Recent comments

  • Fortis to say 'Good-bye' to Meter Readers   2 days 11 hours ago

    i thought that Slocan was covered by Fortis, not BC Hydro? i used to live about three miles south of the village, and we were covered by Fortis....

    definitely they are charging this fee to convince people to abandon their positions on the radio meters....they are trying to save money by killing all the meter reader jobs, and these holdouts are preventing they must's basically a big rip off.....

    a few days later: interesting to note that 16 people disapproved of my comments enough to thumb me down.....what did they disagree with? who knows? they didn't bother to voice their ideas....

  • Nelsonites gather to discuss potential for community solar garden   1 week 2 days ago

    I don't want to pay for something that is unaffordable.   Why aren't we pursuing microhydro, it works all the time,  solar here in nelson maybe 10%, we are not a solar climate,  you will be building a very expensive monument to the misguided and misinformed greenwashers.  I am not anti renewable but I want a business case for public money.

  • Nelsonites gather to discuss potential for community solar garden   1 week 3 days ago

    Nice to see solar PV starting to be talked about more in the Kootenays. Although I'm glad to see this happening (in principle), the article seems to make it sound like it isn't profitable for individual homeowners and business owners to construct projects of their own, especially when they aren't a customer of a community-run electricity provider.  That isn't the case.  FortisBC has well documented net-metering program in place.  Of course, it would be even better if they could improve upon it, or if an organization like CBT would offer a % rebate to those individuals who have constructed and connected a system to the grid.  On the 'bright' side (pardon the pun), many properties in the Rossland area have superior solar potential compared to those in Nelson (more annual sunshine hours), due to our primarily southern exposure and elevation.   

  • Bill C-51: Canada's Orwellian State Arrives   2 weeks 4 days ago

    Hey Genera, notice that you can repeatedly vote thumbs- ups and thumbs-downs for comments/ posts here, day after day, so they're not an accurate reflection of how many readers agree or disagree with these articles and posts.

    So, after all, it's likely that there aren't actually that many Pied Harper followers heading off the cliff.

  • Bill C-51: Canada's Orwellian State Arrives   2 weeks 4 days ago

    It seems that there are an equal number of people that are following the Pied Piper Harper off the cliff!!!! but this time it's sheep going to slaughter. 

  • Frustration grows over loss of Mammo Unit at KLH   3 weeks 2 days ago

    Please remember that the IHA is totally controlled by the BC Liberal government. The IHA is run by people masquarading as real CEOs, CFOs, etc but these people are really only high paid freinds of the BC LIberals, not real business people that could get a job in private industry. They are not running a successful company but a branch of government like other government supervisors and not answerable to the public, their shareholders or anyone else, only the BC LIberal government. They are so innefficient and inept that it is obvious to anyone who cares to look closely, that the IHA would be a horrible failure in the private realm.

    The BC Liberals strongly favor their friends at Teck Cominco in Trail, who are the largest contributors to the BC Liberals in all of BC. Until the BC Liberals are gone, Nelsonites can expect to travel further for their health care and expect the vast majority of the funds spent in the Kootenays to go to Trail.

    What you should NOT expect is the IHA to follow through with any promises they made to the people of the Kootenays. One of the major promises they made a dozen years ago was that Trail was only a temporary regional hospital and they were going to start planning the new centrally located hospital within 5 years. What we got instead was a few renovations in Nelson, while tons of money has been spent elsewhere. The actual patient rooms in Nelson are as they were 25 years ago, only there are far fewer of them. The IHA has done NOTHING positive for Neslon. NOTHING. ZERO. And they haven't managed to save the taxpayer a cent. It's stuff like this that keeps Canada, dead last in health care when compared to other countries with public health care systems in the G-12. And yet we spend way more.

    Thanks for ruining our local hospital services and lying all the way, IHA top brass and BC LIberals (as if there is a difference).

  • Frustration grows over loss of Mammo Unit at KLH   3 weeks 2 days ago

    The main reason people aren't up in arms about this is that we've all just become numb to the dismantling of our hospital. It's like we've been bludgeoned over the head so much that we're unconscious, and yet they keep beating us. Unfortunately we've just resigned to the idea that this is how things are and will be, and speaking up has never got us anywhere, so just grin and bear it. 

    Just shut up and take your beating, no one is listening anyways. 

    They're probably laughing at us in the back rooms of the administrative buildings, whining about our drive to Trail, while the administrators plan their next public flogging of the Nelson hospital.


  • Canada’s forest products industry: an environmental leader   3 weeks 4 days ago

    Perhaps David Lindsay could enlighten us with the statistics of how many cubic meters of raw logs were shipped out of BC in 2014 vs 2001 and how many saw mills have closed down since 2001. I think these statistics will show that we are not really world class, we have just shipped the problem overseas along with the jobs and benefits that should be for Canadians.

    Failed BC Liberal policy again!

  • Letter: Bill C-51 — more than a chill on back of neck   3 weeks 5 days ago

    About Mr LaFond's "I hear a lot of rhetoric and quotes from this person and that, but nobody is quoting the bill itself" :

    I find this disengenuous.  Asking one's neighbours to dissect this complex bill that makes havoc of the existing Criminal Code that already deals just fine with foiling terrorism plots, pointing to all the pertinent clauses, seems like either an attempt at an energy suck, or an admission of not being able to comprehend the submissions that have been made by experts who have had to spend weeks to dissect Bill C-51 and connect the dots.

    At the end of this is a concise reading list, of detailed legal opinions, including references to specific clauses. 

    But here, for starters for Mr LaFond, are some specifics, starting with the tiny part of the Bill that he quoted above, and which can not be judged in isolation from the rest of the 61-page Omnibus Bill that also changes the Criminal Code:

    Re: Section 2 :

    Many qualified lawyers agree that the following is not terrorism:

    (a)  interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to .... diplomatic or consular relations,the economic or financial stability of Canada;

    Also, such things as legal, democratic strikes fall into the Economic and Financial category and there is nothing in the bill to prevent CSIS from majorly  "disrupting" individuals who are involved,

    (b)  is open to abuse, since “unlawful” (as opposed to the current Criminal Code’s stipulation that it be “illegal”) can easily be interpreted as doing so without a permit, e.g. non-violent rallies commenting on government actions or lobbying for changes, and also for non-violent wildcat strikes etc.   “changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by .... unlawful means”

    (f)  can easily be interpreted to include non-violent civil disobedience, e.g. blockades .  “interference with critical infrastructure”

    The sentence “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.” is no comfort at all, considering that the rest of the bill is full of clauses that contradict it and there is no thorough Oversight to prevent CSIS from overstepping the bounds.

    Here are a couple more references to specific clauses, since Mr LaFond seems to have been incapable of researching them for himself.  The full texts are in the references I've listed at the end of all this:

    BCCLA’s legal counsel refer to Sections 5 & 6 re: information sharing to 17 institutions listed in Section 3.  And the sharing goes WAY beyond those institutions.

    Clayton Ruby:
    s. 12.1(1) of the proposed act states:

    If there are reasonable grounds to believe that a particular activity constitutes a threat to the security of Canada, the Service may take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce the threat.

    The power under s. 12.1 is broadly defined, giving CSIS virtually unfettered authority to conduct any operation it thinks is in the interest of Canadian security. The definitions are so broad that they could apply to almost anything, including measures to disrupt or interfere with non-violent civil disobedience.


    Changes to section 83.2 of the Criminal Code.

     “The proposed amendments in Bill C-51 will further lower the threshold for preventive arrest and detention, increasing the risk that entirely innocent people will be swept up on mere suspicion.

    Under the current s. 83.3(2) of the Criminal Code, a peace officer is empowered to lay an information and bring an individual before a provincial court judge if the officer:

    (a) believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity WILL be carried out; and
    (b) suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

    Where exigent circumstances exist, or where laying the information would be impractical, the individual may be arrested without a warrant.  (my comment:  note that already, under the current Code, individuals may be arrested without a warrant, I guess if it's urgent)

    "The new measures would allow law enforcement agencies to arrest somebody if they suspect that a terrorist act "MAY be carried out," instead of the current standard of "will be carried out."


