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.

B.C.’s Referendum - Out With Barely a Whimper

If the majority of BC residents had voted for a change in how they elected their provincial legislature, there would have been loud cheers and celebrations. Such a decision would have made the news across the nation. But they did not vote for change. 61.3% of those who voted, voted to maintain the status quo. There was very little discussion in the news and certainly, there were no celebrations. All of which is not surprising.

It was, to say the least, a flawed process from the start. One of the primary reasons for calling this third referendum was based on the reasoning that the percentage of people who were voting in provincial elections had been decreasing because the voters did not feel that their votes had value; that because governments were being elected with less than a majority of popular votes, that meant that a majority of voters felt disenfranchised. Balderdash!!

In a 2000 report from Elections Canada*, one of the major reasons why people did not vote was that they just did not care. Nothing has changed since then. I would guess that if non-voters would be asked today, and if they were honest - they would give the same answer. It is both easy and popular to say that one did not vote because their vote did not matter. It would be embarrassing to say the truth - that they are just too lazy to think about it; or that they were so self-consumed by their own lives, they could not think of anything else. Not surprisingly only 42.6%** of those who were eligible to vote in the referendum, did so. People had a month to vote, it was a mail-in vote - so no one had to rearrange their lives to vote and still less the half of the people bothered to express an opinion

If as many people were upset over the first-past-the-post electoral system as the pundits for change argued, then surely there would have been more people voting in the referendum. People did not vote because it was just too much work for them to think about it, they just did not care. The fact that so many people did not vote is proof that the referendum trying to fix the problem the wrong way.

Why people vote or do not vote is an important issue. The resolution to it is critical for Canada’s capacity to survive as a democratic country. But like so many things in life - there are no quick fixes; there is not a single reason as to why fewer people vote now than 50 years ago. There is no single solution.

It is interesting to note how each electoral districts*** voted. It could be fascinating to determine if there was a relationship between annual average income and how the region voted. This analysis needs to be done to determine who drove this expensive and time-consuming desire for change and why.

I also wonder if there is a relationship between when the percentage of Canadians voting started to decrease and when we stopped recognizing that we had a duty to take care of each other; when voting started to be about me getting who I wanted to be elected because it was good for me, rather than who was good for the country.

*http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=index&dir=tur/tud&lang=e&textonly=false
**https://electionsbcca.blob.core.windows.net/electionsbcca/referendum/results.html
***https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https://electionsbcca.blob.core.windows.net/electionsbcca/referendum/2018-Referendum-Voting-Results-By-ED.xlsx

Please note: RCMP/ Courts - Enough is Enough

It is not very often that I write about a specific story more than once, I have never written about a story a third time.

In mid-February, 2015, I wrote a blog about two young, somewhat disabled young adults from Victoria who had been manipulated into creating a pressure-cooker bomb. At that point, I suggested that the RCMP had, in their enthusiasm to get on the anti-terrorist bandwagon, gone far beyond what is ethical or appropriate.

On July 30, 2016, I reported that B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce said that the police had entrapped the couple and their charges were stayed.

The Crown appealed that decision.Yesterday, BC’s Appeal Court ruled that the charges against the couple should be stayed because of entrapment and abuse of process. That decision can, of course, be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I get that terrorism is a serious concern; I understand that some people whether they be the police or work within the criminal justice system may be passionate about their jobs. I also understand that some people do not like being told that they were wrong. But it seems to me that those people need to accept that the courts have decided their actions were at the very least: “over the top”. They need to accept that it is time to move on.

The cost of the initial investigation/sting operation was a million dollars. I suspect that the amount of money it has cost the taxpayers to take this case through three levels of the courts may never be publically known. And for what? One of the reasons why people are charged, taken to court and if convicted - sentenced is the belief that such actions will act as a deterrent for other people who are considering a similar crime. Anyone who believes that a terrorist or a suicide bomber would consider the possibility of jail time before committing such an act lives in a profoundly different reality than I do.

By pursuing this couple so vigorously for over four years, our criminal justice system has done nothing to prevent a committed terrorist from committing acts that are destructive to our communities. If anything that blind pursuit may have further entrenched the concept that the power of the police and court system only exist to persecute the weak or the disenfranchised.
If, on the other hand, that money had been used to investigate just a few of the thousands of Canadians who hide millions of dollars of income from the government during income tax time and if the criminal court system had pursued those individuals with half of the vigour that they have shown pursuing this couple, then not only would have I received some value for my tax money spent, but other tax avoiders might be scared and pay what they owe.

Rock and a Hard Place - the Rule of Law I

In certain parts of the world, the rule of law is a founding principle of our democratic form of government. Rule of law means that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or position, is obliged to follow the same laws and is treated equally by those laws. For those countries to which British immigrants settled - the Magna Carta signed in 1216- is the founding document to this principle. It is obvious that even the most democratic of countries have never fully or completely lived up to this principle. It is far too easy for those who are rich and/or powerful to find ways around the law or to manipulate the law so that it serves them. Nonetheless, like all principles, it is a lofty goal to which all countries should aspire.

Canada, by apprehending Chinese national, Meng Wanzhau - Huawei’s chief financial officer was following the law. Canada has with many countries in the world an agreement that requires it to apprehend an individual if another country has valid charges against that individual. After the apprehension, that country needs to prove, in court, that the charges are valid and can be proven. The individual is not sent to the other country until the courts are satisfied. This is the law - it is what Canada has agreed to.

However, agreeing to follow the rules becomes somewhat problematic when both the country that requested the apprehension and the individual’s country of birth have less of a commitment to follow the rule of law. Trump, in the past two years, has demonstrated a remarkable disrespect for the law, signed treaties and any sense of fair play. It appears as if the law means little to him except something that he can manipulate to his advantage. He breaks or threatens to break the law with no indication that he is ever embarrassed or ashamed by his lies and manipulations even in his personal life where the lies are obvious.

Trump’s disregard for the rule of law, unfortunately, reflects much of the USA’s international policies. For almost a century they have been the dominant political and financial force in the world. They have gotten used to bending the rules to suit their political and economic needs and agenda. Their arrogance in believing that they have a manifest destiny to rule the world becomes all the more obvious as the rest of the world starts to realize that they are no longer the only dominant power.

China is not a democracy. It has no tradition of the rule of law, of the elites being accountable to the general public, of everyone having to follow the same laws. China has a rich and complex history much older than any of the countries of the west. Their political systems have just evolved in a different way. While they may honour their treaties, it is not clear as to whether or not the current edition of China would so if some of the articles of those treaties stopped being advantageous to China. It is not even clear as to whether or not China understands that Canada, if they are to honour the rule of law, had no choice.

Canada may get squeezed in this interplay between China and the USA - both countries aspiring to be the most significant political and economic power in the world. But if there is any dishonour here - it does not fall on Canada’s shoulders. It may appear as if Canada is being the wimp, the weakling, the skinny kid who gets sand kicked in his face while lying on a beach, but anytime a country stands up and says we will do what we promised to do even if it causes some problems, they are the strong one.

Being in between two bullies is always difficult, not staying true to yourself in that situation only makes it worse

Human Rights - a Little Common Sense Please

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has awarded a family $12,000 because they were convinced that a Montessori School discriminated against a child who was barred from preschool.

The couple who are atheists objected to the school in any way acknowledging Christmas, Hanukkah, Remembrance Day, Valentines Day or Easter. They were aggressive in their refusal to accept any of the normal cultural practices of the school. The school then demanded that they sign a letter agreeing to the policy or else the young student would not be allowed to enrol. The parents refused to sign - yelled foul and took it to the Tribunal.

It needs to be noted that this is preschool and a private preschool at that. The mother was on the board and should have known that the school encouraged the young children to be aware of and celebrate special holidays. If the parents did not want their child to participate in any of these activities, they really needed to look at other options.

I am not saying that it is appropriate for schools, whether private or public, to make people follow specific religious practices nor is it right for that school to dismiss a family’s specific cultural practices.. But it is difficult to see how decorating elf ornaments or lighting candles is forcing children into religious practices or preventing them from following their own.

I understand that some families believe that telling kids there is a Santa Claus is lying to children and therefore sets a bad precedent. The parents were welcome to tell their child that Santa Clause was not true, that there was no tooth fairy, and that the Easter Bunny did not deliver chocolate eggs. But all parents when their child is of a certain age, and starts to question the stories, tell the truth and then very specifically state - “don’t tell your younger brother or sister or your friends - “let them believe in the magic for a little bit longer”. It was the atheist parents with unusually values (arguing that Valentines Day or Remembrance Day should not be recognized has nothing to do with atheism) who were unable to be flexible.

I understand that some people can not/do not believe in any sort of religion. For them, the concept of any sort of higher power is an anathema to their entire being. But it is up to those parents to explain to their child that they believe something different than other people. It is not the school’s job to isolate children from the activities and cultural norms of the world around them.

I think it would be great if we could do away with much of Christmas, Valentines Day and Easter. But even if I wished to outlaw it in my life, and even in my children’s school life, we would all still be exposed to all of the hype and commercialism and yes even a little bit of the religion. If this family want to keep their young child pure with no exposure to all of the silly celebrations and commercialism - they better plan on moving somewhere deep in the boreal forest where no one else lives.

Or else they could take these celebrations as teaching moments - moments when they could explain to their child why they believed something different. It is their choice what they do but we should not reward them for demanding that their way is the only way.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

The above quote most often attributed to either Mark Twain or to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, makes the point that it is easy to manipulate statistics to prove almost anything you want them to. Two cases in point:

(1) Various mass media news outlets have been discussing and /or showing the mass protests that have been occurring in France against President Macron’s financial policies. If one could believe those reports - thousands and thousands of protesters have marched in the streets of Paris. And in fact that is probably true. But what is also true is that, according to CBC*, there were (only) about 136,000 protesters across France. There is no doubt that 136,000 people is a lot of people, especially if they were all in one spot, but it is less than .03 percent of the total population of France. 136,000 people (given that Canada’s population is approximately half of France’s) is the equivalent to 77,000 people protesting across Canada. Impressive numbers that would warrant the government’s attention but not sufficient numbers to suggest that the government is about to be overthrown.

(2) The CBC has reported that one out of four adult Canadians have been affected by a shortage of a prescribed medication. On the surface, if one just reads the headlines that sounds as if a lot of Canadians have been affected- in fact based on 2016 Statistics Canada numbers, at that rate - just over 7 million Canadians were affected because they did not have access their prescribed medication. That would perhaps reflect a Canadian health emergency. However if one reads more of the article it goes on to refine the statement by saying the 25% of Canadians have either been affected directly or by having known someone who has. Only 11% of Canadians have been directly affected. That is still a big number and clearly there is a problem with drug companies ensuring that there are sufficient supplies. But there was no information as to whether or not the delays were weeks or even months or if they were a few days. Just saying 25% of Canadians had been in some way affected directly or knew someone who had been, is insufficient to decide if one needs to be concerned.


We all use statistics in some form - they are a convenient form of shorthand that allows us to discuss large numbers without the cumbersomeness of repeating eight or nine digit numbers; they allow us to verbally paint pictures that are easy to see. No matter how illiterate we might be in terms of percentages and fractions, we all know what one quarter of the pie means. The mass media have a special responsibility to ensure that the numbers that they use are not only accurate but that they are presented in such a way that they are both easy to understand and that they reflect what is really happening. As long as the media insists on looking for the most dramatic headlines, pictures or videos while ignoring all of the facts, they can not be trusted. By dumbing down the content to the most attention seeking information the media prevent us from making informed decisions. By inflating the numbers by not putting them in context is not only disingenuous, it is dangerous.

Please just reports the facts….. All of the facts.

*https://www.cbc.ca/news/ world/macron- address-france-protests-1.4938990)

The Cost of Defending Oneself

Generally speaking, Canadians can interact with our criminal court system in three distinct ways. If an individual is charged with a criminal offense and if that person is financially well off, they can hire a great lawyer and fight the charge; if the individual is employed and has a few assets such as a house, they can remortgage their house, sell other assets and hire a reasonable lawyer or if they are poor or have no assets they can access Legal Aid. The first individual has an excellent chance of avoiding a conviction and at the very least, a minimal chance of being incarcerated. The second individual faces a greater chance of conviction and incarceration but regardless of whether or not they are found guilty, they will have be in debt. The third individual faces the greatest threat of a conviction and incarceration. In other words, when it comes to lawyers - you get what you pay for.

However, a couple in Alberta have just created a fourth group of people who are facing a criminal trial. The couple who were charged and convicted of causing tier young son’s death by refusing to obtain medical help (the Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the judge erred on his instructions to the first jury), have asked/demanded that the Alberta government (1) reimburse them one million dollars for the legal expenses from the first trial and (2) promise to pay up to three million for their new trial. They have fired their lawyer and say that they can not afford to hire one, especially with all of the expert witnesses they need to call as part of their defense.

It has been reported that the couple have been refused a government funded lawyer because “ they don’t qualify based on their income/or assets”(CBC). In other words they do have assets but they are choosing not to use them to defend themselves.

While one should perhaps never take the mainstream media's’ reporting of events to be completely accurate, the case seems to be quite clear. The parents, whose child died from untreated meningitis, are firm believes in home remedies. They did nothing to consult medical professional who could have saved their son’s life. They only called for help when he stopped breathing.

Whether or not the police investigated their crime appropriately, whether or not the judge made some rulings that in hindsight were less fair, whether or not that judge gave inappropriate directions to the jury - their kid was sick, they tried to cure him with ingredients from the grocery or health food store, he died. They must be held responsible,

It may be profoundly unfair for a family to have to exhaust their finances to defend against unsubstantiated criminal charges, these parents could be innocent of the charges but under the present rules that people with assets have been forced to follow for decades, it is completely unfair that this couple want to rules to be changed for them. Either spend your own money or figure out how to get Legal Aid - but don’t ask taxpayers to pay for you to defend your personal beliefs that led to tragedy.

It may be time that the government starts to address the unfairness of a court system that gives results based on what kind of lawyer you can afford to hire. But this is not the case to do it for.

Half Mast Flags for Bush?

I suspect that many if not most Canadians will pay little attention to the fact that today our national flag is flying at half mast on government buildings in Canada and in the US. It is being done to mark the passing and funeral for George H.W. Bush. On one hand it seems like a nice thing to do. A former president dies, their closest neighbour marks the occasion in a symbolic way. BUT…

Bush, at least to my rusty memory, was never a friend of Canada. While our former prime minister (Mulroney) and Bush may have been friends or at least close political acquaintances, I do not think that that relationship was extraordinary or particularly beneficial to Canada. George W. did sign the NAFTA agreement, but that was because it was good for his country not because it was better for Canada. With the exception of free trade - did he ever even acknowledge Canada’s existence?

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those to the south of us will not even be aware of Canada’s gesture. If they are, it will be only to note that Bush and by extension the USA deserve no less. I would doubt that even amongst the politicians who gather at the funeral (including Mulroney), no one will notice, comment or even care.

I am not sure what value there is in symbolically honouring a man that was of limited interest to Canadians 25 years ago. In fact such gestures may lessen the value of such symbolic acts. It would seem to me that such honourings should be restricted to people who are/were directly connected to the Canadian family.

A Rolling Pipeline

It is clear that in spite of the federal government’s commitment to expand the pipeline to the west coast, there is a surplus of oil waiting to get to a refinery and no way of it getting anywhere. The Canadian expansion faces months and months of hearings and debates, eventually I suspect ending up in front of the Supreme Court again. Even after all of the political horse trading that will happen both in the mass media and behind closed doors, there is no guarantee that the pipeline will ever get built within my lifetime. A pipeline route to the south of us seems to be almost as unlikely.

I am not sure if I understand why our reduced capacity to ship Alberta’s raw crude the the USA means that we get less for it, but apparently it is worth less as we can’t ship it in any large quantity. Personally I think the international oil companies are just messing with us. Regardless, Alberta has a problem, its revenues are down and it needs money to operate. If the NDP government of Rachel Notley does not appear to do something, not only will there potentially be a significant shortage of operating funds but they will resoundingly lose the next provincial election - the party could even be reduced to almost no standing in the provincial legislature. One of her short term solutions is for the Albertan government to buy more rail cars so that the crude can be shipped by rail.

This may be the only solution - it is not a good solution.

1) It is an expensive option. According to the Globe and Mail (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/cn-to-buy-200-locomotives-from-ge-as-freight-volumes-surge/article37418466/) each engine could cost three million (US), a new oil car could cost up to $150,000 each (https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/alberta-plans-to-buy-7000-railcars-to-ease-crisis-in-oil-price-differentials)

2) The carbon footprint to manufacture those engines and cars would be significant

3) As much as there is a legitimate fear of a pipeline cracking and leaking hundreds if not thousands of litres of crude oil before the flow is cut off, there is an equally legitimate concern as to the risk of an train derailment and the resultant spill. At least some of the thousands of miles of railroad tracks in Canada go through remote parts of our wilderness where there is no road access. Cleaning up any spill would be difficult and very expensive. Furthermore, at other times, the tracks go through major population centres and any accident involving a train derailment could cause an incomprehensible amount of damage to both the city’s infrastructure and to human lives.

