armistice; that is, the cessation of war, in 1918. That said, maybe it's not their fault entirely. Perhaps some fault lies with our education system. If they didn't feed us the boring tripe that they currently do, maybe students would actually learn Canadian history, and this sort of travesty could be prevented.
The fact that this campaign has taken on a blatantly political overtone, despite Remembrance Day being a day where we are supposed to set aside differences in order to remember those who fought and died for our country, is a further slap in the face to veterans across the country. Are you trying to tell these men and women, who fought and died for our nation, that it is wrong of them to continue handing out the traditional red poppy, in remembrance of, very often, their friends and family?
But at the very heart of this discussion, the entire idea of a peaceful world is steeped in the strongest naivety. These bleeding-heart pacifists are the same voices that join in the call for the felling of dictators across the globe. How, exactly, do they propose to accomplish that feat? With flowers, rainbows, and unicorns? War is a great evil, but it is also a necessary evil, for "peace without justice is tyranny." There can be no true peace without tyranny, but the world is inherently unjust, and there will always be those who aspire to tyranny.
Our very best died so we could live freely. They died so we could speak freely. They did not die so that people with their digestive tracts reversed could speak through their arse and s*** through their mouths.
Lest we forget.
Lest we remember incorrectly.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
#RealBulls***
This here, the new Trudeau ad, is absolute shite. It claims that the average income
in Canada has only increased 15% over the last 30 years. That is patently
untrue. The inflation adjusted figures are 60,200 in 1983 and 76,000 in 2013.
That is a 26% growth. However, the chart on the ad uses 1981 and 2011.
Why? Because 1981 is close to a local maximum (63,100) and 2011 (75,000) is
lower than the most current figures. Even when fiddling with the years like that,
the growth is 19%, not 15%.
The ad also compares income to GDP. While accurate in his
claim that real GDP has more or less doubled over the past 30 years, this is
comparing apples to oranges. Of course GDP has grown at a rate greater than
average income, largely because the population of Canada has also grown, from
around 25 million then to 35 million now.
The only passable comparison that can be made is with per
capita GDP, which has grown at a much more sedate pace over the past 30
years: from about 24,000 to 36,000 (or about 50%). Even then, this figure is
going to rise much faster than average income because a lot of economic growth
is in increased trade. That will inflate GDP growth above income because that
money doesn’t flow through to individuals. You would think the leader of a
major federal party would at least attempt to understand basic economics, but apparently not.
If this type of misrepresentation of facts and lack of understanding for economics is propagated by
the leader of the party, the Liberals have no business telling us that the
Conservatives are doing wrong by Canadians.
Also, there is no point at all for going back 30 years. If the Liberals were trying to convey that the Conservatives are bad for the economy and that the Liberals would do better, that effort fell flat on its face. That is because, for 17 of those 30 years, it was the Liberals who were in power. And also because both numbers are, actually, still going up. There's a "rah rah!" for the Canadian economy, but nothing more.
More to the point is, the Conservatives have been in office since
2006, and income has grown 5.4% since then, despite a global financial crisis.
By contrast, the United States median income dropped 5.2% during that period.
Anybody who bothers to stop and think would know what complete bollocks this is. It screams incompetence and irrelevance. But, hey, anything to win a couple votes from the ignoramuses out there, eh? Because that's who you want supporting your party!
Oh, and parting shot: this ad still hasn't told us what your priorities are, Justin. Maybe the party of the mushy middle is just that. Mushy.
Monday, October 3, 2011
PEI aftermath, Manitoba, and how to win the vote but lose the election
Turns out the polls underestimated Conservative support again, so instead of 25-2, it was 22-5. This is becoming habitual. However, at least the call for a Liberal landslide was right. And anyways, having more Conservatives is always a good thing. One semi-shocker from last night: the Greens beat the New Democrats.
Manitoba is next on the list of elections. The campaign has been dull. NDP Premier Greg Selinger is seeking his own electoral victory, and a fourth in a row for the Manitoba NDP, and it seems that he will get it. The PCs under Hugh McFadyen have gained since 2007 but it does not appear to be enough. The Liberals under I-dunno-who-his-name-is are in danger of losing their only seat. Voting is tomorrow, so time for the final call:
NDP ...... 43-46% ... 35-38 seats
PC ........ 42-45% ... 19-21 seats
Lib .......... 7-10% ....... 0-1 seats
Green ....... 3-4%
Politically Uncorrect projects a NDP MAJORITY.
You will notice that the NDP and PC vote ranges overlap; that is, the PCs could conceivably win the popular vote. However, you will also notice that the PCs are not projected to have an overlap in seat count. This is the workings of our oh-so-sensible first past the post system. We divide our map into little districts, and each district elects one representative. This representative wins by virtue of having the most votes. The reason the PCs are expected to perform so poorly with a high vote total is because they pile up useless votes in very safe districts (say...about 65-35), whereas the NDP support is evenly spread enough to win more seats by smaller margins (like 55-45). A win by 10% is still a win, and is exactly the same as a win by 30%. This is why sometimes, electoral reform creeps into my mind. Of course it doesn't take long for common sense to re-assume its place in my brain and quash the idea. I mean, who would want perpetual minority governments being held hostage permanently by splinter groups like...oh...the Liberals?
Manitoba is next on the list of elections. The campaign has been dull. NDP Premier Greg Selinger is seeking his own electoral victory, and a fourth in a row for the Manitoba NDP, and it seems that he will get it. The PCs under Hugh McFadyen have gained since 2007 but it does not appear to be enough. The Liberals under I-dunno-who-his-name-is are in danger of losing their only seat. Voting is tomorrow, so time for the final call:
NDP ...... 43-46% ... 35-38 seats
PC ........ 42-45% ... 19-21 seats
Lib .......... 7-10% ....... 0-1 seats
Green ....... 3-4%
Politically Uncorrect projects a NDP MAJORITY.
You will notice that the NDP and PC vote ranges overlap; that is, the PCs could conceivably win the popular vote. However, you will also notice that the PCs are not projected to have an overlap in seat count. This is the workings of our oh-so-sensible first past the post system. We divide our map into little districts, and each district elects one representative. This representative wins by virtue of having the most votes. The reason the PCs are expected to perform so poorly with a high vote total is because they pile up useless votes in very safe districts (say...about 65-35), whereas the NDP support is evenly spread enough to win more seats by smaller margins (like 55-45). A win by 10% is still a win, and is exactly the same as a win by 30%. This is why sometimes, electoral reform creeps into my mind. Of course it doesn't take long for common sense to re-assume its place in my brain and quash the idea. I mean, who would want perpetual minority governments being held hostage permanently by splinter groups like...oh...the Liberals?
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Hi, I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.
Statistics Canada just released their commute report Wednesday, and one interesting tidbit was the difference in commute time between transit users and drivers in the three major metropolitan areas.
In Toronto, drivers take on average 29 minutes to get to work, and transit users 49. That's a gap of 69% (calculated with driving as the base). Seems reasonable.
In Montreal, drivers take 30 minutes and transit users just 39. That is an astounding difference of only 30%.
In Vancouver, drivers take 25 minutes and transit users 48. The difference is nearly a double, at 92%. That is ridiculous.
Greater Toronto is a very large city; larger than Metro Vancouver in both population and area. Yet, there still exists a large variation in Toronto's favour. Some may argue that Vancouver is merely experiencing "growing pains" due to a large influx of immigrants, but Toronto and Montreal also see respectable rates of immigration, so this can't explain very much. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons for this ludicrous variation between Montreal and Vancouver:
I know for a fact that there are perfectly urban bus routes where bus frequency is 20 minutes. On a weekday. During rush hour. We're talking about Burnaby to Burnaby, not Surrey to Fort Langley. Imagine commuting during off-peak hours or to/from suburban areas...40 minutes to up to 1 hr is not out of the question. You miss the bus, and you might as well call in sick.
Furthermore, Vancouver is a city that is large area-wise, but there are only three metro lines, which, as you can imagine, serve only narrow strips of the city. Before the Canada Line was completed in 2009, the airport terminal was actually only served by one solitary bus route. At present, while they do catch the major centres of Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond and Surrey, they continue to fail to connect with the two largest educational institutions. Maybe this is why we're all too stupid to do anything about this. Vicious cycle.
The existence of four express bus lines does marginally correct for this, but buses on busy roads are obviously slower than trains, and one of these lines has service that abruptly cuts off for 5 hours in the middle of the day! If you have to travel from UBC to Joyce Station between 10AM and 3PM, too bad, you're going to have to use the non-express line, which basically has a stop every 300 metres for a 10 km stretch, among others. That's 75 well-spent minutes!
Again, there are several reasons for the above:
The number of buses is something that I do have some knowledge of. Translink just purchased 300 or so in 2009, and has a fleet of over 1500, which is plenty. Every time I drive by their bus lot in South Vancouver, I see a hundred buses parked there. Doubtless it is the same with the other lots. Most definitely, some of them are being serviced. That said, you cannot possibly service a hundred buses in the same lot at the same time. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they don't free up some of these buses and boost frequency to routes where it is badly needed.
Since Translink can't hire and has extra buses, we must now explore my third proposition. The sometimes...to put it bluntly...brain-dead actions of the Translink brass is cause for great concern. These actions also sometimes squander large sums, and are a leading cause of we-have-no-money-itis, which severely afflicts Translink. Take, for instance, fare evasion on SkyTrain. Translink frequently complains that there is a high rate of fare evasion which costs them millions. There is a very simple and common solution to this. They are called gates, and have been used in major cities all over the world since the beginning of mass transportation. It is beyond me why it took 25 years (1986-2011) for officials to recognize the need for them, and why it will take 2 more years to install them.
Q. How many Translink staff does it take to install a fare gate?
A. Seven. Six to retire and one to put in the screws.
This brings us to the amount of time it takes for things to be done. Let us study the Canada Line and the proposed Evergreen Line. The idea for the Canada Line came in 1995. A temporary bus route (98 B-Line) was proposed in 1998. The route entered service in 2001. In 2002, 10 months were taken to study whether the line could be built in time for 2010. In 2005 work finally started and the line was opened by 2009.
The Evergreen Line could be just as bad. The idea originally came with the Millenium Line, which opened in 2002. This idea was replaced with a temporary bus route (97 B-Line) implemented that year. By 2004 Translink had a plan; however, following public consultations beginning 2006, Translink changed the plans completely in 2008, then discovered they couldn't agree on the money in 2009. The expected completion date of 2014 (already 3 years delayed) was put into jeopardy with late 2015 now cited as the potential completion date.
The above analysis can be summed up in two short phrases: there are redundancies, and management can't manage. And this is why I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.
In Toronto, drivers take on average 29 minutes to get to work, and transit users 49. That's a gap of 69% (calculated with driving as the base). Seems reasonable.
In Montreal, drivers take 30 minutes and transit users just 39. That is an astounding difference of only 30%.
In Vancouver, drivers take 25 minutes and transit users 48. The difference is nearly a double, at 92%. That is ridiculous.
Greater Toronto is a very large city; larger than Metro Vancouver in both population and area. Yet, there still exists a large variation in Toronto's favour. Some may argue that Vancouver is merely experiencing "growing pains" due to a large influx of immigrants, but Toronto and Montreal also see respectable rates of immigration, so this can't explain very much. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons for this ludicrous variation between Montreal and Vancouver:
- Montreal transit operators are haphazard and drive recklessly, or
- Translink service is terribly inadequate.
I know for a fact that there are perfectly urban bus routes where bus frequency is 20 minutes. On a weekday. During rush hour. We're talking about Burnaby to Burnaby, not Surrey to Fort Langley. Imagine commuting during off-peak hours or to/from suburban areas...40 minutes to up to 1 hr is not out of the question. You miss the bus, and you might as well call in sick.
Furthermore, Vancouver is a city that is large area-wise, but there are only three metro lines, which, as you can imagine, serve only narrow strips of the city. Before the Canada Line was completed in 2009, the airport terminal was actually only served by one solitary bus route. At present, while they do catch the major centres of Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond and Surrey, they continue to fail to connect with the two largest educational institutions. Maybe this is why we're all too stupid to do anything about this. Vicious cycle.
The existence of four express bus lines does marginally correct for this, but buses on busy roads are obviously slower than trains, and one of these lines has service that abruptly cuts off for 5 hours in the middle of the day! If you have to travel from UBC to Joyce Station between 10AM and 3PM, too bad, you're going to have to use the non-express line, which basically has a stop every 300 metres for a 10 km stretch, among others. That's 75 well-spent minutes!
Again, there are several reasons for the above:
- Not enough drivers;
- Not enough buses;
- Translink is mismanaged.
The number of buses is something that I do have some knowledge of. Translink just purchased 300 or so in 2009, and has a fleet of over 1500, which is plenty. Every time I drive by their bus lot in South Vancouver, I see a hundred buses parked there. Doubtless it is the same with the other lots. Most definitely, some of them are being serviced. That said, you cannot possibly service a hundred buses in the same lot at the same time. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they don't free up some of these buses and boost frequency to routes where it is badly needed.
Since Translink can't hire and has extra buses, we must now explore my third proposition. The sometimes...to put it bluntly...brain-dead actions of the Translink brass is cause for great concern. These actions also sometimes squander large sums, and are a leading cause of we-have-no-money-itis, which severely afflicts Translink. Take, for instance, fare evasion on SkyTrain. Translink frequently complains that there is a high rate of fare evasion which costs them millions. There is a very simple and common solution to this. They are called gates, and have been used in major cities all over the world since the beginning of mass transportation. It is beyond me why it took 25 years (1986-2011) for officials to recognize the need for them, and why it will take 2 more years to install them.