    Bill C-51 also substitutes "likely" for "necessary" such that s. 83.3(2) would now enable a peace officer to lay an information or effect a warrantless arrest if the officer:

    (b) suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, is necessaryLIKELY to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

    “Both changes result in a significant lowering of the standard for arrest and detention.”


    LEGAL ANALYSES, that refer to specific clauses where possible

    Human Rights lawyer Clayton Ruby’s detailed legal opinion:

    Lawyers at the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) have gone over the bill paragraph by paragraph, and they’ve outlined the parts of this massive document that concern them most. 

    (BCCLA)  legal counsel 8-point summary:

    BCCLA 's  Full submission to the Parliamentary Committee:

    Full analysis by professors Kent Roach and Craig Forcese.   (Forcese is a law professor teaching national security law at the University of Ottawa and a participant in the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society.)

    The following is an open letter addressed to all members of Parliament and signed by more than 100 Canadian professors of law and related disciplines.

    The scope and implications of Bill C-51 are so extensive that it cannot be, and is not, the purpose of this letter to itemize every problem with the bill. Rather, the discussion below is an effort to reflect a basic consensus over some (and only some) of the leading concerns, ....”








  • Letter: Bill C-51 — more than a chill on back of neck   3 weeks 5 days ago

    Cord's judgement that "The Emperor has no clothes" is at variance with the conclusions of hundreds of the country's top lawyers, very many Supreme Court judges, 4 ex-Prime Ministers including Conservative ones, Privacy Commissioner, former CSIS operatives, etc etc. 

    Is it his lay-person's opinion that Bill C-51 is just fine, like Prime Minister Harper tells him it is, and that all the above are out to lunch or part of some or other orchestrated political conspiracy? 

    If he really wants to understand this bill -- and consider re-evaluating which emperor it is who indeed has no clothes -- he will come to the livestreamed panel discussion at Selkirk College's Mir Centre for Peace this Tuesday, March 24th, at 6:30 pm. (see details below).     I'm pretty sure it will be followed by a discussion of our own, including for us to get clarification of aspects we might not have understood.

    Heck, I'd be happy to provide a ride for Cord or anyone else who doesn't have transport.

    "This panel will address the implications of Bill C-51, the so-called "Anti-Terror" Bill, for the future of democratic institutions in this country.


    -Professor Craig Forcese , a law professor teaching national security law at the University of Ottawa and a participant in the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society.
    -Professor Margot Young (UBC, Law)
    -Ms. Micheal Vonn (BCCLA)
    -Professor Max Cameron (Director, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, UBC)
    -Mr. Zool Suleman (Immigration Lawyer)



  • Letter: Bill C-51 — more than a chill on back of neck   3 weeks 5 days ago

    Notice part two of the law, unduly influencing a Canadian government by illeagal means? This would mean that the Harper government, responsible for the illegal robo-calls, made to mislead Canadians to the wrong polls and influence the outcome of our elections, broke this law and are terrorists. Not that we needed a law to help recognize who the real terrorists are and who is really threatening our freedoms.

    Time to wake up Canada. Don't be so easily misled by people that keep trying to scare you with the big bad terrorism boogeyman, making all terrorists the real winners, by having succeeded in taking away some of our democratic rights so easily and without a fight.


  • Bill C-51: Canada's Orwellian State Arrives   3 weeks 6 days ago

    Thank you, Art Joyce, for putting a lot of work into laying out much that is wrong with this disastrous Bill C-51!    1984 indeed.
    From what I've heard from lawyers including renowned Craig Forcese and Roach and our local criminal lawyer Ken Wyllie, C-51 will actually make it harder to catch real terrorists, as it makes a chaotic mess of the existing Criminal Code that has thus far worked to thwart real terrorist attacks.