4) Our rail system is already over crowded. As frequent readers of this blog are aware, our national passenger rail service is a disgrace with cross-country trains running a minimum of 12 hours late on a regular basis. Putting more cars on to those tracks could be the death blow to our passenger rail transportation. VIA rail, outside of southern Ontario could go the way of the Greyhound bus.

5) There is some doubt as to whether or not there are enough trained engineers to operate the existing trains never mind adding more. According to CBC (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/ottawa-warns-of-dangerously-exhausted-train-crews-as-alberta-ramps-up-oil-by-rail/ar-BBQmQr0?li=AA521o), well before Notley’s announcement, Transport Canada express concern that rail crews were all ready over worked with insufficient time off to rest.

Shipping crude oil by train is expensive, dangerous and could be the death blow to our transcontinental passenger train system. I am am not too sure if the potential damage is not as great if not greater than the shipping our crude by pipeline.

One has to wonder as to why more people are not expressing more concern.

Somethings Make Me Smile in Sadness and Despair

A week or so ago the federal government announced that it was going to allocate funds to assist the mainstream media - specifically the press in adapting to the new environment where it has become increasingly difficult for the print media to compete with the internet etc. Conservative politicians including a provincial premier immediately started to suggest that such government handouts would ensure that print media would become biased in favour of the government because they could not/would not ever bite the hands that fed them.

The conservatives of this country could, in some small way, be correct. Reporters who knew their jobs were slightly more secure might think twice about getting on certain bandwagons and bashing the ruling party. But those politicians who suggested such biases were possible, acted as if the print media was at present, unbiased. To suggest even the possibility that the media were not influenced by outside sources demonstrates at best a profound naivete and at worst a disturbing capacity to publically ignore or discuss the obvious truths of the world we live in.

The truth is that the print media has always been biased. Only someone who buried their head in the sand all of the time could miss the obvious biases of various newspapers either to the left or the right side of the spectrum. Certain newspaper editors (under the direction of the publishers) predictably support certain political parties at election and at other times. These biases exist because the print media is now and always has been a commercial enterprise. It makes or at least it is supposed to make money for the owners.

The money comes from advertisers, advertisers want their advertisements in newspapers that are read by potential customers - of course the newspapers print news, that at the very least, is slanted towards what the readers want to read. It is not so terrible that media is biased. There are at least two sides, two perspectives to every story. What is bad is the media not acknowledging that there is a bias in their writing/reporting. It is their denial of their political leanings, their incapacity to be honest with the reading public that allows both for people to argue that “news is fake” and for politicians to rant about how unfair it is that one political party may be trying to bribe the print media. One should not necessarily be concerned about the possibility that the media are biased - of course they are; the real concern is that they pretend not to be.

As a side note, I think there was a time when it was legitimate for the smaller political parties who were never able to gain any real political traction to argue that the mainstream press was too aligned with the parties in power and thereby making it difficult to get their platforms/ideas out to the public. It is far more alarming when parties (e.g. Republicans or Conservatives) who have historically held power at least as nearly as often as other parties make that claim. It is difficult to see those parties as the underdogs who are at a disadvantage. It is a cheap ploy to attract attention - to make people feel sorry for them. Something one would expect of a young child and hopefully something that any reasonable adult would see through.

Ethical/Moral Dilemma

For a senior, I probably take less medications than some, but it still can be expensive. My medication to control my blood pressure is about $28.00 every 45 days - certainly not very much. More recently however, it has been suggested that I start to take some medication to reduce the side effects of my CODP. That medication is more expensive.

The medication originally prescribed, needs to be take four times a day and cost $48.00 for thirty days. It is also rather inconvenient to use. I have to get up early in the morning (5:00AM) to take the first dose as well as having to remember to take the enhaller with me if I am going to be out of the house around 11:00 AM. There is however, another choice. I could take a similar medication but only once per day. That medication cost approximately twice as much ($102.00 for 30 days).

The moral dilemma occurs when I think about whether or not to access my province’s Pharmacare program for seniors. For me, at my income level, the plan will cover all drug costs above $550.00 per year. That means that if my only two prescription costs are for blood pressure and the cheaper, more inconvenient COPD medication - I will not receive any financial assistance. If, however I switch to the more expensive and far more convenient medication, the additional cost for the medication will be covered by the Pharma Care plan.

The Question is- do I utilize the government’s funds to pay for my convenience? It could be argued that I paid taxes all of my life and there it is my right to take money from the government. It could be argued that the drug plan is there to assist seniors and that it is my right to use it if needed. It could even be argued that everyone else does it so why shouldn’t I? If I raised the issue amongst some of my friends and suggested that I might be needlessly spending government money (and that there was not a bottomless pot of it) those friends would argue that there was a shortage of money because the rich were not paying their fair share and therefore I should not feel guilty for their greed.

But I do feel guilty. I think I know that it is wrong to use the system just for my convenience. It does not matter how much I have or have not paid in taxes, the people who are supporting my medication use are the people younger than me, people who are burdened with ever increasing costs but not increasing pay cheques. I know that the government’s money pot is not bottomless and regardless of who could/should pay more, I should not take out more than I need. And for me that is the crux of the matter.

It is not how much I deserve to have, it is how much do I need to have. At the core of my “philosophy of life” is the basic belief (which is a weird combination of socialism and macrobiotics) that we should never take more than we need. I have always explained it by saying - if there are 10,000 apples in the world and 10,000 people than everyone gets one apple each. If someone takes more than one apple, the balance gets upset. It does matter if my apple tree has produced more apples - to be fair and just - I only get one.

I need to take some medication - I do not need to take the one that is more expensive just because it will make my life a little bit less inconvenient. I do need to do all that I can not to upset the balance of life by taking more than I need.

Not-For-Profits: Leave Me Alone!

My father once told me that he always tithed a certain percentage of his yearly income. He did it because it was part of his faith. Whether he was an active church goer or not - he always gave money as his Christian duty. I too, give a percentage of my yearly income. Not because of any specific religious beliefs or commitments but because I believe that those of us who have - need to share with those who have less. But we can all give something - whether it is money or time in our communities.

For the last decade or so, I have not given very many Christmas presents. For the last five years I have given none. I do donate, on behalf of my two adult children, money to an international charity. Right now my favourite is Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders). The two younger grandchildren choose what kind of animal they want me to give and I send the money to Plan Canada; my two older grandchildren in Sudbury pick a local charity that I can donate to on their behalf. When they were younger they did chose animals for a few years and then moved onto choosing an individual to support through KIVA.

It makes Christmas shopping very quick and easy. I avoid all of that hassle of worrying what I am going to buy and whether or not they will like it. The lack of any gifts from me under the tree makes Christmas morning a bit anti-climatic for me and I do have to resist the urge to run around on Christmas Eve buying presents. But I know that what I am doing is a good thing, hopefully because the money is needed and well used but also because my grandchildren may remember when they are adults that giving to strangers is part of being a good citizen of the world.

But what I do not like is the daily reminders from groups that I have donated to or I have decided not to donate to (e.g. my universities) that it is "giving Tuesday". I resent the constant reminders that if I give today I can double the value of the donation or that some poor family in some other part of the world needs my help. It is worth noting that the only reason why these organizations have my email address is because I gave it to them when I donated money. Perhaps some folks respond well to being nagged. I am not one of them. I dislike it so much that I am almost inclined to not donate next time. Getting redundant emails is marginally better than those same organization wasting my money on mailing me stuff, but it still annoys the hell out of me.

I suppose that there is never enough money for all of those good organizations to do everything they feel needs to be done. There will (apparently) always be a war somewhere in the world, and that war will inflict upon the local people unimaginable pain, suffering and dislocation. Someone needs to something to help those people. The possibility of working to eradicate wars by reducing or even better stopping the sale of weapons and equalizing the distribution of resources seems to be an impossible dream. So for the foreseeable future, good people are going to need to nag and harass other good people to donate money. But I wish they could take my name of the mailing list at least for a little while after I have donated my money.

All of the commercials tell us that it is the season for giving. I would never negate the importance of sharing this time of year with family and friends, and of demonstrating our affection for them. However, we, who in this country are so blessed with reasonable security and some hope of the rule of law, should not need to be reminded that there are others who have nothing - no food, no shelter, no security and no where to call home. We need at the very least need to extend our definition of family and community.

And we should not need to be nagged to do so.

General Motors - Death of a Dinosaur

As with so much information that I read -my thoughts as to the announced closure of the GM plant in Oshawa are somewhat mixed. GM said it its announcement that they were shutting down the production line so that they will be better able to adjust to the new market conditions. The new conditions include increased interest in electric cars and a ever declining interest in sedans.

