2013-05-18T21:26:08-04:00 Kash Heed http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=kash-heed Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Kash Heed Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2951843 2013-03-26T03:01:59-04:00 2013-03-26T09:19:07-04:00

Kash Heed http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kash-heed/ details emerging about the Prince George Wood Innovation and Design Centre. I am a backbench MLA and no longer a member of cabinet, and so in spite of having a unique vantage point of hearing the discussions from within, I am no more privy to the specifics than any member of the public.

That being said, I have been piecing together media reports and filings surrounding the issue, and believe I have a good sense of what is at the crux of the current controversy.

In November of last year, a complaint was filed by Prince George developers Brian Fehr and Dan MacLaren over the fairness of the project, documenting how "breached protocols, broken promises and misrepresentation" had infected what was supposed to be an apolitical exercise. More specifically, the submission claims that Pat Bell, the minister of jobs, tourism and skills training, was directly involved with the parties, parameters and procedural aspects of the land acquisition, tender and procurement process.

Furthermore, the head of the Northern Development Initiative Trust (a regionally operated economic development funding corporation for central and northern B.C. that operates at arm's length from government) has made a statement confirming that government bureaucrats requested that she change the language in a letter regarding a loan the trust was providing for the purchase of the land.

The statement from NDIC head Janine North alleges that the former deputy minister of forests (who served under Pat Bell when he was the minister of forests) had asked that the NDIC's letter remove mention about the loan happening at the "request of two ministers of the Crown" -- the second being B.C. Attorney General Shirley Bond.

I believe in the sanctity of due process. Both as a police officer for over 30 years, and B.C.'s former solicitor general, I am forever committed to the presumption of innocence that is at the core of our justice system. Thus, far be it for me to make any kind of definitive determinations about the above mentioned allegations. However, I also have the experience of being a part of a controversy as a minister of the Crown, and subsequently, living up to the conduct that I consider appropriate under such circumstances.

In April 2010, I learned that I was going to be questioned by the RCMP over materials and advertising that had been a part of my 2009 election campaign. At the time, I was unaware of the specific focus of the inquiry, other than the fact that it was related to my campaign. And, over the course of the ensuing investigation, I discovered that these campaign initiatives had violated the Elections Act.

Now as I write this, I have long since been cleared of any wrongdoing in the incident, and the individuals responsible have been charged and sentenced.

However, upon hearing about the RCMP's intentions to question me, I made an immediate decision to step down as solicitor general until such time as I was exonerated. While I was confident that I had not done anything wrong personally, I was also aware of my accountability as a cabinet minister during the course of the investigation.

I take the responsibilities of a cabinet minister very seriously, and have much deference for the public trust. Thus, regardless of what I knew about my conduct, I understood that an ongoing investigation prevented me from being above reproach, and by virtue of that fact, I was diminishing the prestige, importance and responsibility the title of solicitor general carries.

Furthermore, when the initially appointed special prosecutor resigned just one day after clearing me of wrongdoing, I once again stepped down within 24 hours of being re-appointed to cabinet. The circumstances of the resignation were completely out of my control, but still I understood that any swirling doubt would preclude me from honouring the post I was entrusted with.

So in the interest of maintaining the integrity of B.C.'s Executive Council, I believe that my colleagues Shirley Bond and Pat Bell have an obligation to remove themselves as ministers until this matter is formally investigated.

As stated above, this piece is not intended to pass judgment on Mr. Bell and Ms. Bond, but rather to encourage conduct that I believe every public office holder should adhere to (particular in the case of members of Cabinet).

The public trust is where we as elected officials derive all of our legitimacy from. The moment that this public trust is called into question is the point that our entire system of governance is compromised. I hope that Mr. Bell and Ms. Bond seriously contemplate the importance of the decision they have in front of them and do the right thing.


]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2312293 2012-12-16T16:00:01-05:00 2013-02-15T05:12:01-05:00

Kash Heed http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kash-heed/ "As a country, we have been through this too many times.... And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."

— U.S. President Barack Obama in his statement after Friday's mass shooting in Connecticut

Like President Obama, my immediate and visceral reaction to the senseless violence that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School was as a father. My daughter is now four years old, and the thought of the terror and grief that parents are experiencing is nearly suffocating.

I found the U.S. president to be empathetic and genuinely heartbroken in his brief statement. His public expression of emotion was human, not political, extending sentiment that demonstrates how the grieving process needs to begin together.

Yet currently as an elected official and formerly as a police officer and chief of police over a 31-year career, I cannot help but feel great urgency and impatience to what I would describe as a tepid response to the issue at the heart of this tragedy: gun control.

Let me preface this piece by acknowledging that Friday's appearance by Obama just after the lives of 26 innocent victims were taken was not the time for policy pronouncements. Let me also point out that I am aware that on Sunday morning, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stated her intention to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that Americans are in greater need of stark leadership and tangible actions than insight into how to love their children. I would argue that in terms of the machinations behind Realpolitik, this can only come convincingly from the president of the United States.

Public opinion in favour of gun control in the United States has dramatically waned in recent years. As demonstrated in an article by the Huffington Post's Mark Blumenthal, after a "brief bump in support" for stricter gun laws following the Columbine massacre in 1999, most national polling since shows a steady decline to a current figure of less than 50 per cent of Americans supporting such limitations on their gun rights.

The sensitive nature of this debate is likely a determining factor in Obama not making gun control a priority in his first term. The assault weapons ban introduced by former U.S. president Bill Clinton in 1994 expired in 2004. That piece of legislation was the last time Congress passed anything of significance on the country's gun regulations.

Historically, firearms tend to be a political powder keg for most U.S. elected officials. As an example, widely supported political analysis argues that 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore lost in winnable states like Arkansas, New Hampshire and his home of Tennessee because of a tough and vocal stance on gun control.

This should not go unnoticed now that Obama is facing off against the Republican Party in a heated and time-sensitive battle over austerity, taxation, and the dreaded "fiscal cliff."

The politician in me understands that in crafting policy, factors such as social conditions, supports available for mental illness, and the protection in place at children's schools, must all be considered. I am well aware of how important comprehensive consideration, investment, and ultimately prevention can be in avoiding incidents like Friday's shooting.

The cop in me, however, is an unyielding proponent of strict gun control after witnessing firsthand the devastation gun violence causes society. It also makes me intolerant of playing the politics of re-election and courting public support on issues of this magnitude.

When you're the U.S. president, extraordinary times call for bold, articulated leadership backed by specific actions. This is particularly true for a recently re-elected commander-in-chief with a moral responsibility to not only the families of the victims, but to all American families who now encounter fear every time their child walks out the door.

If Newtown isn't the platform for Obama to take a decisive stand as both an advocate and a catalyst for change, then nothing ever will be.



]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2086049 2012-11-07T11:57:37-05:00 2013-01-07T05:12:01-05:00

Kash Heed http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kash-heed/
British Columbians are affected by organized crime groups that control the massive marijuana industry. These gangs produce and export marijuana to American consumers, including residents of Washington state. In turn, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, cocaine, and guns are brought back into the province, which fuels the growing gang activity and related violence threatening our communities.

Economists have estimated the local market to be worth up to $7 billion annually, and these gangs are viciously competing for the revenue they generate from the marijuana-export industry. As someone who has spent more than three decades in law enforcement, I have witnessed the futility of continuing with marijuana prohibition. It's an industry that gangs are more than willing to kill for control over.

By voting "Yes" for 502 and 64, these states have elected to take the production and distribution of marijuana out of the hands of these organized criminals. Instead, they will take control of a market that is estimated to represent millions of dollars in tax revenue. This is money taken directly from the hands of organized criminals, and instead put into health care, drug abuse treatment, and education.

The revenue expected from regulating and taxing marijuana use in these states doesn't even take into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be freed up in criminal justice costs, representing money and resources that can be redirected to law enforcement efforts that actually protect community health and safety.

British Columbians agree with this approach. According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 75 per cent of B.C. respondents support the taxation and regulation of cannabis over chasing and arresting cannabis producers and sellers.

Momentum for change is growing. Washington and Colorado voters have sent a clear message: treating marijuana use as a crime has failed. British Columbians also overwhelmingly recognize that marijuana prohibition has failed. Nevertheless, the question is: When will our politicians catch up?



]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1982793 2012-10-18T17:49:30-04:00 2012-12-18T05:12:02-05:00

Kash Heed http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kash-heed/
Fighting the war on cannabis and the violent gangs that feed off the conflict took up a vast amount of my time. The gangs and gangsters I pursued are too numerous to mention, but include household names such as the UN gang, the Hells Angels, Independent Soldiers, and Bindy Johal. These and other notorious B.C. gangsters profited by selling and exporting marijuana, while using the massive profits to import cocaine and guns into our province.

Our efforts to curtail gang wars over the cannabis industry were time-consuming, dangerous and expensive, up to and above $1 million per murder investigation. I led teams that had record-breaking arrests while removing enormous amounts of drugs from our streets. However, the successes that we enjoyed over the past three decades proved short-lived and ultimately fruitless.

In the early 1990s, I began to fully recognize the futility and the social, economic and public health costs of continuing marijuana prohibition.

And I came to one inescapable conclusion - cannabis prohibition fuels gang violence in B.C. All of the vaunted and much publicized policing efforts to control gang violence and the marijuana industry -- the Uniformed Gang Task Force, the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, the Marijuana Enforcement Teams, the hiring of hundreds more police offices across B.C., civil forfeiture laws and tougher sentencing -- have had little if any impact on the huge, highly profitable sector. In fact, costly law enforcement efforts have only served to drive the marijuana industry deeper into the hands of violent organized crime groups.

While working as the commanding officer of the drug unit and working towards a Masters degree in criminology, I researched why massive investments in law enforcement did not reduce marijuana use or related crime. The reason? Money. The marijuana industry in B.C. is estimated to be worth up to $7 billion annually. The profits generated are enormous and, for some, worth killing for. When gang members are convicted and jailed, new and violent gang members are only too eager to use intimidation, guns and murder to take their place.

FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE

Many of my colleagues in policing and the criminal justice system understood that we were fighting a losing battle, and privately expressed their support to overturn marijuana prohibition and implement a strictly regulated system of marijuana sales to adults.

At the same time, I took the concerns I was hearing privately and aired them publicly. In November 2001, I appeared before a Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. My message to the Upper House was three-pronged: Pot prohibition doesn't work. It leads to violence, massive costs to the taxpayer, and no reductions in supply or use. And alternatives, including regulation, should be considered.

When I suggested that marijuana prohibition has failed and contributes to organized crime, I took significant heat from others in the law enforcement community. Police chiefs coalesced around the unworkable status quo. Privately, within my department, I received more support. Many cops had had enough of the illicit marijuana industry's ongoing succession of violence and death, with no end in sight. However, when your job, your pension, and your family's livelihood are at stake, I understand the average cop's hesitancy to step out of line and publicly question their superiors.

Today, I must speak for the police officers who cannot.

The endless cycle of gang violence must stop. I have joined Stop the Violence BC, a coalition of law enforcement officials, legal experts, medical and public health officials, and academic experts concerned about the links between cannabis prohibition in B.C. and the growth of organized crime and related violence in the province.

STVBC has enlisted current and former B.C. mayors, police officers, attorneys general, health officers and others to help overturn cannabis prohibition and implement a strictly regulated market for the adult consumption of cannabis. As with the end of alcohol prohibition in the 1930s, marijuana regulation today will remove the profits that drive gang violence and create safer, healthier communities.

Today, under cannabis prohibition, youth have easier access to marijuana than alcohol or tobacco. As a law enforcement leader and former minister of public safety who has spent more than 33 years creating and enforcing laws, I know that a strictly regulated marijuana market for adult cannabis use would better protect youth through the use of regulatory tools that have proven so effective in reducing tobacco use.

The taxes resulting from a regulated cannabis market could support our most important public programs, including health and education. Rather than enforcing unworkable laws that breed violence, police would be free to focus on laws that actually protect citizens and improve public safety.

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts and majority support from British Columbians to reform existing cannabis laws, prohibition remains. It appears nothing has changed since my days on the street. In fact, recent headlines suggest events are worse. Randy Naicker, gang member, shot dead. A Red Scorpion leader gunned down. A full-patch member of the Hells Angels wounded in a public attack. Jonathan Bacon, killed outside a waterfront hotel in Kelowna. Innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time. Retaliation.

For now, until we enact sensible cannabis laws, the beat goes on...]]>