The "Prince of Pot" a Step Closer to Returning to Canada

Marc Emery may soon be back in Canada. He's been serving time in a US federal prison since being convicted in 2010 of selling marijuana seeds, but it appears as though the Americans have approved his prison transfer request:

Vancouver’s Marc Emery was given a five-year-prison term in Seattle, Wash., in September 2010 for selling cannabis seeds to U.S. customers over the Internet.
He’s serving his sentence in a medium-security prison on YazooCity, Miss.
But a July 9 letter from the U.S. Department of Justice obtained by The Canadian Press says Emery’s transfer has now been approved.
...the issue is now in the hands of the Correctional Service of Canada and the federal public safety minister, an office that was filled by Vic Toews until his retirement Tuesday.

How sadly ironic that Marc Emery sits in a federal prison while adults in Washington and Colorado can now legally purchase marijuana. Of course, that was the very scenario that those who went after Marc were trying to avoid.
And this is all to Canada's shame, as well. If what Marc was doing was illegal, we should have arrested and charged him. If we had no intention of doing so, then we had no business letting the Americans come in and get him.
Marc's wife Jodie joined us on the program Wednesday evening:

Auditor General: Yep, This Budget is Confusing

When the Alberta government tabled its latest budget back in March, there was a great deal of criticism that the changes to the way they were budgeting actually made the document more confusing in that it was more difficult to ascertain what the true deficit really was.
But when I interviewed Finance Minister Doug Horner on Budget Day, he actually asserted that the changes made the budget "easier to understand":
 
Well, I'm going to suggest that if even the Auditor General is having trouble making sense of the changes, they are certainly not "easier to understand":

The way the Redford government reports on the province’s finances and deficit is so complicated it’s hard for auditors to figure it out, let alone Albertans, auditor general Merwan Saher said Tuesday.
The auditor general said 2013-14 budget documents have been made "exponentially more complicated," obscuring the size of the actual deficit.
He questioned whether the new format for releasing fiscal data enables Albertans to hold the government accountable for its spending.
"I can tell you the very best minds in this office have found it challenging," Saher told reporters in a media teleconference after releasing a 158-page report that questioned government actions and omissions on a broad range of subjects.

More here - you can read the auditor general's latest report here.

CBE Doing A Lousy Job of Selling Report Card Changes

My latest Calgary Herald column looks as the Calgary Board of Education's push for a radical report card overhaul:

As most schoolchildren can attest to, there’s a great emphasis placed on being able to show your work.
In other words, a simple answer usually will not suffice. You must be able to demonstrate how and why you reached your conclusion so as to allow others to reach the same conclusion. Or, at the very least, it demonstrates that you grasp the concept behind your undertaking, and that you could offer a coherent explanation of what you were doing and why.
It’s a lesson that seems to be lost on the Calgary Board of Education as they tout their new plan for report cards. Step one is a pilot project commencing this fall for students at a number of schools. Step two would be to have the change implemented by 2014 for all students from kindergarten up to Grade 9.
The main thrust of the change is the removal of numerical grades. Instead, report cards will apply one of four assessment categories to children: “exemplary,” “evident,” “emerging” or “support required.” Additionally, personalized teacher comments will be removed from the report cards. Oh, and the new report cards will only be handed out twice a year.
All of this represents a significant overhaul in the way students are assessed and in the way parents are informed about how their children are doing in school. Despite that, the CBE has done a remarkably poor job in explaining why these changes are coming or how exactly they represent an improvement over the status quo.
Even some trustees feel as though they’ve been left in the dark about these changes. Last week, a motion was presented at a CBE meeting asking for more information. The motion was voted down. Not only that, but Sheila Taylor — the trustee who proposed the motion — was ruled out of order for her questions about the changes.
If trustees are confused about the changes to the assessment process, one can only imagine how parents must be feeling. Their children’s report cards are about to get more vague and less frequent, and they’re not really being told why.
The CBE is trying to assure parents that they will not be cut out of the loop. CBE chief superintendent Naomi Johnson has spoken of the need to “bring parents deeper into the school community,” which implies more direct contact with teachers and principals. Certainly there is value in such contact, but why does it have to be one or the other?
Johnson is similarly elusive on the much broader question of why. While it’s true that these changes are not cast in stone, Johnson has spoken of the “evolution” of learning and assessment and the themes explored in a recent provincial report called Inspiring Education, which explores what education in Alberta in the year 2030 might look like.
None of this constitutes a coherent explanation as to why report cards are being dramatically altered. It may well be that a 78 per cent mark in social studies doesn’t really tell the whole story of a child’s strengths and weaknesses or their grasp of the curriculum. But the word “emerging” seems to convey even less.
It’s not unreasonable that in the first few years of school, more generalized assessments be applied to children. But in the later years, when students are taking tests and completing assignments that are being graded, it seems quite reasonable that those grades mean something.
It also strikes me that we might be sneaking in a sort of no-zeros policy in that the vague new assessments being eyed by the CBE don’t rely on individual marks. Therefore, whereas a skipped assignment — and the accompanying grade of zero — might affect a numbered mark, it presumably would not affect an assessment of “evident.”
The CBE owes it to parents at this point to be as open as possible. That should start with an explanation of just how committed they are to this change, and why they feel it’s needed.
Based on what we’re seeing thus far, though, it looks more like change for the sake of change and a solution in search of a problem.