As former resident of the Oshawa area I am well aware of the extraordinary influence the plant had over the life of Oshawa and surrounding area. At times, the world seemed to revolve around the plant's routines. Parents working various shift scheduled appointments at what seemed to be random times to fit into their work schedules, summer holidays had to happen during shut down times and of course whenever there was a strike, the city slowed down.

The geography of parts of Oshawa was shaped by "the motors". Shift change was a major event and people learnt not to get caught up in the traffic anywhere near the plants at those times. As well, like every city that is dominated by a major employer, Oshawa's charities, adult and youths sports teams and every cultural edifice were enhanced by the generous donations of both the company's and the workers' participation. The future plans of a couple of generations of students revolved around the fact that one could always get a job at one of the plants. Countless university degrees were financed by summer jobs at the plant. Over the last decade or two, General Motors has gradually reduced the number of workers as robots and downsizing have taken their toll. Yesterday's announcement is, in fact the last of a rather long list of layoffs and plant closures. I am sure many if not all of the remaining workers are in a state of shock. There is nowhere else for them to go. It is understandable why they feel angry and betrayed.

How Oshawa will be able to thrive without GM remains unclear. Property values which were always driven by the needs of GM employees may decrease, some of the stores, restaurants and service industries may become unsustainable. Commercial property whose value was directly proportional to proximity to the plant may be near valueless. The Region of Durham that depended upon GM for tax income to fund hospitals, schools and other social services will need to scramble for other monies to manage their needed programs and services.

The good news, in terms of the environment, is that GM is going to invest monies in building electric cars - the bad news is that they are not going to do it in Canada. The writing was written clearly on any wall one wanted to look at. If the politicians (including the union leaders) had been honest with themselves and their constituents, they would have started ten years ago to make alternative plans. But instead Canada bailed out GM during the last recession while (apparently) getting no guarantees of continued employment. Successive federal and provincial governments chose not to invest in technology for the future or support the development of a high tech work force. Instead they bragged about a highly skilled work force - a work force that demanded high wages and that was skilled in one of the skills that other workers earning far less can do almost as well - manufacturing.

I am delighted that at least one car manufacturer is getting out of the business of building cars that consume a petroleum product - although I wish they would also get out of the business of building personal use pickup truck and SUVs. But I can't help but feel as if we have missed an opportunity to be part of the new wave of personal transportation. Thousands of Canadians will be displaced in some fashion by this announcement. There is nothing that can be done to ensure that their quality and standard of life can be maintained. The best that we can do is to attempt to catch up to the rest of the world. We need to make things that a sustainably focused consumer wants and needs.

I fear we are starting far too late.

Good News....Sort of

The BC government announced this week that by 2040 all new cars sold in BC will be zero emission. That is good news. There is no doubt that reducing the number of vehicles on the road that use carbon based fuels to operate will reduce the amount of carbon that is spewed into the air. Forcing car companies to produce more zero emission cars is a great place to start but there are a few problems with this announcement.

1) The announced plan only covers light use vehicles. I think that means that people will still be able to buy pick-up trucks and SUVs that use some form of petroleum. Given that a number of the car companies have already decided to stop making sedans (see my blog of May 15 of this year)because there is limited demand for such vehicles, I am somewhat unconvinced as to whether or not the government's plan will make a big difference. It will only affect those people who are already committed to buying smaller vehicles.

2) While the government has made a commitment to provide some rebates (up to $5000) for those who purchase a new vehicle, the costs of a new electric or hydrogen cell vehicle are still prohibitive for many people. According to a BC Hydro website (https://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/electric-vehicles/owning-an-electric-vehicle/options.html) one can by a small two-seater electric vehicle for just under $27,000. By the time one adds any options, the cost quickly escalates to over $30,000, not including shipping, taxes etc. Larger vehicles start at the mid $35,000 range, again before options and taxes etc. I am clearly not a buyer of new cars in part because I have an aversion to going into debt for five to seven years, but it feels as if that is a lot of money to spend on a small vehicle that as of yet, we have no sense of its resale value after those seven years.

3) The lower price cars have very limited range, no more than a 100 kilometres before recharging. Even the mid range ones can only travel for 120 kilometres. While these distances may be great for those who only drive a few kilometres each day, the vehicles lack the range to even make a round trip from Duncan to Victoria. For anyone living outside of a major city, it strikes me that the range is insufficient for most users. If I had to buy a new vehicle in 2040 I would be forced, unless there is significant improvement in both price and distances to buy a non-electric SUV.

4) 2040 is just too far away. If we are going to make the switch, let us do it sooner. If the car companies know that we are serious about making the change, then perhaps they will get more serious about increasing production/reducing costs and looking at ways of extending distances travelled. I appreciate that there is a significant amount of work that needs to be done in terms of infrastructure etc, but until people see that there are sufficient recharging stations across the province and access to repairs etc, few will get on the bandwagon.

The reality is that in 2040, I will be over 90 and in all likelihood I will not be driving so it is all a moot matter. That is probably true for most of the BC cabinet members who made the decision. It was an easy announcement to make. Any cost will be insignificant for this or even the next government and it keeps the Greens happy. It looks as if someone is doing something to protect the planet. It was particularly easy when none of the members will have to face any of the consequences or figure out how to either enforce it or to pay for it.

It is well past time when people need to stop paying lip service to environment policy and start actually doing something meaningful.

Just Another Oil Spill

It was more than a little bit depressing to type the above title. Depressing because it is, apparently for many people, no longer newsworthy or perhaps even morally correct to become outraged that there is yet another oil spill in some ocean. In spite of the obvious dangers of drilling down into the rock beneath the oceans, especially off of such places as the coast of Newfoundland where the winter storms can blow for days, we continue as a country to insist that off shore drilling or the transportation of oil products in large quantities is safe.

Last week, at a site 350km off of the coast of Newfoundland, at least 250,000 litres of crude oil were spilled - I say "at least" because no one really knows how much oil was spilled as the seas are too rough to either determine the extent of the leak or for that matter ensure that the problem is resolved. The oil well could be still leaking and we just do not know. According to the Financial Post (https://business. financialpost. com/ commodities/ energy/n-l-s-largest-ever-oil-spill-is-now-impossible-to-clean-up-regulatory-board), it is probably now too late to even think about any type of clean up as the spill has been broken up too much by the storm. While there is some concern that the flocks of murres and dovekies are at significant risk, the risk to plankton and all of the species that live off of plankton, either directly or indirectly is incalculable.

We can get really excited when a picture of a cute kitten is posted on Facebook, we can get all outraged if Trump says or does something outrageous (which is an almost daily occurrence) but there is almost no news on what happened just last week, something that will have consequences for months if not for years. If we feel that the risk to the coastline of British Columbia is far too great to allow the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, should we not be just as angry about governments approving off shore drilling on our other coast?

Why don't we care? It may be that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is just a bit too isolate, a bit too far removed from the rest of Canada (Newfoundlanders may feel that way all too often) for anyone to care; it may be that somehow we value some parts of Canada more than others, or it may be that most of us, most of the time, are just selfish, self-centred, two faced twits who lack the capacity to exercise any foresight at all. Regardless of why, we need to develop a cross-Canada awareness of the dangers of oil exploration/exploitation. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador allows for off shore drilling for exactly the same reason that Alberta has allowed the development of the Tar Sands - they need the money generated by the production of oil to pay its bills. We need to change how the country supports the different regions. We collectively need to discuss and then determine how we want to support each region without expecting them to put their soil, their air or their seas at risk. We need to decide what is important and we need to, again collectively, decide if we are prepared to pay the price of doing the right thing.

But in the meantime, perhaps we could use the various social media platforms to talk about the important stuff; perhaps we need to spend less time posting pictures of cute pets, what we ate or some wise words that some famous person may have said (or not said)and instead to actually share ideas and solutions with each other.

The Poor Math of Doug Ford's Budget Cuts

It is relatively easy to ignore the buffoon to the south of us attempting to look like he has a clue about anything. After all - it is another country and all Canadians know that it could never happen to us. It is however, much harder to ignore the absurdities of what is happening just a few provinces east of me. Because if it can happen in the country's largest province, it can happen anywhere.

After five months in power, having been elected on the promise to maintain core services while cutting taxes and of course, to make beer available for a dollar a bottle, Doug Ford has made some truly unintelligent ( I am being polite) decisions. Doug Ford is a man with almost no political experience outside of being the second-in-command of a small town fiefdom nurtured by his late brother; his political roots while they may be deep in terms of a specific brand of conservatism - the kind that does not require either math skills or foresight, are limited in terms of connecting with the rest of the world, or of understanding the concepts sharing or cooperation. He is riding the wave shaped by the affluents' fear of change and by a surprising large number of Ontarians who, somewhat naively, could not conceive that anyone could be worse than the Liberals.

