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.

The Problems With Alberta's Election Donation Laws

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the controversy surrounding the donation from Daryl Katz to the Alberta Tories:

In what was otherwise a challenging week for them, the Alberta Tories were relishing their “vindication” courtesy of Elections Alberta and its investigation of a rather large and controversial donation to the party.
The report from now-retired Chief Electoral Officer Brian Fjeldheim found that the $430,000 bulk donation from billionaire Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz and associates was not in violation of Alberta’s election law. That law limits individual and corporate donations in an election year to $30,000 but the $430,000 was divided among 17 entities and therefore deemed to be legal.
It should hardly surprise us that the party responsible for the law is adept at navigating it. Nor should it surprise us that the party which benefits most from the status quo would wish to retain it.
Premier Alison Redford declared last week that there was no need for any further changes to the Election Finances and Disclosure Act. What the Premier did not address, however, is why the Tories were not forthcoming about this donation in the first place. If they did nothing wrong in accepting this donation – which, strictly speaking, would now seem to be the case – why were they acting as though they had something to hide?
The Tories received a bank draft for $430,000 on April 16, 2012 — one week before Election Day. However, Albertans didn’t become aware of it until more than six months later when it was revealed in documents released by Elections Alberta.
Interestingly, two days after the $430,000 was received, the Edmonton Journal ran a story about how the Tories were breaking their promise of releasing updated lists of campaign donors. The party president was even quoted but of course nothing was said about the bulk donation from Katz and friends.
Is it really possible that top Tories were unaware of a massive cash infusion a week before the election? Clearly those who were in the know kept their mouths shut before Election Day and continued doing so even after the vote.
For their part, Elections Alberta is satisfied that Katz (specifically Katz Group Properties, Inc. — which ironically was not a donor) was indeed reimbursed by the other donors. But did the Tories know or care if that was the case? Was there any obligation on their part to see to it that the people listed as Tory donors actually coughed up their own money?
A former Tory strategist was quoted in the Herald last week offering this defence of the status quo: “If I feel very strongly about something and I want to put money behind it, I should be able to put money behind it”.
I agree. But what makes $30,000 the magical number? It also, though, underscores the absurdity of allowing corporate and union donations.
Take, for example, the one finding of guilt in the Elections Alberta investigation. Katz associate Paul Marcaccio was deemed to not be an “ordinary resident” of Alberta, and therefore his $25,000 donation was returned. Yet, the $25,000 donation from the “Paul Marcaccio Professional Corporation” was deemed acceptable, as though the two have nothing to do with each other.
Frankly, if Alberta’s donation limits can be so easily circumvented, it’s worth asking why we even have them. Would much have really changed here if the $430,000 had all come from Katz himself?
What’s really needed is transparency and mandatory disclosure. Would the $430,000 have been donated and accepted if all parties involved knew that it would be made public prior to Election Day?
Surely such a massive donation so late in the campaign might have been the defining issue of that final week. Instead, of course, it was the controversial comments by two Wildrose candidates. For all the dire warnings about the influence of money in politics, the Wildrose gaffes did far more for the Tories than the $430,000.
Our system allows donors to find ways of making large donations and allows parties to find ways of accepting them. It’s not until months later that the rest of us get to piece it all together.
We need to end the farce. If you want to write a big cheque or pocket a big cheque, fine — but stand up and own it.
 

Don Cherry Still Doesn't Want Female Reporters in Male Locker Rooms

As detailed here, CBC commentator Don Cherry sparked quite the controversy Saturday night when he used his Coach's Corner segment to argue that female reporters shouldn't be allowed in male locker rooms. Last night, he reiterated those views:

If Don Cherry - and those who profess to agree with him - want to change the reporter-athlete dynamic so that the exchanges occur outside the locker room in a news conference-type environment then we can have that conversation. However, by proposing to simply keep female reporters out of the locker room, you merely create a situation where male reporters have privileges that female reporters do not - in fact, female reporters simply couldn't do their job. So not only would you be keeping females out of the profession, you'd be doing so ostensibly for their own good.
If players were making racist jokes in the dressing room, no one would be arguing to keep visible minority reporters out so as to protect them from seeing or hearing that. We'd demand the players stop their unprofessional behavior. If the sort of behaviour Don Cherry is describing is still going on, then that is also unprofessional behaviour that should be stopped. The answer is not to punish female reporters because of the boorish actions of some players.   

Alberta's Political Donation Problem

The Alberta Tories certainly seem to believe that they've been vindicated in the matter of the rather large Daryl Katz donation.

 

And frankly, maybe they have been.

 

Last year, in the dying days of the election campaign, the Tories receiving a cheque from the billionaire Edmonton Oilers owner for a whopping $430-thousand. But because Alberta has an election year donation limit of $30-thousand, the donation was split up between Katz's business, family members, and business associates.

Elections Alberta investigated, and today released their findings. In a nutshell, both the donor and the recipient have been cleared of any wrongdoing, An Elections Alberta spokesman said that the other individuals paid the money back to Katz, and that splitting up of bulk donations is not uncommon in Alberta.

There was one donation found to be illegal - $25-thousand from Katz associate Paul Marcaccio has been returned because it turns out he didn't have legal residency status in Alberta. Curiosly, though, there was no problem with the donation from Paul Marcaccio Professional Corporation.

That just highlights some of the absurdity of this all. If it's so easy to circumvent Alberta's donation limits, why bother having limits? Therefore, it should really not surprise us that the donor and the recipients of the donation have been cleared. It really isn't too hard to make the rules fit your donation.

The real issue here is that it took so long for us to find out about this donation. The Tories did not disclose any of this before the election, and even after the election, they disclosed some donations, but not this one.