Q. How many Translink staff does it take to install a fare gate?
A. Seven. Six to retire and one to put in the screws.
This brings us to the amount of time it takes for things to be done. Let us study the Canada Line and the proposed Evergreen Line. The idea for the Canada Line came in 1995. A temporary bus route (98 B-Line) was proposed in 1998. The route entered service in 2001. In 2002, 10 months were taken to study whether the line could be built in time for 2010. In 2005 work finally started and the line was opened by 2009.
The Evergreen Line could be just as bad. The idea originally came with the Millenium Line, which opened in 2002. This idea was replaced with a temporary bus route (97 B-Line) implemented that year. By 2004 Translink had a plan; however, following public consultations beginning 2006, Translink changed the plans completely in 2008, then discovered they couldn't agree on the money in 2009. The expected completion date of 2014 (already 3 years delayed) was put into jeopardy with late 2015 now cited as the potential completion date.
The above analysis can be summed up in two short phrases: there are redundancies, and management can't manage. And this is why I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Requiescat in paces
"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world." ~ Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, August 20, 2011
Yesterday was a sad day for us all, as we learned of the passing of Jack Layton. These last words from his letter to Canadians two days before his passing are words we can all agree with. What he loves, what he hopes for, what he is optimistic for may not be what all of us love, hope for, and are optimistic for; but his last words encompass the person he truly was. He stood for all that, and more. He was genuine and sincere, in the face of politics, and to the very end, he worked for Canada, and that is to be respected.
While I may not agree with his party, his opinions, and his policies, I will still miss 'Smiling Jack,' as he was known, for what he brought to Canadian politics. I will mourn his loss as a fellow Canadian and human being. Ever since I began to follow politics, Jack Layton has been there. Sometimes he brought real ideas, but sometimes they were (no offense) a joke. He made us think and he made us laugh -- and usually when that happened he laughed with us.
With a Conservative majority, an NDP opposition, the Liberals battered, the Bloc crushed, and the Greens represented, the last election already represented a sea-change from the Canadian politics that I knew. Harper and Layton remained the only constants. Now even Layton isn't around anymore...Canadian politics is about to take on a whole new look. Jack would have wanted us to look forward, so now we ask, "What's next?"
Prime Minister Harper's offer of a state funeral, although out of the ordinary, is nothing more than what Mr. Layton deserves. May he rest in peace.
Yesterday was a sad day for us all, as we learned of the passing of Jack Layton. These last words from his letter to Canadians two days before his passing are words we can all agree with. What he loves, what he hopes for, what he is optimistic for may not be what all of us love, hope for, and are optimistic for; but his last words encompass the person he truly was. He stood for all that, and more. He was genuine and sincere, in the face of politics, and to the very end, he worked for Canada, and that is to be respected.
While I may not agree with his party, his opinions, and his policies, I will still miss 'Smiling Jack,' as he was known, for what he brought to Canadian politics. I will mourn his loss as a fellow Canadian and human being. Ever since I began to follow politics, Jack Layton has been there. Sometimes he brought real ideas, but sometimes they were (no offense) a joke. He made us think and he made us laugh -- and usually when that happened he laughed with us.
With a Conservative majority, an NDP opposition, the Liberals battered, the Bloc crushed, and the Greens represented, the last election already represented a sea-change from the Canadian politics that I knew. Harper and Layton remained the only constants. Now even Layton isn't around anymore...Canadian politics is about to take on a whole new look. Jack would have wanted us to look forward, so now we ask, "What's next?"
Prime Minister Harper's offer of a state funeral, although out of the ordinary, is nothing more than what Mr. Layton deserves. May he rest in peace.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The New Democratic Way
It's been nearly three months since the election, and 3 months since I've posted. I can see I haven't missed much. However, there is an issue on which I'd like to write, from Saskatchewan, which happens to be having an election this November. Apparently the NDP released an attack ad in which they spliced two quotes of Premier Brad Wall (Saskatchewan Party) together. These two quotes were from a news scrum, spoken about 10 minutes apart. The new single quote was then taken completely out of context. Whatever bewitched them into thinking they wouldn't get caught I have no idea.
Before I begin, let me say that context never matters in politics. Nobody can sue anybody because normally the quote is exact and there were only differences in interpretation. If misinterpretation is done well enough, it might even force the misinterpreted to apologize. Of course, if it was common folk like us who misinterpreted comments so often, we'd be diagnosed as schizophrenic within a year (2 weeks if at non-Canadian medical institution).
Misinterpreting is one thing, but misquoting is quite another. The NDP could have kept the lid on this had they just admitted it was wrong and offered an apology. I realize, though, that expecting a political party to actually admit something is like watching paint dry. Your eyes dry first. Nevertheless, a normal political party will recognize damage when it comes and try to stop it. It is with this sharp departure from normalcy that I introduce to you...The New Democratic Way.
Deciding to take the high road instead, they called the Saskatchewan Party response "childish" and "over the top." Perhaps these words would have been more fitting had they been said to a mirror. The response from the government, while perhaps slightly dramatized, is in no way out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary, however, is the decision to remain defiant. They also defended the advertisement, saying it conveyed their message. By now, however, the only message the advertisement conveyed was that they were dishonest and desperate. If that's the message they wanted conveyed, perhaps NDP strategists were born on Mars. I really don't know.
As the controversy brew, they finally decided to pull the advertisement. Begrudging apologies were then offered - from all the wrong people. Party deputies released statements to the effect that they didn't know what the advertisement firm was doing. The party ordered the ads in the first place so obviously voters are expected to believe that they had nothing to do with this. Also, while party officials offered up peace offerings, the leader has been almost invisible. To this day I do not know Mr. Lingenfelter's first name. If you're running for premier and people don't know your name, you're either the leader of the Communist Party or in very big trouble (like trailing by 30%).
So, to sum it all up:
1) Initiate incredible stupidity;
2) Respond with incredible stpuidity;
3) Behave with incredible stupidity;
4) Run and hide.
And that is...The New Democratic Way.
Before I begin, let me say that context never matters in politics. Nobody can sue anybody because normally the quote is exact and there were only differences in interpretation. If misinterpretation is done well enough, it might even force the misinterpreted to apologize. Of course, if it was common folk like us who misinterpreted comments so often, we'd be diagnosed as schizophrenic within a year (2 weeks if at non-Canadian medical institution).
Misinterpreting is one thing, but misquoting is quite another. The NDP could have kept the lid on this had they just admitted it was wrong and offered an apology. I realize, though, that expecting a political party to actually admit something is like watching paint dry. Your eyes dry first. Nevertheless, a normal political party will recognize damage when it comes and try to stop it. It is with this sharp departure from normalcy that I introduce to you...The New Democratic Way.