His latest promised cuts are an example of both his complete lack of understanding of how the world works, and the need for the government to provide leadership and supervision. By closing three offices - two of which report to the legislature - not the premier's office, Ford has left the environment and children in care unprotected. That means that there if there is an issue that needs to be raised such as an abuse of care or a decision that affects the environment (e.g. not imposing a carbon tax), the government will not be held accountable in the legislature. All of the cuts are under the guise of cutting government cost. In spite of the fact that the government had as much time as they needed to prepare for these announcements - they are apparently unable to even guesstimate the amount of money that will be saved. It is obvious that Ford is just "cherry picking" those that he is attacking - the most obvious criteria is to choose groups who he does not think can fight back.

In fact the Ford government already has a track record of attacking the poor or those who are too poorly organized to complain, the basic income project and the cancellation of additional funding to some universities are but two examples. His decision to cancel Labour Reform Act, which in part was designed to provide some protection to the thousands of part time workers and in almost the same breath insuring that the landlords of new apartments can charge whatever rents they wish to ,is a clear indication of where his political principles (or the lack thereof) lay. Another three years of this guy? Our despair may become as great as some of those to the south. Or even worse people may get use to it and ignore the pain of others. One has to wonder when people will realize that cutting small programs and giving large tax cuts - does not make a balanced budget.

I have a couple of suggestions for Doug Ford in terms of balancing the budget: stop hiring friends to provide consultation service at a cost of $350,000 per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Ford), stop cancelling programs that would generate income (i.e. carbon tax, higher hourly wages etc.), stop lowering taxes for high income earners, stop travelling around the country wasting money to meet with other, equally as regressive, climate denier premiers and if you really wanted to help the province - resign.

A Wee bit of Nice News

Whenever a group of left leaning armchair politicians/philosophers gather to discuss the chronic and systemic ills of our society, at some point someone says: the rich are not paying their fair share and they need to pay more taxes! And they are right. In a perfect world there would not be this huge inequality of wealth. For example Inequality.org (https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/) reports that "8.6 percent of the global population owns 85.6 percent of global wealth". Everyone other than the rich would agree that such an imbalance, is at best, obscene. It is almost inconceivable that the world economy can be sustained with such inequality. It, on some days. boggles my mind that we have all gone along with this.

The common man's acceptance of capitalism lies in part in the fact that at turn of the last century and well past the 1940s, there were numerous examples of how the overly wealthy contributed to society. For example the existence of the original libraries in hundreds and hundreds small towns and large cities is because of the contributions of Carnegie - an American capitalist; the much maligned Rockefeller gave a minimum of 10% of his annual income for all of his adult life to charities. The reason why so many buildings and public institutions carry the name of an individual, is because that individual donated a substantial amount of money. When I went to the University of New Brunswick in the late 1960s, it felt as if almost all of the major buildings bore the names of either the Irvings or the Beaverbrooks.

I would never suggest that these men were always good and kind people. They were not. They used resources and their workers with the same attitude: it was their right to use everything and everyone to maximize their income. They were however, public in their giving albeit with some fairly strong morality attitude attached.

However, more recently it appears as if there is less giving from those rich capitalist and more focus on maximizing wealth for the very few. Don Pitts in a CBC (https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/share-buyback-tech-stocks-1.4902823 )opinion piece has suggested that the tax cuts given to the large tech companies in the USA have not resulted in increased investment in the US but rather the increased profits have been used to increase the value of the shares. The media is full of stories of companies laying off employees to increase their bottom line - the investors demand it - there does not ever appear to be any consideration of the cost to the individual or to the community. I think there is a public perception, at least in terms of USA politics, that money is far more likely to be donated to political rather than to charitable causes.

However, while it may be a very small drop in the bucket - CBC (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/refugee-fund-private-sponsors-1.4904367 )has reported that 685 refugees were supported coming to Canada through the donations from "major philanthropists". 3.5 million dollar may not be a lot of money but we need to learn how to make public note of these donations - perhaps the recognition will encourage others to do the same. It is always tempting and far too easy to find reasons to dislike a group of people. The rich are easy targets for those of us who have spent a life time railing against the profound injustices of our world - but in doing so we have run the risk of making the rich our enemies rather than our allies.

Just as it is wrong to lump all people of a certain skin colour, ethnic origin or faith into one disparaged group - it is wrong to assume that all wealthy people are always bad.

Tony Clements - Another Not Too Bright Politician

One can understand how an adolescent, in that ongoing quest to - if not to be popular, to be at least accepted, might be convinced to send a risqué picture of themselves via the internet. We can talk all we want to as adults about how inappropriate it is and what the risks are, but for some young people the potential rewards of being loved and wanted overwhelm any parent's warning. While there is frequent discussion on the news media as to the consequences of sending deeply personal pictures can be - it is a sad reality that relatively few young people follow any mainstream news. There is also the public perception that many young people are highly skilled in using computers/cell phones and that they know how to be safe. However, it is my experience that many young people, while they may be prolific users of social media and gaming apps - know almost nothing about computers and unfortunately understand no more than I do about how the internet really works. We, as adults, need to be aware of the dangers and to constantly remind the young people in our lives that they need to be cautious about what they circulate in the netherworld of the internet. Equally as important, we also must to become far clearer in our condemnation of those people regardless of their age, who use those pictures to embarrass, bully or manipulate the sender.

However, for the life of me I cannot understand how a seasoned politician - Tony Clements - could even consider that it was okay for him to send pictures of himself to people who he clearly did not know anywhere near well enough. We, of course, would like to believe that our politicians are as pure as the driven snow, that they never take even small gifts/bribes nor do they ever stray from their partners. That, of course, is asking far too much. Politicians are human and they will make mistakes; some will, on occasion do or say things that in hindsight should not have been done or said. More often or not those lapses in judgement are not a reflection of their capacity to do their job for which they are elected.

But to not once, but twice engage in risky behaviour that opened himself up to blackmail shows that Tony Clements lacks the capacity to, if nothing else learn from his mistakes. I quite frankly do not care if he had an affair with someone else (although it does, in my mind, show a lack of moral character and because of that I could never vote for him - but then I would never vote for a conservative anyway). I do not care that he tried to get involved in some sort of perhaps unusual behaviours - he is an adult and as long as he does not hurt anyone else - what he does is his business. However he is not an ordinary citizen. He has placed himself in a position of power, with access to national secrets . He has been part of the government, actively involved with the running of our country. The fact that he cannot recognize that his behaviour, for whatever reason or compulsion, is risky is rather scary. Was he not aware of the risks, was he not bright enough to understand the risks or did he just not care?

Adults, whether or not we want to be, are role models. For those who put themselves forward as leaders - I expect them to be good role models. Mr. Clements, in spite of contacting the police (twice!!) and writing a credible letter of apology to his constituents, has failed in perhaps his most important job.

Is it little wonder that so many do not trust politicians?

Vicarious Pleasure

There, I must confess, was a wee bit of vicarious pleasure in watching the early returns of the US election. I think it fits mine (and many other Canadians) sense of smugness over how absurd the USA's politics are when we see an election that was so full of vindictiveness, lies and absurdities. Almost any developed country looks sane and rational as compared to the US in mid election. If nothing else, watching the zoo next door allows us to ignore our own political problems.

As I much as I fantasized that the much discussed "blue wave" would sweep the country and dispose of every supporter of Trump - I knew it could never happen. However, the final results were a tad disappointing. It is inconceivable to me anyone with a political intelligence greater than Easter the pig's would vote for anyone who was a supporter of Trump. However, while it appears as if the Democrats "won" the popular vote - at least 43% of Americans voted for a Republican senator. Clearly having an economy that is doing well and rewarding those with money (as well as suggesting that eventually, sometime in the future , everyone may do as well) and promising that no one will ever threaten those privileges is a more powerful election promise than suggesting that everyone should have at least some access to the benefits of a vibrant economy. Clearly using Ester's political intelligence as a standard was setting the bar too high.


On the other hand, if the Democrats had won the election in both the House and the Senate, and if all of the states had elected Democratic governors, how boring our news would be. Trump would be impeached, silly and /or inflammatory tweets would no longer sent out from the White House and then what would we talk about? And who would we blame for the problems of the world? How would we as Canadians justify our smugness?

It is so much easier to criticize our neighbours than to see what we need to do to make this world a better place for all.

