Sandy Garossino2013-05-22T21:49:48-04:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=sandy-garossinoCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Sandy GarossinoGood old fashioned elbow grease.The LNG Jobs Mythtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32636812013-05-13T12:58:29-04:002013-05-13T13:00:24-04:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/
Anyone who questions development in the resource sector, of mining and fracking and pipelines, is written off as a BANANA--Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. They are nattering nabobs of negativism who don't get how the economy works.
Growing the economy is the best way to create jobs, they say.
Jobs are the new mantra. Jobs Jobs Jobs. And businesses have a new name. They are "job creators". Anything you want to sell to the public, just promise jobs.
This didn't happen by accident.
Gallup to the Polls
In 2005 Gallup commenced a massive global study of human needs and desires. As company chairman and CEO Jim Clifton related in his recent book, The Coming Jobs War, the Gallup team stumbled onto "the single most searing, clarifying, helpful, world-altering fact" very early on. There is a universal key that we all respond to:
"What the whole world wants is a good job."
Suddenly, by remarkable coincidence, everyone in business and everybody running for everything from dogcatcher to prime minister now promises jobs. Jobs are the royal jelly, the secret sauce of elections.
That's why the resource sector is so important. For the jobs. For example, the B.C. government tells us LNG development will give us 100,000 jobs.
But there's a catch. You knew there'd be a catch.
Natural Gas is a Lousy Job Creator
It turns out that the BANANA republicans vastly over-state the job benefits of resource development, none more so than in natural gas.
Did you know that forestry, fishing, mining and oil and gas extraction combined provide only 2% of B.C. jobs? All these numbers can be found in a handy-dandy guide on the BC Stats page here: Click on the unpublished detailed industry data in "employment by industry".
To give you some idea, B.C. has a work force of about 2.3 million. Yet with employment of only 46,000, the forestry, fishing, mining and oil and gas industries can barely compete with the real estate sector, which employs 44,000. Of course the sector produces spin-offs and induced jobs-for instance in construction, transportation, and manufacturing.
Yet natural gas, being sold as a huge job creator is actually an employment deadbeat. While natural gas contributes fully 3.2% of our total GDP, its work force is tiny, just 3,500 souls, or .15% of provincial employment. Electrical equipment manufacturers employ more people in BC than oil and gas. Natural gas is shipped east through pipelines, so there are no trucking or ports benefits. And most of the $6 billion in natural gas earnings don't stay in B.C., but take a direct flight across the Rockies to Calgary. Which might explain why some B.C. politicians organize fundraisers there.
By comparison the tourism industry, which draws about the same GDP percentage as natural gas, puts groceries on the table for 127,000 British Columbians working in thousands of businesses across the province. Those employees work in every occupation from table-waiting to fishing guides to senior hotel executives, and their employers are, for the most part, B.C.-based small businesses. Scenic tours alone employs 6 times more British Columbians than the entire natural gas industry.
All these folks spend their pay-cheques locally and pay taxes here at home to support education, health care, and the delivery of vital public services. The beauty of tourism is that it operates like an export business, drawing income to B.C. from around the world.
You've gotta love tourism, but it's only one of several sectors that deliver job numbers that far outstrip the resource sector.
So Where's the Growth?
Actually, we've been pretty darn good at job creation in B.C., adding some 360,000 new jobs over the last ten years. It's just that next to none of those jobs have been in the resource sector, which was largely stagnant, with job losses in forestry and fishing.
The natural gas business, which grew revenues at an astonishing clip through the last decade, only added about 150 jobs a year, for a grand total of 1500 new jobs. Computer system design added 15,000.
In reality, the huge source of new jobs has been in in the service sector, in science and technology, skilled trades and construction, film, animation, tourism and retail operations. And government--specifically health care and education. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are job-making machines.
Paradoxically, the greatest job growth is in sectors that do not generate high revenues for corporate ownership or royalties for government, as the resource sector does.
The developed world is undergoing a major structural economic shift. Nobel Prize-winning economist Michael Spence cautions that globalization has brought a new economic dynamic, that "growth and employment are...diverging in advanced countries." In other words, many Western industries experience massive growth without increasing employment, or even cutting it dramatically.
Just look at McDonalds and Facebook. It took McDonalds almost 70 years and over a million employees to reach $60 billion in value. Facebook got there in eight years, with a payroll of fewer than 5000 people.
Until very recently, economic growth and employment synchronized like pedals on a bicycle--driving each other forward. As Facebook shows, innovations in technology and globalization disrupt that relationship in ways that have broad implications for all of us.
What's happening in B.C. is happening to some degree across the developed world. Job growth is not uniform across all industries, but subject to wildly divergent patterns.
But there's a huge difference between McDonalds and Facebook, and between Encana and the thousands of small, independent businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.
Beware the Jobs Deadbeats
It's undeniable that B.C. depends on resource sector royalty revenue, and government would naturally love to get more through natural gas development. But industry and politicians should be upfront about that reality, not wrap themselves in a jobs flag that doesn't fit.
Growing the economy is not equivalent to job creation. We need leadership that can tell the difference, and that understands that delivering real, secure, high quality employment in the 21st century is a deeply challenging and difficult task.]]>PavCo's Great Casino Capertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32230662013-05-06T12:24:58-04:002013-05-06T12:25:14-04:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), both announced, then dis-announced a signed deal with Paragon Gaming, the owners of Edgewater Casino. This daring manoeuvre, the Fassbender Flip-Flop, should only be attempted by trained professionals.
When a Money-losing Crown Corp Meets a Casino, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Riddle me this, Batman: if the formerly bankrupt Edgewater Casino's size and earning potential is capped at current levels, how is it going to manage the costs associated with a massive construction project on prime Vancouver real estate?
We're all going to need Bruce Wayne's balance sheet--because the answer is that B.C. and Vancouver tax dollars will get this done through a series of obscure subsidies that will never be returned. We'll have to send Alfred to fetch some bullion from Mother's safety deposit box to help cover this thing.
First there's the discount on the lease. According to BC Place general manager Howard Crosley, PavCo will likely eat at least half the original $6 million a year lease revenue. Over 75 years (or more, if reports are correct), this amounts to an extra $225 million subsidy to Edgewater Casino's owner, Paragon Gaming.
Then there's the small matter of the Cambie Bridge off-ramp re-construction, required to maximize the building footprint. Tag another several million dollars on. Add at least three years of lost lease revenue since 2010, when the original $6 million contract was awarded. There goes another $18 million.
But wait, there's more! There is the huge construction project itself, to be subsidized by the BC Lottery Corporation to somewhere between $8 and $17 million a year. Typically, the BC Lottery Corporation under-writes approximately 42% of private casino developer construction costs. Over 20 years this could total at least another $160 million.
It's not hard to see the final tally of this move could cost the B.C. taxpayer some $400 million. Wasn't that easy? Alfred should also bring a nice crisp Okanagan pinot gris to help wash down the debt we'll be eating for the foreseeable future.
Hitting the Revenue Ceiling
It would be one thing if this debt were off-set by increased net revenues, but that's not going to happen. A hard ceiling on slot machines and gaming tables is a hard ceiling on potential earnings. New facilities and great marketing won't dent it.
And here's the kicker: the BC government and City of Vancouver derive their share from the operation's net revenue, a number now imperiled by Paragon's ambitious over-reaching. In other words, we could lose even more money if this casino is built according to current plans.
Consider the following: in its original license application, Edgewater Casino promised the City of Vancouver some $10-12 million in annual revenues. It has never come close, and even went bankrupt once along the way. In 2012, the City of Vancouver's take was under $6 million--40% below projections made nine years ago. If Edgewater's expenses rise sharply without a concurrent increase in revenues, Vancouver will actually lose money, and so will the BC Treasury. And what if Edgewater goes belly up yet again?
Paragon's move to BC Place is a loser for every government and Crown corporation that touches it.
Unless There's a Secret Plan...
That is, unless somebody's crossing their fingers behind their back, ready to force a huge mega-casino expansion on Vancouver after the provincial election. That's about the only way the public's not going to lose its shirt on this deal.
PavCo has learned nothing from its mistakes of 2009. Yet again, discussions and proposals between the parties are cloaked in mystery, completely contrary to the Gaming Control Act.
This is the reason Vancouver Not Vegas has revived its legal challenge to the casino relocation. The plans and financial viability of casino projects must be publicly demonstrated before approvals are given. Bizarrely, the public knows even less about this project than we did when it was originally announced in 2010.
A Modest Proposal: Fair Market Value
Here's what should happen: the public is entitled to fair market value for our land. The lease of BC Place lands should be rescinded based on Paragon's inability to meet its original bid. The lands should be put out to tender again (with Paragon eligible to submit a fresh bid in an open competitive process). If Paragon cannot compete in the open marketplace, it should relocate to a less expensive site, probably on industrial land, as is typical for casinos such as the River Rock, Burnaby Gateway, and others. The public doesn't owe a free ride on prime publicly owned real estate to a private casino developer.
The original agreement between PavCo and Paragon was inherently risky, as it depended on Vancouver City Council rubber-stamping a massive casino expansion. This colossal error in judgment is now about to be compounded by PavCo's obstinate pursuit of yet another losing proposition.
Let's stop throwing good money after bad and do the right thing for the B.C. taxpayer, who's taken a helluva bath on BC Place already. Cancel the original deal, put the BC Place lands (which have no doubt increased in value since 2009) back on the auction block and get top dollar for them.
Let Alfred go back to tinkering on the Batmobile and cleaning seagull poop in the stadium.
And as for the Edgewater Casino, let the chips fall where they may.]]>Idle No More: First Nations Governance Coded To Failtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24453452013-01-10T13:15:48-05:002013-03-12T05:12:02-04:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/audit of Attawapiskat's finances delivered what looked like a knockout blow to the Idle No More movement. Then Tuesday brought word of a community in full lock-down mode as a Global TV crew was escorted out of the reserve.
Canadians were treated to our own domestic example of media as blood sport, a game in which Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence came off as disastrously outwitted and outmatched.
But while Spence is down, she's not yet out. Her critics might do well to read the final report of Canada's former auditor-general, Sheila Fraser, reviewed below, before condemning her.
And it may be a huge mistake to think that the resolve of Idle No More, a grassroots movement for transformative change in First Nations governance, can be extinguished by an act as simple as the public humiliation of the leader of a tiny destitute North Ontario village.
Idle No More won't vanish just because a prime minister could and did make mincemeat out of Spence in front of the whole country; it just might get stronger.
CODED TO FAIL
In her final report to Parliament in June 2011, Fraser took the extraordinary step of calling special attention to First Nations governance, a report that should be required reading for every commenter on this subject.
While Canada's journalists stand agog at the revelation that a remote village of 1,500 souls would have trouble accounting for over $100 million in spending, anyone reading the Fraser report could predict it with their eyes closed.
The Deloitte & Touche audit of Attawapiskat is a textbook outcome of the fatal weakness in Canada's current model of First Nations governance, which is coded to fail. There could be hundreds of Attawapiskats.
Here's why.
Canadians across the country are accustomed to provincial governments delivering health care, education, social services, policing, housing, and a host of other services managed by a sophisticated network of highly trained and educated specialists. Fraser notes:
(P)rovinces have developed school boards, health services boards, and social service organizations. These organizations... supply vital expertise... and develop a means of efficient and effective delivery of services.
Armies of managers and accountants control complex systems designed for accuracy and accountability. And all governments have trouble maintaining detailed records of the myriad transactions involved. Yet the level of service Canadians take as a birthright is outside the experience of First Nations communities. Canadian First Nations nationally comprise a population roughly the size of New Brunswick, and Fraser outlines the model that serves them:
The federal government established each First Nation band as an autonomous entity and provides separate program funding to each. Many of these First Nations are small, consisting of communities that often have fewer than 500 residents. There are more than 600 First Nations across Canada. Many of them are hampered by the lack of expertise to meet the administrative requirements for delivering key programs within their reserves. They often do not have the benefit of school boards, health boards, or other regional bodies to support the First Nations as they provide services to community members.
(Bolded sentence is my emphasis.)
In other words, each one of our 600 First Nations communities, many of them mere hamlets, separately delivers the full spectrum of services normally provided by a single provincial government. And they do this for one of the most troubled and vulnerable populations in the world, largely without benefit of highly trained employees necessary to competently oversee the process, in a high-cost environment, on a smaller per capita budget.
Does anyone know what the average First Nations chief's level of training and management experience is? Or the average training and experience of band councillors? How many building inspectors live within 50 miles of Attawapiskat? How about CAs, CGAs or project managers capable of supervising and maintaining records on multiple construction sites?
INAPPROPRIATE DEMANDS
Fraser puts her finger on the problem: we have made completely inappropriate demands of tiny villages. Let's be honest. Most Canadian mayors, First Nations or not, could never do the job Chief Spence was expected to perform with the experience, assets and human resources at her disposal.
First Nations leadership must accept responsibility here as well. They are obligated to negotiate an achievable governance model.
And this is not just a matter of concern to First Nations citizens. Canada as a whole has vital national interests that require moderate stewardship. A calm, measured and understanding response to this situation will take the government far. Backing First Nations citizens into a corner and humiliating their iconic leaders is not a promising start to real engagement with a situation that rightly demands a remedy.
No one needs responsive government more than Canada's most vulnerable citizens, and we are failing them. The responsibility lies with us, and with the First Nations leadership, to fix this.
Idle No More calls for transformative rather than incremental change in their system of government. Their most convincing argument can be found right in the pages of the former auditor-general's final report to Parliament.
]]>When Social Media Is Used for Badtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22324242012-12-03T12:47:37-05:002013-02-02T05:12:01-05:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/Amanda Todd ended her life after suffering intolerable bullying triggered by a sexual predator who found and blackmailed her through Facebook. Millions were outraged. We were too. We are social media enthusiasts who care deeply about protecting vulnerable young users in the cyber woods from the predators out to get them.
The benefits of social media (SM) in connecting users worldwide are well known, and we ourselves have cheered the democratization of knowledge and information sharing. However, the proliferations of SM access to an increasingly younger demographic is most worrisome.
Our concern is with young SM users, the estimated 200 million under 17 users of Facebook and similar sites. Amanda Todd's call for help burns our senses and we shout a cry. And a challenge.
We cry foul, that SM providers still enable predators to easily find young victims online. We challenge social media businesses, multi-billion dollar operations, to show some heart. We challenge Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and all such SM companies to soul searching. And real action.
From the start, these free services lacked transparency. We found out after the fact that we were being "data mined," our personal information and online history made available to advertisers to strategically target us with customized ads. We submitted to lengthy "Terms of Use" agreements that most people don't read.
Let's face it, we've been had, seduced by the world at our fingertips. Now we know better, that the dance was not free, the costs have been considerable.
As shocking as Amanda's story was, there is still much cause for worry. Known security gaps in a proliferating host of mobile applications have converted mainstream SM sites into highly effective devices for predators and abusive bullies.
A YouTube channel, The Daily Capper, openly celebrates and promotes sexual blackmailing of young girls, fueling traffic to a dark web of under-age sex sites. Omegle, a Facebook-connected site, enables anyone (including kids) to "Talk to Strangers" via video or text. These are extremely dangerous conditions that leave children in harm's way.
Instagram, a photo-sharing program owned by Facebook, can easily be accessed by young children via smartphones, who can inadvertently publish their home addresses, phone numbers, and even physical locations. Thousands of babysitter images of young children have been uploaded, many with locations identified. Facebook has become a brand feared by parents, when it could be one they can trust.
Educating parents and kids -- teaching "net smart" habits -- is very important, yet insufficient protection for the young. Some parents do teach responsible SM habits and may engage various parental controls. But the task of monitoring and adjusting children's online behaviour, even at home, is beyond the ability of most parents. Parents simply can't police their kids effectively.
SM makes the challenge of parenting that much harder: kids now live in two worlds, real and virtual, and they often behave like they don't know the difference. Many seem to not understand the need to keep private matters private. They don't realize that on SM comments and photos shared may stay online forever. The proximate real world of a few friends, relations and colleagues gives way to hundreds of online "friends" whose text and image sharing can immeasurably amplify these interactions.
Clearly, there is a security gap for young online users, a gap that is best addressed by those businesses that profit from offering SM services. They created the risk for young users. It is their corporate responsibility to build young user safety into all applications as a mandatory design requirement.
Our B.C. community is building a grassroots movement to urge industry reform and consumer protection. We have launched Red Hood Project, on Facebook and Twitter, to rally public demand for systemic safety changes in the SM industry. We invite everyone to join us. An Open Letter to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was posted on numerous news sites. We await her reply.
]]>The World According To Krausetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22206512012-12-03T11:07:39-05:002013-02-02T05:12:01-05:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/
Vivian Krause conspiracy saga about shadowy Americans bent on shutting down Canadian oil sands development via the Financial Post on Nov. 29.
It's a lengthy tract -- much of it recycled -- and in the end it's not easy to pin down Krause's point. Her logic is often hard to follow and prone to hairpin turns, but one thing's clear, she's really good at making us hyper-ventilate about a conspiracy by American environmentalists to Do Something Bad. Apparently "they" have put huge areas of Canada off-limits to development as de facto trade barriers that enforce a U.S. monopoly on our exports, while at the same time they want to drop our exports to the U.S. to zero. Or something.
The recitation of numbers and data from widely disparate years and sources, the 12-year-old quotes about long ago parties, and the dots that don't quite connect -- all of this only adds up to a confusing welter that makes the most sense if you don't read very closely. Try to tease out and scrutinize real evidence, and the whole thing unravels.
Consider Krause's focus on CGBD (the Consultative Group for Biological Diversity), an apparently shady umbrella group of American environmentalists convened out of the U.S. State Department 25 years ago. With annual expenditures of $3.2 billion in 2010, Krause intones darkly, "They can't be out-spent."
Reading that, you probably thought that an American environmental superpower is aiming a blasting gusher of cash directly at the Canadian oil sands. Ah, but facts are funny things.
As it happens, the CGBD isn't a granting body at all, but a professional association for foundation executives and trustees in the conservation field. Its participants include the Gates Family Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, the Bloomberg Philanthropies, and many other trusted household names.
And as long as no one asks how much of that $3.2 billion actually made it to Canada, the vast environmental conspiracy theory sorta works. But it's best not to ask that question.
Because the answer is: almost none of it.
FOREIGN DONORS TO CANADIAN CHARITIES
According to the widely respected Canadian charity lawyer and tax expert Mark Blumberg, the Canadian Revenue Agency reports that 2010 revenues to the Canadian conservation movement from all foreign sources totaled just over $48.5 million in 2010.
At most, only about 1.5 per cent of that ominous multi-billion dollar CGBD budget slipped across the border into Canada. Pretty much all of it went somewhere else.
And you would be forgiven for thinking that the supposedly infamous Tides Canada was the recipient of most of those millions from the U.S. Oops, wrong again. Roughly 70 per cent of the total went to Ducks Unlimited, leaving $15 million donated from worldwide sources to organizations like Tides Canada, the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation and all the others.
The David Suzuki Foundation, cited repeatedly by Krause for its supposedly suspicious foreign influence, received a mere $553,560 from foreign sources in 2010.
To give perspective, in 2010 alone, foreign donors contributed a total of $831 million to Canadian charitable institutions, and conservation organizations received about six per cent of it. Tides Canada, the subject of such intense scrutiny from Krause, received less than one per cent of all foreign grants, and distributed grants not only to the conservation sector, but also to service organizations like the Stephen Lewis Foundation, the Ottawa Food Bank, the Toronto YWCA, Pen Canada, and a host of other highly respected institutions.
It goes on. Over the last 15 years or so, according to Krause, U.S. foundations have donated some $425 million to Canadian conservation groups.
While it's true that the two land conservation projects she mentions are the main beneficiary, these were not imposed on an unwilling Canada by American environmentalists. The Harper government actively championed both of them, and actively sought millions and millions in donations from the American conservationists that Krause now vilifies.
None of this was secret, just conveniently forgotten.
'POLITICALLY USEFUL'
John Baird, then the environment minister, triumphantly announced the Canadian government's financial partnership in the GBR with American environmental foundations at a press conference in 2008. Immediately following the 2008 federal election, Baird accepted a Boreal Award for his "far-reaching vision, diligent work, and collaborative initiatives to protect land within Canada's Boreal Forest."
In his acceptance speech, Baird expressed great pride in the Harper government's achievement, saying:
"Canada's government has demonstrated its commitment to the Boreal Forest and Canada's North. In protecting over 30 million acres of our pristine Canadian wilderness, our Government has taken real action to ensure that these lands and their legacy are preserved for generations to come."
Or maybe just so long as it was politically useful.
Suddenly those massive environmental projects -- so vital to the Harper minority government in 2007 and early 2008 -- are terribly inconvenient. Gone from the web is the 2008 Conservative Party election platform, which committed to the preservation of ecologically sensitive lands. And those major American endowments, once so prized by the federal government, are a millstone around its neck.
If there are any deceptive practices going on here, it's the Harper government's disavowal of its own conduct and its pretense that it never met its own partners.
Krause's literary pursuits will come in very handy should the federal government wish to unwind its own contractual commitments to preserve Canada's environment, in order to drive oil pipelines and Arctic drilling projects.
This supposed scandal has been hiding in plain sight for almost a decade, and almost none of the key claims hold up to scrutiny. A veritable cottage industry has grown up promoting one of the most politically convenient conspiracy theories in recent memory.
But the entire thing could be put to bed with just a few hours of homework by journalists endowed with a working Internet connection, a calculator, and Hemingway's indispensable gift: a built-in, shock-proof, um, "nonsense" detector.]]>Dear Sheryl Sandberg: Please Keep Predators Off Facebooktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21466112012-11-16T15:37:14-05:002013-01-16T05:12:01-05:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/
We are a community of concerned citizens in British Columbia, including Amanda Todd's mother. As
you may know, Amanda was contacted and blackmailed through Facebook by an adult predator who impersonated local teens to enter her circles of friends.
We write imploring you to lead change in the social media industry by correcting the security failures that made such victimization possible.
As shocking as Amanda's story was, there is still much cause for worry. A YouTube channel, The
Daily Capper, openly celebrates and promotes the sexual exploitation of many young girls, fueling
traffic to a dark web of under-age sex sites. Meanwhile, reports out of Indonesia document that predators use Facebook as a key tool enabling them to abduct under-age girls into human trafficking.
Instagram, a photo-sharing program owned by Facebook, now features tens of thousands of images of children uploaded by their babysitters, available for viewing by over seven million daily users. No security prevents the inadvertent publication of profile information such as home addresses and phone numbers, and Instagram has a map function that enables predators to find the location of many photos.
Omegle is a site that invites kids as young as 13 to "Talk to Strangers" via video or text, and integrates directly with Facebook Connect. A simple YouTube search yields online instruction for contacting very young girls, and Omegle itself has a feature through which lurkers can prompt users to interact with each other, and to watch them anonymously.
These examples point to serious systemic design defects that place children and teens in harm's way. Known security gaps in a proliferating host of mobile applications have converted mainstream social media sites into highly effective devices for predators and abusive bullies. And in what can only be described as the cruelest irony, YouTube now sells advertising on Amanda's desperate video cry for help, while in a well-documented trend, her Facebook memorial page was desecrated.
Facebook has become a brand feared by parents, when it should be one they can trust.
We appeal to you as COO of Facebook, a mother, a visionary digital media leader, and member of the board of The Walt Disney Company, to lead industry-wide adoption of systemic security to block predators and abusers from accessing kids on major social media platforms, starting with Facebook itself.
This is a consumer protection issue. Facebook has over a billion users around the world, of which an estimated 20 per cent, or 200 million, are aged 17 and under. Those users should be secure from contact with unscrupulous predators and abusers.
We are delighted to hear of your current initiative to reduce bullying and make young Facebook users
safer through stronger reporting and educational resources, and we applaud your efforts. Yet while
education of parents and kids is laudable, the onus for safety must not rest solely with consumers. Parents are not equipped to navigate complex technology and what their kids (or their kids' friends) do online is often outside their control.
Indeed, the principles of consumer protection are well established, particularly for products intended for use by children. The burden of ensuring systemic product safety rests with the industry that designs, engineers, markets and distributes it.
Real safety in social media requires systemic change across the industry.
We know that everyone in the legitimate social media industry wants kids to be safe. As a society we have a duty to use all our powers to ensure young people are free from exploitation and abuse.
Over the coming weeks and months our B.C. community will build a co-ordinated effort to press for
industry reform and consumer protection. As one final note, we implore you to ensure that memorial pages are monitored and abusive posts immediately removed.
We would love to meet with you to discuss how Facebook can lead that change.
For Amanda,
Sandy Garossino, civic advocate, business owner, View from BC panelist, CKNW
Raffi Cavoukian C.M., O.B.C., Centre For Child Honouring
Carol Todd, mother of Amanda Todd
Kim Cunliffe, bereaved mother of teen Darin Cunliffe, whose Facebook memorial was desecrated
Kip Woodward, Chair, Vancouver Coastal Health
Dr. Marlene Moretti, Senior Research Chair, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Saleema Noon, B.A. M.A., Sexual Health Educator
Out In Schools, Drew Dennis, Executive Director, Ross Johnstone, Director of Education
Maureen Palmer, Director CBC documentary Sext Up Kids
Melissa Carr Vancouver's "Top Mom Blogger" http://thethirtiesgrind.com/
Bill Good, host, The Bill Good Show, CKNW, Corus Radio Network
Bridgitte Anderson, VP, Corporate & Public Affairs, Edelman Vancouver View from BC panelist CKNW
Alise Mills, Strategic Communications & Media Relations,View from BC panelist, CKNW
Jen Shaeffers, Executive Director, CKNW Orphans Fund
Jessica Gares producer, The Bill Good Show, CKNW
Michael Tippett CEO, Ayoudo, Co-founder, NowPublic
Michelle Rupp, Community-builder and Principal, Lighthouse Leadership
Peter Ladner, Author, columnist, former city councillor
Bif Naked, International Recording Artist, author, advocate
Grimes, Claire Boucher, International Recording Artist
Shane Koyczan Canadian poet, anti-bullying author and advocate
Linda Solomon, CEO, Observer Media Group, Publisher, The Vancouver Observer
Mark Busse, Partner/Managing Director, Industrial Brand, Vancouver organizer; Creative Mornings
Meeru Dhalwala, Partner, Vij's & Rangoli, author, healthy living advocate]]>Enbridge's Futile Attacks On Science Foundationstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19645982012-10-15T10:33:56-04:002012-12-15T05:12:01-05:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/
An initial unconvincing ad blitz showing happy families frolicking amongst interlocking fronds was followed by a scathing U.S. National Transportation Safety Board report on Enbridge's disastrous Kalamazoo River spill, one of the worst inland oil spills on record.
When NSTB Chairman Deborah Hersman characterized the company's appalling breakdown of safety response as reminiscent of the Keystone Kops, then-Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel countered by quoting the children's author, Lemony Snicket. It was, he said, all just a "Series of Unfortunate Events."
Not to be outdone in the fiction department, the company topped everything with yet another animated ad campaign in which the islands crowding the proposed Douglas Channel supertanker pathway into Kitimat magically vanished.
Enbridge's latest act of attempted self-immolation consists of a petition that the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel compel funding information from conservation critics, apparently on the basis that there is something improper about major American science-based foundations being involved in Canadian issues.
Does Enbridge truly expect the NEB to toss aside the evidence of critics as contaminated by foreign influence when it is itself 27 per cent foreign owned? Two of its 10 partners in Northern Gateway (Sinopec and Total) are also foreign owned, while another (Nexen) is subject to a Chinese takeover bid by CNOOC and the identities of four other partners are secret.
It's pretty simple. As Enbridge well knows, the NEB Joint Review Panel doesn't care about American foundations. It assesses the reliability of complex data and deals with international parties and interests all the time. If evidence were flown in from Mars the NEB Joint Review Panel would accept it, so long as it was reliable, relevant, and submitted according to the rules. The review panel must sift through and weigh masses of conflicting evidence over a tight timeline, and won't have any intention of going on a time-consuming wild goose chase of investigating all the participants.
In other words, this latest gambit is not directed at the NEB, but is rather a PR stratagem to change a disastrous media narrative by peddling a recycled news story that didn't work the first time. Everybody in British Columbia already knows about the American foundations and they don't care.
Curiously, given the events of the past year, Canadians might be surprised by what we don't know about the supposed foreign radicals backing Tides Canada and other conservation groups. Most of us don't know, for instance, that the Harper government itself openly and vigorously pursued these same American foundations as financial partners in a well-publicized 2006 agreement brokered by Tides. None of this was secret at the time, in fact the federal government held a press conference to announce it.
Many, if not all, of the foundations that Enbridge now wants "exposed" contributed a combined $60 million to a $120 million partnership with the Canadian and BC governments, preserving some 72,000 sq. km of pristine forests, river inlets and coastal waters in and around Kitimat, now known as the Great Bear Rainforest. By remarkable coincidence the Great Bear Rainforest protected waters include the aforementioned Douglas Channel entrance to the proposed pipeline port.
Suddenly all the major donors celebrated by the Harper government just a few years ago are incredibly inconvenient.
So it comes as no surprise that Enbridge is protesting their involvement, and our own federal ministers now demonizes them as radical money-laundering interlopers.
Reality could hardly be more different. The impugned American organizations are among the world's largest, most respected and mainstream scientific research and humanitarian foundations, and routinely partner with governments and NGO's at the highest level across the globe. They are light years removed from the radical wing-nuts they've been painted to be.
A CLOSER LOOK
It would do British Columbians and Canadians well if we did investigate these foundations more thoroughly. We might be pleasantly surprised by the results.
Take the first named suspect, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Gordon and Betty Moore are corporate and philanthropic giants in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay area, and their impact on scientific research and conservation is legendary and global. Co-inventor of the semi-conductor and co-founder of Intel, Gordon Moore is the author of Moore's Law . The former board chair of Cal-Tech, Moore and his wife have donated $600 million for scientific research there. He is the recipient of the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom.
With assets of almost $6 billion, the Moore Foundation has funded over $200 million to protect the Amazon River Basin, $250 million to build the largest land-based telescope in the world, and has put millions into tracking the path of radioactive materials from the Fukushima nuclear disaster across the Pacific to North America, so local governments can respond appropriately, to give just a few examples. They have particular interest in marine habitats along the western North American coastline and across the North Pacific to Russia and Japan, which is how they happen to be involved in Canada's Great Bear Rainforest.
The achievements of the other enumerated foundations are equally stellar. The trustees and boards of governors of each organization boasts many of the world's most respected scientists and civic leaders, including:
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation:
Dr. Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of the academic journal Science, and for 12 years president of the US National Academy of Sciences,
Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, White House Director of Science and Technology Policy
Packard Foundation:
Dr Donald Kennedy, former President, Stanford University and co-chair of the US National Academies' Committee on Science Technology, and the Law
Cole Wilbur, Director of the Institute for Global Ethics and former interim CEO of the US Council on Foundations.
Hewlett Foundation:
Paul Brest, former Dean of Stanford Law School
Dr. Harvey Fineburg, former Provost of Harvard University and president of the US National Academies of Science Institute of Medicine.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund:
Nicholas Burns, retired senior diplomat and 3rd ranking member of the US State Department under both Clinton and Bush; Professor of Diplomacy and International Politics at Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
The list of scientific, academic and public service luminaries involved with the foundations goes on and on. You can read more about these organizations and their history with the Harper government in my Vancouver Observer piece here.
Agree or disagree with the scientific conclusions and advocacy of these foundations as you will, but their integrity and credentials are beyond reproach. We should welcome their participation in the debate around proper stewardship of natural habitats.]]>Marijuana Decriminalization: The Time Has Cometag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19213842012-09-28T13:29:01-04:002012-11-28T05:12:01-05:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/"...if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."
Milton Friedman, Economist
"...it's more than time to start working toward legalizing marijuana."
Bill Good CKNW Sept 26, 2012
This week, the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted to support the decriminalization of marijuana in Canada. This step may seem small, but it signifies that public leadership in British Columbia has reached an historic tipping point on the war on drugs. It won't tip back.
The Criminal Code is a federal responsibility, but enforcement is within provincial jurisdiction, and policing is covered by municipal tax dollars. In reality the frontline in the war on drugs is fought by under-resourced and out-gunned municipal police forces.
It is into our city streets that the river of guns has poured unchecked. It is in our public places -- our bars, restaurants and casinos that gangsters are gunned down with sickening regularity. And it is in every one of our high schools that organized crime stretches its tentacles -- creating new customers (aka children) and recruiting scores of callow young foot-soldiers.
The war on drugs is a spectacularly expensive and destructive failure, and the resolution of the UBCM is a verdict on that war by the most credible jurors, its own warriors.
The choice for Prime Minister Stephen Harper is as simple as it is stark: pot or gangs.
SOME VITAL STATISTICS
In 2006 B.C. Vital Statistics documented 8,146 deaths linked to addictive substances. Of these, 7,958 were associated with alcohol and tobacco, and 188 linked to drug overdoses, of which 146 were heroin or cocaine related.
The B.C. Coroner reported a slightly different figure of 220 deaths from illicit substances that same year, and provided the following toxicology results:
"Cocaine was identified in 79.5% of deaths, opiates in 60%, methadone in 14.1%,
methamphetamine/amphetamine in 5.9%, alcohol in 22.7%, antidepressants in
10.5% and benzodiazepines in 3.6%. poly-substance use was common; 2 or more
substances were identified in 78.6% and 3 or more in 34.5% deaths. opiates were
more frequently identified in Vancouver: 74.1% vs. 55.4% (p=0.015)."
In other words, the one substance conspicuously absent from addiction-related death reports is cannabis. Further, in Stepping Forward, the B.C. Medical Association's 2009 report on addiction care, alcohol and gambling are rated as vastly more serious problems than all illicit drug use combined. Marijuana is such a minor addiction issue that it is barely mentioned.
Meanwhile, the policing, court and correction costs dedicated to saving us from marijuana, which is the lifeblood of B.C.'s criminal organizations, have been staggering, as has the human toll of the rise of gangs and organized crime.
Economists such as Milton Friedman draw a straight line between the war on drugs and the increase of organized crime, which comes as no surprise to anyone experienced with gang related law enforcement. As Friedman points out, government pressure drives the weakling out of the marketplace, rewarding the sophisticated and ruthless operator who is able to capitalize himself beyond the reach of police agencies.
It's the classic vicious cycle, with police activity actually driving a highly financed and professional criminal network.
Now estimated by the Fraser Institute at a $7 billion industry, the B.C. marijuana cartel (and that's what it is) is almost the size of the mining industry, and probably employs more people. All of those many thousands and their families get a free ride on our education, health care, and social services, while handing the taxpayer a staggering bill in policing, courts and corrections, and sucking countless young people into a ruthlessly brutal and exploitative life.
Though it was decades ago now, as a former Crown prosecutor I saw the gang and organized world up close, and I've watched it chew up starry-eyed youngsters who dreamed of play-acting the Scarface life. Trust me, among the things you don't want to see in life are photos of murdered 19-year-olds. Gangs and organized crime commit many atrocities, but nothing more venal than their craven and relentless pursuit of our young.
The war on drugs is a bottomless money pit that has produced nothing but body bags. If the federal government will not act, then we, the people, should demand that it does.
I applaud the Union of B.C. Municipalities for its courageous and principled stand seeking decriminalization of marijuana. You can learn more by visiting Stop The Violence.]]>Vancouver Real Estate: Pillar of Sand and Fogtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18758282012-09-12T19:00:35-04:002012-12-21T23:50:03-05:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/
It goes without saying that Bob Rennie knows Vancouver residential real estate better than anyone, and he is always a terrific interview. Most of us understand at some level that he's not exactly impartial, but few seem to grasp just exactly how his opinions might be coloured.
Rennie markets condominiums on a large scale for developers including, by the way, the City of Vancouver, for whom he is marketing the Olympic Village. In this role he has a clear professional duty not to harm his clients' interests. Publicly expressing doubts about the viability or sustainability of Vancouver's real estate market would be a fairly serious breach of that obligation.
Still, his opinions make for interesting reading.
Take his August interview with the Huffington Post B.C. as an example. For starters, Rennie suggests that if we "fence off" the west side and Richmond areas that have "nothing to do with the local market" and disregard the top 20 per cent of the condo market, the Metro Vancouver picture starts to look a lot more affordable.
According to Rennie, the reason our market is stable is that aging baby boomers sit atop a mountain of equity which has increased in value by some $22 billion in six years. These house-rich boomers will start to sell their existing properties, move into condos and help their kids buy homes.
"That's going to be a lot of money moving around the region," Rennie said, "and that shows me a lot of buyer support."
Did you notice what just happened there? Suddenly the top end of the market, which supposedly has "nothing to do with the local market" is now a pillar supporting the rest of the real estate value chain.
If the music stops at the top end (and right now you can hear a pin drop over here on the west side), the dance is over. That $22 billion is a pillar of sand and fog. It's uncertain for exactly the reasons Rennie gives: the capital that created value at the top end is fluid and has "nothing to do with the local market."
If other places begin to generate better returns (and they have), external demand will stop and the capital will move. When that happens that $22 billion-pillar supporting the rest of our market will evaporate.
Yale economist Robert Shiller, founder of the Case-Shiller Index, has some thoughts on this, as was noted in Tuesday's Huffington Post B.C. He told BNN last week that one real estate market he would definitely avoid is Vancouver.
Citing Vancouver's profile as virtually identical with that of pre-crash San Francisco, Shiller said:
"San Francisco is a bubble city that's talked about as one of the major boom and bust cities in the U.S. ...They're no different in Vancouver, in fact it's worse in Vancouver."
To get some idea just how extreme the Vancouver housing market really is, consider the following:
Metro Vancouver median incomes have fallen in the last two consecutive years, and now rank in the bottom quartile in the country (23rd out of 28 cities). We're drawing incomes below Windsor, Saskatoon and Sudbury, yet our housing prices are the highest in the country, and more than double the national average.
As economist Ben Rabidoux noticed last month, "(t)here are currently over 5,000 homes in Vancouver metro area for sale for over $1 million according to MLS.ca. In comparison, the NAR reports that in April, just over 7,000 homes sold in the entire US were sold for over $1 million."
To put it another way, despite our significantly lower disposable income, the Metro Vancouver region has roughly 42 times as many million-dollar mansions per capita than the entire U.S.A, including New York, the Hamptons, and Beverly Hills.
Do we really need to know anything more than that?
]]>'Selfless' PavCo Chair Leaves Record of BC Place Razzle Dazzletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18129062012-08-24T08:45:11-04:002012-10-24T05:12:11-04:00Sandy Garossinohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-garossino/
It's very exciting to join HuffPost's legendary list of contributing bloggers, which includes everyone from Conrad Black and David Suzuki to David Frum and Elizabeth May. In an era when media has become more and more concentrated, HuffPost has been the go-to place for fresh, relevant critical analysis, and it's an honour to be here.
Last week was a travel week -- I was in NYC for the American TV debut of my daughter Claire (better known as Grimes)on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon. We had just a few hours together before she hopped onto a plane to Japan.
Kids are so mobile these days. No sooner had she boarded that flight than news broke that she's got a page in VOGUE's September Issue, with a shout-out to fabled Vancouver shoe artist John Fluevog. Apparently we are all supposed to go straight out and buy neon Day-Glo platform boots.
It's been quite an eyeopener to watch media power shape public perception around a young sensation. Once Claire captured the media's attention, the machinery just swung into hyper-mode.
A B.C. taxpayer is born!
All this show biz & media razzle-dazzle naturally brings politics to mind.
The newshounds haven't disappointed this week, bringing home the tasty morsel of David Podmore's resignation as board chair of PavCo. Recent months have seen the departures of long-term pillars: board member Peter Brown and CEO Warren Buckley. But no one represents the face of PavCo like David Podmore.
NOTICE SOMETHING FUNNY?
If PavCo was a publicly traded stock, Podmore and Buckley would have been drawn and quartered by their shareholders by now, based on the financial fundamentals behind the absurdly lavish BC Place Stadium retractable roof project. No formal business case was ever disclosed, as it probably could not withstand the light of day, but in 2011 during a construction tour, Podmore allowed that the half billion dollar project's financial viability rested on three primary sources:
1. An annual $6-million lease to Paragon Gaming;
2. Naming rights;
3. 40 more major events in the building, with attendant concession revenues.
Notice anything funny here?
Almost a year after substantial completion, not one of these conditions has materialized, and considerable uncertainty surrounds each of them. Every one of these conditions should have been secured prior to proceeding with the costliest roof refit in the world on the taxpayer's dime. The usual practice for major construction projects in the private sector is to conduct due diligence to identify, isolate and limit exposure, as well as to obtain in advance all licences and approvals necessary to the success of the enterprise.
None of that happened here. Paragon failed to obtain its licences so the lease revenue, modest as it was relative to the scale of our expenditure, is in peril. And the less said about the naming rights fiasco, the better.
But worst of all, only one major concert event was booked into BC Place between its 2011 opening and 2013, and no more is in sight.
Where are the 40 events, Mr. Podmore? Gone with the wind. As anyone familiar with major tours would have told PavCo if they were asked, only about 10 acts in the world can play a stadium in a regional market like ours. Half of them are ready to drop dead of old age and the other half only tours every couple of years. They'll come here if the scheduling, trucking and transportation issues make sense. Which, you might have noticed, is not very often.
By contrast, the business model of privately held Rogers Arena as both a sporting and event venue is vastly superior to BC Place. Rogers hosts a major North American sports franchise with a long season, broadcast rights into the lucrative U.S. market, significant concessions and rents from a powerhouse merchandising brand. It can and does host many major music tours, and it was successfully built and operates on the private dime.
BC Place has never worked as a business model and pouring half a billion dollars into it hasn't helped at all. The retractable roof project at BC Place screams RISK to any experienced businessperson spending their own money rather than somebody else's.
It's a vanity project, pure and simple.
But rather than being tarred and feathered by angry shareholders, Podmore is lionized by our local media as a superb captain of industry. With few exceptions, our media seems unfamiliar with such arcane concepts as balance sheets, income statements, and the basics of due diligence. In the end it is their judgment that shapes public perception.
If all this is a mystery, Dear Reader, remember that to criticize PavCo is to criticize the BC Liberal Party. If you are critical of the BC Liberal Party then you are a crank or a socialist, and it therefore follows that you have no concept of how to operate a business.
Ergo, Podmore retires with distinction from his years of selfless service to the people of British Columbia, who may now humbly thank him.