  • Canada: "A Backwater of Ignorance"   3 weeks 6 days ago

    This is a test to check whether the website is allowing comments to be posted

  • Letter: Bill C-51 — more than a chill on back of neck   4 weeks 1 day ago

    Cord -- I too have read the bill and I find much to alarm me.   

    For one thing, there is nothing in the bill to ensure that "information" about a person must be verified or true.

    For another thing, once "information" (whether it is true or not) has been received by designated officials, they are fee to pass it on "to any person, for any purpose."   There's a scary amount of latitude there.

    For another thing, a judge hearing allegations about a person  for the purpose of deciding whether they should be detained or not is required to hear "evidence that would not ordinarily be admissible in a court of law" -- hearsay, or illegallly obtained "evidence".  And it can be heard "ex parte" -- the "accused" has no opportunity to answer, and the hearing can be held behind closed doors -- well away from public scrutiny.

    For another thing, there is no effective oversight of the policing organizations.  That fact has been noted by many well-qualified  (and alarmed) people.

    This bill leaves ordinary citizens open to completely unfounded accusatioins by anyone with a grudge (or some other prejudice) against them, and the very real possibility that those accusations could ruin their lives.

  • Letter: Bill C-51 — more than a chill on back of neck   4 weeks 1 day ago

    I hear a lot of rhetoric and quotes from this person and that, but nobody is quoting the bill itself.

    I have done a cursory read of the bill and I am not reading any of the threats that the opposition aludes to.

    2. The following definitions apply in this Act.
    “activity that undermines the security of Canada”
    « activité portant atteinte à la sécurité du Canada »
    “activity that undermines the security of Canada” means any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada:
    (a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;
    (b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
    (c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;
    (d) terrorism;
    (e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;
    (f) interference with critical infrastructure;
    (g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act;
    (h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and
    (i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.
    For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.
    So an a scale of a-i what are we afraid of? The footnote covers the allegations fairly well.
  • Province stands firm on wolf cull plan despite fierce opposition   5 weeks 2 days ago

    Nature is not a "delicate balance", despite the misinformation you’ve learned from environmental extremists. I used to agree with you when I was a teenager, that hunting is wrong. Then I grew up and learned about conservation, and why hunting is necessary. Populations of predatory and prey animals will inevitably go out of balance, and must be managed.

    I also realized that believing that hunting is wrong made me a hypocrite, because I eat meat, and wear leather shoes and belts. The wolves will be fine through responsible conservation practices, managed by conservation biologists. What we should really be focused on changing is the inhumane way that livestock animals are treated. Many of them live horrible lives, because it is cheaper for corporations to treat them like cogs in a food processing factory. Millions of cows, pigs, and chickens are inhumanely treated every year, and you've focussed your rage on 184 wolves being killed based on responsible conservation practices. Pick your battles, because you’ve picked the wrong one.

    Not to mention that wolves are the most lethal predators, second only to humans. They are not dogs. Their social nature and intelligence - which allows them to use hunting tactics - combined with overgrown numbers, makes a wolf pack capable of killing a full grown male grizzly. People who live in areas where predatory animals live would have to worry about their children, their pets, their livestock (if they are farmers), and even themselves, falling prey to them if their numbers weren’t managed. If predatory animal populations weren’t managed, prey animal populations would also be decimated.

    Do you live in an area where wolves live? If not, then you are sticking your nose in business that doesn't even affect you in any way. It's very easy to judge people when you can only guess what their lives are like. Especially since your distance from the issue makes it almost certain that your judgments are based on misinformation.

    But I guess I’m wasting my breath on you, since you are so irrational that you think the government should cull humans.