Another Vote in BC

British Columbia is having another vote - this time on whether or not to keep the present system of electing members of the provincial legislature or to switch to a newer, some say improved system. The present system, commonly called "first pass the post" means that the individual with the most votes wins the riding and the party with the most wins - (usually) forms the government. The downside to this system is that smaller parties- some might say those on the fringes - might get a significant number of votes across the province but that because those votes are spread out, these parties win few if any seats. An example would be the Green Party who in 2017 earned 16.8% of the total number of votes but only won three seats. The NDP garnered 40.2 % of the voted but won 41 seats. Another way to look at it - the NDP needed approximately 19,392 votes to win a seat whereas the Green party needed over 110,000 votes to earn a seat. On the numbers alone - clearly the present system does not reflect the wishes of the voting public.

The alternatives that are being suggested are generally referred to "proportional representation". The new system, variations of which are used in a number of countries, not only counts the number of votes in each riding to determine who is going to represent that area, but also allocates seats based on the total percentage of votes earned by each party. In a revised legislature, using 2017 voting percentages - the Green Party would have 14 seats in the legislature and the NDP would have 35. Using those numbers to generate a new legislature using some form of proportional representation we would have exactly what we have now - a minority government (run by a party that did not win either the largest percentage of votes or number of seats) -the NDP, propped up by a party - the Green party - that won the fewest number of seats and geographically represents a very small part of the province.

Those who are arguing for change suggest that not only does the present system not accurately reflect the wishes of the public, but that it discourages people from voting because they may feel as of their vote is not worth anything. While I would agree that our present system is perhaps poorly designed for a parliamentary system that has more than two main parties, it feels as if some of the justifications used are at best, weak. I worry that we are fixing a problem that is not clearly understood.

It has been argued that fewer people vote because they feel as if their votes are not really counted - that the person/party they vote for never has access to power. I am not sure when we collectively decided that we all should win or get who we voted for. We can make voting easier such as doing it online so no one needs to expend any energy to vote, we can make people feel that they are more influential and we can pander to everyone's complaint that someone is being unfair to them. But people should vote because it is their civic duty to do so, not because they will always win what they want, not because it makes them feel special or needed or valued.

I suspect that the drive to reform the voting process is driven by those who situate themselves on the centre left or left side of the political spectrum. I would guess that they feel that proportional representation will ensure that their environmental and social justice issues will be placed closed to the top of the government's agenda, because that newly formed government will need the support of the parties on the fringes. I personally worry what happens if the party on the fringe is far right of centre and they drag the government in that directing.

I also worry that while coalition governments can be effective, they require non-partisan, non-confrontational politics. As sad as it is, I wonder if that time has passed us by. I see little or no sign that any of the political parties have the capacity to work together. If a minority government is working adequately well now in BC, it is only because the politicians know the public is not in the mood for another provincial election. It should be noted that while I think that it is working adequately well - I meant that it is doing okay for folks living in the southern tip of Vancouver Island - where the Green Party's three seats are. I am not so sure if all British Columbians are equally as satisfied.

If we can agree there are problems that need to be addressed - should we not look at other options other than the party system? The consensus model used by the North-West territories strikes me as an interesting and viable model - there must be others.

And we are doing a mail-in vote - I assume because some bright minds thought that more people would vote that way - we will see. As usually - those who really care will vote and those who do not or find the whole thing too damn confusing will not.

Good-bye Greyhound

The last trans- Canada bus has made its final stop, discharged its last passenger - those buses will never again to be seen on those lonely stretches of highway across western Canada. All of the people who travelled by bus between small, sometimes remote communities or those who moved across the country to visit family or to look for a new life; all of the young people going somewhere to plant trees or moms with their young children going home have made their last journey by bus. They say that small companies are picking up the slack, that 85% of Greyhounds routes have some sort of coverage - but it will never be the same.

Whether you ever took a Greyhound bus or not, we should all take a moment today to say goodbye to a way of life, a way that allowed people to stay in touch with each other, a way that enabled people to make medical appointments, a way that allowed at least some Canadians - specifically those who did not have a lot of money or who lived in remote areas to see the country and to meet other Canadians. For so many of us it was simply a way to get home. With two or three exceptions, the bus ride was never fun, the seating was almost as cramped as the economy seating on Air Canada, sometimes it was noisy and the stops every few hours seemed to always be at strange little places that did not have the capacity to deal with 40 or more passengers all wanting to use the washroom and to get another coffee for the road. For those who made the three and a half day trip from Toronto to Vancouver, it was torture. At every stop they would stumbled off of the bus - stiff and cramped - jonesing for another hit of nicotine -to buy one more too-sweet donut - anything to mask the discomfort of those seats. But I did meet some interesting people on those trips. I had some great conversations and saw things that if I had been travelling any other way I would have missed. At least twice, when I was wet and cold, the bus picked me up in the middle of the night in what felt like the middle of nowhere and got me to a city where I could get dry, warm and ready to travel again.

Perhaps almost importantly of all - unlike VIA Rail and even Air Canada - the buses were almost on time.

To all of those bus drivers, most of whom were courteous, helpful and sometimes even fun - thank you for making what could have been a horrible time almost enjoyable, no matter how messy I looked, you treated me with respect ; to the ticket agents, the bus station cleaning staff and all of the folks who worked behind the lunch counters or cash registers - thank you for your grace under pressure and our demands for attention when I am sure you were as tired as we were. For my fellow passengers - I hope you will always get to where you need to be.

If I am lucky, I will never need to take an intercity bus again. The sad fact is that I may never be able to even if I need to. And that is a shame.

Strange Times

A few weeks ago I read a novel by D.W. Buffa called Necessity. It is billed as a thriller - it is not or at least I was never that excited by the plot nor did I really care about any of the book's characters. But the proposition that the story rested on was interesting. Without wanting to give away too much of the plot or the ending - a US Democratic senator who could be a contender for the presidency is alleged to have assassinated the president. The rational on the part of the alleged murderer for doing so was that it was necessary for the good of the country and therefore legal. I have no way (or quite frankly any interest) in trying to find out if the points of law were correct or just fabricated in the author's mind).But what was interesting and somewhat alarming is that the murdered president was portrayed as obnoxious, rude, not very bright, bombastic and someone who communicates through social media. In other words - he was virtually identical to Trump or at least our impression of him.

It seemed strange and slightly uncomfortable to me that a novel would not only lampoon a sitting president but also suggest that killing him might be legally defensible. I do not think that those south of the border need any more rationalizations for the violence that exist there.

At the end of last week, I was watching a series called Rake - a Australian television program in its fifth season. It is a comedy, a bit silly and normally not worthy of comment. The second episode of the season revolved around the US Secretary of Defence coming to Australia to negotiate some sort of peace treaty with China and other countries in the region. The Secretary (who later is revealed to be gay) occasionally reads out messages from the president. Again the president appears to be obnoxious, rude, not very bright, bombastic, someone who communicates through social media and a bully.

These two quite different types of entertainment (books and television are almost seen as being mutually exclusive), that were generated literally half a world away from each other - portrayed the sitting president as a buffoon, as someone that either one needs to be afraid of, or else as one who should be mocked. Neither the novel or the television episode referred to Trump by name nor did they feel the need to apologize or explain. It is obvious that that his "presidential style" is now part of the international cultural repertoire. Which is more than a bit bizarre and rather alarming. If I were a citizen of the US, I would be embarrassed, angry or both.

Perhaps other presidents were equally as mocked, certainly many of them have been lampooned in editorial cartoons, and made fun of on late night talk shows. But to the best of my knowledge, Trump is the first president whose total attitude and responses to the world around him have been incorporated into the mass media as a fact without critique.

It is almost as if people have accepted his existence on the political stage as part of the "new normal". How frightening!

Brexit - Leaving is Always Painful

There may be thousands and thousands of people who understand the complex negotiations that Britain is having with the EU as it tries to navigate itself out of the union. I am sure there are thousands and thousands of pages being written to both educate the masses and to explain the subtle nuances to economists. To be clear - I am not one of those who understand nor am I likely to ever understand.

The simplest explanation appears to be: Great Britain agreed to be part of a common market, that is - a collection of countries that allowed the free movement of people and goods across much of Europe with a minimal amount of red tape and cost. The less than bright politicians in London decided to hold a binding referendum on whether or not Britain should stay in the union, they lost control of the process, a small majority voted to leave the union and the government has spent the last 18 or so months trying to find a way to leave the union without losing all of its benefits.