Deciding to take the high road instead, they called the Saskatchewan Party response "childish" and "over the top." Perhaps these words would have been more fitting had they been said to a mirror. The response from the government, while perhaps slightly dramatized, is in no way out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary, however, is the decision to remain defiant. They also defended the advertisement, saying it conveyed their message. By now, however, the only message the advertisement conveyed was that they were dishonest and desperate. If that's the message they wanted conveyed, perhaps NDP strategists were born on Mars. I really don't know.
As the controversy brew, they finally decided to pull the advertisement. Begrudging apologies were then offered - from all the wrong people. Party deputies released statements to the effect that they didn't know what the advertisement firm was doing. The party ordered the ads in the first place so obviously voters are expected to believe that they had nothing to do with this. Also, while party officials offered up peace offerings, the leader has been almost invisible. To this day I do not know Mr. Lingenfelter's first name. If you're running for premier and people don't know your name, you're either the leader of the Communist Party or in very big trouble (like trailing by 30%).
So, to sum it all up:
1) Initiate incredible stupidity;
2) Respond with incredible stpuidity;
3) Behave with incredible stupidity;
4) Run and hide.
And that is...The New Democratic Way.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Why I'll be voting to keep the HST
Since the federal campaign has yet to really heat up, I thought I'd take the time to once again talk about something I feel strongly about - the HST. It's probably going to be the next major vote after the federal election.
On July 1, 2010, BC introduced the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) along with Ontario, joining three eastern provinces, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, in implementing the HST. Simply put, the HST is the harmonization (hence the name) of the provincial sales tax (PST) and the federal goods and services tax (GST) (Canada Revenue Agency). The BC HST rate is 12%, composed of a 5% federal portion and a 7% provincial portion (Ibid.).
The implementation of the HST in BC set off a political firestorm, since, during the 2009 campaign, Premier Gordon Campbell effectively promised not to implement it. Indeed, an Ipsos Reid/Global News poll conducted shortly after the BC government’s apparent about-face found that fully 85% of British Columbians opposed the HST. This initial opposition led former premier Bill Vander Zalm to organize the Fight HST group, whose most prominent action was a petition against the HST, which garnered over 700,000 signatures, and forced the provincial government to submit the HST to a referendum, scheduled for September 24, 2011. Since then, opposition has steadily fallen, with the most recent Angus Reid poll indicating 54% of British Columbians oppose the HST.
On November 3, 2010, Premier Campbell announced his intentions to resign as premier and leader of the BC Liberal Party. His successor, Christy Clark, was chosen at the BC Liberal leadership convention on February 26, 2011, and officially sworn in on March 14, 2011. One of Clark’s first moves was to move the HST referendum up 3 months to June 24, 2011.
The first and foremost concern for those against the HST is the potential rise in costs for individuals. Those opposed to the HST claim that prices have gone up even beyond the additional 7% on goods and services previously exempt from the PST (Fight HST 3). They say that it is just a massive tax grab to increase the tax burden on the average British Columbian (Fraser Institute). However, the HST is actually revenue-neutral for the government, and with accompanying income tax cuts and a rebate cheque for low income citizens, “the HST essentially will have no impact on the total tax bill paid by the average family” (Ibid.). Furthermore, a report put out by the TD Economics states that the “majority of goods purchased by households…will not cost a penny more, and some may cost less” (1). TD concedes that overall consumer prices are expected to rise initially, but will within three years be offset by lower costs being passed on to the consumer (Ibid. 2). Indeed, this is demonstrated in the latest BC Stats report on the CPI, which shows that the CPI for BC did spike relative to the national average in July 2010, but within the next few months returned to levels very similar to the national average (1). This would appear to show that Fight HST’s claims about rising costs are unfounded.
Of course, with the HST being an economic issue, a major concern is its impact on the economy, and of particular importance is unemployment, which affects citizens that most. The Fight HST campaign claims that “implementing the HST in BC would…create job losses for a minimum of 5 years” (3). On the other hand, the BC Government’s HST in BC website claims that the HST is expected to create 113,000 new jobs by 2020. The latest BC Stats report on unemployment gives a clear picture – the graph indicates that unemployment in BC declined steadily from the recession peak in mid-2009, regardless of the HST, and only spiked in early 2011 due to a large increase in participation in the labour force (1). Also, employment in BC in February 2011 was up from both a month ago and a year ago (Ibid. 2), seemingly disproving the Fight HST claim that the HST would induce job losses.
Another notable macroeconomic indicator is the GDP, from which we can measure economic growth. The Fight HST group claims that the implementation of the HST would be bad for the economy (3). However, the Fraser Institute claims that the “HST will help BC recover from recession more quickly.” Also, the Government HST in BC site claims that the HST would help to “generate economic growth.” The BC Government hasn’t posted GDP data after the HST, but “since [BC and Ontario] make up 50% of overall Canadian economic activity, any impact harmonization may have on their performance will ripple through to the national headline economic figures” (TD Bank Financial Group 1). That means we can use national GDP figures to see the impact of the HST on economic growth. Data from Statistics Canada’s latest quarterly release on economic accounts indicates that real GDP has risen steadily since the depths of the recession in 2009. Even though there was a slight slowdown in the middle of 2010, the economy picked up again towards the end of the year (Ibid.). Once again, Fight HST’s claims seem to be disproven by economic indicators.
Another concern opponents of the HST have is that rising costs will deter consumers and lower consumer confidence. Fight HST claims that ever since the HST was implanted in BC, “consumer confidence…has dropped significantly” (2). TD agrees, saying that strength in consumption before the HST might be due to anticipation of higher taxes and that there could be a corrective period, but only for a few months, stressing that in the long run “consumer spending is not expected to be greatly affected” (1). Consumer confidence figures from the Conference Board of Canada do substantiate the concerns, with the Vancouver Sun reporting a huge slide of 12.5 points to 78.9 for BC in July 2010. However, as CKNW reports, BC’s consumer confidence bounced back within months, just as TD predicted, to stand at 102.2 by January 2011, well above the national average of 88.1. Fight HST’s claims also seem to fall short on this measure.
From the economic analysis of the HST, I can see no good reason for the opposition of the tax. Prices have stayed with the national average, jobs have been created, the economy has grown, and consumption has not been affected much with the implementation of the HST. Indeed, with the facts that the HST simplifies taxation and saves the BC government millions (Fraser Institute), the HST is a more progressive tax scheme which taxes the rich more (Ibid.), and that repealing the HST will lose the province $1.6 billion of federal transfers (Vancouver Observer), I have decided that I will vote to keep the HST in the June 24 referendum.
Sources
“Harmonized sales tax (HST).” www.cra-arc.gc.ca. Canada Revenue Agency, 2010.