  • Province stands firm on wolf cull plan despite fierce opposition   5 weeks 2 days ago
    When are the IDIOTS going to let Nature take care of the Culling rather than sending out some City Slickers to shoot Wolfs?
  • Province stands firm on wolf cull plan despite fierce opposition   5 weeks 4 days ago
    It is time to kill all the Wild Life, so the Idiots can speed up Completly Wrecking this Wonderful Earth!
  • Valhalla Wilderness Watch says wolf cull is not the solution, and 173,000 people around the world agree   5 weeks 4 days ago

    That's an absolutely irrational thing to say, that any government should commit mass murder. Hmm...Where have we heard such rhetoric before? But you know, there does seem to be a lot of people who agree with you. If you really do believe that a few humans must die, so that the wolves may live, perhaps you should take the initiative. No one is forcing you to take up valuable space.

  • Province stands firm on wolf cull plan despite fierce opposition   5 weeks 4 days ago

    It's good to see that the Alberta government is following the advice of conservation biologists, instead of bowing to environmental extremists. Where the government went wrong, is that they should have sold hunting tags to actual hunters, so they could hunt the wolves at their own expense, instead of paying conservation officers to cull them.

  • Valhalla Wilderness Watch says wolf cull is not the solution, and 173,000 people around the world agree   6 weeks 6 days ago
    I believe Humans have got things totally wrong! It should not be Wolfs it should be a CULL of HUMANS, who are destroying this Wonderful Planet!
  • UPDATED: Missing person found   7 weeks 2 days ago

    Thanks for your comment. The missing person has been found.

  • UPDATED: Missing person found   7 weeks 2 days ago

    If she was apparently last located at her North Shore home and the public is being asked for help, it would be helpful to know about where she was. The north shore is a large area. Even something like the X-mile area may prompt people in that area to look around a bit more closely.

  • Residents save "bagged" deer   7 weeks 3 days ago

    Thanks for the thorough coverage of the 'good-news' story in our very own city! Thanks also to all the clear-thinking, cool-headed concerned citizens involved in this humane endeavour.

  • Another letter on Bill C-51   7 weeks 4 days ago

    Much has been published about Bill C-51 lately.  I thought I should go to the actual bill itself to see what's up ... so I read it.  Aside from getting sore eyeballs, I learned several things that made me very uneasy about the bill. 

    Apart from being able to arrest anyone without a warrant and detain them until a judge has heard the case, the police can present as "evidence anything that, in the judge’s opinion, is reliable and appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law," and the judge may base a decision on that evidence.  "Inadmisssible in a court of law?"  -- that means things like hearsay evidence, and evidence that was obtained in ways that would, without Bill C-51, be illegal.

    Now consider the recent case of a woman in West Vancouver who was (falsely) accused by an employee.   As a result of those accusations, she nearly lost her home, she had to pay a lot of money to defend herself from criminal charges,  her daughter lost her job, and she went through a lengthy time of enormous stress, before being found Not Guilty of all charges.  Now she is suing the provincial and federal governments.  

    If this injustice has happened as a result of false allegations made under Bill C-51, the victim of the injustice would have NO recourse.  She would  not be able to sue anyone to get any compensation for her losses.   Section 8 states, "No civil proceedings lie against any person for their disclosure in good faith of information under this Act."  Have you ever tried to prove bad faith, especially if you don't know who accused you?

    Another worrisome section -- Section 6 -- states that, once an official receives "information"  (whether it is accurate or not, true or not) nothing in the Act prevents that official from "using that information or  further disclosing it to any person, for any purpose."  It's the "any person for any purpose" part that really  boggles my mind.  Shouldn't the purpose at least be directly aimed at preventing terrorism from running amok?

    Let's not go into detail about the "no-fly" list that C-51 authorizes.  And the steps a person has to take if they have been wrongly included on that list.  Remember, as far as I can tell, you have no way of seeking compensation for the missed flight(s) and loss of income or any other losses.

    Another major thing about C-51 that bothers me is the lack of strong, well-funded, independent oversight of the police forces and intelligence agencies such as CSIS who would be responsible for the activities that C-51 authorizes.   A C-51 auditor.  But we don't have that, and government  watchdog bodies have had their funding slashed recently.

    When we lose our freedom and civil rights a little bit at a time ...  do we notice, until  there's none left?