Transparency would go a lot further than these useless rules. If parties were forced to disclose all donations during a campaign on a weekly basis, that might have changed this situation dramatically. Would Katz have donated such a large sum of money under those conditions? Would the Tories have accepted? Maybe. But at least voters would know and be able to judge them accordingly.

The Tories may be proud to have been vindicated, but they were ashamed enough of this donation that they kept it hidden at the time.

That is far more telling than anything we learned today.

You can hear the Premier's comments on the matter here (at the 30:45 mark). She doesn't really address the matter of why they were silent about the donation for so long, nor does she seem to find anything wrong with the rules:

 

BREAKING: Don Cherry Says Something Controversial

It's been a while since CBC commentator Don Cherry got people this worked up, but it's certainly something he has a history of. Coming off the heels of the controversy involving Chicago Blackhawks defenceman Duncan Keith, Cherry used his Coach's Corner segment on Saturday to pontificate about female reporters and male locker rooms - namely that the former has no place in the latter:

Amid the outrage, Ron Maclean - who clearly took exception to his colleague's remarks - is defending Cherry.
More here, here, here, and here.

Political Puppetmasters or Wealthy Donors?

Local developer Cal Wenzel today fired back at those criticizing him for comments made in a recent speech - the video of which was leaked to Global Calgary.
Here's some of what Wenzel had to say today:

Now, it may well be that Cal Wenzel is looking out for his bottom line. It may well be that he is arrogant enough to think that his bottom line and his interests should be of importance to those on city council.
But even if all of that is true, is that really enough to condemn the founder of Shane Homes, as so many have been doing this week? For that matter, are we so naive to think that there aren't hundreds of others just like him?
It didn't help that Wenzel used words like "control" or "having" when talking about politicians - it certainly plays into the hands of those looking to portray him as a would-be puppetmaster. But at the same time, Wenzel is free to donate money to whichever politician he likes, and he must - like everyone else - adhere to the donation limit rules.
If that means Wenzel is trying to buy candidates, then the same goes for anyone else who makes a large donation. The suggestion that legal donations are akin to "buying" an election are absurd. If people want to have a conversation about donation limits then by all  means we can have that conversation.
In the meantime, if Wenzel has done anything illegal or improper, then the evidence should be laid out and it should be investigated. But there's no crime in wanting to help certain politicians win or wanting to help defeat certain candidates.
What we need most of all is transparency, so that voters know who's giving money to which candidates, and we can then judge them accordingly.

Momentum Grows for Marijuana Legalization

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the 4/20 protests from the weekend and how momentum seems to be on the side of marijuana legalization:

For reasons that still seem elusive, April 20th (4/20) is an annual day of marijuana activism. To some it’s a call to rally for legalization, while to others it’s merely a day to enjoy a toke.
Activism and consumption were both in abundance this past weekend in the annual 4/20 celebrations. That included a gathering of some 10,000 people on Parliament Hill Saturday, calling on the federal government to reconsider its drug laws.
While such demands on Ottawa may be as futile now as they were 20 years ago, in many other ways the event has taken on a much greater significance and legitimacy. Momentum is clearly on the side of those opposed to the status quo.
Support for legalization has never been higher. A Forum Research poll done last November found that 65 per cent of Canadians support either legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Around the same time, an Angus Reid poll found that 57 per cent of Canadians (and 54 per cent of Americans) support legalization. Just last week, a poll found that almost three-quarters of voters in B.C. support taking a closer look at the regulation and taxation of marijuana.
While such polls may be - for now - merely academic in the Canadian context, in the U.S. it has meant actual change. Ballot measures to legalize marijuana passed in both Colorado and Washington. Voters in other U.S. states may soon get the same opportunity. It’s hard to see how this genie will ever be rebottled.
Mind you, it’s difficult to see why we’d want to maintain the status quo. Marijuana prohibition is at its core anti-freedom and anti-liberty. Why should we need the state to protect consenting adults from themselves? Furthermore, our hypocrisy is highlighted every day as consenting adults legally consume alcohol and tobacco.
Instead we squander billions of dollars in a futile and counterproductive war on drugs with little or nothing to show for it.
For example, a UNICEF report released earlier this month found that Canada has the highest rate of youth marijuana use amongst developed countries – 28 per cent of young people say they’ve used marijuana in the past year. Interestingly, countries with a much more liberal approach to drugs - such as Portugal, where all drugs are decriminalized – have much lower usage rates.
Conversely, teenage use of tobacco - a legal substance – is far lower. Only four percent of teens report smoking at least once a week. Thus, the argument that prohibition is needed to “protect kids” is exposed as an empty façade.
Yet still so many of our leaders cling to that façade, and not just in Ottawa, either.
Here in Alberta, the government is engaged in “stakeholder consultations” as part of their plan to make Alberta “grow-op free”. Not to reduce the number of marijuana grow-ops, but a pledge to eliminate them altogether.
This sort of rhetoric is really no different that the sort of rhetoric we’ve been hearing from drug war hawks for the past 40 years – merely another version of the “we’ll-get-tough-and-make-this-problem-go-away” approach that has failed so spectacularly.
True, there are indeed many problems associated with illegal grow-ops – other illegal activities, health hazards, and safety hazards are some of the problems identified by Justice Minister Jonathan Denis.
But the minister fails to acknowledge that this is all a by-product of prohibition, and without acknowledging the source of the problem, how can we hope to tackle it? Denis has suggested those who might notice that connection take the matter up with the federal government, for drug laws are of course federal jurisdiction.
We might recall, though, how the minister and others in the provincial government previously spoke out against the gun registry. If a federal law or policy is creating difficulties here in Alberta, it is certainly incumbent on the provincial government to speak up.
There is also the fact that legal, authorized grow-ops exist in Alberta – those facilities which are licensed to grow medicinal marijuana. If a subset of grow-ops exist free of the very problems we’re trying to eradicate, why would we ignore that?
As more and more Canadians are coming to the conclusion that we need smarter drug policy, our politicians are giving us anything but.