“Ipsos Reid/Global News HST Poll.” Global BC. CW Media Inc., 5 Aug. 2009.
Canseco, Mark. “Governing BC Liberals Extend Lead as Clark Becomes Premier.” Vision Critical. Vision Critical, 22 Mar. 2011.
“Top 18 Liberal Myths about the HST – Part II.” Fight HST. Fight HST, n.d.
Lammam, Charles, and Niels Veldhuis. “HST fears unfounded; new study clarifies myths about BC’s harmonized sales tax and explains problems with the PST it replaces.” Fraser Institute. Fraser Institute, 29 Jun. 2010.
“The Economic Impact of HST Reform.” TD Economic. TD Bank Financial Group, 6 Jul. 2010.
“Consumer Price Index – January 2011.” BC Stats. BC Stats, 18 Feb. 2011.
“Building the Economy.” www.hstinbc.ca. British Columbia, n.d.
“Labour Force Statistics – February 2011.” BC Stats. BC Stats, 11 Mar. 2011.
“Canadian economic accounts.” www.statcan.gc.ca. Statistics Canada, 2011.
“BC consumers’ confidence hits the skids.” Vancouver Sun. Postmedia News, 27 Jul. 2010.
“BC consumer confidence soars despite HST.” CKNW. CKNW, 25 Jan. 2011.
Posyniak, Thomas. “The unhappy reality of revoking the HST.” Vancouver Observer. Can Do Media Inc., 23 Jun. 2010.
On July 1, 2010, BC introduced the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) along with Ontario, joining three eastern provinces, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, in implementing the HST. Simply put, the HST is the harmonization (hence the name) of the provincial sales tax (PST) and the federal goods and services tax (GST) (Canada Revenue Agency). The BC HST rate is 12%, composed of a 5% federal portion and a 7% provincial portion (Ibid.).
The implementation of the HST in BC set off a political firestorm, since, during the 2009 campaign, Premier Gordon Campbell effectively promised not to implement it. Indeed, an Ipsos Reid/Global News poll conducted shortly after the BC government’s apparent about-face found that fully 85% of British Columbians opposed the HST. This initial opposition led former premier Bill Vander Zalm to organize the Fight HST group, whose most prominent action was a petition against the HST, which garnered over 700,000 signatures, and forced the provincial government to submit the HST to a referendum, scheduled for September 24, 2011. Since then, opposition has steadily fallen, with the most recent Angus Reid poll indicating 54% of British Columbians oppose the HST.
On November 3, 2010, Premier Campbell announced his intentions to resign as premier and leader of the BC Liberal Party. His successor, Christy Clark, was chosen at the BC Liberal leadership convention on February 26, 2011, and officially sworn in on March 14, 2011. One of Clark’s first moves was to move the HST referendum up 3 months to June 24, 2011.
The first and foremost concern for those against the HST is the potential rise in costs for individuals. Those opposed to the HST claim that prices have gone up even beyond the additional 7% on goods and services previously exempt from the PST (Fight HST 3). They say that it is just a massive tax grab to increase the tax burden on the average British Columbian (Fraser Institute). However, the HST is actually revenue-neutral for the government, and with accompanying income tax cuts and a rebate cheque for low income citizens, “the HST essentially will have no impact on the total tax bill paid by the average family” (Ibid.). Furthermore, a report put out by the TD Economics states that the “majority of goods purchased by households…will not cost a penny more, and some may cost less” (1). TD concedes that overall consumer prices are expected to rise initially, but will within three years be offset by lower costs being passed on to the consumer (Ibid. 2). Indeed, this is demonstrated in the latest BC Stats report on the CPI, which shows that the CPI for BC did spike relative to the national average in July 2010, but within the next few months returned to levels very similar to the national average (1). This would appear to show that Fight HST’s claims about rising costs are unfounded.
Of course, with the HST being an economic issue, a major concern is its impact on the economy, and of particular importance is unemployment, which affects citizens that most. The Fight HST campaign claims that “implementing the HST in BC would…create job losses for a minimum of 5 years” (3). On the other hand, the BC Government’s HST in BC website claims that the HST is expected to create 113,000 new jobs by 2020. The latest BC Stats report on unemployment gives a clear picture – the graph indicates that unemployment in BC declined steadily from the recession peak in mid-2009, regardless of the HST, and only spiked in early 2011 due to a large increase in participation in the labour force (1). Also, employment in BC in February 2011 was up from both a month ago and a year ago (Ibid. 2), seemingly disproving the Fight HST claim that the HST would induce job losses.
Another notable macroeconomic indicator is the GDP, from which we can measure economic growth. The Fight HST group claims that the implementation of the HST would be bad for the economy (3). However, the Fraser Institute claims that the “HST will help BC recover from recession more quickly.” Also, the Government HST in BC site claims that the HST would help to “generate economic growth.” The BC Government hasn’t posted GDP data after the HST, but “since [BC and Ontario] make up 50% of overall Canadian economic activity, any impact harmonization may have on their performance will ripple through to the national headline economic figures” (TD Bank Financial Group 1). That means we can use national GDP figures to see the impact of the HST on economic growth. Data from Statistics Canada’s latest quarterly release on economic accounts indicates that real GDP has risen steadily since the depths of the recession in 2009. Even though there was a slight slowdown in the middle of 2010, the economy picked up again towards the end of the year (Ibid.). Once again, Fight HST’s claims seem to be disproven by economic indicators.
Another concern opponents of the HST have is that rising costs will deter consumers and lower consumer confidence. Fight HST claims that ever since the HST was implanted in BC, “consumer confidence…has dropped significantly” (2). TD agrees, saying that strength in consumption before the HST might be due to anticipation of higher taxes and that there could be a corrective period, but only for a few months, stressing that in the long run “consumer spending is not expected to be greatly affected” (1). Consumer confidence figures from the Conference Board of Canada do substantiate the concerns, with the Vancouver Sun reporting a huge slide of 12.5 points to 78.9 for BC in July 2010. However, as CKNW reports, BC’s consumer confidence bounced back within months, just as TD predicted, to stand at 102.2 by January 2011, well above the national average of 88.1. Fight HST’s claims also seem to fall short on this measure.
From the economic analysis of the HST, I can see no good reason for the opposition of the tax. Prices have stayed with the national average, jobs have been created, the economy has grown, and consumption has not been affected much with the implementation of the HST. Indeed, with the facts that the HST simplifies taxation and saves the BC government millions (Fraser Institute), the HST is a more progressive tax scheme which taxes the rich more (Ibid.), and that repealing the HST will lose the province $1.6 billion of federal transfers (Vancouver Observer), I have decided that I will vote to keep the HST in the June 24 referendum.
Sources
“Harmonized sales tax (HST).” www.cra-arc.gc.ca. Canada Revenue Agency, 2010.
