Local Columnists

By Les Leyne

Most ghost towns earn the title after emptying out and dying when the boom times end. 

But Jumbo Mountain Resort Municipality is starting out as a ghost town and stands a chance of staying that way.

Cabinet minister Bill Bennett on Tuesday released the order-in-council that turns an abandoned Kootenay sawmill site surrounded by uniquely skiable glaciers into a municipality. Bennett named an appointed mayor, council and administrative officer on Tuesday and said they’ll take up their jobs in February.

It’s the latest in a recent series of approvals the B.C. Liberal government has given the long-stalled ski resort plan.

But Jumbo (pop. 0, and holding) still has one big hurdle before it can start living up to its name. That’s the May 2013 general election. The NDP Opposition is looking like a very strong contender and the 

party has been unalterably opposed to the project.

Leader Adrian Dix issued a flat-out “no way” a year ago, saying: “It’s a very simple question. We need to say ‘no’ to this proposal. We need to keep Jumbo wild.”

The party issued a news release to that effect and has filled pages of Hansard over the past several years raising objections to the proposal. That’s despite the fact the previous NDP government in the 1990s encouraged the project along, in the early going.

Since then, the project has inched its way through the government-approval mills. After years in environmental approval process, it got a certificate with 195 conditions attached, and set out fulfilling every one. It won one lawsuit over the project and stands ready to contest another one, from an unhappy First Nation.

The master plan for the resort was approved earlier this year. The imminent creation of the empty municipality is another milestone. The designation comes with $260,000 in taxpayer money to help with start-up costs.

One of the more ardent NDP critics of the project is Columbia River-Revelstoke MLA Norm Macdonald. He accused Bennett of ramming the project through against the wishes of local residents.

Given the 22-year history of the project, it’s hard to buy the idea it’s been rammed through. But it does look like election timing is in play as far as the new municipality is concerned.

Bennett got particularly worked up Tuesday about what might happen to Jumbo if the New Democrats win.

Discussing their criticism, he said it was a perfect example of what to expect from them.

“If they’re going to cancel this project, what else are they going to cancel?” he said, imagining mines, other resorts and logging shows falling like dominos.

“They’re doing what they typically do,” he complained, saying opposition to the approved project undermines investor certainty.

In a letter to the editor earlier this year, Liberal candidate Doug Clovechok, running against Macdonald, put it in starker terms: “The prospect of these NDP authoritarian and ideological zealots once again taking power ought to scare the 

living bejeezus out of every British Columbian.”

There’s no question the recent series of green lights will put the NDP’s approach to investment and development under the microscope, should Dix become premier.

He sided with the Ktunaxa First Nation in opposing a project that has won every legal approval it needs, and it won’t go unnoticed by investors.

If he sets out to make good on the multiple stands he’s taken against the project, it’s almost certainly going to involve a major court battle or a huge settlement with the proponents.

“Multiple tens of millions of dollars” is the best guess as to the value of the losses, if the project is killed at this late date just for political reasons.

Sunk costs over two decades and lost opportunity costs could make the stand against Jumbo one of the more expensive undertakings of Dix’s career.

Maybe that’s why Macdonald sounded a touch less certain about his party’s opposition on Tuesday. He said Bennett’s creation of the municipality makes things more complicated.

“To meet the commitments that were made (by the NDP) — it’s a more difficult scenario,” he said.

As he is the first to acknowledge, that was partly the point.

Les Leyne covers the legislature for the Victoria Times Colonist. 

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

By Salomon Rayek

Last week, the Kelowna RCMP released its new strategy for dealing with crime. It features the hiring of 11 additional police officers this year. 

As I scrutinized the numbers, I had to question their supposed strategy. I already know that Kelowna’s crime rate is high and that our city is widely considered to be the new marijuana capital of Canada, leaving Vancouver in second place. 

I also know many residents have been victims of crime. What I didn’t know is how shocking the statistics truly are and that the authorities’ approach to this problem doesn’t seem to be serious.

In a community that has 117,000 residents, with more than 18,000 reported crimes in 2011, 

of which 18 per cent were violent, do the authorities really think 11 more RCMP officers will make any difference? 

This year, one of every seven people will be the victim of a criminal act, out of which one of five crimes will be violent.

To be fair, I should add the official plan also includes the hiring of another 10 officers over the next three years. If we are lucky, these officers will arrive just in time to process the paperwork accumulated by the overwhelmed officers who will be hired this year.

My favourite part of the plan is that it includes a five per cent reduction in calls for service in 2014 and another five per cent in 2015. 

What a way to tackle crime.

A five per cent decrease means it will take us 20 years just to cover this year’s crime rate, not allowing for increases due to population growth and drug-related crime that is escalating due to Kelowna’s increasing status as a drug capital. 

The RCMP detachment aims to reduce calls, presumably, by decreasing the crime rate and not as a result of frustrated citizens choosing not to report actual crime. 