Our Chat With "Weird Al" Yankovic

Once again the Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo has a star-studded lineup of guests. Amongst the big names appearing at this weekend's show is the one and only Weird Al Yankovic, the biggest selling comedy recording artist of all time.
If you missed it last Thursday night on the show, here's our interview with Weird Al:

It's been 30 years since Weird Al released his first full-length album, and it's remarkable how adaptable he's been over the years:

Hugh Howey's "Wool"

There's been no shortage of attention for Hugh Howey's book "Wool" - both because it's a fascinating story (reviews here, here, and here) of a dystopian future where society's surviving inhabitants are forced to live underground in massive silos and because it's turned the publishing industry on its head. The book was self-published as a short story back in 2011, and grew into a full novel in response to fan demand. In fact, it was already a best-seller when Simon & Schuster swooped in to grab the publishing rights. Famed director Ridley Scott has also acquired the movie rights to the book.
More here, here, here, and here.

We spoke with Hugh Howey last week about "Wool" and about all the attention he's now receiving: 

Interest Ebbs as Science Weakens for "Liberation Treatment"

My latest Calgary Herald column:

A recent admission from the New Brunswick government would seem to be indicative of a much broader waning of interest in the so-called liberation treatment for multiple sclerosis.
In 2009, Italian surgeon Paolo Zamboni published research suggesting that blocked neck veins (a condition dubbed CCSVI) caused MS and that removing those blockages (the liberation treatment) would reduce or even eliminate MS symptoms.
Amid the resulting clamour, New Brunswick offered to pay for patients to go abroad and have this unproven treatment. In the first four months, only 25 people were approved. The government says there have been no applications in the past two months.
While it’s difficult to pin down the exact reasons, it may have something to do with the fact that several studies have now been published casting great doubt on the validity of the CCSVI theory.
In fact, several studies have been published in the past few years that have failed to duplicate Zamboni’s findings. Many have shown a low prevalence of CCSVI in MS sufferers and an often equal prevalence of the condition among those without MS.
We see such findings yet again in research published last month that found no statistical difference in CCSVI prevalence among those with MS as compared to those without.
But more significant has been the first published results from a clinical trial at the University of Buffalo into liberation treatment. The results show that the procedure did not improve patient outcomes, and in some cases, actually made symptoms worse.
As the researchers note, this is not and should not be the final word on CCSVI, but it should certainly prompt a rethink on those who bought into the initial hype and acted as though Zamboni’s research was the final word.
While the Liberal leadership candidates have avoided the matter, others in the party — in particular, MPs Kirsty Duncan and Carolyn Bennett — have been vocal. Duncan was behind a defeated private member’s bill to establish a national CCSVI strategy, and has been harshly critical of what would appear to be a lack of enthusiasm on the government’s part for the theory and the procedure.
While the government’s apprehension may now prove to have been completely justified, it did still move to establish a Canadian clinical trial and patient registry.
Meanwhile, there has been nothing from either Duncan or Bennett acknowledging this new published research or admitting that their own enthusiasm may have been premature and misplaced.
The dwindling enthusiasm among politicians has corresponded with a similar drop in interest on the part of the media, though it’s unclear which has led to the other.
It is certainly true that many in the media presented Zamboni’s findings with great enthusiasm and a glaring lack of skepticism. It’s not unfair to say that the coverage played a major role in the attention from politicians and the fact that so many MS patients sought out the procedure.
By creating a narrative around Zamboni as a saviour to those with MS, we blinded ourselves to other research in this area and, by extension, misinformed the public about the state of MS research.
We now have, for example, the potential of a major new breakthrough in treating MS that might give us another opportunity to get the story right. It’s a study that’s been ongoing in Canada for over a decade now. Parts have been published, including a study last month, and it’s hoped that the entire research will be published soon.
It involves MS patients for whom traditional drug therapies have proven ineffective and instead employs a riskier approach with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants. Essentially, researchers were rebooting the immune system with the hope of watching how the disease returns. But the disease didn’t return, which was an enormous and unexpected surprise.
Researchers are being cautious so far, and want to make sure everything is in order for when the final results are published. There is potentially much to be learned about MS from this study, but many questions remain.
Hopefully, though, as the case weakens for CCSVI and the evidence around MS takes us in different directions, we’ll all have learned some important lessons from the past few years.
(Note: you'll find links to the aforementioned studies here and here)

Defeating Hatred - Without Censorship

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the decline of Calgary's racist skinhead movement and the factors that did - and did no - play a role in that decline:

A cursory glance at some of the national headlines from three or four years ago might have given one the impression that the neo-Nazi hordes were descending on Calgary and that the city had become a bastion for the racist skinhead movement.
Such a perception would be very much at odds with the spectacle of two meek (and very much non-skinhead) “white pride” advocates who briefly turned out for Saturday’s anti-racism rally at City Hall.
In fairness, however, if that had been the case in 2009, there likely would have been no headlines at all about racist skinheads in Calgary. As it was that year, several dozen skinheads and assorted racists did turn out to rally and ended up clashing with more than 400 anti-racist counter-protesters.
The Aryan Guard — as it was then known — certainly endeavoured to be as high profile as possible. The group did seem to be drawing recruits from other parts of the country, and the violent tendencies exhibited by many in the group were indeed of concern.
But by 2011, there were barely a dozen skinheads at their rally, and last year, there were none as a handful of them went to rally in Edmonton instead.
So while the panic of a few years ago may have been somewhat overblown, there’s no doubt that a neo-Nazi skinhead movement did exist in Calgary. But it’s also the case that this movement has all but petered out. That is a good news story worth celebrating and it’s also worth exploring why it happened.
One of the obvious reasons is the fact that some of the leaders of the movement are now behind bars. The group’s founder, Kyle McKee, remains in jail while he awaits trial on charges stemming from an alleged race-based assault in Edmonton. Two others have been implicated in a Calgary murder — one has pleaded guilty and another is awaiting trial.
The splintering of the movement and the subsequent infighting has obviously been a factor. It may also be that the young, angry and disenfranchised young men who are drawn to the movement have simply outgrown such views and moved on with their lives. In lieu of any leadership or organization, they are not being replaced.
We could also look to the scrutiny from city police, the pressure from anti-racist activists, and the simple fact that Calgary is a very diverse and tolerant city as other factors.
However, it’s worth noting the factors that did not play a role in the movement’s decline. This was achieved not through denying them the right to hold their annual rally, nor was it achieved through any other means of censorship.
If individuals or groups are engaged in criminal activity, then they should certainly be treated and targeted by police as criminals. The mere act of holding racist views is not criminal, nor should the act of expressing those views be criminal, either.
In this country, it potentially can be. The laws that give rise to that — the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code and the sections of various human rights acts that deal with offensive speech — seem to be premised on the notion that more hate speech will lead to more hatred. Therefore, the response to hate speech in this country is often to censor it.
But no hate speech charges were ever laid against any of those involved in these racist rallies in Calgary. No human rights panels were ever asked to weigh in. Despite calls for the rallies to be blocked, city officials erred on the side of protecting freedom of expression and they were allowed to go ahead.
And despite the lack of any of this — or maybe even because of it — this movement is on life-support, if not already dead.
It could well be that the censorship approach merely serves to push such views underground, whereas allowing hatemongers to expose themselves for who they really are expedites the process of having their views wither and die.
Free speech can often be messy and unpleasant. But as we see time and time again in this city — and in this country — tolerance prevails.

Further Blows to Controversial MS Theory

The idea that blocked neck veins - a condition dubbed CCSVI - are the cause of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and that removing those blockages - the so-called "Liberation Treatment" - could potentially cure MS has attracted a lot of attention.
Certainly if the theory were to be true, that would be well-deserved attention. But despite the enthusiasm of various levels of government and assorted politicians, the evidence is pointing us in the other direction.
Previous studies have failed to replicate the original findings of Italian surgeon Paolo Zamboni and have cast serious doubt on his theory (more on those studies here) .
Two new studies would appear to further confirm that CCSVI is not the cause of MS. One of them deals with the blockages themselves:

"Our results in this phase of the study suggest that findings in the major veins that drain the brain consistent with CCSVI are uncommon in individuals with MS and quite similar to those found in our non-MS volunteers," said Jerry Wolinsky, M.D., principal investigator and the Bartels Family and Opal C. Rankin Professor of Neurology at The UTHealth Medical School. "This makes it very unlikely that CCSVI could be the cause of MS, or contribute in an important manner to how the disease can worsen over time."

The other recent study is even more significant. It is a clinical trial of 30 MS patients who all underwent the so-called "liberation treatment":

The first controlled clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of interventional endovascular therapy on the symptoms and progression of multiple sclerosis has found that the intervention, sometimes called the “liberation treatment,” which has attracted intense interest in the global MS community, does not improve patient outcomes. In a few cases, the treatment made symptoms worse.

More here and here. To repeat, not only did the surgery offer no benefit, it actually made matters worse for some patients. If the CCSVI theory had any validity, that is not the outcome we would see.
These studies would seem to bolster the conclusion of this damning commentary published recently in the journal Neurological Sciences:

We show that no piece of the CCSVI theory has a solid supportive scientific evidence. The CCSVI appears to be a rather alien condition and its existence should be definitely questioned. Finally, no proven (i.e., based on strict scientific methodology and on the rules of evidence-based medicine) therapeutic effect of the "liberation" procedure (unblocking the extracranial venous obstruction using angioplasty) has been shown up to date.

All of this doesn't necessarily close the book entirely on CCSVI, but let's not forget that there is other encouraging research taking place on causes of and treatment for MS. Let's especially be careful to ensure that the focus on CCSVI isn't taking resources away from this other research.

This Levy is Nice, That Tax is Not

So does Premier Alison Redford support a national carbon tax?
Based on what we've heard this week, the answer isn't entirely clear.
In an interview Monday with Postmedia News, Redford suggested that Ottawa look at copying Alberta’s $15-per-tonne carbon levy:

“We think that’s the right approach,” Redford said, when asked whether Ottawa should introduce a federal carbon levy on large emitters.
Alberta’s carbon tax of sorts has generated more than $300 million for a technology fund used to green operations and improve environmental performance.
“The federal government needs to be supportive of that policy (setting a carbon price) in areas where it can actually make a difference to the outcome. Simply symbolically setting a price doesn’t actually achieve an outcome,” she added.

In fact, the reporter who posed the question says he even sought clarification from the Premier's office and they didn't dispute her remarks. But after the story appeared Tuesday morning, the Premier's office was in full spin mode.
They put out a so-called clarification, that didn't really clarify much, only that Redford did not support a national carbon tax. But the clarification also trumpeted the success of Alberta's climate change actions - which obviously includes the carbon levy.
Later in the day, the Premier made it clear that she thinks Alberta's model is successful and that other governments might want to look at it:

“The comments yesterday were about the fact we have a model we like here in Alberta,” Redford told reporters at the legislature. “It’s been successful. If other governments choose to adopt programs, we suggest they look at this. That was the context of the comments and that’s as far as I go. I am in no way advocating any sort of national carbon tax. That’s for other governments to decide.”

