So we have the BC Ferries commissioner issuing a call for a major overhaul of BC Ferries. It’s a sharp repudiation of the entire approach of the BC Liberal Party to our ferry system (indeed the underlying ideology of our alleged free-market political party). As most users of ferries know, prices have risen significantly, service is not much better, and the finances opaque to the public. It’s not working, and the commissioner urges the abandonment of the user pay system. There are lots of juicy quotes here:

Fares since 2003 have gone up 47 per cent on the major routes, 78 per cent in the north and 80 per cent on minor routes.

and…

current fares impose “significant hardship” on ferry-dependent communities and were affecting the ability of people to visit family members and friends as frequently as they would like.

and my favourite:

Lindsay Meredith, a marketing professor at Simon Fraser University, said the Liberal government “ran into Economics 101.

“It’s basic, fundamental, down-and-dirty, easy-as-it-gets demand and supply. … Jack up your price and watch your demand plummet,” he said in an interview.

But there’s more forgotten Econ 101 than that. In fact it’s kind of fundamental – whom does BC Ferries compete with? Whose competition is forcing them into the ever greater efficiencies the “crucible of the market” is supposed to force? I’m not an expert on ferries or transportation systems, but even I – a liberal arts student! – have never understood this crazy system the BC Liberals have set up (in more than one area). Privatization without competition is monopoly and a private monopoly is worse, much worse, than a public one. At least in democratic states where the rule of law is well-established, which try as the Liberals may to undermine it, British Columbia has and retains.

I can’t vouch whether the European consumer is well served, but at least you have a choice of ferry companies when you take your car to or from the UK.

I am obviously left of centre, but I’m not rigid. There are, in my view, things currently being done by our government that the market would do better (if your goal is better value for your citizens). Are we really well served by our government-run liquor distribution system, for example?

But BC’s population isn’t large enough currently to support competing ferry companies. And while some routes might not make economic sense, economics is not the only consideration. There’s the social, and the strategic. If we abandon ferry routes on the grounds they aren’t economic we are also abandoning claims of sovereignty over those communities the ferries serve. Use it, or lose it as someone once said. That’s international law.

However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory

We’re not in immediate danger of losing the Gulf Islands, but if communities starting shrinking and failing one day someone will say they use the land if we don’t want it.

The BC Ferries experiment in “privatization” has failed.

It is thus that the single advantage which the monopoly procures to a single order of men is in many different ways hurtful to the general interest of the country. – A. Smith

UPDATE: Oh noes! A bond agency – who we all know always have our best interest at heart – doesn’t like what’s going on!

In a statement posted on its website, Dominion Bond Rating Services says adopting all of the changes proposed by BC Ferry Commissioner Gordon Macatee this week would erode a framework that has prevented political interference and made the corporation more efficient.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

The argument for corporate income tax cuts has been that increased after-tax corporate profits would be re-invested in company operations, boosting economic growth, productivity, and jobs. However, studies have shown that rising corporate after-tax profits have not resulted in increased real investment.

This study looks at the profits and investments of Canada’s largest companies, those listed on the S&P/TSX Composite Index, from 2000 to 2010.

What did corporate tax cuts deliver [PDF]

When my wife and I worked for the same employer, we avoided any situation where one of us would be reporting to the other.

Super, except 1) that’s a statement about the reporting structure within a company and is a rule common in most workplaces and 2) it’s Smart’s job to report on his wife’s employer the B.C. Premier. He can’t avoid it. Not if he’s doing his job.

Contrary to popular opinion, journalists are not locked in a constant struggle to bring down the government of the day, exciting though that might seem. We also have a vested interest in the success of our politicians

It’s true, it’s not the singular purpose of the press to bring down the government. Then again I’m not sure having a “vested interest in the success of our politicians” is part of the curriculum at journalism school. Whatever happened to the concept of the “adversarial press”?

That just isn’t what “adversarial” means. An adversarial press does not mean that the media automatically and reflexively contradicts what the Government says or does. That is called being a mindless “contrarian,” not “adversarial.”

An adversarial process is designed to uncover deceit and falsehood by ensuring that claims and arguments are subjected to meaningful scrutiny by some opposing force. An adversarial press means that it views its function as a watchdog over the Government, as a check on its power. It fulfills that function by viewing Government statements and actions skeptically and with the intent to scrutinize them and determine their truth.

This isn’t to say Stephen Smart isn’t doing just that. But who could fault the public at large for having the perception his reporting could be affected, even unconsciously?

No one involved in the Smart/Scott complaint has any examples of the perceived conflict between the two corrupting the coverage of any story by the CBC.

Proving a negative: No one knows if Smart sat on a story or pulled punches. Maybe not. But maybe yes.

The notion competing professional interests can’t coexist under one roof dates back to the not-so-distant past when the model family consisted of hubby heading off to work and the good wife staying home and supporting him in every way.