“Ipsos Reid/Global News HST Poll.” Global BC. CW Media Inc., 5 Aug. 2009.
Canseco, Mark. “Governing BC Liberals Extend Lead as Clark Becomes Premier.” Vision Critical. Vision Critical, 22 Mar. 2011.
“Top 18 Liberal Myths about the HST – Part II.” Fight HST. Fight HST, n.d.
Lammam, Charles, and Niels Veldhuis. “HST fears unfounded; new study clarifies myths about BC’s harmonized sales tax and explains problems with the PST it replaces.” Fraser Institute. Fraser Institute, 29 Jun. 2010.
“The Economic Impact of HST Reform.” TD Economic. TD Bank Financial Group, 6 Jul. 2010.
“Consumer Price Index – January 2011.” BC Stats. BC Stats, 18 Feb. 2011.
“Building the Economy.” www.hstinbc.ca. British Columbia, n.d.
“Labour Force Statistics – February 2011.” BC Stats. BC Stats, 11 Mar. 2011.
“Canadian economic accounts.” www.statcan.gc.ca. Statistics Canada, 2011.
“BC consumers’ confidence hits the skids.” Vancouver Sun. Postmedia News, 27 Jul. 2010.
“BC consumer confidence soars despite HST.” CKNW. CKNW, 25 Jan. 2011.
Posyniak, Thomas. “The unhappy reality of revoking the HST.” Vancouver Observer. Can Do Media Inc., 23 Jun. 2010.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
40 years and counting
What with the revolution in Tunisia and continued uprisings across the Arab world, most prominently Egypt, this is a good time to talk about the apparent demise of another one-party state, and this one's quite close to home. That's right, I'm talking Alberta. Of course, Alberta isn't truly a one-party state since it has free elections and all, but given the way the last 11 elections have gone...it might as well be one. It has often been said that you could run a fence post as a Progressive Conservative in Alberta, and it would win. That's true enough, or at least, it used to be.
Since 1971, Alberta has been run by the PCs. Yes, it has been 40 years, beating out the likes of Iraq and Egypt, and given a few more years they'll take on East Germany. This may not be the norm in other democracies, but in Alberta it's quite standard. In their 106-year history, Albertans have changed governing parties a whopping 3 times.
However, lately, there have been signs of fracture in the dynasty. Ed Stelmach was highly disliked as premier, and was recently forced to announce his resignation. Finance Minister Ted Morton, who has always been at odds with Premier Stelmach, also resigned to take the top job. Now, normally, this sort of party fratricide would not be a good thing in terms of PR, and for once, in Alberta, there is no exception.
Logically, when a government is viewed as tired, and when there is an appetite for change in the Canadian political scene, a Conservative government will give way to a Liberal one. Not so in Alberta. The name "Liberal" is so poisonous in Alberta that, for whatever lopsided reason, the newest political force is a party even more conservative than the PCs - the Wildrose Alliance. Now at first sight this is impossible. However, when you consider the fact that this is Alberta, it's not so absurd. After all, these are the folks who brought us the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers.
Why are the Wildrose Alliance such a threat to the PCs? They have a likeable leader, they're a sensational breath of fresh air, and they have 4 MLAs. To put that into perspective, the PCs themselves have 67 and the Liberals, the collection of unelectables of Alberta, have 8. But, for some reason, the PCs feel they have cause to panic. Not that that's a bad thing. When governments panic, they do things. Often times it's too little too late, but still better than nothing, as is usually the case.
Anyways, the bottom line is, 40 years is a long time, and it was about time Albertan politics got interesting again. Cherish it, because it likely won't happen again for another generation...or maybe two.
Since 1971, Alberta has been run by the PCs. Yes, it has been 40 years, beating out the likes of Iraq and Egypt, and given a few more years they'll take on East Germany. This may not be the norm in other democracies, but in Alberta it's quite standard. In their 106-year history, Albertans have changed governing parties a whopping 3 times.
However, lately, there have been signs of fracture in the dynasty. Ed Stelmach was highly disliked as premier, and was recently forced to announce his resignation. Finance Minister Ted Morton, who has always been at odds with Premier Stelmach, also resigned to take the top job. Now, normally, this sort of party fratricide would not be a good thing in terms of PR, and for once, in Alberta, there is no exception.
Logically, when a government is viewed as tired, and when there is an appetite for change in the Canadian political scene, a Conservative government will give way to a Liberal one. Not so in Alberta. The name "Liberal" is so poisonous in Alberta that, for whatever lopsided reason, the newest political force is a party even more conservative than the PCs - the Wildrose Alliance. Now at first sight this is impossible. However, when you consider the fact that this is Alberta, it's not so absurd. After all, these are the folks who brought us the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers.
Why are the Wildrose Alliance such a threat to the PCs? They have a likeable leader, they're a sensational breath of fresh air, and they have 4 MLAs. To put that into perspective, the PCs themselves have 67 and the Liberals, the collection of unelectables of Alberta, have 8. But, for some reason, the PCs feel they have cause to panic. Not that that's a bad thing. When governments panic, they do things. Often times it's too little too late, but still better than nothing, as is usually the case.
Anyways, the bottom line is, 40 years is a long time, and it was about time Albertan politics got interesting again. Cherish it, because it likely won't happen again for another generation...or maybe two.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Politically Uncorrect
I thought it was time to finally post something that was related to this blog's namesake, even though I did not name this blog for this purpose.
I recently came across a comic that satirizes very well the absurdity that political correctness has gone to:
This was based on people actually trying to amend a classic such as Huckleberry Finn. Honestly, some people just need to take a chill pill. The book was written 125 years ago. That was the culture of the day, and the spirit of the book necessitates that it be preserved in its original form. Schools are not condoning or promoting the use of racist language just because they are teaching this book; get a grip! If you're so offended, then don't read the book. Really, your loss.
Also, look, we all realize the merits of multiculturalism and tolerance. However, just because I say "Merry Christmas" does not mean the whole world is going to go up in flames. There is nothing wrong with a Christian wishing someone Merry Christmas. Even if the person on the receiving end is a Jew, normal people can understand the good intent behind the wish. He can say Happy Hanukkah back, for that fact, and the world will go on. Time does not stop, mountains do not fall, oceans do not dry up. If you're going to wish me "Happy Holidays," go ahead, you're most welcome, and I'll be very happy. Just don't try to stop me from saying Christmas, because that will be intolerance on YOUR behalf.
Seriously, this has gotten to the degree where literally everything that is said in public has to go through some sort of rigorous testing. I understand that free speech is a liberty only intended for expression of valid, non-hate-inducing ideas. However, I also understand that free speech was a right that our fathers fought life and limb for and won; and at this rate, we're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
And no, I'm not bowing down to that "s/he" nonsense. Sue me. Written work has used "he" as the non-gender-specific pronoun for ages. It's out of habit; not all of us are male chauvinist pigs.