To suggest that the negotiations have not gone as smoothly as some Britons thought they would is an understatement. It appears as if some believed that Britain go back to the way things were before the common market process was developed and at the same time, that they could keep all of the benefits of that partnership. That is - all of the challenging aspects such as having the free flow of people into Britain, having competing continental European products sold in Britain or having an European Parliament making decisions that affect Britain would go away but that British citizens would still be able to work and travel in other countries without difficulty, that British products could be easily and cheaply exported to other European countries and that Britain would have access to collective dispute resolution processes. In other words Britain still wanted to be a player - they just did not want to join the team.

It appears as if this fantasy of having one's cake and eating too is not shared by the negotiators or leaders of the other member countries. At least some of the British seemed to be surprised at this. They somehow assumed that while they wanted to have more control who lived and worked in Britain - they thought that other countries should be quite happy to have some Brits working there. They believed that all of the advantageous trades - that is trades that were advantageous to Britain would continue but they could control what products came into the country. "It ain't going to happen."

It is unfair to blame to suggest that there is a singularity of public opinion, that all of the British want to leave the EU. In fact, it is quite clear that there are many who do not. Even within the British Parliament there are numerous opinions as to what Britain should do - including having another referendum. It must make the negotiations even more difficult when amongst one own political party there are views, publically broadcasted, that are different than the leader's. This is a mess, none-the-less, of Britain's own making. It is based on the assumption that people deserve more, that one can leave partnerships and still maintain the same benefits, that one does not have to contribute to the common good if one wants to benefit from that common good.

The vote to leave the EU is emblematic of a culture that is inherently self-centred - of seeing itself as the centre of the universe and all others should be subservient to its needs. The vote reflected a people's inability to see past their own needs and to consider the greater public good. It demonstrated a shocking lack of concern about the upcoming generations and what the world will look like for them. Britons now have two options - one is to become humble and to beg for forgiveness from their fellow members of the EU - to say that they had a moment of insanity but it has passed or to accept that as with any separation between two partners - both sides lose a little and unfortunately one side may lose more than just a little.

A Coalescence of Ideas

One of the great advantages of having nothing to do and a brain that stores trivia in random and inconsistent ways is that I get to make connections between conversations that I have had, sometimes years apart, and things that I am reading now. As I have mentioned before, I am in constant awe of how things flow and connect within my limited internal universe.

For example: a number of years ago I was having a discussion with a very good friend. The general topic was unions and I was ranting on about how unfair it was that unionized employees got such great pay and benefits while the rest of the employed got, in comparison, so little. I further suggested that it was the unionized employees who voted for Mike Harris in Ontario in 1995 in an attempt to maintain their comfortable status quo. I don't think I was suggesting that we do away with unions but rather that they were taking more than their fair share. My friend did not agree with me reminding me that rather than reducing unionized workers down to the pay level of non-unionized workers, the task was to raise everyone else up to their level.

Just last Sunday I was having a hot chocolate after the Cedar Farmer's Market and somehow the three of us started to talk about education and how poorly and sometimes how discriminating our system was preparing some of our young people for the world that they would have to live in. I mentioned that the school system had always tried to "weed out" those it thought did not belong. I, and as it turned out, another participant in the conversation had both experienced the aggressive streaming of our school systems when we were younger. I, for example, was encouraged to leave school in grade nine as I was deemed "too stupid" to go to university.

In this month's Walrus (I am behind in my reading), there is an article about those students who are deemed to be "gifted" and therefore get to attend different classes and sometime even schools that cater to students who have the capacity to excel. The article suggests that students from middle and upper class white families are over represented in those enriched classes; that those students have an unfair advantage in getting into those classes.

My initial reaction to the article especially after my conversation on Sunday, was what else is new? Of course the system is discrimatory. School have always been a defender of and an advocate for the class system. There is no reason think that things will change anytime soon. The Walrus article in part seems to argue that we need to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, ethnicity or who their parents have the right to access such individualized and exceptional programming. The article does go on to point out that if more students leave the general classroom to participate in the gifted classes, then system will be even more dysfunctional (my words not the authors).

In that strange fashion that my brain functions.... the conversation from years ago, the one on Sunday and the Walrus article all coalesced into an almost seamless discussion within my mind. I am in favour of ensuring that children who have an exceptional talent in any area, are given the opportunity to develop that skill. I accept that it is incredibly difficult to teach a range of students in one classroom where some of the students are highly motivated and others are either bored or disinterested in the subject matter. It should surprise no one that in a classroom of 30 plus students there will be a wide range of interests and capacity to learn at any one time. If there is a strength to our democratic educational system it is our capacity to be encourage individuals to be different.

It struck me however, similar to my discussion with my friend, the proponent of unions, who argued that we need to raise everyone up to the highest level of pay and benefits, we should not be taking students out of the classroom to give them extra learning opportunities, but rather we need to find ways to raising everyone's educational experiences within that classroom. That the task is not to ensure that that we reduce all the classrooms to the lowest common denominator of educational expectations but rather that we raise it up to the highest level for everyone. To create a system that says all students are equal but some need (read deserve) more than others is just to perpetuate a class system.

We should be able, with all of our resources and skills, to develop a system that supports all students without leaving some behind.

Does the World Change Tomorrow? (part two)

If I were a diehard advocate of the inherent right to smoke or ingest any part of the cannabis plant, today I suspect, would feel somewhat anticlimactic. Yes, someone over the age of 18 is now allowed, in Canada, to be in possession of or smoke cannabis in public. Except of course if you live in BC. One is legally allowed to smoke in my fair province - but with the exception of one store in one small city - there is no where to buy the stuff unless you do it online. In other words if I had wanted to smoke up today - the only way that I could have done so would be to go to a private, illegal dealer. Other provinces appear to be better organized and access is easier, but it is somewhat ironic that the province that is best known for the quality and quantity of its marijuana has almost none available legally.

As mentioned in the previous blog, the reasoning as to why we needed to legalize marijuana may have not have been based in scientific reasoning or on an over whelming body of medical evidence. However, regardless of the logic why the use of cannabis has been made legal, it is clear that there will be winners and losers. The winners are those corporations who had enough sufficient capital to build large growing, and processing plants and the capacity to work their way through the complex procedures to get government approval. Those large corporations will make millions of dollars, successfully gobbling up small companies that cannot compete. Those corporate entities will fairly quickly dominate the market the way a few food store or drug store chains control their markets.

The losers are all of those small, illegal growers who may have lost most of their best customers. Not only will those growers be affected but all of the hydroponic stores, the sellers of topsoil and of course various hydro facilities will lose a portion of their income. Perhaps even more importantly, we may lose a portion of our vegetable producing greenhouses. Clearly producing four crops a year of cannabis is far more profitable than producing celery.

The next few years will be interesting (and rewarding) for some lawyers as the courts sort out what impairment means for those who ingest cannabis. There will be countless studies, some reporting diametrically opposite findings in terms of the harm or benefits. Maybe if we are lucky, more researchers will , using reliable research methods, examine whether or not the drug is medically beneficial consistently.

But for most Canadians not much else will change. We are not all bound for hell in a hand cart nor are we about to enter a new enlightened age.

Does the World Change Tomorrow? (part one)

Given the amount of space and time allocated to the fact that marijuana will be now legal to use starting tomorrow, one would think that something fundamental has changed in terms of who smokes pot and when. It is almost as if people believe that there will be an explosion of new users. While the paranoia that users in central Canada have lived with (as opposed to those on the west coast) will no longer exist, I suspect that those who smoked pot in the last week will continue to do so and those who did not, won't. Once people get over the urge to smoke in public because they can, the only thing that will change is how one buys it and who get rich selling it. While I think that the decriminalization of personal use cannabis is long overdue, I can't help but feel that it has all been a bit of a con; that the public have been manipulated once again.

I find it surprising the number of groups/agencies/communities who have said that they are not ready, that they need more time to prepare. Really? Canadians have known since the Liberals were elected three years ago that this was going to happen. Everyone has had more than enough time to figure out how they want to deal with it. I am unclear as to why people are all of a sudden confused or concerned.


For example, surely the Canadian armed forces have had sufficient time to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. While some of the effects of alcohol are different than marijuana, one has to hope that people who are either given guns or are using very expensive machinery are not allowed to smoke up during their coffee breaks. If they are not allowed to have a beer then why would they expect to be allowed to inhale a joint? No matter how much we would all like our work places to be more relaxed, in some cases I want them alert and able to respond without hesitation. I really don't want the pilot of my Air Canada plane to be even a little bit stoned.