No it doesn’t. Rules like this, preventing family members (not just spouses!) with competing professional interests from being professionally involved have existed for a long, long time. Note the emphasis on “competing”. Here’s an example of another news organization’s guidelines for dealing with family members.

This isn’t really about Stephen Smart. This is about the CBC. This is about why I, as a member of the TV-watching public, won’t change the channel because I think the reporting might not be as cosy with the government of the day elsewhere.

Kirk Lapointe made a ruling based on the CBC’s own guidelines. Craig McInnes doesn’t want to say he thinks Kirk Lapointe should have ignored them. Instead he tries to make it about the critics in the blogosphere.

UPDATE: Outside of the Legislature beat, Victoria is small-time, media-wise. Being reassigned would be a step down if one were to stay in Victoria (no offence to Victoria’s other reporters). It’s not a pleasant situation to be in.

UPDATE 2: Both Norm Farrell and RossK highlight an appearance by Keith Baldrey on Bill Good’s radio show in which he posited the following:

Keith Baldrey: Ya. I mean he’s my competitor. And I think it’s outrageous to suggest that his job performance has been anything less than exemplary. I mean, we compete for stories…. Here’s a great example. Christy Clark revealed that she wasn’t callin’ a fall election on my television station and a couple of other news outlets, and not the CBC (back in September)… It was, you know, he (Smart) doesn’t gain necessarily from the relationship his wife has with the Premier. In fact, I think, if anything he’s probably hurt by that.

Ok.

So why would I watch CBC if one of it’s reporters has a hand tied behind his back?

Just sayin’

You see, Hong Kong is rated by the Heritage Foundation as #1 on their annual list of “Economic Freedom”. If one was in a certain mood, one might conclude that even in a place so committed to “entrepreneurial dynamism” the market fails to provide solutions to one of humanity’s most basic needs. That would be shelter. (Shhh…don’t tell the Heritage Foundation that even in this capitalist paradise, 50% of housing is public housing – and the market still fails to provide the rest). It’s almost as if the natural outcome of the Heritage Foundation’s conception of “Economic Freedom” isn’t freedom but, you know, monopolies and what the Hong Kong protest movement dub property hegemonies:

[A] university professor summarized the situation, saying that “public discontent had reached a ‘critical point’” because of the affordability crisis. “Mr. Li used to be an idol of Hong Kong people. But now he becomes a symbol of so-called property hegemony

Also and unrelated, I found this funny:

Although Hong Kong maintains its ranking as the world’s freest economy, policies proposed or implemented since the second half of 2010, particularly the establishment of a minimum wage, have moved the economy modestly in the direction of greater regulation.

Oh noes, tyranny!

An Apple executive says “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” He might have added “and showing a big enough profits to continually increase our share price.”

Most executives of American companies agree. If they can make it best and cheapest in China, or anywhere else, that’s where it will be made. Don’t blame them. That’s what they’re getting paid to do.

What they want in America is lower corporate taxes, less regulation, and fewer unionized workers. But none of these will bring good jobs to America. These steps may lower the costs of production here, but global companies can always find even lower costs abroad.

Put simply, American workers are hobbled by deteriorating schools, unaffordable college tuitions, decaying infrastructure, and declining basic R&D.; All of this is putting us on a glide path toward even lousier jobs and lower wages.

Robert Reich: The State of Our Disunion: A Globalized Private Sector, A Corporate-Dominated Public Sector

CUF’s campaign also features a full-page New York Times ad comparing union members to subjects of the North Korean dictatorship. Asked to explain the comparison, CUF Managing Director Justin Wilson says that because they started work once the union had already been voted in, “90 percent of the people in labor unions have had about the same degree of opportunity to express a democratic interest in the unions that represent them as the people in North Korea.”

Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Labor Education at Cornell University, questions CUF’s math and its logic. “Does North Korea have Duty of Fair Representation?” retorts Bronfenbrenner, referring to unions’ obligation under federal law to represent members without discrimination. “No other institution has that standard…Union records are open, all officers are elected, and all contracts are voted on.”

Center for Union Facts Steps Up $10 Million Ad Campaign Backing Broad Anti-Union Bill – Working In These Times

So…story closed, eh? Well, not quite. There’s the reaction of Smart’s fellow journalists:

That CBC Ombudsman ruling on Stephen Smart being in a conflict is baloney. He's an exemplary reporter. Leave him in his job. #bcpoli—
Keith Baldrey (@keithbaldrey) January 20, 2012

and

for those who haven't seen it, cbc ombudsman's somewhat harsh ruling on colleague Stephen Smart tinyurl.com/82gmzuk—
Rod Mickleburgh (@rodmickleburgh) January 21, 2012

Now Rod M. is rethinking that reaction, but Keith Baldrey’s I find very telling. The leave him alone – as if the blogosphere had unfairly gotten a scalp in Smart. No, this was a ruling by a respected Ombudsman. Stephen Smart may be an exemplary reporter – that’s not the issue. It’s one of perception and Lapointe is rightly moving to protect the reputation and integrity of the CBC. Baldrey should instinctively know this.

