Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Language is power

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense

As the famous saying by novelist Angela Carter goes, "language is power."

The truth of the statement has become abundantly clear in recent days as the debate over the operation of the asphalt plant near the Olympic legacy neighbourhood of Cheakamus Crossing hit the headlines again.

At issue this time is the apparent discrepancy in the description of funds that were to be allocated to Alpine Paving in a Relocation Agreement.

Whistler Mayor Ken Melamed described the funds last May as "legal costs" whereas the agreement, obtained by a resident through a Freedom of Information request, describes the funds as anything but.

"Whistler must," states the agreement, "pay Alpine one half of the capital costs (not exceeding $350,000 as Whistler's contribution) of the Baghouse and asphalt plant components...."

So which is it, residents are asking themselves - legal costs or capital costs?

Well, it appears to depend on who is being asked.

The municipality's position is that the money does represent legal costs since the agreement is in essence a settlement agreement, which would have kept the RMOW from being sued by Alpine Paving.

Alpine could have been in a position to sue if it was forced to move by the municipality. It has, after all, been operating there for many, many years with a nod from lawmakers, though it does not comply with zoning.

This "settlement" argument is also at the crux of explaining why the payment would not violate the Community Charter, according to the RMOW.

This is another "power of language" Gordian Knot issue for residents.

On the face of it the Relocation Agreement appears to violate the Charter, which states under Section 25 that municipalities "must not provide a grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance to a business."

But according to news coverage the RMOW's legal advisor, Don Lidstone, has said if the costs are associated with a legal settlement they are not considered a benefit to the business.

Confused yet?

It is also clear from reading the Relocation Agreement that any taxes that flow from it are the responsibility of the parties involved.

"It is further understood that Alpine undertakes and agrees to pay the Receiver General of Canada or any other applicable regulatory authority any charges, payments, repayments or penalties of any kind, including without limitation those relating to tax..." it states.

But some legal settlements are not taxed.

So we are back to language. Is this a legal settlement, therefore not in violation of the Charter, or is it income subject to tax and therefore violating the Charter?

Members of the No Asphalt Plant group say enough is enough - call a spade a spade.

They argue that the "capital costs" Alpine Paving was to receive would have been a benefit and therefore violate the Charter. Period.

There is no doubt that this is an argument that is frustrating many. Most people would understand "legal costs" to be bills and fees arising from the use of lawyers.

Very few people on the face of it would ever think that legal costs amounted to the construction of a Baghouse - a fabric filter system that removes and collects dust.

Logic might suggest that the RMOW is describing the Relocation Agreement capital costs as legal costs to obfuscate the argument that this would violate the Charter.

One might also draw the inference that the path chosen was to save the taxpayer from a much, much larger cost if Alpine successfully sued Whistler. And in describing the budget line-item as legal costs it could also easily be traced back to the asphalt plant.

Many will argue that this whole discussion is moot since the Relocation Agreement became void when the majority of council voted against the associated rezoning last September.

But it goes to the heart of one of the most vexing issues in government today: bureaucratese.

It's unlikely that the municipality in referring to the proposed asphalt monies as legal costs meant to mislead but that, in the end, is what has happened.

As we head into a time of change in municipal politics it is more important than ever for there to be transparency, and for language to be understood by everyone.

This is not a new problem for government at every level. Canada and nations around the world are adopting plain language policies. We use the Canadian Legislative Drafting Conventions to standardize how legislation is written so anyone can understand.

In the U.S. this past October President Barack Obama, with little fanfare, signed The Plain Writing Act. The new law requires that government documents be written in "plain language," defined as "writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience."

Put simply, you have to be able to understand it.

Moving forward perhaps that is something we can all agree to work toward.