Let me see if I have this straight:

The Cape Breton Regional Municipality, which is $102.9 million in debt, and which constantly complains that it can’t afford to provide basic services, is going to borrow $6 million to buy 400 acres of harbour-front land, or a lesser amount to buy a controlling interest in the company that is selling the land, all to block — yes, block! — a proposed industrial development, so it can “save” the land for a fantasy container pier that will never, ever happen.

CBRM can afford to do this because it is overflowing in industrial development, and because a glorious fantasy in the bush is worth a real industry in the hand, especially in an election year.

CBRM can borrow beyond its already unsafe debt-service ratios, because it will be rolling in cash as soon as it gets the evil oppressors in Halifax to start forking over its rightful level of handouts, or rather, equalization payments. (The current level is more than what Halifax sends to all other municipalities in the province, combined.)

Dredge it, and they will come. And we will put the run on them. This is what passes for economic development strategy in the fervid brains of CBRM’s mayor and council.

There may be legitimate reasons to question this proposed development. But pretending Sydney is going to get a container pier isn’t one of them. That fraud has gone on long enough.

To whom it may concern:

I am a professional (pharmacist) married (since 1999) man. I had some difficulty in life, partly due to an abusive home life while growing up and partly due to poor choices of my own.

I spent nearly ten months at Talbot House in 2001-2002. One thing I can say, and will say on record, is that Father Paul Abbass was a kind and solid psychological and spiritual presence for me. On no occasion was he a threat to my sense of wellbeing. Nor did I see any kind of misbehaviour on his part. In fact, I often saw the politics of resentment and envy — levied by some of my disturbed co-residents — threaten the sanctuary Fr. Abbass built. It seems the sick have prevailed.

When I was a resident at Talbot House, Father Paul Abbass and I went for a number of drives down to a Catholic hermitage near the Bras D’or Lakes south of Frenchvale and simply talked about life, my marriage, my anguish, my addiction, my violent (and sometimes wonderful) childhood, and ultimately my — and his — love of the beautiful natural world before our very eyes. No threat did I even once feel from him. Only love and good intention. Father Paul rescued me from a hell of cynicism and despair. I won’t ever forget the kind days he shared with me.

Regards,
Sean McSween

Before publishing Mr. McSween’s letter, I wrote him back to confirm that he wanted me to use his name. “I think it will make [your letter] doubly effective,” I wrote, “but I will totally understand if you prefer not.”

Mr. McSween replied:

Certainly, use my name. I hoped that would lend it strength….

I don’t want to seek any personal glory, but only to help exonerate Father Paul and re-open Talbot House under his direction, and the direction of the Church he so skilfully represents.

Father Paul is an exemplary Catholic Christian, in that he does not proselytise with fire-and-brimstone, or even with scripture, but with acts of loving kindness and a collected, calm presence. So I feel that the presence and influence of the Church in the operation of Talbot House is essential.

A Community Services Department report on Talbot House and Fr. Abbass contained erroneous financial analysis and many factual mistakes. The report — published after CBRM Police looked into the case, and found no basis for a criminal investigation — also included vague, anonymously sourced allegations of unspecified sexual misconduct by Fr. Abbass. When combined with the other mistakes that litter the report, it reads like a deliberate smear.

Yet Community Services Minister Denise Peterson-Rafuse, with the backing of the Dexter government, has refused to withdraw the report or apologize to the man it falsely accused. Her behaviour stands in marked contrast to the courage displayed by Sean McSween.

Do you live in a mid-sized city with poor public transit, a taxi fleet choked with vested interests, and a risible bicycle system? Do you fear there will never be a day when folks can get around your city efficiently, emitting a minimum of greenhouse gases?

If so, then the family sedan may be the answer.

That’s crazy talk, of course. Buses are far more efficient, right? But how many times have you driven behind a bus containing two, one or zero passengers. Do you really believe the greenhouse gas emissions from your trusty Corolla are more than those of the empty behemoth belching diesel fumes in front of you?

A report [pdf] published inn 2011 by the U.S. Department of Transportation says that, on average, a city bus emits 0.65 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger-mile, much better than the 0.96 emitted by a sedan occupied only by the driver. But throw passenger in your Corolla and suddenly it clocks in at 0.48, much better than the bus. Pop in 3 passengers and you’re at a planet-saving 0.24 (approximately).

So what we really mean is full buses. If you fill every seat, in every bus, on every trip, the bus wins the climate change sweepstakes at 0.16. But if you believe that can happen, I’ve got a 6/49 ticket for you.