Bonus Battle: Fred Horne vs. AHS

UPDATE, 9:40am: Health Minister Fred Horne has fired the entire AHS board

ORIGINAL POST:
It's certainly not the first time that Alberta Health Services has made life difficult for the Redford government, but this time the Tories have a real mess on their hands.
It's taken the government a while to come around to the position that AHS senior executives might not be the most deserving of bonuses, and now might not exactly be the best time to be doling out bonuses to said executives. Yesterday, Health Minister Fred Horne decided to take a stand, sort of. He declared that the government could not and would not accept the bonuses. But his demand to the board was only that they reconsider their decision.
Well, the board reconsidered it, and decided they were confortable with their original decision. In other words, the bonuses stay. In fact, board chairman Stephen Lockwood was quite defiant and all but dared the minister to fire him. And maybe the minister will have to do just that - or maybe fire the whole board while they're at it. The government can't state that they won't accept something only to then decide that they'll have to accept it after all.
Now Alberta Health Services is supposed to be at arms length from the government. But does that mean that they can overrule the government? We have this odd situation where the government runs health care, but the Alberta Health Services board isn't accountable to the government - or to the voters, for that matter.
Keep in mind, that this is all of the government's making. They created this monster and now it seems they can't really control it anymore. Maybe the obvious response is to simply scrap the superboard. Unfortunately, it looks as though the government's going to continue to wrestle with this beast instead.

Why Raising the Body Checking Age Makes Sense

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the decision to raise the body checking age in minor hockey from 11 to 13:

In this era of helicopter parenting and bubble-wrapped kids, there’s a growing pushback against those who are trying to remove all risk from children’s lives. Indeed, there’s growing evidence that such efforts may be doing children more harm than good. For example, the annual report card from Active Healthy Kids Canada once again gives this country poor grades when it comes to physical activity. Canada gets a D- for overall physical activity and a D in the category of active transportation.
This year’s report card focuses on the fact that where kids might once have walked or biked to school, today, they are much more likely to be driven there by their parents. Last year’s report card, which offered a similarly pessimistic view of children’s physical activity, focused on how parental fear is keeping kids from playing outdoors.
So clearly this is a problem. But as much as we need to be attuned to that problem, let’s avoid a diagnosis where it isn’t warranted.
The decision to change the age of the introduction of bodychecking in minor hockey seems to have struck many as precisely this sort of impulse: that we’re watering down our beloved game in yet another misguided and distorted attempt to shield children from risk. The fact that it involves the game of hockey, and all the passion and emotion that entails in this country, has raised the temperature of this debate even further.
Hockey is a game of speed and skill, but it is also a rough game. There may be those who would seek to remove all roughness from the game, which would indeed fundamentally change its character and therefore should be resisted. But the fierce opposition to changing the age at which bodychecking is introduced is misplaced.
Last month, Hockey Alberta made the decision to remove bodychecking from the peewee level (11 and 12 year olds) and have it introduced instead at the bantam level (13 and 14 year olds). Last year, Hockey Calgary’s consideration of the change led to an intense pushback, which eventually led to the resignation of the association’s president.
This time around, however, there’s a firmer commitment to this change. Shortly after Hockey Alberta’s decision, Hockey Canada voted to implement the change nationally. Saskatchewan was the only dissenter, but they are clearly not alone in their opposition. Don Cherry used his national platform on CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada to denounce the decision. In Manitoba, one entrepreneur is already planning to launch a peewee league separate from Hockey Manitoba that would include bodychecking. Such a response seems rather disproportionate. Why, for example, is there no denouncing the fact that there is no bodychecking at the atom level (nine and 10 year olds)? Why is there no push to create a separate league for atom players that includes bodychecking? No bemoaning the coddling of these children?
Presumably, everyone seems to accept that there is a line to be drawn between players who are too young to bodycheck and those who are able to handle it. We are merely adjusting that line. The adjustment appears even less dramatic when you consider that up to 2002, peewee — and therefore bodychecking itself — started at age 12.
Moreover, though, the evidence indicates that this is the right decision. Two separate studies out of the University of Calgary examined the experience in Alberta, where bodychecking began at age 11, and in Quebec, where the bodychecking age has long been 13.
The studies found that the rate of injury at the peewee level was far higher in Alberta, and that the rate of injury at the bantam level was more or less the same in both provinces. That certainly undercuts the argument that moving up the age only delays injuries and seems to offer proof that this change will result in fewer net injuries.
This is neither a fundamental change to the game of hockey, nor an irrational attempt to protect children from risk. It is a minor adjustment aimed at reducing injuries that will hopefully lead to more kids playing hockey. Given the concern about inactivity among Canadian kids, that strikes me as a win-win.

