The Banker

Just a little light Bill Nighy humour to end the year.

The ongoing debate over Port Expansion

Well, I spent two hours of my time yesterday at the ‘small’ meeting for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Expansion Project. Thirty or so community people showed up including professionals, ready to debate the information presented by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (doing business as Port Metro Vancouver, PMV). Needless to say it was not a debate. The well presented glossy booklets held little new information since the previous presentations. It was clearly obvious that no public input has been seriously considered. The information is really a one way stream of polished Public Relations. Nothing more than Blah, Blah, Blah.

This Federal Crown Corporation will not govern the tenants that are in place within their jurisdiction. This was made clear when Fraser Surrey Docks refused to pay an environmental fine to the Vancouver Metro Board. Notwithstanding their argument that they are governed by laws, there is obviously no body that will govern, or preside over, PMV or their tenants.

You will find the following on their website:

Our Mission

To lead the growth of Canada’s Pacific Gateway in a manner that enhances the well-being of Canadians and inspires national pride.

 Our Vision

To be recognized as a world class Gateway by efficiently and sustainably connecting Canada with the global economy, inspiring support from our customers and from communities locally and across the nation. 

After yesterdays presentation I would ask three questions of PMV;

·        How can you possibly claim to “enhance the well-being of Canadians” if you are not interested or willing to address the major concerns expressed in this process?

·        How can you possibly claim to be “world class” or “sustainable” when your time line for shore power is “sometime over the next ten years.”

·        How can you possibly “inspire support..from communities”, or attain your claimed “transparency” when your process is really nothing more than a mandated PR forum?

A lot of specific questions were raised at this meeting. Nothing more was offered than a repetition of the information in your glossy pamphlet. The issue of shore power alone should be settled before any expansion is considered. If you were really interested in being a “world class Gateway” you would handle shore power the way it has been handled in Long Beach, CA. In 2014 50% of the fleet calls must use shore power. By 2020 this will rise to 80%. You have enough data on complaints from local residents to convince you this issue needs to be handled and yet you remain cavalier about your approach.

Port Metro you need to do better than this! Show us some level of responsibility. You owe it to the residents of Delta to be the corporate citizen you claim to be.

Income in the year 2014

Recently CBC news carried an article that spoke of wages being paid today relative to the past. The article stated that todays minimum wage earners are making as much as people did in 1975. This is not surprising as the shift to non-union jobs has been evident. If unions are not present to set wage standards, wages take a beating. Sadly most non-union workers are not aware that unions and union wages drive wage settings for the non-union workers.

It is our various Provincial and Federal Governments that have failed us at this level. In the drive to be "competitive" and to have "Free markets" and "Free Trading Agreements" our wages and benefits have taken a backseat. Yes, we need more open trade, but at what cost? And what does this do to our ability to be self-standing and to support our local economy? We also need to remember that when our dollar is weak we sell our resources at less than their true value. When our dollar was strong against the American dollar our exporters cried foul. They claimed their markets were decreasing and at peril. Whatever happened to the notion that during good times (when our dollar is weaker than the US $) manufacturers retooled in order to be competitive during bad times? Sadly all these notions have fallen prey to the idea that profit margins be maximized at all times. Just look at Corporate profits since the bank crash of 2008. While claiming poor market conditions were the cause of lay-offs and wage cut-backs, corporate profits have been at an all-time high.

Here in BC, the government has yet again failed in their negotiations with the teachers union. To some degree they have public support in that a lot of folk envy teachers and their summer holidays. What they are not aware of is the time teachers put in during the school year. But mostly the sad part is that BC teachers rank amongst the most poorly paid teachers in Canada! And they are the only people that stand between your kids and a promising future. Is this what good governance is all about, saving money at all costs?

The $3 Billion hoodwink.

The Provincial Government asked the public for input on replacement of the Massey Tunnel. The result of this consultation and final report is an eight lane bridge. The value of this bridge is marginalized by manipulation of the public input. The real reason for the choice of a bridge appears to be dictated by Port Metro Vancouver’s need to get bigger ships up the Fraser River.

 A number of options were presented to the public. Several of these options were presented so that it was almost a given what would be chosen.

One of those options was the retention of the tunnel. As presented this option had no additional means of obtaining the desired results to “support objectives for regional people movement”, to “relieve congestion” or to “improve safety”. As a result, retaining the tunnel was not heavily supported by the public. This is not a surprise as this is exactly what the process was meant to do; pave the way for the removal of the tunnel.

This tunnel will be useful for many more years, a point proven by a similar tunnel in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). So why dismantle it? If we add the additional tunnel or bridge components necessary for public transport to take traffic off the road, the tunnel will remain effective.  This will cost a fraction of the current proposal and will better achieve the desired goals set out by both Government and the public.