I suspect that part of the confusion, the sense of permissiveness or the sense that employers have limited control in terms of who smokes or when is the responsibility/fault of doctors. Because there is very little clear research as to the effectiveness of cannabis on a wide range of conditions, doctors have written prescriptions based on anecdotal evidence that it did some good for at least one person, or at the very least, it no harm. Because of the broad cultural acceptance of cannabis as a medically useful substance , it has become impossible for any employer to ban a substance that the doctor says someone must take.


It is not clear how or why this public perception has developed. While all of those small stores that have been popping up claiming that they are providing a medical service - Statistics Canada (https://www.statista.com/statistics/603356/canadian-medical-marijuana-clients-registered-by-quarter/) reports that in April-July 2017 (the last quarter statistics are available) there were less than a quarter of a million registered users. Clearly not everyone who uses the numerous store front operations has a legitimate prescription - in spite of what those stores say.


There will not be an explosion of new pot smokers. In the short term it may look that way because people will take some delight in smoking up in public. There will be in the upcoming months - arrests and then the appeals over driving while stoned, there will be charter challenges as people argue that they have the right to get stoned wherever. This time in two years - we will all think we were silly to spend so much time talking about it.

Unmet Commitments

In December, 2015 - just a month after he and the Liberal Party were elected, Justin Trudeau became the darling of the international community when he waxed poetic on all of the good things that Canada would do to slow the rate of climate change. I suspect that all but the most hardened conservatives felt at least a slight pull of pride at our Prime Minister standing up and telling the world that once again Canada was going to contribute. It certainly felt as if we were on the right path.

Fast forward three or so years and it feels as if not only will Canada not meet its commitments to the Paris Accord - but that the world is in far worse shape than some scientists predicted it would be. It is clear that whatever plans the Federal Liberals may have had to address the problems have run into some serious roadblocks as a number of the provinces have said that they will not participate in the proposed federal carbon pricing plan. Three of those provinces are asking the courts to rule on whether or not the federal government has the power to make them participate. The provinces are arguing that such a tax is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government and that the federal government should not try to impose a national plan.

I am not sure if I understand how a carbon tax will significantly affect our behaviour in terms of usage of carbon producing substances. In B.C. which has a carbon tax, and our gas prices are higher, I see no signs that anyone has reduced the amount of driving they do. There may be some subtle signs that individuals and companies are devising strategies to reduce the output, but if so, it is not obvious. Clearly I am missing something or not understanding some part of. This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that if one reads established/traditional news services, there is a wide range of conflicting views. These views are further complicated by political ideology and willingness or unwillingness to accept that climate change is a very real thing.

Those provinces who have indicated that they are not willing to participate in a federal plan have not been forthcoming as to what their alternatives are. The federal government appears to be quite content to allow BC to have its own plan. The feds just want there to be a consistent plan in every province that starts to address the problem. I can understand that some provinces are concerned that the federal government might be sticking its nose into areas it does not belong ( and that is a slippery path), I can also understand that some provinces are concerned that the economic playing field will not be level if some provinces do not participate in a carbon pricing plan. I, however, suspect that for the most part - because of a change in the provincial government, those new premiers just want to do everything they can to "stick it to" the Liberals in Ottawa.

I don't care who creates the plan, I don't care who collects the "carbon tax", I don't even particularly care what whoever does with the increased income - I just want all of the boys and girls (although there are a lot fewer females around the table than there was three years ago) to play together nicely. I just want them to think before they open their mouths, to stop worrying so much about pandering to their constituents, to stop trying to look like hardnosed people who are protecting "the little guy", to develop a strategy that will be effective and to start doing what is good for the country as a whole and the world.

Is that really too much to ask?

"NAFTA 2"

Less than a week ago, many of us interested in a possible North American free trade agreement were doubtful if it would get resolved anytime soon. Now it has been announced that there is a deal. Interestingly, after the first day or two, there has been little in the mass media as to what it means.


While it appears as if a number of US companies, specifically the manufacturing sector may benefit from some of the protections built into this "free trade" agreement, there are few real winners. The auto manufacturing sector will remain as productive as before, probably no workers on either side of the border will lose jobs because of the deal but there will not be new jobs developed because of the deal. In fact there will be no new jobs created anywhere. From a Canadian perspective, our managed market system took a bit of a hit and there will be more American dairy and eggs coming into the country, but it is a very small percentage of the total Canadian sales of eggs and dairy. On a positive note there appears to be more protection and pay for low paid workers and perhaps a recognition for the need for more human rights protection. While there are numerous fine point beyond the understanding of any normal person, at the end of the day it was a lot of drama with little substance. Except for clause 32.


Clause 32 says that before Canada ( or the other two countries) commit to a free trade deal with another country - they must show the agreement to their North American partners and if one of the partners does not like the deal - then the new NAFTA deal can be terminated. That is - if Canada engages in a free trade deal with China and the US does not like the deal - then Canada can be cut out of the North America free trade agreement. In other words, if Canada wants to have access to US markets, then we need their permission to sign any future agreements with any country. Have we given up all control of our future trading relationships?


I suspect that no one (in Canada) is that excited by the deal. In fact I would guess that there are a number of people, perhaps including myself who are disappointed that there is a deal. Part of me would have enjoyed seeing Canada say no to the bullying tactics, the insults and the completely inappropriate threats and comments being made by the President. It was rather fun in a perverted way listening to the buffoon to the south of us pontificate on how bad Canadians were and how our terrible dairy farms were causing such problems for US farmers (who are subsided and who use hormones to artificially overproduce their product, thereby causing their own problems). There was , I think, a sense of pride in knowing that we could and would stand up to such a fool. Alas, the Canadian posturing ended and now we have bowed down to the bully. Being the cynic I am, I wonder if the act of standing up to the US negotiators, of saying that we were tough negotiators was as much for the Canadian public's benefit as Trumps loud mouth insults were for his constituents. Maybe it was all a well acted, well scripted show with a predetermine ending.

A why is it called the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement? What was wrong with calling it NAFTA 2?

A Reasonable Punishment - Defined by Whom?

The Canadian news media and some member s of Parliament are all abuzz with the news that Terri-Lynne McClintic , a convicted murderer of an eight year old child, has been transferred to a minimum security, indigenous women's healing lodge. The conservatives are demanding that that decision be debated in Parliament.

Much of the discussion in the media is about the fact that Tori Stafford was so young and therefore had so much life ahead of her. There is no doubt that killing a child is deemed to be a particularly heinous crime, although I am not too sure if it was anymore of a heinous crime than killing, for example, a 22 year old male or a 55 year old woman. Surely the length of sentence or how the convicted murder is treated should not be defined by how we feel about the victim. It strikes me that much of the public's angst both during the trial in 2009 or now was/is driven by our collective urge to value the child. One could argue that this collective urge is all a wee bit hypercritical given the state of our child welfare system and the general lack of concern for children who are struggling with developmental or mental health concerns or children who are living in isolated communities without access to medical care. Clearly we are selective when we decide to value a specific life. The initial hype over the death of Tori Stafford was that it made us feel unsafe.


There is of course, a long standing debate as to what the primary purpose of incarceration is. If it is to safe guard the public from the perpetrators - then I think there is some legitimacy in insuring that Terri-Lynne McClintic does not have access to that public until such time that there is a reasonable assurance that she will not offend again. If the reason for her confinement is to act as a deterrent to others who are considering such as crime, there is little proof that the fear of incarceration is an effective strategy to stop crime. If the purpose of imprisonment is to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation - one would need to significantly enhance the budgets of prisons - there is little indication that the rehabilitation programs as they presently exist are effective. The final reason why the state incarcerates individuals is to punish them. It would seem to me that anger over McClintic's transfer to a place with low level of security and a more relaxed environment has far more to do with people's dissatisfaction that she has not been punished harshly enough.


There is however, a more serious issue being raised by this debate. That is - who gets to decided how prisoners are treated? Is it a matter of public debate where social media and clever writers can manipulate our concerns or fears? Should we let politicians, people who on occasion have been known to shamelessly pander to the lowest common denominator, to do anything to get the voters attention - make the decision on a case by case basis. Perhaps we should decide the length and type of incarceration by public debate - when someone decides which cases are worthy of our attention. The fact is that the majority of politicians and the public, lack the training, the skills or in many cases, the attention span to deal with the complex issues of how prisoners are treated, assisted or confined .We would perhaps be better served if ensure we created and maintained a public civil service that have the tools and the supports necessary to do the job well.


I live in a country where there is a system of laws and consequences attached to those who break those laws. If I do not like the laws, I can lobby for changes on the laws or consequences on a systemic basis. But I do not have the right to, on a case by case basis get to decide when the policies, regulations and laws can be applied. I do not want to live in a country where such policies, regulations and laws are applied based solely on the whim of some active social media types and a handful of politicians who see the opportunity for some political gain.