What we need is more full passenger cars and vans. This already exists in other parts of the world, notably Latin America, where it’s known as the colectivo.

At its most basic and unregulated, a colectivo is a sedan that follows an established route. You hop in, pay your full fare and get off when the mood strikes. By economic necessity, colectivos are almost always full and, for the same reason, you don’t have to wait long for one.

Could a large fleet of sensibly regulated colectivos be the way forward in Halifax? Figuring out good bus routes has eluded local public transit for decades, but it won’t take long for colectivo drivers to master it. Think of them as water running down a rocky slope. They’ll find hundreds of independent routes around obstacles. Some will be little used; others will be rushing streams by comparison. But, in the end, like water moving downhill, they will add up to getting the most people from A to B in the shortest time. Or think of it as public transit design by crowd-sourcing.

Crazy-talk? Could be – certainly a single report doesn’t prove otherwise. But it would be interesting to get two simple numbers from Halifax’s Metro Transit: the total of GHGs the agency generates each year, and the number of passenger-miles it actually delivers. Then we do the math.

You say crazy; I say brilliant. But it’ll never happen in a city where you can’t put up a wooden utility pole without a public hearing.

That’s just what Dexter did yesterday when he claimed Peterson-Rafuse was doing an “excellent job,” adding, “The only people to release private information in this House are the members of the Conservative caucus.”

The tortured logic behind this argument, which Peterson-Rafuse has also used in her own defence, is that because the DCS report on Talbot House didn’t use Fr. Paul Abbass’s name, but only his job title, it didn’t actually identify him. But anyone who connects the very obvious dots and demands Peterson-Rafuse’s resignation for trading in false allegations is guilty of defaming the falsely accuse priest.

Is it really necessary to explain why this is a stupid argument? Let’s use an analogy:

Citizen Smith: I hear the premier of Nova Scotia has committed serious sexual improprieties in the course of his work.

Citizen Jones: That’s an outrageous thing to say about Darrell Dexter, especially after the police have cleared him of that false allegation.

Citizen Smith: Dexter? Dexter? You’re the only one who said anything about Darrell Dexter. You’re the one who’s guilty of defamation.

The premier and his inner circle are hoping the Talbot House story will go away, and as they wait for that hope to play out, they are willing to let a minister and her department get away with a campaign of character assassination.

• The Progressive Conservatives demanded the minister’s resignation, arguing she had breached Nova Scotia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act by allowing the department to publish a report that violated Fr. Paul Abbass’s privacy by repeating false innuendo against him even after the CBRM police looked into allegations advanced by DCS and found no grounds to open a criminal investigation.
• In a scrum with reporters from the Cape Breton Post and Halifax Metro, Peterson-Rafuse made a string of statements about the department’s actions that — how to put this politely? — were starkly at odds with the known and verifiable facts of the case.

The Tories contend that by releasing the report of its review of Talbot House, Peterson-Rafuse’s ministry violated a section of the act that bars “disclosure harmful to personal privacy.” It reads in part:

20 (1) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

(2) In determining pursuant to subsection (1) or (3) whether a disclosure of personal information constitutes an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy, the head of a public body shall consider all the relevant circumstances, including whether…

(g) the personal information is likely to be inaccurate or unreliable;

(h) the disclosure may unfairly damage the reputation of any person referred to in the record requested by the applicant.

In a scrum with reporters from the Cape Breton Post and Halifax Metro, Peterson-Rafuse flatly denied the report contained anything that impugned Abbass’s reputation:

Well, there was no accusations published. If you read the review, it’s organizational review. It talks about, it’s asking about policies, it’s asking about staffing policies, it’s asking about when they were doing day trips, or overnight trips, it was asking about professional development, this is just a fabrication from the Tories.

In fact, the report contains lengthy sections about the Executive Director, who was Fr. Abbass, and recounts complaints made about him by “stakeholders,” the report’s peculiar term for staff members of three government-run addiction and detox services. The section reads, in part:

• Eight stakeholders had received complaints from clients regarding the behavior of the ED [Fr. Abbass]. Some of these complaints were as recent as 2011. Although stakeholders indicated that they had encouraged these clients to come forward and make a formal complaint, it appears that no complaints were made to the TH Board.
• Stakeholders who received complaints from residents felt compelled to keep the information confidential given their therapeutic relationship with clients….
• As a result of these complaints, stakeholders either refused to make referrals to TH, or they had clients call TH on their own for self-referral. Some stakeholders will assess a client’s vulnerability and only refer those who ‘could take care of themselves’ to TH.