The second option to have the bridge “placed in a different location” was equally set up to fail. The new location merely rerouted traffic back to Highway 99 and the Oak Street corridor. This option served neither of the two objectives to “relieve congestion” nor to apply “a visionary long term solution”.

The report allows that “most of the traffic through the tunnel goes to Richmond”. What the numbers fail to factor in is the growth from border traffic and from the “Urban Sprawl” that will be created by a large bridge. Building the bridge will encourage residential and industrial development South of the Fraser. This will put more traffic on the road, not less.  This development will also put more pressure on our dwindling farmlands. With less farmland we will need more produce shipped in, putting more trucks on the road. The dismantling of the tunnel will allow more shipping through,  creating more truck traffic. All of this will only add to the “people movement” problem.

This means that this bridge will soon create a need for an additional traffic corridor to deal with this future growth. Therefore, this bridge is not a “visionary long term solution”. A long term solution can not be reached by putting more cars on the road and adding traffic to the Oak Street corridor. If a bridge is chosen, it should be smaller, augment the tunnel, be placed in a different location and handle public transportation. This would be far more economical, effective and “visionary”.

More importantly, building the bridge where the tunnel is will turn this major traffic corridor into a nightmare for a period of 3-5 years (judging by the Alex Fraser Bridge and the #1 highway upgrades). This will not only affect Delta residents. It will affect South Surrey residents, tourism, ferry traffic and truck and commercial traffic. For some strange reason this does not appear to be a major consideration.

The less discussed and more contentious issue to BC residents is the expansion of the Federal entity, Port Metro, and its need to remove the tunnel to allow larger ships up the Fraser. At the public consultation sessions no mention was made of the issue to “support trade and commerce”. These consultations were strictly focused on traffic logistics and infrastructure. How then did ‘transportation alternatives’ get rated lower than ‘Economic Growth’ in the final report?

Certainly ‘Economic growth’ is important. However, if the desire to remove the tunnel and build a bridge is strictly for the benefit of Port Metro, then why are we paying the cost? Port Metro’s requirements should not be confused with the issue of transportation infrastructure.

At $3 billion the cost of this undertaking is a serious issue.  This amount of money could be spent more effectively to serve the “objectives for regional people movement”.  And, this price is being given to you by the same people who missed the South Fraser Perimeter Road budget by more than 100%. How much will this project really cost?

Lastly, a Media Freedom of Information request for the “business case for replacing the Massey Tunnel” turned up a 14 page response that is “almost entirely whited out” due among other things to “disclosures harmful to the financial interests of public bodies”.

With this amount of money going into the project, it is doubtful that any money will be available to deal with the real issues to “support objectives for regional people movement” or to “relieve congestion”. That cost will be handed down to you in a separate tax on top of the cost for this project. All of BC will pay if this project is allowed to go ahead. Not just those who took their time to respond to this issue.

Peter van der Velden

Facilities Management Consultant

Tsawwassen

August 6, 2014

 

The following is a link to the virtual bridge created and paid for by the BC Provincial Government

 

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO5qu9HDJHM)

 

 

Port Metro Vancouver and their responsibilities

Well, here we go again. Port Metro is back in the news. And the news is not good.

Port Metro, as you probably know, has been trying to establish that it is a responsible Corporate citizen Environmentally. In the past several years it has undertaken a number of Environmental initiatives to "Bank" environmental points. These points can then be used when undertaking environmentally questionable efforts like the Terminal 2 expansion for Delta.

This is all encouraged under Canada's "Responsible Resource Development" action plan which supposedly "Strengthens Environmental Protection" as one of its four key themes.

Those are the theories. The reality is that Port Metro as a Federal Crown Corporation sits between the Prime Minister and the Queen in terms of regulatory determination and can (and DOES) pretty much what it wants. The latest news really only goes to emphasize how they see themselves relative to local regulators and their Corporate/environmental responsibilities.

Metro Vancouver issued a $1000 fine to the Fraser Surrey Docks for "discharging an air contaminant during port operations". The response to this fine was not an apology and payment as you might expect a responsible Corporate entity to make. Instead, the response of Fraser Scott, CEO of Fraser Surrey Docks was a letter to Metro that stated they would dispute the charge because it did not believe the Regional District had the authority to issue such a fine.

This brings up some interesting questions:

If the Regional District does not have the authority, who does?
What is Fraser Surrey Docks really interested in here? Are they trying to skirt their environmental  responsibility or are they just letting the local governing body know how powerful they really are.

The truly sad part here is that this was a blast of Soy Dust. Fraser Surrey Docks are proposing to handle over 8 Million tons of American Thermal Coal for shipment to China annually. If they can't be responsible for the handling of Soy can we trust them to be responsible for the Highly Toxic Coal dust?