The Washington DC press corps is often derided as “The Village” – insular, out of touch, quick to defend their own from any charge of wrongdoing. They hang out with each other, they hang out with those they cover. Reporters become press secretaries and vice versa. It’s all very cosy and incestuous. Although I don’t think it’s as bad here in Lotusland you can certainly see that dynamic at play with this story.

Sticking up for a friend or a respected colleague is usually an admirable trait. But not always.

Kudos, Norm, for sticking up for the public’s interest.

UPDATE: Norm has a follow-up along the same lines.

UPDATE 2: Ian Reid weighs in.

UPDATE 3: For Christ’s sake, someone give Brett Mineer a job!

UPDATE 4: Ugh:

I hear Stephen Smart is staying put as CBC's ledge bureau chief. If true, good move by CBC. Looks like news div. wins out, as it should be.—
Keith Baldrey (@keithbaldrey) January 21, 2012

FINAL THOUGHT: Remember how we tsk tsked when we learned the reporter covering the Kremlin for Russia’s state broadcaster was married to Vladimir Putin’s press secretary? Remember when Putin hired a lobbyist of a petro company to be his Chief of Staff. Russia’s such an oligarchy!

Mr. Harper said he has no doubt that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. “There is absolutely no doubt they are lying,” Mr. Harper said, referring to statements by Iran that the nuclear program is for peaceful uses.

“The evidence is just growing overwhelming. This is not, as was the case of Iraq, merely the opinion of allies,” he said.

Stephen Harper, Globe and Mail, Jan 17, 2012

I noted that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter. Saddam Hussein’s continued non-compliance and non-cooperation with the United Nations only confirms this information.

Stephen Harper, Parliament, 2003

Meanwhile, in the evidence-based universe:

“The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program nor does it have a program about how advanced the programs really are,” a senior administration official told reporters on a conference call. The official was speaking on background.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has released a report which it says has credible evidence that Iran has carried “out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device”, but has offered no estimate of how long it would take Iran to be able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Though many Iran critics have focused on the report’s claims that Iran continues to participate in activities that indicate interest in building a bomb, the administration chose to focus on the IAEA’s conclusions that a “structured program” to develop a nuclear warhead was halted in 2003.

Update: Other doubters include…Israeli Intelligence:

The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon – or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.

-Haaretz, January 18, 2012

Like it or not, Canada’s economic strength has always been closely tied to natural resources.

True. Although I do seem to recall much talk from all sides of the aisle about how Canada should move away from all that and become a more “mature” economy. But whatever. We have been and mostly still are a nature of hewers of wood and drawers of water and crackers of rocks and stuff. In that regard…

Take the tribunal holding hearings on the Northern Gateway. It is premised on the idea that Canadians favour the development of their resources, but want that development to proceed in accordance with high standards of safety, environmental protection and social responsibility…

I think that’s a fair characterization. There really are only two outcomes to the tribunal process – approval or disapproval. It’s not a policy body. This, however, is not fair:

Increasingly, however, a vocal minority sees these regulatory proceedings, not as opportunities to ensure fact-based decision-taking as we develop our resources, but as a place to argue that such development ought not to be allowed at all…

First we have Crowley asserting that opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline is not based on facts but is some sort of moral and/or political stand. Only. Not to mention characterizing all opposition as being cut from the same cloth. And in his defence if you ignore scientific arguments put forth by some of Gateway’s opponents such as…

Part of the pipeline’s final route into Kitimat would pass through an area with clay soil that has been known to trigger major landslides. In 1962, a slide took out 600 metres of the highway to Kitimat and left bulldozer-swallowing fissures, some four metres wide and 10 metres deep. Earthquakes occasionally trigger submarine landslides that set off local tsunamis.

…and…

The marine environment at the surface can be equally brutal. Some tankers would traverse Hecate Strait, which Environment Canada ranks as the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world. Waves in South Hecate Strait have reached 26 metres – the height of a seven-storey building.

…he’s right. (Or that Enbridge’s safety record leaves a lot to be desired). But that’s not really the central point I want to make. Crowley believes the proper arena for these “philosophical” discussions is the political.

Alas, pipeline development doesn’t follow the rhythms and timetables of elections. We are also dealing with different levels of government each of whom may have been elected with different mandates – or in Christy Clark’s case, no mandate at all. Not to mention that even if a government was elected in B.C. with a mandate to oppose the pipeline…it couldn’t veto it. That’s right…B.C. only has “intervener” status. And by “intervene” I mean they can show up at the meeting and voice their opinion.

But it’s Crowley’s characterization of opposition as a “vocal minority” that is at issue. Remember this is happening the context of: a Federal government whom 60% of the electorate voted against; as mentioned a provincial government in B.C. that currently has no independent mandate; and where polls of popular opinion have long shown B.C. residents oppose tanker traffic – which will be required to make the project work – off their coasts by large majorities.

So Crowley is kinda right about a vocal minority interfering in the approval process – he’s just got it ass-backwards.