I think any fair-minded reader would rate this a perfect fit for the definition of innuendo: “an oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.” Bear in mind the widespread publicity given to the fact that police had looked into allegations of sexual abuse by Fr. Abbass.

For Rafuse to contend that the report contained “no accusations” does not reflect well on her personal honesty, integrity, or judgment. For the department to publish this thinly veiled defamation, after the police rejected its “evidence” of sexual abuse, amounts to a degree of official character assassination I cannot recall seeing in 40 years of following Nova Scotia politics.

I reproduce the brief extract from the DCS report with misgivings, because, if taken literally and believed, it will further damage Fr. Abbass’s already unfairly besmirched reputation. I do so solely to demonstrate the falsehood of Peterson-Rafuse’s comments yesterday.

Readers should most certainly not take that passage at face value. First, the so-called evidence was rejected by police. Second, the report is riddled with factual errors (as this detailed rebuttal shows). The errors all tend to show Talbot House and Fr. Abbass in an unjustly negative light. Its review of the centre’s financial records is incompetent on its face.

The Minister and the department remain in such deep denial about the incompetence and bias that permeated the review of Talbot House, they appear willing to perpetuate discredited and slanderous allegations rather than admit error.

That a report this grossly flawed was produced and approved warrants a thorough independent investigation of the department’s standards and practices. That it was released after police rejected the cruel falsehood at its core is ample grounds for the minister’s removal.

Addictions inpatient beds for withdrawal management, opiate stabilization and structured treatment should be reconfigured according to evidence and best practice, utilizing alternative community-based approaches where possible. [Emphasis: Contrarian's.]

Imagine that.

H/T: John Percy, Leader, Green Party of Nova Scotia

HRM espouses a policy of increasing the density of the urban core, but its own planning regulations result in lower population densities.

• R-1 single family zoning limits population density to 20 persons per acre, or 45 persons per hectare (to protect us against barrio-like overcrowding, I presume).

• The city also requires that we design the number of single family serviced lots based on a minimum housing density of 3.35 persons per household.

• The math is simple and leads to a maximum house count of about six houses per acre.

Census Canada’s records show the actual R-1 housing occupancy in the Halifax Census Metropolitan Area is less than 2.8 persons per single family lot, or 16.8 persons per acre—only 83.8% of their intended density.

The same problem applies to duplex, townhouse, and multi-unit  developments within HRM. Actual housing unit occupancies are all significantly lower than the design numbers.  This may seem like a small matter, but it results in fewer occupants per acre, less taxation per acre for HRM, less revenue from water and wastewater rates, lower utilization rates for all infrastructure systems, and larger infrastructure systems, which are all based on the prescribed planning occupancies.

It also results in more expensive building lots for the residents and larger mortgages per home. The developer of the residential subdivision is limited in the number of lots or units he can build, and therefore the cost per unit must increase.

If we want higher densities in our urban neighborhoods, we should adopt housing occupancy design targets that more closely approximate our falling census figures, especially since the size of the family unit appears to be falling as the baby boomers retreat to smaller residential arrangement, and their descendants stagger under the costs of maintaining the municipal infrastructure they are inheriting.

We have come to understand that we are unabl

;e to afford to expand our municipal trunk infrastructure or to fix what we have currently. Perhaps a more realistic set of population design densities would be a good first step toward increasing the density of our urban communities and making more efficient use of our expensive municipal services.

[Disclosure: Richard and I are old friends; that is, we're both old, and we're good friends.]

His account is noteworthy, not only as a moving testimony from inside Talbot House, but also because it suggests the real reason for the provincial government’s hostility to the recovery centre. The unspoken issue, which the Department of Community Services report failed even to mention, is the refusal of Fr. Paul Abbass and his predecessors to support methadone treatment. The drug is a mainstay of the treatment methods favoured by Nova Scotia Addiction Services, but Talbot House rejected it as merely substituting one addiction for another.

I have edited the passages that follow for length and sentence structure, but please download the original in its entirety.

The government wants standardized policy, procedure, and governance. I think most people would agree with that. But what does that mean to the addict?

I’ll give you an example of my experiences with government-run Addiction Services. I visited a counsellor once every two weeks, three hours a month on average, only to leave and go back into the environment I was living in. I was living with all the triggers and behaviours, without even understanding what triggers meant to addiction.