How does this fit under "Responsible Resource Development"; better yet, how does it "Strengthen Environmental Protection." And lastly; why would a Federal entity want to question a local Municipal Authority on an issue so central to its existence: Corporate Responsibility?

If our regulatory bodies are allowed to fail at this level how can we possibly protect ourselves?

Here is a slide show of some photos from Delta days 2014. It was a lot of fun!


https://picasaweb.google.com/118228061219287470670/20140623#slideshow/6028312254791155938

Fraser Surrey Docks and Coal

Ah, where to start on this one. With the planned coal port expansion at Fraser Surrey Docks, the capacity of Port Metro increases to 59 million (yes million) tonnes per year making it the largest coal exporter in America.

And my fear is that this is not all it wants. There is a desire on the part of the American producers to ship as much as 6 times the presently planned 3 trains per day. 6 TIMES! 18-1+mile long trains coming through the Delta area, White Rock and Burns Bog. This will no doubt become a reality when the Massey Tunnel is removed. (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fengage.gov.bc.ca%2Fmasseytunnel%2F&ei=4uSYU8OOGJHqoASVioL4Dg&usg=AFQjCNHhdqbOhl99z9QUWWY4D2pnAv4pkw&sig2=nY7vaSgpTlXUsHtMYZ1Iwg&bvm=bv.68911936,d.cGU)  The channel depth is only an issue at the tunnel. By removing the tunnel the boats can be loaded without the present set-up which requires barging the coal to Texada Island to load onto a ship.

This coal is a softer coal than the coal presently being shipped from the Roberts Bank Coal Terminal (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Powder_River_Basin). It is problematic for that reason and a real health and safety concern (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_exports_from_ports_on_the_west_coast_of_Canada_and_the_United_States). As a result at least two American terminals have refused to handle this material. This puts it right in line with the way Mr. Harper is handling all environmental issues; ie, what environmental issues?(http://www.desmog.ca/2013/10/16/canadian-taxpayers-fund-harper-s-65-000-keystone-xl-advertising-trip) And, as we know, Port Metro Vancouver is a Federal Crown Corporation which basically has no accountability (even though they are mandated with decision-making responsibilities under section 67 of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012). They perform a number of "Habitat Enhancement" Programs in the hopes of being seen as an environmentally friendly group that deserves to have their way with the environment. Sadly what they are proposing for Terminal 2 and enlarging the capacity of the Fraser Surrey Docks is less than good for the Fraser or the Delta area (“Having looked at the document (environmental assessment), it does not meet what we consider the very basic requirements of a health impacts assessment,” Dr. Patricia Daly, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority chief medical health officer, told the Vancouver Sun). And has anybody actually explained how few jobs the coal is creating? And, oh, have I mentioned before that they have taken on no responsibility for the dismantling of the tunnel for their purposes? You and I, BC, will be paying for that.

As a result chief medical health officers of the regional health authorities, have demanded a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts. However, Mayor Louis Jackson is -typically- deferring to "more information from staff" before they join other Municipalities (including Metro Vancouver and Surrey) who have also asked for the assessment. Is it that difficult to believe the healthcare professionals know what they are asking for; is it that unreasonable to assume that the assessment should be done by an independent third party? I appreciate that Mayor Jackson does not want to have a rubber stamp council, but really; just what did she learn on her fact finding mission to Norway? Or is this just a continuation of her recent comment that Delta is "Open for Business."

Yes this does sound like a bit of a rant. But then....if Port Metro is not doing its due diligence, who can we hold responsible or accountable?  The Federal Minister of Transport, the Honourable Lisa Rait seems to have given tfhe Port free reign and has not gotten involved in the discussion. Neither has the BC government of Christy Clark gotten involved. I guess we can only hope that the staff at Delta comes up with the necessary information to join the other Municipalities in asking for a full and independent environmental assessment.

The next -and last- comment here is more a question. How is it when this issue is not settled that the BNSF railway is doubling its rail line?(http://www.vickihuntington.ca/content/bnsf-railway-extension-needs-federal-review-huntington) for this contentious coal? Is there something we don't know?

The Massey Tunnel

On the same theme as the last blog entry, this letter was sent to the board of Metro Vancouver. Metro is concerned with Regional Planning and at first blush Mayor Jackson of Delta was the only Mayor in favour of the bridge.

 

I was interested to read that Mayor Louis Jackson was actively courting the Provincial Government for THE BRIDGE last week. And, that the Provincial Government is actively pursuing the construction design phase.

Mayor Jackson is, I believe, the only mayor in Metro Vancouver who supports this BRIDGE and the dismantling of the Massey Tunnel. And yet, the Provincial Government will have us believe that this is the option that is not only the best option, it is the popular one. That is to say that the bridge is the choice that came from public input.