So what Redford said on Tuesday is pretty much what she said in the Postmedia interview on Monday. So if Redford thinks that the carbon levy has been a great success, why wouldn't she like to see other governments emulate it? Certainly the Premier has made it clear she thinks climate change is a problem, so shouldn't she be pushing a policy she says is working?
Furthermore, does she see a major difference between a tax and a levy? Perhaps then she should explain why Alberta's levy is fantastic and a federal tax would be bad.
Interestingly, a study this week from the U of C's School of Public Policy finds that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient way of reducing emissions. Does Premier Redford agree or disagree? If it's the former, then her remarks this week smack of political cowardice. If it's the latter then she still has much to explain.
Right now, we're at the point where even the Premier's clarifications need clarifications. Frankly, articulating her position here shouldn't be hard.

Hey, Police - Leave Those Phones Alone

It would appear that just like here in Alberta, BC's distracted driving law is not having the desired effect.
Police both here and in BC are reporting that they're handing out more and more tickets and that drivers still aren't getting the message.
Police chiefs in Alberta have floated the idea of issuing demerits with a distracted driving ticket, but police in BC are pushing for a different approach. The B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police wants the power to seize drivers cell phones, for up to five days.
For his part, Alberta's justice minister says he's watching how things develop in BC with this idea, but suggested that it's not on his radar right now. However, he didn't rule it out either.
Don't forget, Alberta borrowed many elements of BC's controversial impaired driving law, so it wouldn't be a surprise to see us follow their lead again.
One of the more controversial aspects of Alberta's impaired driving law is how it allows police to issue penalties (i.e., licence suspension and vehicle seizure) on the spot. Police are supposed to gather evidence and lay charges, but their role isn't supposed to involve findings of guilt and handing out penalties.
That would be the same issue with the proposal to seize cell phones. A distracted driving ticket is essentially a police allegation that you are guilty of the offense. You can pay the ticket, and therefore plead guilty, or you can go to court where a judge will determine guilt or innocence.
If we want those convicted of distracted driving to then lose their phones for a period of time, that might be something worth considering.
We should not allow police to seize phones, because at that point, the accused has not been convicted of anything and should therefore not be punished.
Whatever concerns exist over distracted driving, it shouldn't be an excuse for allowing police to overstep their bounds.

The Pointless and Futile Persecution of William Whatcott

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bill Whatcott, and its aftermath:

The Supreme Court of Canada may have technically ruled against Bill Whatcott, but beyond enhancing his notoriety, it's difficult to see what the ruling accomplished.
That's not to understate the impact of last month's ruling, which upheld two provisions of Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code and re-imposed a finding from a human rights tribunal that two flyers produced and distributed by Whatcott violated provisions prohibiting the publication of materials that might expose people to hatred - in this case, homosexuals.
The court did acquit Whatcott for two separate flyers, and struck down the wording in the code dealing with the prohibition of speech which might "ridicule, belittle, or otherwise affront dignity".
It's a mixed ruling which may in fact offer some improvement to the status quo, but falls well short of the rigorous defence of freedom of expression that many were hoping the high court would deliver. Said hope would be reasonably derived from the passionate dissent in the 1990 Taylor case, which narrowly upheld the censorship provisions of the federal human rights legislation - a dissent authored by the now-current Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin.
With some clarification, we now return to the legal reality in this country where human rights tribunals and commissions can (upon receiving complaints) police what is written and said by Canadians. Furthermore, they can impose financial penalties with the proceeds going to the complainant, even if he or she is not a member of the group that was allegedly exposed to "hate".
We still lack a cohesive understanding of what constitutes "hate" other than to rely upon the judgment of a hypothetical "reasonable person" - except that another "reasonable person" might reasonably disagree with the first. Reasonable people have been known to do that.
It should also be noted that truth and intent offer no defence. The latter is especially ironic given that the Supreme Court ruling republishes Whatcott's four pamphlets in the appendix.
Which brings us back to Bill Whatcott, who believes it's his religious duty to warn us all about what he sees as the evils and dangers of homosexuality (and abortion, too - though none of his publications on that topic are at issue here).
When one considers the fact that such anti-gay sentiment is quickly fading in Canadian society, replaced with growing tolerance for homosexuals and support for gay marriage and other rights, it is clear that Whatcott's campaign is failing. It may not be that his flyers are directly harming his cause, but it's certainly plausible that the blunt depictions of his own intolerance would increase sympathy for gays and lesbians.
Whatever the case, it is beyond any doubt that the prosecution of Bill Whatcott has only served to give him greater national profile and to give him a much larger platform. Far more people have been exposed to his views than otherwise would have been the case. That certainly undercuts the argument of those who believe that enforcing these human rights codes will lead to less exposure to hateful material.
In fact, Whatcott has picked up right where he left off. He has produced new flyers, one of which denouncing "Sodomites and the Supreme Court", and over the last several days has been handing them out on university campuses in Saskatchewan and Alberta - including a weekend stop at the University of Calgary.
Presumably now we could go through his whole process all over if someone is so inclined to file a new human rights complaint. A human rights panel or tribunal could pronounce judgment, followed, perhaps, by multiple court rulings. All the while more people will become aware of Whatcott's views and Whatcott himself will certainly thrive on the notoriety.
Mind you, I'm sure Whatcott would just as soon be left alone from state harassment, and those who value freedom of expression should welcome the same.
It would be much more effective - and much more in keeping with a free society - to counter the likes of Bill Whatcott with reason and evidence.
In the meantime, politicians could protect us from these pointless, costly, and unjust persecutions by removing the laws that were at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, as our own Premier Alison Redford once promised to do.

Welcome to Alberta: Land of Red Ink

The Redford government warned us to expect an unpleasant budget.
Well, that's one promise they've defintely kept. For many other promises, however, it's a different story.
Last year, the Tories promised (PDF) "...a balanced budget by 2013 with no new taxes and no service cuts."
Even once they realized that promise was in rubbles, they made other assurances. Back in September, Premier Redford vowed that other campaign promises would still be kept despite the deficit. In late November, Finance Minister Doug Horner assured the Legislature that, "We will not deficit finance the operations of this government"
Promise upon promise now lie in ruins following yesterday's budget.
For the sixth straight year, Alberta will run a deficit, and for the first time since 1994, the province will run an operational deficit. For the year that's just ended, the government is expecting a deficit of about $4-billion. All told for the coming fiscal year, the deficit is in the neighborhood of $6-billion.
Mind you, it's tough to know for sure. We now have essentially three budgets - operational, capital, and savings.
The government is talking up the $450-million deficit on the operational side. But factoring all the borrowing on the capital side gives us the much larger figure.
Additionally, the Sustainability Fund that just a few years ago was at 17-billion dollars, is now virtually depleted.
And the borrowing will continue - another $12-billion over the next three years. We were once debt-free but by the time the next election rolls around we will be considerably in debt.
All of this leaves the government with plenty of red ink on its hands and egg on its face. It's not a pretty sight.
Further analysis from Don Braid, Rick Bell, and Graham Thomson

Misplaced Focus on Bike Helmets?

While they weren't all that common 20 or 20 years ago, today bicycle helmets are ubiquitous. That's in large part to how safety conscious - some might say risk averse - society has become.
Of course, stemming from that mindset are the laws which have made bike helmets mandatory for kids, as is the case here in Alberta, or laws that have made them mandatory for everyone, as is the case in BC and other jurisdictions.
A strong case can be made that we shouldn't need the state to protect us from ourselves, but in this case, are we even being "protected" at all by mandatory helmet laws?
For one thing, cycling does not appear to be an inherently dangerous activity. In fact, in Holland where a much larger percentage of the populations rides bikes, helmets are rare (less than one percent of Dutch cyclists wear one) and yet it remains one of the safest countries in the world for cyclists.
So why are we so obsessed with helmets?
A study released this week from researchers at the University of Calgary helps illustrate where we've missed the mark. As the release notes:

The study found that the greatest injuries were caused by cyclists crashing into vehicles; the faster the vehicle, the greater the injury. The study also found that the lack of helmet use while biking was not as great a risk factor as were collisions.
(...)
Williamson’s research is supported by a Transport Canada study which concluded that mass helmet use has not contributed to a reduction in cyclist fatalities in Canada, which remains at about 60 deaths a year.

Consider that in jurisdictions where not wearing a helmet is illegal, riding alongside traffic is considered normal. Whether creating separate bike lanes is the answer remains to be seen (more on that question here) , but we need to look at how to take the dangers out of cycling, rather than assuming that cycling itself is inherently dangerous.
It's also worth considering whether mandatory helmets discourage cycling, and from that then whether the lost health benefits from cycling outweigh the benefits of wearing a helmet. Helmet laws may also lead to more risk-taking and a false sense of security.
More here, here, and here.

Supreme Court Fails to Protect Free Speech

There was reason to believe that the Supreme Court of Canada might strike a blow yesterday for freedom of speech.

 

Back in 1990, the high court narrowly upheld the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act - in fact, current chief justic Beverly McLachlin wrote the very compelling dissent for the court. Much has changed since the Taylor ruling, and a case involving a Saskatchewan anti-gay crusader gave the court cause to revisit the matter.

 

William Whatcott had been convicted by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal over four anti-gay pamphlets he had prepared. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned those convictions in a rousing defence of free speech noting that even though Whatcott's flyers were " “crude, offensive, and pejorative” they should not be prohibited because "debate will sometimes be polemical and impolite". That's what free speech means.

 

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, and yesterday the court came back with a disappointing, albeit a mixed, decision.

 

In a unanimous decision, the court struck down some language in the provincial code, which cleared Whatcott in connection with two other flyers.

But the other two convictions have been restored.

 

Here's the confusing part of the ruling: the provisions of the law banning speech which, "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" have beebn struck down. Yet provisions banning speech which "might expose individuals or groups to hatred" remain. Is there really a significant different between the two?

 

Hatred is an emotion, and therefore subjective. The court gives us no way to objectively identify hatred, nor is their any expectation that any harm be demonstrated. The court simply assumes that harm exists, when it may in fact be the opposite. Whatcott's pamphlets may have hurt his cause, and pushed people into the camp of supporting gay rights.

 

The other problem here is that by trying to censor Bill Whatcott we've given him a much bigger platform. Had he been left alone he would still be a hateful marginal nobody.

 

The court's ruling even re-publishes Whatcott's flyers, which is supremely ironic given that under the law coourt just upheld, intent is no defence when it comes to publishing hateful material. And it should be noted, truth is no defence either.

 

There is still a chance for governments to do the right thing. The Supreme Court has upheld these laws, but not declared them to be mandatory.

 

In order to protect freedom of speech, governments could remove these laws from the books. Ottawa is moving in that direction, and of course Alison Redford once promised to do the same here in Alberta.

 

Even though the court has failed to stand up for free speech, we can still demand our elected politicians do so.

 

 

Further analysis of the court's decision from the Canadian Constitutiuon Foundation, Lorne Gunter, Emmet Macfarlane, Andrew Coyne, John Carpay, Charlie Gillis, and Jonathan Kay. My previous thoughts on the Whatcott case here.