I recently came across a comic that satirizes very well the absurdity that political correctness has gone to:
This was based on people actually trying to amend a classic such as Huckleberry Finn. Honestly, some people just need to take a chill pill. The book was written 125 years ago. That was the culture of the day, and the spirit of the book necessitates that it be preserved in its original form. Schools are not condoning or promoting the use of racist language just because they are teaching this book; get a grip! If you're so offended, then don't read the book. Really, your loss.Also, look, we all realize the merits of multiculturalism and tolerance. However, just because I say "Merry Christmas" does not mean the whole world is going to go up in flames. There is nothing wrong with a Christian wishing someone Merry Christmas. Even if the person on the receiving end is a Jew, normal people can understand the good intent behind the wish. He can say Happy Hanukkah back, for that fact, and the world will go on. Time does not stop, mountains do not fall, oceans do not dry up. If you're going to wish me "Happy Holidays," go ahead, you're most welcome, and I'll be very happy. Just don't try to stop me from saying Christmas, because that will be intolerance on YOUR behalf.
Seriously, this has gotten to the degree where literally everything that is said in public has to go through some sort of rigorous testing. I understand that free speech is a liberty only intended for expression of valid, non-hate-inducing ideas. However, I also understand that free speech was a right that our fathers fought life and limb for and won; and at this rate, we're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
And no, I'm not bowing down to that "s/he" nonsense. Sue me. Written work has used "he" as the non-gender-specific pronoun for ages. It's out of habit; not all of us are male chauvinist pigs.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Catching up on the news
Gordon Campbell resigned on Tuesday. I still maintain he's been the best since the 1970's, and that the HST is good economic policy. Now it's just a matter of convincing a majority of the population about the benefits of the HST before the referendum. Tall order. Also, who will be our next premier? More on that as the race heats up.
BHP Billiton's proposal to buy out Potash Corp. was blocked by the federal government. Win for Canada; foreign control over domestic resources was never going to be a good thing. Kudos to Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall for a bang up job being the leading voice of opposition to the deal.
Jim Prentice, federal Environment Minister, resigned today to take a job with CIBC. It's been 9 years since he took up federal office, and he set himself a limit of 10 years. That takes one of the moderates out of the Conservative Party. Great loss.
Three federal by-elections on November 27th. Two in Manitoba, one in Ontario. The Manitoba ones are safe NDP and Conservative. The Ontario one could be a nail-biter between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Typically it would be a safe Liberal seat but the Tories managed to snipe a star candidate, who is reportedly very popular. Full projections to come as the by-elections approach.
BHP Billiton's proposal to buy out Potash Corp. was blocked by the federal government. Win for Canada; foreign control over domestic resources was never going to be a good thing. Kudos to Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall for a bang up job being the leading voice of opposition to the deal.
Jim Prentice, federal Environment Minister, resigned today to take a job with CIBC. It's been 9 years since he took up federal office, and he set himself a limit of 10 years. That takes one of the moderates out of the Conservative Party. Great loss.
Three federal by-elections on November 27th. Two in Manitoba, one in Ontario. The Manitoba ones are safe NDP and Conservative. The Ontario one could be a nail-biter between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Typically it would be a safe Liberal seat but the Tories managed to snipe a star candidate, who is reportedly very popular. Full projections to come as the by-elections approach.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
A proud part of our political heritage
I was bored enough today to tune to CPAC on TV and watch, of all things, the Canadian House of Commons. Immediately I noticed several things.
There is no end to the partisan politics. If you're wondering why Parliament doesn't work, just watch the House of Commons. They're so busy attacking each other they have no time for offering up constructive ideas for new legislation. A Conservative member rose to speak for about 15 minutes, and I counted about 20 slurs on the NDP and another 10 on the Liberals. [Insert party here] is in a fantasy world; [insert party here] just doesn't get it; [insert party here] is totally ignorant of the facts, etc. etc. This is why substantial legislation (with the exception of confidence and budgetary matters) hardly ever gets passed!
Also, trivial Private Members Bills clog up the system a lot. On the order of business today was Bill C-544, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), "to prohibit the importation or exportation (a) of horses for slaughter for human consumption; and (b) of horse-meat products for human consumption." And I kid you not, every time an NDP member rose to speak, he or she produced a petition of a couple hundred signatures from some remote part of Canada supporting the bill, and every time, they had to read out the exact wording of the summary of the act after referencing the bill. Talk about literally beating a dead horse! Seriously, if it's unethical and unsafe to eat parts of horses, then pass the damn bill and move on!
Third, and probably most striking, was the empty chairs. I for one did not know that Canadians elected ghosts in 220 ridings. Where are all the MPs?! We elected you to work for us, so show up to work! We certainly didn't elect MPs to let them collect a 6-figure salary for showing up to work 5 days a month. Seriously, if they're going to behave like schoolchildren, then we should treat them like schoolchildren. Hell, take attendance if it's necessary to keep them in the House of Commons. And while we're at it, make these records public so everyone can see how hard their MP works. That way, if they're just there on a publicly subsidized ego trip for 4 years, at least we'll know to boot them out sooner rather than later.
Last election, 59% of us voted. Politicians keep talking about how this is a crisis and how they need to engage us better so we'll start voting again. A good place to start is working at an efficiency greater than 59%, and showing up more than 59% of the time.
There is no end to the partisan politics. If you're wondering why Parliament doesn't work, just watch the House of Commons. They're so busy attacking each other they have no time for offering up constructive ideas for new legislation. A Conservative member rose to speak for about 15 minutes, and I counted about 20 slurs on the NDP and another 10 on the Liberals. [Insert party here] is in a fantasy world; [insert party here] just doesn't get it; [insert party here] is totally ignorant of the facts, etc. etc. This is why substantial legislation (with the exception of confidence and budgetary matters) hardly ever gets passed!
Also, trivial Private Members Bills clog up the system a lot. On the order of business today was Bill C-544, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), "to prohibit the importation or exportation (a) of horses for slaughter for human consumption; and (b) of horse-meat products for human consumption." And I kid you not, every time an NDP member rose to speak, he or she produced a petition of a couple hundred signatures from some remote part of Canada supporting the bill, and every time, they had to read out the exact wording of the summary of the act after referencing the bill. Talk about literally beating a dead horse! Seriously, if it's unethical and unsafe to eat parts of horses, then pass the damn bill and move on!
Third, and probably most striking, was the empty chairs. I for one did not know that Canadians elected ghosts in 220 ridings. Where are all the MPs?! We elected you to work for us, so show up to work! We certainly didn't elect MPs to let them collect a 6-figure salary for showing up to work 5 days a month. Seriously, if they're going to behave like schoolchildren, then we should treat them like schoolchildren. Hell, take attendance if it's necessary to keep them in the House of Commons. And while we're at it, make these records public so everyone can see how hard their MP works. That way, if they're just there on a publicly subsidized ego trip for 4 years, at least we'll know to boot them out sooner rather than later.