What has been lost in this debate is the fact that Port Metro Vancouver wants the tunnel dismantled so that bigger ships can be handled and port capacity can increase. Until this topic was raised, the dismantling of the Massey tunnel was not an option.

So why is it that British Columbia taxpayers and Metro residents (through road taxes yet to be determined) are going to be paying for Port Metro’s desire to have the tunnel removed? Port Metro is under Federal jurisdiction. It seems that they are pushing our Provincial Government into a decision that is not the choice for Metro Vancouver. We only need to look at the traffic patterns and the growth in traffic at the border, the port, and the region to see that this is also a very questionable choice for placement of a bridge. It does little to redirect traffic away from the Richmond/Vancouver corridor nor does it really allow for traffic growth to circumvent Vancouver.

This all begs the question, why are we paying for this need of Port Metro to have the tunnel removed? And, more importantly why are we even considering this alternative? An appropriately placed bridge and maintaining the tunnel would solve all of those issues. And do it in an economically feasible way. To suggest that THE BRIDGE is the only way to handle the public transportation requirements is just irresponsible.

Port Metro’s desire to increase shipping traffic is a separate issue that needs to be addressed by the Federal Government. The cost for this and the affect on Regional Infrastructure needs to be accounted for. Mayor Jackson has the untenable position of supporting THE BRIDGE option. Neither the Federal Government nor Port Metro have suggested that they would pay for any of the costs while being the only ones that would benefit. From a planning perspective this choice is just plain wrong! We need to put pressure on Metro Vancouver and the Provincial Government to change direction on this issue. If we are going to pay for a bridge let it be the right choice in the right location. And let it be a choice that will enhance our regional planning.

The Massey Tunnel

This letter was sent to the ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and various news outlets as well as (MLA) Vicky Huntington on May 7, 2014. The only one to respond was Vicky Huntington. The letter points out the Massey Tunnel is far from being obsolete. Like the South Fraser Perimeter road we can plan for something far better and far less costly. It is truly amazing that this bridge is planned for this location with the demolition of the tunnel for no other reason than the desires of Port Metro Vancouver.

This letter is regarding the replacement of the Massey Tunnel. There is real concern in this region that this project is one to finance Port Metro’s desires to have more access to the North Delta harbor and that it has little to do with dealing with the REAL traffic issues of the region. The issues of increased traffic in the Richmond corridor has been minimized by your department. Never has your department shown any real data to convince anyone that this is actually true. It would be really beneficial to see this data. As well, for future growth, why is the issue of taking border traffic away from the city not addressed by this elaborate and expensive plan. Surely a bridge placed further East and avoiding Richmond and the Oak street corridor makes more sense than adding to the traffic in this congested area.

It is clear that “the (tunnel) needs are just for stabilizing the ground and replacing operating systems. If it’s found that the “tube,” the tunnel structure, can remain sound, the rest is only renovation”.  replacement of the tunnel is unwarranted. The tunnel, like the Oakland tunnel of a similar design built in 1928 will remain more than satisfactory and cost effective for many years. “The Massey Tunnel is most like the tunnel under the Maas River in Rotterdam that was completed 17 years earlier by the same Danish engineering firm. After renovation last year, it (is) doing fine”. So why are we going to the expense of dismantling the tunnel when it can work in tandem with a bridge in another location and be far more effective and far less costly? And why, has Port Metro not been a part of this discussion when in reality it is the only reason that the removal of the tunnel is being considered. Surely we can do better in planning infrastructure than planning around the Port’s needs. If the Port’s needs are so prevalent why are they not a part of the negotiation and why are they not footing ANY part of the bill?

 Peter van der Velden

Tsawwassen

Ok, one last time

I had naively thought the issue was over only to find that the rhetoric is not.  So, please, allow me to add my voice to the fray.  This letter to the editor was sent to the Delta Optimist and not published.

I have never argued that the Southlands Development didn’t have interesting aspects to it. Aspects that would appeal to a good part of the community. I have always argued that this explosive issued needed to be handled in a transparent fashion and that there be no hidden agendas. Such was not the case. It really started with Mayor Jackson holding an in-camera (closed doors) session where she suggested to the developer that Delta would “entertain a proposal of 900 units”. Right after she cancelled a public hearing that largely did not support the development. Surely after that there was never really any doubt which way the decision was going to go.

What I would remind people of in the whole of this process is this: Is this the type of governance we want at the Municipal level? This council spent almost a quarter of a million dollars (Yes, $247,000) propping up and supporting this proposal before they spent another $99,000 on a public hearing. A hearing to, what, convince us that they hadn’t made up their minds? Would they have walked away from that $345,525 investment if enough people stood up and said “no”? Not likely. So why even bother with the public hearing when all this continued to do is divide the community. Let me ask all of you in our community: How can ANY decision so divisive be a good decision?