City's Decision To End Fluoridation Looking Like a Mistake

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the issue of water fluoridation and whether city council needs to revisit its 2011 decision:

Word last week about a worsening situation in Calgary with regard to  children’s oral health is certainly disconcerting, but sadly, not at all  surprising.
Trying to predict the implications of a particular government policy can be  an imprecise science. However, when it came to the 2011 decision by Calgary city  council to halt water fluoridation, the implications were actually fairly easy  to predict.
It remains unclear what benefits council expected we’d realize. Frankly, the  decision was about as puzzling as any we’ve seen in recent memory. Water  fluoridation had been approved by voters in 1999, and the practice was in  keeping with the best medical and scientific advice.
The evidence is pretty clear on water fluoridation, which the U.S. Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention has listed as one of its 10 greatest public  health achievements of the 20th century. As Alberta Health Services notes on its  website, three major systematic reviews of the available evidence have been  conducted over the past decade in three countries. All of them demonstrate quite  convincingly that water fluoridation is effective in reducing cavities and that  the practice is safe.
So not only was the 2011 city council decision a solution in search of a  problem, it was a “solution” directly at odds with the best evidence. There’s no  harm in examining or reconsidering certain policies, but it’s not unreasonable  to expect that the conclusions that follow be evidence-based.
That’s not to say that fluoridation is a panacea. For example, University of  Iowa dental professor Stephen Levy, who has been involved in a long-running  study of water fluoridation, has suggested that the benefits of fluoridation are  not as great today as they were, say, 30 years ago. While there may be other  sources of fluoride available, and other means of addressing oral health, water  fluoridation remains a cost-effective means of reaching the populace.
There is also concern around fluorosis, the slight discolouring of teeth that  can occur from the overconsumption of fluoride. However, many experts believe  swallowing toothpaste is a bigger factor in fluorosis than fluoridated water,  and in any event, it’s not at all clear whether Calgary’s decision to end water  fluoridation has had any impact on rates of fluorosis.
It is becoming apparent, however, that the decision to end water fluoridation  has had precisely the sort of impact that many health professionals feared it  would: namely, children in Calgary suffering from more and bigger cavities.
The alarm bell was sounded last week by the Alberta Academy of Pediatric  Dentistry, which has noted the disturbing trend over the past two years. They’re  hoping that these alarming statistics might prompt city council to take another  look at the matter.
To make matters worse, not only were these experts ignored in the decision to  end fluoridation, these same experts are being ignored in the development of  alternative dental programs. The $750,000 the city spent annually on  fluoridation was earmarked for new oral health programs aimed at low-income  children and families. It’s certainly fair to study the most effective means of  spending that money, but two years later, it seems quite clear that we’re  getting far less bang for our buck.

For her part, Ald. Druh Farrell — who spearheaded the anti-fluoridation push  on council — claims that this is not a Calgary problem, and that cavity rates  are rising across North America. Of course, this ignores the very specific trend  in Calgary being identified by dentists, and it ignores the fact that Edmonton —  which started fluoridation long before Calgary did, and continues to do so — has  lower cavity rates.
Farrell has also decided that the issue “is over,” which is rather  disingenuous on her part.
Just as the 1999 plebiscite was not the final word on the matter, nor should  the 2011 council vote be. As with any other government program or policy, we  should look to see what impact it is having.
The evidence that council made a mistake in 2011 is strong and compelling. If  this current council is too stubborn and intransigent to at least acknowledge  that possibility, then hopefully the fall election will give us a slate of more  open-minded and evidence-friendly aldermen.

MADD Canada Shows Its Neo-Prohibitionist Stripes

I once wrote a column suggesting that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was a neo-prohibitionist organization - that they often seem to be as opposed to drinking itself as they are to drunk driving. In fact, the founder of MADD has described the organization thusly.
Officials with MADD Canada took exception to my assertion, and pointed out that some of the examples I provided were specific to MADD in the US, not MADD Canada.
Well, if MADD Canada is determined on proving that they are not neo-prohibitionist, they have a funny way of showing it.
Just for point of reference, as I note in this column, we have driven down tobacco consumption rates and reduced the harm associated with tobacco consumption without addressing the retail model of tobacco. There is no government monopoly of tobacco retail in Canada and no anti-tobacco organization that I'm aware of supports such a move.
MADD Canada, however, is very much concerned with the model of alcohol retail in Canada. Their latest report (news release here, full study (PDF) here) takes a strong stand in support of the government monopoly model:

Privatizing alcohol sales will result in increased alcohol-related problems in society, according to a new report from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada.
MADD Canada said government-controlled systems of liquor sales are the best option for controlling alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm in society

Interestingly, if one refers back to MADD's news release, one will notice only a brief, scant reference to drinking and driving - which is ostensibly MADD's primary concern. If, in fact, one were to argue that the two issues are connected - specfically that privatization leads to more drunk driving - then one would expect to see this report focus primarily on that connection. It does not.
If fact, the report glosses over a rather significant statistic. As MADD has noted elsewhere, Saskatchewan has - by far - the highest rate of impaired driving among the provinces. Saskatchewan, of course, features the very sort of alcohol retail model that MADD Canada is advocating. Again, if impaired driving is MADD's primary concern, one would think that this discrepancy would be addressed. Or that rather than obsessing with how alcohol is sold, MADD would focus on ways of reducing drunk driving. Alberta's rates are also high, but Quebec's are among the lowest, so it would suggest that maybe there's not a direct connection between retail models and impaired driving rates.
Further to that point is the fact that MADD's latest report, while citing other examples from around the world, makes no mention of Germany. I note that becase in a separate report from MADD, we learn something very interesting about Germany (which has some rather lax alcohol laws):

...Canada’s per capita rate of alcohol-related crash deaths in 2008 was five times that of Germany even though Germany's consumption rate was 20% higher than Canada’s.

Again, that fact is drawn from a MADD Canada report. So in some instances the German experience is very relevant to MADD and in other instances it is irrelevant. But if MADD's concern is impaired driving, and Germany's rate is very low, then the German experience ought to be extremely relevant. Except in that case, it severely undercuts the case MADD is making against privatized liquor retail.
MADD's report makes some other questionable claims. With respect to Alberta, MADD claims that:

Alcohol consumption increased in Alberta the year privatization was introduced while rates in other parts of the country declined.

The latter part of that sentence is true, but the part about Alberta is simply false. As noted on page 13 of this report (PDF), Alberta's consumption rate declined in Alberta before privatization and after privatization. The rate did go up in 1997, but that was four years after privatization. Interestingly, Alberta's rate of consumption was already well above the national average under the old government monopoly.
MADD Canada also claims that:

The number of liquor stores in Calgary increased more than tenfold from 1995 to 2003, from 23 stores to nearly 300. Police reports in Calgary document a rise in impaired driving charges and family violence cases in areas of the city with the highest density of liquor stores.

MADD's source for that claim is a book, so it's difficult to verify. But is seems to clash with other available evidence. For example, as this report (PDF) from Frontier Centre for Public Policy notes:

• A 1995 Calgary Police Service report on liquor-store crime (crimes per liquor store) claims to dispel “the myth that privatization of liquor businesses has increased the rate of crime.”

• A 2003 Calgary Police Service report also found that the rate of liquor-store crime actually went down in Calgary following privatization. Moreover, there is no evidence that underage drinking is higher in Alberta or lower in Saskatchewan than in the other provinces.

MADD's report also relies heavily on a study from the University of Victoria which claims:

...those areas with more private stores than government-run stores had significantly higher rates of alcohol-related deaths involving local residents. There was a 27.5% increase in alcohol-related deaths for every extra private liquor store per 1,000 British Columbians.

But this analysis found several problems with that study:

...Unfortunately, the study was filled with multiple testing and weak explanations for the whole data set, rather than small subsets. The study failed to provide the data and information necessary to validate its conclusions, leading us at best to say that the results might be true or they might be spurious. Rather than swallowing whole a tale by which market forces can greatly influence deaths from drinking, the media ought to have looked more closely: they would have found more questions than answers about alcohol deaths and its relationship to alcohol prices.

In fact, as noted here, the argument that increased availability of alcohol leads to increased harm is based on some rather weak evidence. Given that, and given what MADD itself has observed about the experiences in Saskatchewan and Germany, this focus on alcohol retail models is a major distraction from what is supposed to be their primary focus: fighting impaired driving.

As MADD has tried to argue elsewhere, they are not opposed to drinking per se, but rather it is impaired driving that they oppose. This campaign in support of government monopolies, however, suggests otherwise. As MADD has noted with respect to Germany, higher rates of consumption are not necessarily correlated with higher rates of consumption. Therefore the argument that MADD is being proactive simply doesn't wash. If a responsible consenting adult realizes that impaired drving is wrong, then it matters not where he buys his booze or how much he pays for it. If he's not getting behind the wheel, it shouldn't really be of concern to MADD - unless they really are neoprohibitionist.