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.