It is painfully obvious that the ramifications of this decision will not go away. The way our council has handled it from the start has pitted people against each other rather than create an environment of trust and co-operation. To have Mayor Jackson naively state that “now the community can heal” shows to what extent she is totally unaware of what her leadership has led this community to.

It was suggested by a columnist in this paper that the whole council would change if Mayor Jackson were to decide not to run again. Whether that is the case or not I certainly hope our next council has the ability to manage the rift Mayor Jackson has created. If not we could be in for a long 4 year term. Just think, the next four years will be pivotal in this community’s well being. We have a 1.5 Million sqft mall on our doorstep, we have Port Metro wanting not just a second berth but the dismantling of our tunnel (at our expense) for more and bigger ships and coal to come up the Fraser. All these will be completed or at least started in the next term as will the bridge. We need strong representation at the Metro board and we need a council that will step up to the plate for our Community. The present council has given me little faith that we will be cared for in this period of growth. And faith is what we need in this period of change.

Peter van der Velden

Tsawwassen

Dedication of the Fraser Perimeter Road

This letter to the editor speaks about the dedication of the new Fraser Perimeter Road. It dates back to July of 2013, just after the Provincial election. Strangely enough Vicky Huntington was not invited to this meeting eventhough she represents this constituency.

 

Well, here we are again it seems. The recent meeting with transportation minister Todd Stone, Mayor Jackson and Scott Hamilton at first glance would seem innocent enough.

However, notwithstanding Mayor Jackson’s comments, the Province of BC (ie the taxpayers of BC, not the Liberal Party) has put sufficient funds toward this project to warrant the presence of both local MLA’s, not just Mayor Jackson’s choice. Mayor Jackson states that this is up to Province. If she truly were a ‘leader’ of this community and honestly be interested in appropriate presentation she would see this as her responsibility. This is not just a case of ‘appropriate policy’ but a matter of decency. Mayor Jackson apparently doesn’t understand this and finds the need to label the response as an act of conspiracy. I guess when you are in her position for as long as she it might be difficult to differentiate (and I’ll quote Mayor Jackson) acts of courtesy and ”trouble visits”. Especially when you are so very busy.

I’m afraid this brings me to an older theme. It is very clear that Scott Hamilton in his mere weeks as a newly elected MLA has shown an inability to act in good faith for the community.  And he is supported in that by Mayor Jackson. It is understandable as they have been aligned for some time. However, it belies any convention and common sense. No-one can serve two masters. Whether one is on an “unpaid leave of absence” (-with voting rights ??!) or just showing up when you can (or by phone), both positions require one’s full and unbiased attention. Not only do the people of North Delta deserve a dedicated MLA,  the people of all of Delta deserve a full and attentive council. Similar comments have been made for all other constituencies that are in this predicament. For any council to obscure this issue with comments about cost is an avoidance of democracy and hides whatever real reasons exist.  It is really clear that the above issue merely presents the tip of the iceberg. This problem will only get worse if it is not attended to now. There will be conflict of interest on almost all issues, provincial and municipal! One of the first things they teach you on council is that if it may appear as a conflict, it is a conflict. Mayor Jackson and Mr. Hamilton seem to have forgotten that.

Please, anyone that cares about this issue write to this council and tell them to get on with a by-election! Only a year ago Mayor Jackson was telling us that the cost for council was low and that most cities of this size need more than 6 councilors to do the work. Let’s get the council we deserve.

Politics; survival of the fattest

This caricature is something that came to me some time ago when a number of issues came up around MLA Expenses. Although it appears to single out one particular person it really applies to all politicians, Federal, Provincial and Municipal. Anyone should be subject to scrutiny when the lines between reality and fantasy are blurred. A slap on the wrist just doesn't quite cut it when you are in a position of public trust. Anyone elected to office should know better. If they don't they have no right to be in public office.

 

Fraser Health Response

 

 

This is the rather weak response from the Fraser Health Board. To read it click on the letter and you will get it in full size. 

 

The following letter was sent to the Fraser Regional Health Board (feedback@fraserhealth.ca) after a 3 week stay in the Royal Columbian Hospital for bloodclot issues. It was copied to a number of government agencies/representatives and newspapers. The only response it elicited was a very weak letter from Dr. Nigel Murray of the Board that did not address any of the issues. I will post it next on the blog. I did later get a very interesting response from Pam Fayerman (pfayerman@vancouversun.com) the medical correspondent for the Vancouver Sun.

January 31, 2014

Fraser Regional Health Board

 

RE:     Multi-Purpose Interventional Unit and 3D Imaging Royal Columbia Hospital

Dear Mr. Mitchel, Dr. Murray and Board Members:

I spoke briefly at your meeting in Delta on January 29^th and would like to expound on the comments that I made at the meeting. Partly because my calculations were substantially wrong but mostly because this seems to come down to a serious mismanagement of health care funds.