I was given a “happiness chart,” and asked how happy I was, on a scale of one to 10, in certain areas of my life. I am smart enough to know that in this model there are measurable ways to improve. The chart can be a report which can be measured, standardized, and evaluated—it makes sense. But do I really think an adult coming out of detox, who may have lost custody of children wants a “happiness chart” from a person who doesn’t understand the first thing about addiction?

On the treatment method at Talbot House:

Ask the men—not the one or two that provided the platform that triggered this investigation—but the hundreds who went through the Talbot House doors. The men who are treated with dignity, and given time and space in a healthy safe environment, expressing love and their goodness to the animals and the natural surroundings, probably for the first time in a long time, or maybe ever.  Sitting down and sharing meals at a table, and having conversation. Doing daily chores. Working alongside other men; building, creating and discovering—SMILING.

Do you know how important a genuine smile is?  Ask the families of these addicts when the last time they seen a genuine smile. What about walking with your head up, and making eye contact, and having a sense of pride, and taking care of yourself?

These, too, are measurable ways but we are sorry that they are not documented in a standardized form. The Board and several Talbot House residents were in the process of working on the standards when this situation occurred.

Why wouldn’t an addict, who is thrown to the side, feel worthless, with no hope or belief that they can get back to any sense of life, whose is just a number in a system continue to use?  But what if you tried to instill value, respect, dignity, love, truth and acceptance—where investing into an “individual” not a “system” means something.

On methadone treatment:

I have witnessed addicts lined up and  sitting on the floor in the hospital waiting for their methadone. What does that say to a person? ?  More importantly,  do we ask who benefits from a methadone program?  Do you know it is easier for some to get prescriptions for themselves than it is to get food for their families, and far less embarrassing and shameful?

The government sponsors assembly line programs where you are slotted in for a few hours a month, treated like a number, and thrown some pills. Is this going to solve the problem of addiction?  It does, however,  fit their bill of governance, policy, and standardization – so congratulations. But what about dignity?

On the closure of Talbot House:

The doors were opened and the men loved the place.  A few months after DCS had shown its presence,  the doors were closed.

I am truly ashamed that our government would allow and support the recent treatment of Fr. Paul Abbass and, more importantly, allow the home of so many grateful men to be closed.

I am an addict who went through all the programs to find recovery.  Talbot House was my last stop.  I went there in 2006 and have remained close to the community and continued to volunteer up until its closing.  I am forever grateful what it has given me, my family, and for all the new relationships I have to today. Mostly, I am grateful for a place filled with like-minded people who restored my faith and belief in myself.

The men do not want the funding restored — we already know who truly benefits from your programs — we want Talbot House restored, because it is Talbot House that has given us the freedom to make choices, not tie our hands.

(Previous posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

You said: “I truly believe Darrell Dexter and Denise Peterson-Rafuse are better people than they have shown themselves to be in the last three days.”

You are wrong.

Actually, I think I’m right, but neither politician is giving me much ammunition to make the case for them. They should apologize to Abbass and the Talbot board, remove Lathem and her supervisors from any future involvement with the recovery centre, and name a knowledgable, skeptical authority to take a long, hard look at this badly run department.

I do hope readers are not tiring of this subject. Officials of the department committed serious errors with terrible consequences—for the priest whose character they so carelessly assassinated; for the volunteer members of a board serving the community in good faith; and for the addicted men in treatment at Talbot House, who could be there now had the department’s cavalier actions not forced the closure of this community-built institution.

For decades, the Nova Scotia New Democratic Party has stood tall in its defence of people and institutions just like this. Yet this week, in response to these sickening revelations, the province’s first NDP government has managed only to mount a standard issue, generic communications strategy that denies all wrongdoing, and stonewalls the searching independent inquiry this department so badly needs. What a wasted opportunity.

I truly believe Darrell Dexter and Denise Peterson-Rafuse are better people than they have shown themselves to be in the last three days.

Martin MacKinnon writes:

Father Abbass, whom we now know to be mistakenly accused, should be reinstated with a qualified apology, as should all funding to Talbot House. By “qualified,” I mean the Department can appropriately say they are sorry it occurred, but when allegations are made, they must be investigated.

My great concern is that the Department of Community Services and Ms. [Marika] Lathem, whom I do not know, may believe they need to save face by making it sound like the allegations are partly correct. That would be a serious mistake. If there were procedural problems, they need to be fixed outside the glare of media. They do not constitute [grounds for] withdrawing funding and adversely [affecting] the good reputation of Father Abbass.

If Ms. Lathem and the Department do not come clean in the coming days, a second investigation of the Department and Ms. Lathem may be required. It will be interesting to see if she is asked to step down when such an investigation is initiated.