Last election, 59% of us voted. Politicians keep talking about how this is a crisis and how they need to engage us better so we'll start voting again. A good place to start is working at an efficiency greater than 59%, and showing up more than 59% of the time.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Justice will be served...in a few weeks...months...years...
A serial killer is caught when he's 40 years old. The trial comes after 2 years, takes 6 years, and sentencing comes after another year. He's sentenced to the legal maximum of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, but he's already served 9. He appeals, and the appeal takes up 7 years, with the same result. He files for a second appeal, which similarly takes up 7 years, and changes nothing. At this time, 23 years have elapsed. The serial killer serves the remaining 2 years of his sentence, and is then paroled on account of "good behaviour." He is now 65 years old, upon which he begins to collect pension from the government.
What is wrong?
That was all hypothetical, but I am, of course, talking about the Canadian judicial system, which is probably about as ferocious as...well...a bunny. I will use the case of Robert Pickton as a case study. By the way, if you're not feeling anger pulsating through your blood at the end of this, you have no soul.
Pickton was charged with 27 counts of murder in 2002. The trial started in January 2006. The first six counts were decided in December 2007: guilty. Pickton was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under Canadian law. In January 2008, the guilty verdict was appealed, stalling the trial of the other 20 counts (one had been thrown out on lack of evidence). By June 2009, the Supreme Court of BC finally announced its decision: the convictions would stand. So the appeal went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, in June 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada made the final decision: the convictions would stand.
The victims families waited for over 8 years from the time Pickton was charged to when he was convicted. Eight arduous, stressful, torturous years.
Oh, by the way, what happened to the other 20 charges?
Merely that, yesterday, they were stayed. Yes, STAYED. This is an affront to justice. It is a complete disregard of common decency. It is a slap in the face to the victims' families, who won't even get to at least hear the word "guilty" being pronounced. Worst of all, it is a gigantic, hulking middle finger to the victims themselves.
Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the weakness of the sentencing itself. Sure, human rights dictates that we must avoid handing out cruel and inhumane punishment, but at least make Canadian law have more teeth by installing consecutive sentences! Right now, Canada operates under concurrent sentencing: all sentences are served at the same time. Do we really want Pickton, or any other serial killer for that fact, free again, ever? At least, with consecutive sentencing, Pickton would have no chance to get out for at least 150 years.
Is it any wonder felons don't think twice before commiting a crime in this country?
What is wrong?
That was all hypothetical, but I am, of course, talking about the Canadian judicial system, which is probably about as ferocious as...well...a bunny. I will use the case of Robert Pickton as a case study. By the way, if you're not feeling anger pulsating through your blood at the end of this, you have no soul.
Pickton was charged with 27 counts of murder in 2002. The trial started in January 2006. The first six counts were decided in December 2007: guilty. Pickton was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under Canadian law. In January 2008, the guilty verdict was appealed, stalling the trial of the other 20 counts (one had been thrown out on lack of evidence). By June 2009, the Supreme Court of BC finally announced its decision: the convictions would stand. So the appeal went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, in June 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada made the final decision: the convictions would stand.
The victims families waited for over 8 years from the time Pickton was charged to when he was convicted. Eight arduous, stressful, torturous years.
Oh, by the way, what happened to the other 20 charges?
Merely that, yesterday, they were stayed. Yes, STAYED. This is an affront to justice. It is a complete disregard of common decency. It is a slap in the face to the victims' families, who won't even get to at least hear the word "guilty" being pronounced. Worst of all, it is a gigantic, hulking middle finger to the victims themselves.
Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the weakness of the sentencing itself. Sure, human rights dictates that we must avoid handing out cruel and inhumane punishment, but at least make Canadian law have more teeth by installing consecutive sentences! Right now, Canada operates under concurrent sentencing: all sentences are served at the same time. Do we really want Pickton, or any other serial killer for that fact, free again, ever? At least, with consecutive sentencing, Pickton would have no chance to get out for at least 150 years.
Is it any wonder felons don't think twice before commiting a crime in this country?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
We come out in droves to complain
Because we can.
Because we feel like it.
Because it's part of our modern political activism.
I'm talking about Hong Kong, because as some of you may know (if you follow my other blog), I am currently in Hong Kong.
It's really becoming a rampant problem in this city. Sure, the economy is still firing on all cylinders, unlike most of the rest of the world, but politically this city is rather...well...whiney.
For example, take what happened earlier this week. A water main broke, I think it was in Tuen Mun, and so the government very promptly sent water trucks to provide water to affected households, erstwhile fixing the problem as quickly as possible. I think we can all agree, that is a very appropriate and timely response, right?
Apparently not. When interviewed by the local news station, the people said something along the lines of 'they didn't provide enough water.' Good heavens people! The government has to fix the water main and temporarily supply water to you manually. It's not like it doesn't cost the government money. What more can you want? That the government ensure you personally receive a constant supply of Aquafina?
This has gotten to a level that is beyond belief. And it's not just confined to Hong Kong. It's worldwide. The newest generation, they have been brought up with all the possible amenities. They have come to expect it. And I must admit, I am guilty of it sometimes. However, taking this attitude of expectancy and complacency to such extreme heights, is a never before seen phenomenon.
This is an issue that could really use some reflection: in this age of affluence, have we come to expect too much? Is this sort of behaviour sustainable? And finally, are we harbouring a culture of complaint?
Because we feel like it.
Because it's part of our modern political activism.
I'm talking about Hong Kong, because as some of you may know (if you follow my other blog), I am currently in Hong Kong.
It's really becoming a rampant problem in this city. Sure, the economy is still firing on all cylinders, unlike most of the rest of the world, but politically this city is rather...well...whiney.
For example, take what happened earlier this week. A water main broke, I think it was in Tuen Mun, and so the government very promptly sent water trucks to provide water to affected households, erstwhile fixing the problem as quickly as possible. I think we can all agree, that is a very appropriate and timely response, right?
Apparently not. When interviewed by the local news station, the people said something along the lines of 'they didn't provide enough water.' Good heavens people! The government has to fix the water main and temporarily supply water to you manually. It's not like it doesn't cost the government money. What more can you want? That the government ensure you personally receive a constant supply of Aquafina?
This has gotten to a level that is beyond belief. And it's not just confined to Hong Kong. It's worldwide. The newest generation, they have been brought up with all the possible amenities. They have come to expect it. And I must admit, I am guilty of it sometimes. However, taking this attitude of expectancy and complacency to such extreme heights, is a never before seen phenomenon.
This is an issue that could really use some reflection: in this age of affluence, have we come to expect too much? Is this sort of behaviour sustainable? And finally, are we harbouring a culture of complaint?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)