I was in the vascular ward of the Royal Columbian Hospital for 3 weeks in December with blood clot issues. It was at that time that I became aware of the Interventional Unit and its capabilities as well as the present financial restrictions on the system.

It was a surprise to me to hear that you are considering a 12 million dollar expansion of the unit when, at this time, the financial constraints don’t allow for 24/7 staffing of the unit. As confirmed by Dr. Murray at the meeting, the RC Hospital is the Regional Trauma center. Surely a hospital with this designation cannot allow this restriction of staffing for a unit so integral to emergency care?

In the five rooms of the ward I was in there were 20 patients that were, like myself, waiting for availability of the unit to deal with their health issues. Most of these people were waiting for a period of about 10 days during my 3 week stay.

·         20X10X14 days (14-3 week periods/ year) means 2800 hospital days during which people are waiting for surgery.

·         At approximately $2000 dollars per day this totals $5,600,000 in direct costs to the hospital. Money lost due to the Unit not being available because of a staffing shortage.

I understand that staffing and bed costs are two different line items and are covered by different parts of the budget. However, this does not justify this inefficiency or ineffective use of facilities. In any other business this would be considered a total mismanagement of funds and resources.

One of the concerns expressed by the board in the meeting was overtime. It is logical that when staffing is set at a minimum, overtime will be required. Overtime puts a stress on your staff and is an additional cost over and above the $5.6 million mentioned. Surely the cost-benefit analysis mentioned by Dr. Murray at your meeting considers the overtime cost aspects of your financial planning and outlay?

I am thankful that overtime was allowed for my first intervention on a Saturday or I would have had to wait at least two more days. You can imagine my surprise when I saw that I was the only patient planned for that day in your  amazing facility.

Please do not mistake these comments for displeasure of my treatment. I was well cared for and the staff was pleasant and thorough. What was obvious is that everyone, especially the doctors, was stressed with their role in mitigating the wait period. The time consumed by this gave the doctors very little time to deal with patient questions regarding their actual treatment. This would be the only complaint that I would have about my actual treatment.

Sadly this is not where the issues stop. You can well imagine what this is doing to our labour force and how this is affecting the public at large. Being taken away from your family for twice the time necessary is a hardship. And really, no-one should be asked to spend any extra time in a ward where limbs are being lost.

What is even more difficult to justify is the fact that this small section of one hospital is costing British Columbia 2800 days of its workforce. 2800 lost work days! It would be interesting to see any statistic which speaks to the overall cost to the labour force from mismanagement or poorly allocated health care funds. If that were factored into the GDP we would have to admit that our health care funding is seriously hampering this country’s economy and well being. Not to speak of the public perception/reality of our health-care quality and costs.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Peter van der Velden

Tsawwassen

 

Cc Vicky Huntington, BC minister for health, minister health canada, BC ministry of labour, minister of labour Canada, Vancouver Sun, Delta Optimist,

A bed time story for all.

I had a little bit of fun with this one in June of 2013 when the casino issue was floating around. I have included it here because, as we all know, this issue is still out there.....

It was a calm day today on the way to the mailbox. Cumulous clouds could be seen on the horizon. The front looked to be coming from the East this time and not the West and was actually heading our way. Interesting.

While trying to unlock my mailbox, the headline in the paper caught my eyes: Surrey’s casino bid heading to Tsawwassen. Hmn. Putting down the paper I rummaged around my mailbox failing to find something other than bills and advertisements. As I opened the paper my first thought was gleeful. I pictured the failing casino bid to keep heading, well,  West. Jumping on a Ferry (free government cargo) and ending up where it started; in Victoria. Would our fair Capital city go for this Casino or would it simmer there until some bright soul sold its merits to the States? Time for a cup of coffee. Maybe the paper will have some of the usual exciting letters to the editor.

My coffee ended up getting cold as I digested the news. I swished the dark liquid around in my cup only to put it out of range of the flailing paper. The casino issue seemed to be stirring up more than the usual level of aggravation. And not just at the Provincial government. The more I read, the less likely it seemed that the casino would be passed up by the local developers. Not that this was a surprise, but Tsawwassen? And why and how, all of a sudden, was Ottawa involved? Yes, a storm most definitely seems to be brewing.

Victoria’s involvement can easily be explained, some MLA’s pass by this burg regularly when catching a ferry. These folk would know where to place it on the map: Shy of Victoria and not beyond Hope. It would seem a safe bet that they would wish to stop the Casino issue before it caught the ferry and came “home”. The Federal involvement  one could rightly assume, might be a little more convoluted. Moving on to the next page of the paper I thought about trying another cup of coffee. It looked like I might have to use some caffeine generated intellect today. Tough decision. Today is Saturday after all. Was I really going to put all my expensive post-secondary education to the task on my day off?

