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.

Looking for the Good News

As the northern hemisphere slowly drifts towards the dark days of November - when the air will feel cold and damp, the sun will hide for days behind wet clouds full of rain or even snow and the trees having lost all of their summer green leaves will stand starkly against the dull sky - it is so tempting to withdraw into a cocoon, to hibernate until those first warm rays of spring sun reach our souls. This tendency to hide from the reality of our lives is further encouraged by the paucity of almost any news that would encourage a smile, a sense that maybe, just maybe everything will turn out just fine.

The local, provincial, national or international news is almost all discouraging, For every tiny bit of almost good news, there is a long litany of bad news that could easily overwhelm all but the most optimistic of us. So many of our political structures are changing - at either end of the country we have provincial governments that are being operated by the slimmest margins of control with that control resting with a party that won only three seats (Green Party in both New Brunswick and B.C hold the balance of power); there is a government in Ontario that is frightening in its capacity to be self centered in its drive to reduce costs and to support those whose primary goal is to maintain their status quo; there will be a provincial government in Alberta next year who promises to make the same mistakes other governments have made in the past and all of the provinces blame the Federal government for not doing more, not listening more, not giving them more money.

We have a national government in Ottawa that may have a vision of how to deal with such issues as climate change but lack the capacity to convince anyone else to agree to it and therefore on even good days appear as if they are, at best, people who do not know what they are doing. They are a government who perhaps through design or even more likely, a lack of design have created issues such as the pipeline debate that pits people of diametrically opposite points of view against each other - ensuring that at least one of the sides will feel unsatisfied.

Internationally it is a zoo, not just because of the buffoon sitting in the White House (who somewhat embarrassingly for all Americans was giggled at the UN on Tuesday)¸ Europe continues to struggle with the number of refugees pouring over their borders and Britain tries to find a graceful way out of the European alliance. The Middle East continues to present political paradoxes for which solutions seem impossible to even fantasize about and Asia is dominated by economic China that seems frequently to be either tottering towards an economic crash or achieving true world domination.

It feels as if the world is literally falling apart with huge islands of plastic floating in our oceans and year after year the storms coming off of the oceans are worse. It is hard to find much to cheer about when some scientist are suggesting that we need to start thinking about moving to Mars or some other much further away planet because this one is not going to last much (relatively speaking) longer.


But there is good news out there and we need to look for it, to hang on to it and to share it with other people. Example: A few months ago, while I was at one of the Farmer's Markets, a young couple came up, looked at my rugs and finally bought one. They told me that they were getting married the next weekend and wanted one of my rugs to stand on when they exchanged their vows. I was pleased to sell them one. Last weekend, the young lady came up to me and asked if I remembered her - I did and we talked a bit about the wedding. She showed me a picture of the two of them, on my rug exchanging vows.

It was a wonderful picture . It is a small thing - but it made me feel good. And we all need every little bit of things that make us feel good - especially those things that connect us to other people.