Royal visit? Royal pain? Or royal biker salute? |
 |
 |
|
Written by Chris Green
|
|
Friday, 18 February 2011 16:09 |
|
Controversy erupted this week over the cost to the federal provincial and territorial governments of providing security for the Royal honeymoon, the estimates of which are currently coming in somewhere north of $2.3 million.
As a closet monarchist, I am firmly on the side of cheerfully paying the freight for the Royal visit, just because they are royalty. I am, however, interested in some of the other arguments being advanced in their favour.
Many argue that the couple will be accompanied by a huge contingent of press, who are bound to file glowing reports about the beauty of ye olde home and native land, and such publicity is bound to spin off economic benefits to Canada. It's a small investment in security in order to reap a large economic benefit, say the proponents.
It’s interesting, because it is almost identical to a pitch that I made to the Salmon Arm Council last week, in support of a slightly different event - the Sturgis North motorcycle rally and classic rock festival, a noisy and exuberant celebration of the biker lifestyle and rock music. The event promises some big economic benefits for the city, but at the expense of some additional security costs… and so the battle is joined.
At the policy level it makes for an interesting discussion. What is the role of government at any level to provide security at public expense for private events, or private individuals? We find various governments falling on different sides of the issue. Events such as the Williams Lake Rodeo, the Armstrong Fair, the Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival, are not required to contribute to the cost of their own policing, so the civic fathers must deem the benefits to outweigh the costs. Merritt, on the other hand, receives an estimated $23 million in direct economic benefit from the Merritt Mountain Music Festival and sticks that event with over $120,000 in extra policing costs.
Other municipalities, such as Vancouver, which host a wide variety of special events, parades, political demonstrations, rock concerts and sporting events, do make an effort to recoup some of the additional costs from event organizers. But consider: if - as seems likely - the Canucks make it to the second round of the playoffs, or, dare I say it, to the cup itself, the City of Vancouver won't be handing Orca Bay entertainment an invoice for the extra policing costs of the victory celebrations, will they?
It is a difficult issue, since government, especially municipal governments, are being fiscally squeezed like never before, and do have a legitimate interest in controlling their costs, but at the same time have to be cognizant of the fact that special events of all stripes bring a galaxy of intangible benefits to a community. I mean, how do you put a price tag on an opportunity to ogle Kate Middleton? |
H.A.D. Oliver - A legal giant has left us |
|
|
|
Written by Chris Green
|
|
Thursday, 20 January 2011 09:36 |
We were saddened to learn yesterday of the passing of H.A.D. Oliver. An exceptional lawyer, outstanding judge, and - in "retirement" - a well-respected Conflicts of Interest Commissioner for the BC Legislature. His larger than life presence has been a fixture of the legal firmament since I was a law student, and he will be missed.
|
|
Got a murky past? Don't delay in getting your pardon |
|
|
|
Written by Chris Green
|
|
Wednesday, 02 February 2011 16:37 |
|
As many people know, it is possible, after a decent interval has transpired, to apply to the federal government to have your criminal record expunged with the grant of a pardon.
I'm sure the legislators who originally enacted the pardon legislation intended that youthful indiscretions, such as a toke too many at a rock concert, or an overly exuberant night on the town, didn't stain one’s character forever by way of an indelible criminal record, so the procedures involved were quite straightforward, and the fee ($50) was very modest. Many Canadians must be prone to youthful hi-jinks because some 20,000 pardon applications are received each year, and since our southern neighbours have begun hardening their border, pardon applications have soared to over 30,000 per year.
As avid readers of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal & Constitutional Affairs will already know, that committee, acting upon the advice and recommendation of the National Parole Board (which has the responsibility for pardons), recently decided that it was time to boost the application fee to $150. At first blush this is hardly anything to be concerned about; the fees hadn't been raised for quite some time, and the new fee was still pretty modest.
But, if you are one of those with a secret petty criminal past, who is worried about the possibility of an ancient criminal record rudely disrupting your next visit south in search of fun and sun and drinks with little umbrellas in them, you should be aware that the recent fee increase is only step one in the Parole Board's master plan to make you pay for respectability.
The real reason for the fee increase stems from the egg on the faces of various politicians, when it was revealed that a notorious hockey coach, convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault, had successfully obtained a pardon. An Act to Amend the Criminal Records Act (Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act) was quickly enacted. One of its features was to increase the responsibilities resting on the National Parole Board, to - amongst other things - ensure that the grant of a pardon would not bring the administration of Justice into disrepute (that is, to make sure that no more egg ends up on any politician's face). The additional workload imposed on the Board by this legislative change has boosted the real cost of processing an application to over $500, and so the Board has served notice that it intends to cover that cost by successive increases to the application fee.
Accordingly, with the ink barely dry on the November 2010 changes to the User Fee Act, Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, has begun pounding the table with a proposal to quadruple the application fees to $631, evidently to punish the old criminals, as well as the new.
Since it is hard to vote against Law and Order, I would say these new fee increases are pretty much a sure thing. So if you've got a murky past, better deal with it now, before the cost goes through the roof. |
A toast to the New Year |
|
|
|
Written by Janice Moore
|
|
Monday, 10 January 2011 21:00 |
Happy January, everyone!
 We found this link on Twitter, which is where we do a lot of our research these days. It being the Rabbie Burns month and all, we thought we’d share this tempting wee morsel with you. Nae worries, we won’t be piping on about the great Scotsman in this month’s yarns, which, by the way, are right now being knitted together at newsletter HQ. To find out what we will be harping on about this time, might we suggest you sign up here and benefit from that other Scottish tradition - frugality? In plain and simple English: enter your email address and get a $25 coupon off your next legal service.
|
|