  

Supreme Court of Canada ruling on hate speech - Feb. 27, 2013 by

He Said What? (UPDATE: Flanagan's Sorry)

UPDATE (March 4) - Tom Flanagan explains and defends himself in an op-ed for the National Post
Political advisor and University of Calgary political science professor is under fire today for some remarks he made last night during a speech at the University of Lethbridge:

People can't distance themselves fast enough from Flanagan, it seems. The Wildrose Party has severed all ties with him.  The CBC has fired him. The Prime Minister's Office has condemned him.
Virtually no one is stepping up to defend Flanagan - indeed, it would be very difficult to do so.
The closest I could offer in terms of a defence is that it's unclear whether Flanagan is talking about actual photographs and video (although it seems as though he is). If he's talking about writings and drawings, then it's at least a defensible position - such a stance would be in keeping with how the Supreme Court has ruled. In fact, it should be noted that prior to the Supreme Court ruling in the Sharpe case, the BC Supreme Court struck down the entire law dealing with possession of child porn.
I'm sure Flanagan is laying low at the moment, but he needs to explain himself and clarify his remarks. The sooner the better.
UPDATE: Here's the statement from the University of Calgary
UPDATE #2: Flanagan apologizes
UPDATE #3: Flanagan will retire from the U of C at the end of June

Fear and Loathing in Alberta (Over the PST)

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the merits of shifting away from taxing income and toward taxing consumption and why it is that Alberta politicians are so afraid to make the case:

For what it's worth, I believe Premier Alison Redford when she says the March  7 budget won't usher in a provincial sales tax.
The premier seems to be growing frustrated over the repeated questions about  the possibility of a PST at some point in the future. Last week, when asked the  question, Redford snapped, "Did I say it on Tuesday? Did I say it on Friday?  We're not introducing a provincial sales tax, period. I'll say it again tomorrow  if you'd like."
If that was the only time you've been exposed to the premier's response to  the question, you'd probably wonder why there was any ambiguity - she sounds  pretty unequivocal. But in the very same scrum with reporters, Redford refused  once again to close the door all the way.
When asked if she had any intention of introducing a PST during her term as  premier - in other words, beyond the upcoming budget - Redford simply replied,  "I don't see that there's a reason for that."
If the premier is growing exasperated over having to answer the same question  time and time again, she might want to think about her responses. For example,  "not now, not ever," might be an effective way of responding if the goal is to  leave no doubt, thus precluding any future questions on the matter.
Redford was just as vague last month when she hosted a teleconference with PC  party members.
When the topic of a PST came up, Redford had an easy opportunity to close the  door on any suggestion that she might be inclined to bring one in.
Instead, she offered this, "It's been a really important part of the  conversation that I think Albertans have started to have . . .
And I think there's a place for that conversation."
Compounding the situation is the fact that the recent Alberta Economic Summit  featured numerous speakers making the case in favour of a PST.
Given that the premier's office was directly in control of the invitations  for that summit, it's not unreasonable to wonder if that was by design.
But the biggest reason for the uncertainty around the premier's position is  that she has simply failed to articulate one. The premier has certainly  indicated an unwillingness to implement a PST, but we have no idea if that's  because she thinks a PST is bad policy, or that she is simply afraid of the  political repercussions.
If it's the latter, the premier has good reason to be afraid. A poll released  last week shows that almost three-quarters of Albertans oppose a PST and  approximately the same number oppose any move to change the law requiring a  referendum on the matter.
If it's the case that the premier and other Alberta politicians would support  a sales tax if it was politically safe to do so, then it suggests we're being  ruled by political cowards who would rather chase the polls than try to shape  them.
In a perfect world, we'd all support a PST - the debate would be between  adding a PST to the status quo and reducing other taxes to make way for a PST.  It's unfortunately the case that policy is not always guided by the best  evidence, but perhaps nowhere is that more evident than the approach in Alberta  to sales taxes.
There is a considerable body of evidence indicating that consumption taxes  are both the most efficient and least damaging forms of taxation. It should not  follow that it is also the least popular. In fact, many brag about Alberta being  sales-tax free (forgetting that we pay the GST), as though that confers upon us  some sort of advantage.
To cite just one example, University of Alberta economists Bev Dahlby and  Ergete Ferede recently demonstrated that lowering the corporate tax rate from 10  to five per cent and introducing a five per cent harmonized sales tax (HST)  would produce a per-capita economic gain of $19,300.
Redford is right to say that there is a place for this conversation. Her  cynical approach to the issue and her failure to explain her position to  Albertans help to ensure that a real conversation remains as elusive as  ever.

Alberta Needs Pipelines, Not Upgrader Pipe Dreams

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the debate around whether Alberta should encourage more upgrading and refining here at home:

With all the discussion recently over the lack of so-called value-added jobs, one might wonder why that debate is confined to one sector of the economy.
For example, in 2010-2011, Canada exported more than 12 million tonnes of wheat. Also in 2011, a $100-million bread plant opened in Hamilton, Ont., bringing about 300 new jobs to that city. Presumably, more of that wheat could be “upgraded” here at home, thus creating more of the kinds of jobs that the Hamilton plant is providing.
The same could be true of the billions of dollars worth of lumber exports produced by Canada each year. Surely, we could provide a multitude of jobs in the production of kitchen tables and baseball bats by discouraging the export of such raw materials.
Fortunately, there are no serious calls for such interference in the economy — at least in those sectors. When it comes to the export of raw bitumen, though, there’s no shortage of such calls.
With the price differential for Western Canada Select (as measured against the price for West Texas Intermediate) oil having a significantly negative effect on Alberta’s bottom line, there have been demands for a government strategy to encourage more upgrading and refining in our province.
First of all, it should be noted that there is a great deal of such activity that already occurs. As a report last week from the Canada West Foundation notes, there are eight refineries operating in Western Canada — three of them are in Alberta, representing almost two-thirds of the West’s refining capacity.
Additionally, there are five upgraders in Alberta, and in fact, upgrading capacity in Alberta more than doubled from 2001 to 2011. That doesn’t include the recent expansion of Shell’s Scotford upgrader, and there is also the massive $5.7-billion North West Upgrader, which has just recently been approved.
So when the Alberta New Democrats and the Alberta Federation of Labour seize upon government documents as proving a “strong economic case” for more upgrading capacity, they overlook the fact that some companies have already made that bet.
But the decisions being made in the here and now tell a different tale.
Just last week, we learned that Suncor’s proposed $11-billion Voyageur Upgrader project is in serious jeopardy. The project has already been on hold for the past three years, and Suncor has confirmed that cancellation is now one of the options it is considering.
Suncor’s struggle illustrates the weaknesses and challenges in the economics of upgrading that the Canada West Foundation addresses in its report. There is surplus refining capacity elsewhere. There is falling demand for refined petroleum products. There is also, of course, massive upfront capital costs that are coupled with low returns.
If indeed there is a “strong economic case” for building new upgraders and refineries, then it does not follow that industry would need to be bribed, cajoled, or threatened into acting on it. True evidence for a strong economic case lies not in the analysis contained within some government document, but rather the actual investments being made by the private sector. Like, for example, the investments in new pipelines.
As University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach wrote last year, if we want more refining capacity, it’s likely to come at the government’s expense. He then frames the issue thusly, “should we be willing to subsidize ... upgraders and refineries in this country in order to export a higher value end product?”
To look at it that way illustrates for us how this notion of “value-added” is really a reallocation of the value that already exists in the resource.   Why should we value refinery construction jobs over pipeline construction jobs? Why are jobs at new upgraders more important than jobs in existing and new oilsands projects?
Both the Canada West Foundation analysis and a separate study last week from the U of C’s School of Public Policy illustrate the importance of additional pipeline capacity. Delays in proposed new pipeline projects are costing the economy millions of dollars daily.
Even if we were to do more upgrading here, we’d still need pipeline capacity to get that product to market.
The evidence is clear: Alberta needs more pipelines, not more pipe dreams.
 

Where Will City Council Come Down in Calgary's Arena Debate?

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the arena debate brewing in Calgary, and why city council needs to make its position known and at the same time draw some lessons from the experience in Edmonton:

While municipal politicians in Edmonton recently engaged in a dramatic debate over a proposed new downtown NHL arena, their counterparts here in Calgary on Monday engaged in a somewhat less dramatic debate over the sale of shark fins.  
In terms of how elected representatives at the municipal level are prioritizing issues of importance to their respective cities, it presents a striking contrast.  
That’s not to say that there isn’t concern in Edmonton over the sale and consumption of shark fins, but conversely, it’s most certainly not to say that Calgary doesn’t have important decisions to be made regarding the home of its own NHL franchise.  
In fairness, the major difference in Edmonton is the existence of a proposal from the Oilers, and from that, the existence of a framework for politicians to vote on. While the Edmonton framework faces a glaring $114-million shortfall, it represents a clear choice on whether the city is prepared to commit public dollars in partnering to build a new downtown arena.  
At this point, the ownership of the Calgary Flames have not requested or proposed anything with regard to a new arena. But it is clear that the Flames have been long planning for a replacement for the Scotiabank Saddledome, which also happens to be the sixth-oldest arena in the NHL. The lease there expires next year.  
It is also safe to assume that the Flames are keeping close watch on the specifics of the Edmonton deal and what it offers to the Oilers. While the votes being cast in Edmonton have no direct bearing here, it does present the Flames with a starting point for what they feel they can reasonably expect from the city.  
And while Calgary city council often finds itself preoccupied with dubious and mundane matters, they’ve had little or nothing to say about what they’re prepared to offer the Flames, or where they’re prepared to draw the line.  
Given what’s being offered to the Oilers, it’s hard to envision a scenario where the Flames won’t make a request. And according to the CBC’s Ron MacLean, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.  
During Saturday’s broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada, MacLean reported that the Flames would be unveiling their plans for a new arena “in three to four months,” and that it would involve a new downtown arena with the Edmonton deal serving as a template.  
Given how tumultuous the debate has been at times in Edmonton, it’s not surprising that the Flames have been so low key thus far. But why have alderman been so, too — especially if they’re in the loop on all of this?  
To his credit, Mayor Naheed Nenshi has not skirted the question. On the heels of the vote last week in Edmonton, Nenshi warned the Flames not to expect the same sort of arrangement here, and cited his own personal opposition to using public money to subsidize private business.  
However, the mayor is but one vote, and so it would certainly be worth knowing where the rest of council stands. Hopefully, Calgary politicians will be more willing than their Edmonton counterparts to demand answers on why public money would be needed in the first place.
After all, NHL arenas in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal were all constructed with almost exclusively private financing.  
According to Forbes magazine, the Flames — which are valued at $245 million — generated $117 million in revenues last year and a profit of $11 million. The Forbes numbers may not be accurate, but the strength and profitability of the Canadian NHL markets is well established. 
Moreover, council should avail itself of the evidence pertaining to cost. In her latest book, Harvard University’s Judith Grant Long looks at 121 professional sports facilities in North America and details how they’ve cost taxpayers $10 billion more than is commonly reported, thanks to a raft of hidden subsidies.  
Long’s advice to municipal politicians is to avoid paying building costs. Help with land and infrastructure, if you must, but she argues that on the facility itself, teams should go it alone.  
Sage advice, but Calgarians are still left wondering whether their elected politicians will heed it.