U.K Boycotts Needed Against British Columbia
victoria indy | 17.10.2001 18:28
New, far-right government in the province of Brutish Columbia reverses gains made in environmental protection.
The following article is written by a fairly mainstream reporter in the right-friendly local press.
The government here will not listen to us. Please reinstate and accelerate international economic actions.
The following article is written by a fairly mainstream reporter in the right-friendly local press.
The government here will not listen to us. Please reinstate and accelerate international economic actions.
Regulation clear-cut
by Vaughn Palmer 11:14am Wed Oct 17 '01
What B.C. regulations are on the chopping block?
Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, October 17, 2001
VICTORIA - The day began with a call from Kevin Falcon, minister for deregulation in the B.C. Liberal government.
The minister in charge of reducing government regulation by a third was hoping to explain why, two weeks after he'd announced the elimination of the first 220 regulations, he still wasn't prepared to release details on even one of them.
"It's impossible," Mr. Falcon explained Tuesday. "There's no point in doing that because what you would get is, you would get, 'oh, well, they are thinking of getting rid of this regulation . . . .' "
Turns out the 220 regulations cited by Mr. Falcon at an open cabinet meeting on Oct. 3 were merely proposals for elimination, not hard and fast targets.
"If I just throw them all out there," he told Craig McInnes, Victoria bureau chief for The Vancouver Sun, "I'm going to get colleagues coming to me and saying, 'Well, wait a minute, we haven't made a final decision. We put forward a proposal to you but you can't just go out there and hand these to the media as if there were a decision that's been made.' "
So the minister was refusing to make public even one regulation that was slated for elimination?
"No, that's absolutely not the case," Mr. Falcon protested.
Okay, which regulation are we allowed to see?
"You've misconstrued what I am saying," the minister continued, sounding hurt.
Okay, what was he saying?
"We've said that we will report all the regulations that have been changed or eliminated and we're going to do that," Mr. Falcon said. He promised a public process would be in place "in the next few weeks."
In the meantime, Mr. Falcon was prepared to concede that The Sun had a point in pressing him for details. "You are taking us to task -- and, frankly, rightly so -- about the fact that you are not getting the proposals immediately." But it was just this darn bureaucracy. "It's frustrating to you," Mr. Falcon said, "and it's a little frustrating for me, too."
The minister's excuse-making missed the point.
It was the Liberals, in their election platform, who established the fantastic goal of eliminating one-third of all government regulations when they did not know how many regulations there were or what all of them said.
It was Premier Gordon Campbell who in late June ordered his new ministers to "immediately identify" regulations that could be eliminated as part of a 30-day action plan "to show that real change is possible and that we are committed to taking action now."
And it was Mr. Falcon who belatedly announced the results of the 30-day plan on Oct. 3 and who subsequently promised to provide details on the 220 regulations targeted for elimination.
The Liberals undertook all those targets and all those promises of their own free will. Now, when they are having trouble delivering, they have retreated to bureaucratic excuses of the sort they would never have countenanced in their highfalutin' platform.
Not for the first time has the government's rhetorical reach exceeded its deliverable grasp. At an open cabinet meeting in August, the cabinet approved a two-for-one rule regarding new regulations. Mr. Falcon explained its application:
"From this point forward" -- Aug. 15 -- "any time an agency, board or Crown corporation brings forward a new administrative requirement, they must kill two existing requirements.
"We believe that this will begin enforcing a discipline on us as a government."
The next day Attorney-General Geoff Plant introduced a dozen pages of new regulations in a bill to govern the practice of lobbying in B.C.
Sun reporter Jim Beatty wondered about the new two-for-one policy: Would Mr. Plant be scrapping two dozen pages of regulations to offset the contents of the lobbying bill?
"I'm a big supporter of the two-for-one principle," Mr. Plant replied, "but I don't think that realistically we're going to do it hour-by-hour."
When the reporter persisted -- the cabinet had approved the policy on the previous day, after all -- a bemused Mr. Plant hinted where he might turn if pushed any harder.
"Well, I'm thinking about the freedom-of-the-press regulations right now as we speak," he replied, teasing that the news media might be the next target of the government's deregulatory fervour.
He was joking, of course. But perhaps the beleaguered Mr. Falcon would think it was a straw worth grasping.
by Vaughn Palmer 11:14am Wed Oct 17 '01
What B.C. regulations are on the chopping block?
Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, October 17, 2001
VICTORIA - The day began with a call from Kevin Falcon, minister for deregulation in the B.C. Liberal government.
The minister in charge of reducing government regulation by a third was hoping to explain why, two weeks after he'd announced the elimination of the first 220 regulations, he still wasn't prepared to release details on even one of them.
"It's impossible," Mr. Falcon explained Tuesday. "There's no point in doing that because what you would get is, you would get, 'oh, well, they are thinking of getting rid of this regulation . . . .' "
Turns out the 220 regulations cited by Mr. Falcon at an open cabinet meeting on Oct. 3 were merely proposals for elimination, not hard and fast targets.
"If I just throw them all out there," he told Craig McInnes, Victoria bureau chief for The Vancouver Sun, "I'm going to get colleagues coming to me and saying, 'Well, wait a minute, we haven't made a final decision. We put forward a proposal to you but you can't just go out there and hand these to the media as if there were a decision that's been made.' "
So the minister was refusing to make public even one regulation that was slated for elimination?
"No, that's absolutely not the case," Mr. Falcon protested.
Okay, which regulation are we allowed to see?
"You've misconstrued what I am saying," the minister continued, sounding hurt.
Okay, what was he saying?
"We've said that we will report all the regulations that have been changed or eliminated and we're going to do that," Mr. Falcon said. He promised a public process would be in place "in the next few weeks."
In the meantime, Mr. Falcon was prepared to concede that The Sun had a point in pressing him for details. "You are taking us to task -- and, frankly, rightly so -- about the fact that you are not getting the proposals immediately." But it was just this darn bureaucracy. "It's frustrating to you," Mr. Falcon said, "and it's a little frustrating for me, too."
The minister's excuse-making missed the point.
It was the Liberals, in their election platform, who established the fantastic goal of eliminating one-third of all government regulations when they did not know how many regulations there were or what all of them said.
It was Premier Gordon Campbell who in late June ordered his new ministers to "immediately identify" regulations that could be eliminated as part of a 30-day action plan "to show that real change is possible and that we are committed to taking action now."
And it was Mr. Falcon who belatedly announced the results of the 30-day plan on Oct. 3 and who subsequently promised to provide details on the 220 regulations targeted for elimination.
The Liberals undertook all those targets and all those promises of their own free will. Now, when they are having trouble delivering, they have retreated to bureaucratic excuses of the sort they would never have countenanced in their highfalutin' platform.
Not for the first time has the government's rhetorical reach exceeded its deliverable grasp. At an open cabinet meeting in August, the cabinet approved a two-for-one rule regarding new regulations. Mr. Falcon explained its application:
"From this point forward" -- Aug. 15 -- "any time an agency, board or Crown corporation brings forward a new administrative requirement, they must kill two existing requirements.
"We believe that this will begin enforcing a discipline on us as a government."
The next day Attorney-General Geoff Plant introduced a dozen pages of new regulations in a bill to govern the practice of lobbying in B.C.
Sun reporter Jim Beatty wondered about the new two-for-one policy: Would Mr. Plant be scrapping two dozen pages of regulations to offset the contents of the lobbying bill?
"I'm a big supporter of the two-for-one principle," Mr. Plant replied, "but I don't think that realistically we're going to do it hour-by-hour."
When the reporter persisted -- the cabinet had approved the policy on the previous day, after all -- a bemused Mr. Plant hinted where he might turn if pushed any harder.
"Well, I'm thinking about the freedom-of-the-press regulations right now as we speak," he replied, teasing that the news media might be the next target of the government's deregulatory fervour.
He was joking, of course. But perhaps the beleaguered Mr. Falcon would think it was a straw worth grasping.
victoria indy