I decided against the coffee and laid down on the couch. Within no time the paper fell from my hands as the TV played an old rerun.  My mind started applying itself to the players in the situation in a pleasant dreamlike state.  Now I have to warn you: there is no editor in this state of mind. No guardian of virtues. No one to guide my thoughts or actions. As a younger man I have had many an anguished moment for my dreams. I have never been able to differentiate between guilt and pleasure in knowing just what my mind could get up to. Anyway, there is no need in involving you in my imaginary past: I’m sure you have your own. As my eyes closed the casino players evolved. They were obvious, but what was each of their involvements? There was a native governing body, the TFN.  There were, of course, the Provincial and Federal Governments and here it gets interesting. The local council gets swept in, in all innocence.

Slipping lazily onto an aircraft my dream had me flying to Victoria and Ottawa to find the roots of all this hoofera. No holds barred, I went Business Class and was treated like a Senator; lots of leg room, free liquor and only a raucus rock and roll group to keep me company. Now in Victoria I find out our enterprising government is desperately looking to place a casino. Having failed in Vancouver and in Surrey they are now considering a First Nations “partner” south of the Fraser. After all we wouldn’t want the money spending Canadians to head south of the border for some gambling fun.  This, Victoria tell us, is a must as we will be beaten to this revenue by the USA if we don’t a casino up ourselves.

My dream slips me onto another aircraft, this time to Ottawa, I find myself in Business Class yet again (dreams are like that). Having shed the noisy musicians from the earlier flight I find myself talking to an inebriated accountant visiting from Britain. He has been busy trying to explain the Euro Crisis to Victoria and is himself on the way to Ottawa. As he downs his fourth Whishkey (his word) he starts doodling on his wet napkin covered with pretzel crumbs. Let’s see he says: Let’s separate everyone involved so we can see if we can figger this out. We’ll call the parties…let’s see… Local (L) for your native government. Ehm, and the local council should be..still .. ohso Local (S.O.L). Victoria is not so Local (Not S.O.L) and we’ll have to do Ottawar justice….let’s see they’re Way and less Local (WALL) .  Yes, da seems raither appropriate. Tanks darling”. He says to the stewardess who hands him another ‘Whiskey’. He carefully pours the little bottle in his plastic beaker taking care not to spill a dram.

“Ok”. He says licking his lips having slaked his thirst one more time. The Feds, whatyercall -WALL, are in a bit of a bind with the treaty and are looking for a favour. Am I right? Better yet they are also looking to have someone pay for that favour.  Having received a new napkin he starts to lay out his newfound knowledge. Now party L wants sewage treatment from party S.O.L. He looks at me over his reading glasses and I nod in agreement. But S.O.L is not inclined to take on more sh*t (sorry, his word) than they can handle. Again, he looks and I nod. So WALL calls their friends at Not S.O.L. Knowing no one will butt their heads up against WALL, they order S.O.L to take care of L’s …eh…plumbing needs. Am I right so far? This time he doesn’t look at me but carefully empties his beaker and looks at the bottom to make sure there is no more. I imagine, he says looking wistfully out of the window that, before SOL even understands what this means they throw in the caveat that Not S.O.L would also like a casino. How’m I doing youngster”?  I nod my head. The Feds-your WALL- probably sees this as a promise and not a threat.  A fair exchange to pay for the sewage issue, right? The tone of his laughter has been shaped by many years of ‘whiskey ‘and I find myself smiling. He says S.O.L is probably thinking (in an agreeved tone): “What; take L’s road apples and let them haul in the cash? While we deal with the mess? All the while Not S.O.L is wringing their hands. An election is on the way. Money in the bank and all is fixed! Yes, politicians are a lot unto themselves.”

Again that throaty laugh as the pilot comes on the PA system to tell us to buckle up; we’re landing in Ottawa.

Stirring on the couch a snore escapes my lips and wakes me up. I find my head bobbing from side to side as though I were watching a tennis match, wondering what the next volley will look like. A casino. Now, is that the promise of a casino or a threat of a casino? If only someone could help me understand all these shenanigans.

 

To follow up on the previous blog article, this letter was sent to the editor of the Delta Optimist (http://www.delta-optimist.com/) on May 29th, 2014. It goes into more detail about the bridge decision and wasn't published.

Two recent articles in your paper caught my attention. One by the editor, Ted Murphy (tmurphy@delta-optimist.com) was about the present council and the possibilities for change of council. The other was on the complete lack of accountability form Port Metro by Ian Robertson.

It is of interest to me that people by and large are not responding to the issue of the port as the changes afoot are of great importance to this community. The two direct issues are 1) the expansion of the container terminal with a second terminal and 2) the dismantling of the Massey Tunnel, not so much to be replaced by a bridge, but to let larger ships through the Fraser.