However, it looks like a catch-22. If the first strategy of increasing the numbers of patrols does not succeed in achieving the targeted decrease in crime, then calls for service will not decrease either. Furthermore, how effective are police patrols when the officers spend much of their time watching for speeders instead of looking for criminals or deterring possible crimes anyway?

The staffing increase is well intentioned, but misses the point. A couple more police officers will not make a difference in a city of this size.

There is another more viable option; consider that 90 per cent of crimes are committed by 10 per cent of criminals and that repeat offenders are usually known to police. 

This shows that the justice system is not operating properly. Our criminal system is known to be too lenient. In California, they have the three-strikes-and-you’re-out law. There, anyone who commits three felonies has to serve life in jail. Here in B.C., we have people with more than 100 convictions getting arrested and 

released yet again. You could call it the 100-strikes-are-not-enough law.

Part of the problem is our prosecutors don’t have sufficient resources to conduct full trials. Defence lawyers are aware of this predicament, so they cut advantageous deals for their clients, with the result that these clients soon reappear out on the streets. So, increasing the number of police officers, and the number of arrests, does not mean the criminals are actually removed from our streets.

To have a shot at decreasing the crime rate, instead of giving money to the RCMP to hire more officers, the money would be better spent on stopping the proverbial revolving door. Our laws need to be strengthened and more prosecutors need to be hired to more effectively deal with repeat offenders.

Some would argue it is just a waste of taxpayer’s money to keep criminals in jail instead of releasing them. To these people I ask, how much is my family’s safety worth?

Salomon Rayek is a Kelowna resident and former executive editor of the Jewish Tribune. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

By Les Leyne

The B.C. Liberals finally took a qualified stance on oil pipelines Monday, but it only highlights the secretive reticence that has prevailed to date.

If the new pipeline “requirements” are such a big deal, why aren’t they being submitted to the joint review panel that is holding crucial hearings into the Enbridge pipeline?

Two of the five requirements are directly related to the environmental aspect that the panel is examining.

But if those experts want to ascertain B.C.’s position, they’ll just have to read the news releases like everyone else. B.C. isn’t submitting its new stance as evidence because it can’t — the deadline for doing so passed last year.

Monday’s announcement acknowledges all sorts of concerns about the twinned line across B.C. to Kitimat.

But they aren’t expressed where it counts — in front of the panel. B.C. hasn’t submitted any evidence at all.

It isn’t even registered as a government participant, choosing to sign up as an “intervener,” for reasons to do with flexibility. I’ve had this explained to me several times and I still don’t get it. Half the pipeline would travel through B.C. and a new oil port would be built in the province. But the government opts not to register as a full participant in the hearings. There’s “flexibility” and then there’s copping out to avoid having to take a stand.

The striking thing about Monday’s pipeline statement made by two cabinet ministers is how little weight it carries.

It boils down to a wish list of things that might make the proposal look more 

attractive than it does now. If B.C. was dealt into the billions in benefits, if First Nations were bought or brought on side; if safety standards were upgraded and if the federal joint review panel approves it, then B.C. would consider supporting the project.

It was also notable the pipeline stance was taken by cabinet ministers Terry Lake and Mary Polak, rather than Premier Christy Clark.

She tipped reporters last week that more information was coming soon on how B.C. would be intervening in the hearing process. But when it came to actually outlining the intervention, the chosen time coincided with her travel day to a Council of the Federation meeting in Halifax.

And the release followed her comically inept appearance in Alberta late last week, where she arranged a secret meeting with Premier Alison Redford about the Enbridge line.

Alberta media found out about it and ridiculed the secrecy of the session. (A decoy car?) And Redford fumed publicly later about Clark’s refusal to take a stand in support of the project. Clark has also reportedly had a recent phone conversation with Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the pipeline, again, obviously private.

Even stranger, while B.C. issued an elaborate series of points to ponder about pipelines, it is still fighting to protect a technical report on the Enbridge line from the prying eyes of coastal First Nations who want to see it.

They got wind of the report several weeks ago and asked the panel to order B.C. to produce it.

But B.C. insists it should stay secret, saying the report is privileged and subject to “public interest immunity.” As well, the document is protected by “litigation privilege,” claims the government, with the panel process itself being considered as the litigation.

“Although the province has not yet stated its position ... it must be allowed, as have other parties, to prepare its case by confidentially obtaining information for that purpose.”

So the technical report is still secret at this point, although chunks of it are probably buried in the background documents released Monday.

The one key point made is about the 

financial inequity. B.C. would host half the risk of an oil spill on land and all the risk of a marine spill. But it would get just eight per cent of the tax revenues from such a pipeline over a generation.

That’s where the argument will focus, and it started immediately.

Alberta’s Redford issued a statement that was heavy on the national interest and dismissive of B.C.’s stance that the sharing is unfair.

Pipelines are the safest possible way to move oil and environmental risks have been significantly mitigated, she said.

And that weakens B.C.’s argument for compensation based on risk.

She quite pointedly noted: “Leadership is not about dividing Canadians and pitting one province against another — leadership is about working together.”

Les Leyne covers the legislature for the Victoria Times Colonist. 

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .