When is a Canadian a Canadian?

CBC reported on a story a day or so ago about two sisters, (ages nine and fourteen) who were trapped in Nairobi because the eldest had lost her Canadian passport. They need to leave where they are living partially because of the political unrest but primarily because their aunt - who was their caretaker - has recently died. There is no other adult who can look after them. For some reason, replacing the lost passport has become a problem. The father was asking the Canadian government for assistance to get his daughters home to Canada.

All of which makes some sense - except for the fact that while the father is a Canadian citizen and therefore both of his girls are, neither girl had ever been to Canada. In fact, it appears as if there had been originally little intent for them to ever live here. How can someone claim to be a citizen when they do not live in Canada and may never do so? The fourteen-year-old may not speak either of our two national languages, has never attended a Canadian school and in all likelihood knows almost nothing about Canadian culture, politics or history. And yet - in four years, when she turns 18 she will be able to vote in a federal election. She will also when she does get here have full access to medical and educational resources. I am not sure if she should.

Canada has a reputation for being relatively open about accepting and embracing people from elsewhere. While we struggle with some of the issues that arise from such policies, Canada has generally been successful in assisting immigrants and refugees to become Canadian citizens. Our economy and our culture need people moving here from other countries. And most of us know it.

However in spite of our good intentions to be accepting and our attempts to insure that all have full access to our rights and freedoms, it may be that we have been too generous in awarding citizenship to those who may have no intention of ever using it - until they are in need somewhere halfway around the world and then demand Canadian government intervention.

Canada is, of course, far from perfect. Our collective record of racism is something that we are only now starting to acknowledge; we have not always been as welcoming of other cultures and indeed there are still many Canadians who struggle with accepting those who are different into their communities. We are a work in progress. I, however, am not convinced that handing out Canadian citizenships to people who may never live in Canada - just because one's father is a Canadian- does anything to either redress the wrongs of the past, or to ensure that they do not happen again.

Canadian citizenship should be reserved for those who wish to make Canada their home and who have a desire to make it a better country for everyone.

How a Doctor Wasted My Time

Yesterday I had an appointment with my new cardiologists - in Victoria. Not a big deal - but I had been waiting a while to see him. Not that anything new is going on but it seemed to me that it was important that a specialist review my relatively minor heart condition just to ensure that things had not changed.

To cross the Malahat - a relatively small mountain that lies between Duncan and Victoria, the law requires one to have snow tires. It doesn't often snow in southern BC but that particular highway can be a bit slippery and one accident can block the road for hours. I do not have snow tires so I took the commuter bus. It left at 6:15 AM. It cost $10.00 - one way.

I got to Victoria by 7:30, had a great breakfast at my favourite breakfast spot in town (John's Place), got on a city bus (I bought a day pass for $5.00) bought some warp cotton at a store and then got on another bus to get to the doctor's office. I knew I would be early, but I had a book to read and I was content to wait the 45 minutes.

The doctor was a bit behind schedule - to be exact he was 45 minutes behind schedule. His assistant did the cardiogram but did not do a social history or collect any information at all. The doctor came into a room - we talked for about six minutes and we were done. It was obvious that he had not read my file or even looked at my most recent echocardiogram. I gave him the original referral letter from my cardiologist in Peterborough but he demonstrated little interest in my medical history. When I mentioned that I was chronically tired, he suggested that sometimes the medication I am on has that effect. He suggested that there were other options including a different medication or surgery. As the possibility of surgery to correct the problem had never been discussed with me, I asked him about it- but all he said was that that would be in the future.

He made another appointment for September.

I hung around Victoria until the first commuter bus left at 3:45 and I was back in Duncan by around 5:00.

11 hours of travel and hanging around and $25.00 in transportation costs - all for 10 minutes total time of medical contact. Whatever the province paid the doctor for his time was a waste of the tax payers' money. My GP could have done exactly the same thing - wasting less of my time and while she may not be technically as qualified as the specialist was - I would not have left her office as dissatisfied as I did yesterday in Victoria.

I know doctors are busy - I know that there are ever increasing demands on their time. But I would have preferred to wait a few extra weeks for an appointment if it would have meant that I would have had a more detailed review of my current heart health. As it was - he just wasted my time.

Citizenship and the Right to Vote

I read somewhere last week that the Supreme Court had ruled that Canadians who lived outside of the country should be allowed to vote in federal elections regardless as to how long they have been out of the country. Previously, the limit had been five years.

I am not sure how many Canadians this ruling applies to. I would imagine that there are some fairly young Canadians who are finishing their university education somewhere other than Canada and it is conceivable that they could be gone for five years. There are also employees of the Canadian government or NGOs who may spend extended times in some other countries as well as those who are employed by the numerous multi-national for-profit companies. But it is difficult for me to understand why anyone with the exception of students or public service employees, would want or need to be away from their home country for more than five years. If the individual is only away because they can make more money in some other part of the world, then I would wonder if perhaps they should not move permanently there. If they are maintaining Canadian citizenship only because it offers them some business advantage or perhaps even some safety, then it feels as if it is inappropriate that the individual gets a vote.

Being a Canadian citizen is not a one-way street. There are numerous advantages to being a citizen but along with those rights and protections come some responsibilities. I am assuming that those Canadian citizens who work outside of the country pay some income taxes etc. but being a good citizen is more than just paying taxes, it is about contributing to their community, it is about participating in the lives of their neighbours, and in the lives of their children's friends. Being a good citizen is at least partially about buying locally, using local service such as dry cleaners or mechanics or the corner store to buy milk - not just because it adds income to the local economy but because those type of service build and strengthen the local fabric of a community. Being a good citizen is about developing, maintaining and adding to the social networks that sustain us and our neighbours; it is about shovelling the driveway of an older neighbour, or feeding someone's cats when they are away or about volunteering at a neighbourhood centre. Being a Canadian citizen should mean that you are involved in the very fabric of the country you chose to call home. If you are gone for five years - you are doing none of those things. I do not know how they would decide what their community, their country needed if they were not there.

None of the articles I read discussed what riding their votes would be registered in? Is it the last place they lived, the home of their corporate headquarters, or some random place that they might want to live in the future?

I believe in democracy and in the concept that all citizens have the right to vote - but sometimes I wonder if we need to re-visit what being a citizen means.

First Nations - Who Decides?

The hereditary leaders of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation, in northern BC, are insisting that the proposed natural gas pipeline not go through their traditional territory. In spite of a ruling by the BC supreme court that the company be allowed to proceed, the leaders and other supporters are blocking the road, knowing that arrests are likely.

I am not sure what all of the fuss is about. I think the law is clear: on land that is not governed by treaty, the traditional Indigenous peoples have the right to control what happens on their land. If the corporation does not have permission from the people to build a pipeline - the pipeline cannot be built. End of story.

My only question is who - within that specific First Nation, gets to decide what is allowed. The present situation is confused because the elected leaders agreed to the pipeline being built while the hereditary leadership did not. In fact, they may not have been even asked.The elected leadership system imposed upon those people by the Canadian government is flawed. One person, one vote is not part of the cultural heritage of most (any?) First Nations. The other option, based on centuries of tradition is that leadership is hereditary. The right to lead is passed down through either the maternal or paternal line (1).

As someone who believes in democracy, the concept of someone inheriting power and control is an anathema. It is contrary to every social, economic or political value I have. There are far too many examples in our collective histories where an individual, because they believed that they had the right to have control due to who their parents or grandparents were, oppressed their people. We do not have kings or queens ruling our lives for a reason.

While I fully appreciate that in our drive to create lives that are easy and comfortable, we may have lost some of those core values that may be critical for our survival as a species. In our never-ending search for maximum comfort with a minimum amount of energy expended, we have willingly destroyed hundreds of thousands of hectares of irreplaceable resources. Having a leadership that is at least in part immersed in cultural values would have perhaps insured that the destruction would not have been so complete. But at what cost? Would such immersion in past cultural practices limited our capacity to grow? However, regardless of my opinions as to who should govern - it is not my decision. It is the decision of each First Nation.

But they must decide who gets to have control. We cannot demand that governments and companies engage with Indigenous communities in a meaningful, respectful way if those communities cannot agree who should be at the table. There is no point having negotiations if the signed agreement will be contested by members of that community.

I am not too sure how a consensus could be reached. But the communities themselves must find a way. The national government can not/should not decide for them



1) https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/hereditary-chief-definition-and-5-faqs

The Russians are Coming!!!!!

It seems as if almost every type of media from the CBC, to the Globe and Mail to the Walrus are talking/writing about the Russian attempts to influence public opinion in Western countries, specifically through social media. All of the articles suggest that we, as Canadians, need to be particularly concerned in part because there is a federal election this fall and therefore there is an increased opportunity to manipulate our opinions. As well, our governments have done so very little to ensure that we are protected from this type of attack. While there are a variety of reports that indicate differing levels of involvement, it seems likely that some foreign power has consciously attempted to manipulate public opinion in the USA, in Europe and in Canada. I have no doubt that other countries such as China are/have been engaged in a process of subtlety manipulating and circulating information that is designed to influence our decisions. Canadians should be well used to this sort of distorted and biased information. After all, we have lived next door to an extraordinarily powerful and arrogant neighbour for the past couple of centuries. A country that has never been shy about using the media to influence the hearts and minds of its citizenry and anyone else who lives within their media umbrella. I have no doubt that other countries may have tried to influence us. For all I know - New Zealand or Patagonia could have some nefarious designs upon us.

If one looks at the various levels of propaganda for the last century or so, it is clear that countries (including Canada) have used the media to manipulate/influence its own citizens and anyone else close to them. Such manipulations have been singularly successful. Take for example the governments insistence that residential schools and adoption was the best way to deal with the "Indian problem", of the incarceration of Japanese Canadians, or unemployed men into work camps or the dangers of marijuana, or the need to sterilize women who had a disability. The singular difference between then and now is that rather than using newspapers, radio and conversations in bars, meeting halls or boardrooms, various groups are now using social media to share/disseminate information. Because millions of people have instant access to anything that is posted regardless of whether or not it is false or at the very least, highly biased information, social media has become a powerful weapon. A weapon that is hard to catch or notice. A weapon that is effective because it is impossible to determine where the information comes from. In 1943, if the German High Command had penned a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star, most Canadians readers would have been instantly aware that the information contained in that letter would be false or misleading; when information is contributed anonymously and then re-posted on Facebook (quite frequently by computer programs) thousands of times - it is virtually impossible to determine who the original was posted by, or what was their purpose.

The obvious solutions suggested by the pundits is that social media giants such as Facebook need to be more vigilant about screening what gets posted. It has been argued that it is their responsibility to ensure that the information that is being circulated is accurate. One gets the sense that if these companies which are private, for-profit corporations whose platforms are completely voluntary would only do their job better, there would be no problem. And that may be correct. If some huge corporation, influenced primarily by how much money they could make, were to censor what information was available, then the problem (or at least one problem) would go away.

There is, however, a less draconian solution. Individuals could start to think critically. Just because it appears as if thousands of people apparently have read and re-post an article or a picture, does not make it true. Just because it appears as if the person who wrote it was an expert, does not make it true. Just because the article sounds factual, does not make it true.

Facebook is not, cannot be held responsible for my inability to think critically. That is my job. I should never re-post anything unless I know it to be true or at least have some value. I should never re-post anything unless I am prepared to defend it. While I wish there was a way for someone to stop the Russian, the Chinese or even the Patagonia governments from filling social media with their propaganda - there isn't. The best that we can do is to stop reading it - to stop believing it because we have checked the facts.

If the government of Canada wants to fix the problem - maybe they could start to fund public schools so that there would be sufficient funds to teach children how to think for themselves.

Safer Roads??

As of January 1, 2019 roads it is now safer to travel the roads of Ontario - at least according to the Ontario Government. It is difficult to argue against increasing the penalties for those drivers who are caught driving while being distracted by various mobile devices, or for that matter any driver who is not totally focused on their vehicle and the vehicles around it. It is especially difficult when one reads that, according to the Ontario Government, "deaths from collisions caused by distracted driving have doubled since 2000"(1).

Unfortunately, the above statistic is completely meaningless. The reader has no idea as to the number of deaths in 2000 - was it half a dozen or a thousand? Furthermore, there is no indication of how many of these deaths, either in 2000 or 2013, were caused by talking on a cell phone, texting, looking at a GPS or eating a donut. The statistics are used to create a blanket assumption that if one has something in ones' hand - there is a risk of being distracted. And this assumption may be, at the very least, misleading.

There is ample research in the academic literature that suggests that it is not the act of holding a phone while driving that creates the problem, it is the very nature of telephone conversations that can potentially distract a driver (see Lamble et al(2, Caird et al(3)). It would appear that it is almost irrelevant as to whether or not the phone is being held in the driver's hand or if the driver is using a "hands-free" system. Therefore to ban holding a cell phone while allowing, if not encouraging the use of blue tooth etc makes no sense. It is quite clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the proliferation of cell phones, their use in cars and the increase in accidents and deaths. The new regulations will not solve the problem.

On the other hand, clearly it is extraordinarily dangerous to type text messages, or to read messages while driving, it is also equally as dangerous to enter addresses etc into a GPS. These type of activities should be banned, the consequences harsh. But given that many vehicles now have large screens built into the dash that function as both a GPS unit and a control system for entertainment and climate - the opportunities for distraction appears to be increasing.

What makes the new Ontario regulations appear to be a "shotgun approach" to solving a problem is the inclusion of eating in the vehicle being clearly defined as a possible driving distraction. There is no doubt that managing a hot coffee while eating a hamburger can be distracting. But that activity is nothing new. The very existence of drive-in-windows at virtually all fast food restaurants would suggest that a significant number of people eat and/or drink while driving. Again, it would be useful to know if eating in a vehicle is a problem and if so how much of one.

While by creating harsh laws with significant penalties is a short-term solution to the problem - perhaps developing better training for drivers, encouraging people to take responsibilities for their actions or the actions of those who are driving with them, or reducing the number of distractions in a vehicles might make a difference. Which leads me to my final point.

If a bar can be held accountable when a drunk patron gets behind a wheel and then causes an accident, can McDonald's', Wendy's or Tim Horton's be held accountable when a patron while opening their burger causes an accident?


1 https://www.ontario.ca/page/distracted-driving
2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457599000184
3 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457508000183

Learning What to Protest or How Not to Waste Time

It would appear to be fashionable for those involved in the oil business to scream at anyone who will listen that the Liberal Party and specifically Justin Trudeau are not doing enough to get Albertan oil to the various markets. There are demonstrations, truck convoys and threats/promises to bring the protest to Ottawa. The outrage and concern of the families who are dependent upon oil flowing freely across the plains and over the mountains is real. Whether or not they are angry at the right person or institution is another question. It is tempting to suggest the protests only provide a bit of news with lots of lovely pictures of ordinary Canadians - something especially useful when there is not a lot of other news happening in the dark days of the holiday season.

It is perhaps inappropriate to be so cynical during the above mentioned season which is, at least on paper, suppose to be about love, hope and peace. I, however, cannot help but wonder who is suggesting to those protesters that the only enemy are the Liberals in Ottawa. I would think that any person capable of rational thought would wonder - who benefits from the protests? Does anyone really think that a relatively small number of protesters are going to be able to convince the Federal Government to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court and build the pipeline? Does anyone want to live in a country where the government ignores the ruling of the Supreme Court?

I disagreed with the Liberal Government's decision to buy the pipeline - a decision they made so that they could ensure that the pipeline would be built. The purchase was a sizeable commitment to get the oil to market. It is, in fact, one of the few things that any federal government has done to make certain that the pipeline got built. The cynic in me cannot help but be curious as to why five years ago, as the pipeline approval process dragged on, the same protesters were not out demanding that the Conservative government do something? That same cynic would also wonder if the directed attacks on Trudeau are more about the provincial election in Alberta next year or the federal election a few months later. While all of the protesting is going on - why is no one asking what any of the Conservative governments-in-waiting would do to change the situation? No one is asking those questions because of who may be facilitating/directing/shaping the protests.

How Canada deals with the resources buried in the ground (or that which grows above the ground e.g. trees) is a legitimate discussion for all Canadians. It may be one of the most fundamental conversations in the next decade or two. We must find a way to balance the need to generate an economy that can support the needs of all Canadians with the need to be far more cautious (and far-sighted) as to how we protect the environment. It is a complex discussion full of competing needs and dangerous, non-productive side arguments - laying blame for political reasons is one of those side arguments. It is not useful. It is, in fact, dangerous.


As individual Canadians, we must become responsible for thinking for ourselves. We cannot afford to accept, without critical thought, the opinions and direction of others. Protest is a legitimate response to poor government decisions. But it us, the individual, who needs to decide what we will protest and why. It is perhaps an over-used but true thought - we really can't trust those who want to political power to tell us what is right or wrong.