The second terminal is of interest in that we have always been told that the South Fraser Perimeter Road was to “ease congestion”. Now it is becoming apparent that this is just not the case. Commercial properties are being speculatively purchased along the SFPR and Agricultural property has been bought and held on the Richmond side for the inevitable second Terminal. And this while the public process is less than complete and it is painfully clear that the Fraser estuary and its wildlife are at risk. Without any concern shown by the Harper government and token concern by Port Metro. So much for the SFPR being built (at our tax expense, nearly double the estimated cost) “to ease congestion”.

The need to dismantle the Massey Tunnel has never been fully explained to us, the BC taxpayers or the local commuters. The results of “Public Input” is questionable as the expense for this undertaking will be far greater than the cost of an additional and necessary alternative. And why are we on the hook for the Port’s needs rather than that of our own infrastructure? And how is it that our Mayor is the only Mayor that supports this bridge and its resultant traffic patterns? None of the other Metro Vancouver representatives are in favour of this proposal. So why is the Province going ahead with this?

This is all connected to the article by Ted Murphy on this fall’s election. Our present council in their infinite wisdom are pushing for development. Not development as defined by our Community plan or the Regional Context Statement submitted to the Metro Regional board.  The present number of Residential units is far beyond those planned and any expansion to the Port and its infrastructure needs are not included.

It is up to the electorate to let council know this fall that this is not acceptable. What is the use of asking for public input on the Community Plan if you don’t follow it? What is the use of supporting a bridge that the locals will be paying for when it has little benefit to anyone but Port Metro? We have quality of life in Delta. Let’s make sure that this is maintained and that Development is done within the structure set up BY council. We need to have transparency with all these decisions so that people who take an active part in this community can feel trust in council decisions. This will take change on behalf of council’s part and can only be achieved by a change in council.

This was written in September of 2013 when the bridge issue first came to play. It was sent to to the Vancouver Sun and the Delta Optimist but not printed.

 

As you will probably agree the decision to replace the Massey Tunnel is continuing to raise a lot of commentary. Not surprisingly as the decision continues to seem purely political.

It would be interesting to see the public input that Premier Clark states would have the tunnel replaced and a bridge put in its place. Certainly here in the most affected Delta area no-one would have dreamed of this scenario. Accept, of course, Mayor Jackson. It seems highly unlikely that Richmond would be interested as it only exacerbates their difficult access to Vancouver. The North Delta area as well as White Rock would also not be real interested in this proposal as it would appear to invite the coal terminal. Our Americans neighbors don’t want this coal shipped from their ports. Not surprisingly as it will eventually mean 18 (yes, 18) 1 mile long trains of coal per day with the ensuing environmental issues.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. Why is this bridge in the offing? Besides the political maneuvering of the Liberal party, that is. There is only one reason and Premier Clark has made it clear that this why the tunnel is being removed and not kept. The expansion of the Fraser River port system. Removing the tunnel will allow larger ships up the Fraser to the Surrey docks. It shouldn’t be a surprise that this comes at a time when the US coal producers are looking for a port to ship their product from.

This is the only reason the “aging” tunnel is marked for the recycling bin. The tunnel is-and will continue-to be useable for quite some time. There really is no other reason to decommission it.

The REALLY sad part of all of this maneuvering is that the REAL traffic congestion will not be dealt with. The Richmond bottleneck will only get worse with improved traffic from the Delta region. And make no mistake; once the Port has expanded there will be more need for housing on this side and traffic will get worse.

This brings us to the final factor in all of this, the Tsawwassen first nations (TFN) development proposals. Has anyone wondered how it got to be that a 1.5 Million square feet (yes that figure is correct) “Destination” Mall was planned for this part of the world? When it is surrounded by Malls in Richmond and Surrey and has no population base for any mall development? Everyone here has been scratching their collective heads wondering how such a development could ever survive. And of course, the Federal Government would never let their first Native agreement falter, so there we are. Sadly this also opens the door for the TFN to claim further lands, including any land from the Agricultural Land Reserve for “their” needs. One can only guess at the various commercial or industrial proposals they will “partner“ into because of their ability to access land around the port.

This brings me back to the beginning. If there is money to be spent on revitalizing the traffic routes from the South the tunnel needs to be a part of it. And the bridge needs to be in a location where the traffic not wanting to go to Vancouver can partially skirt the city. This would take away a lot of the congestion in Richmond and ultimately make the most efficient overall system. It would undoubtedly be cheaper and allow for mass transit to be funded as part of the cost. And yes, the port expansion would not happen. Sometimes we need to look at the quality of life issues before we look at the economy. Either that or look at in tandem rather than base all of our decisions on economic factors alone.

The next posting, about the casino should state that it was written in June of 2013, NOT 2014!