Defining What is True

Yesterday morning, I was all set to do a blog. For the past few days a minor irritant had been bubbling in the back part of my brain and it was time to get it out.

I had seen two pieces of information on Facebook that begged for a comment. One of the "news items" was a bit on the BC government's decision to allow antibiotics to be used on farm salmon, the second was the BC government's decision to allow a mine to have its tailings run off directly into a lake. In the both situations the decisions appeared to have been made in direct opposition to environmentalists, scientists and to the First Nations communities in the area. My point was going to be that if the BC government is going to invoke the environment, science and the concerns of First Nations in their dispute over the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, that they must remain consistent and stop approving things elsewhere in the province that are contrary to what the environmentalists, scientists and First Nations are saying. To cherry pick some items and not others makes the government look, at best, two faced and insincere - at worst they look like political opportunist.

As always before I quote a source, I did a quick check to insure that the information was accurate, I wanted to be able to cite a source that was legitimate. Unfortunately neither story could be confirmed. That is not to say that the stories were inaccurate, perhaps the BC government did approve both the pouring of antibiotics into the ocean and a mine's tailings into a lake - but there is no proof  that they did. While there were a number of stories available on the internet around the antibiotics, they all used the same picture and none of them said where the original information came from. There was even less information about the mine. While it could be possible (as is frequently alleged) that these stories were buried by the mainstream press because they did not want to anger the corporate elite etc., the original writers of these stories had to have gotten their information from somewhere other than their imagination. No one said where the information came from or if they did, I could not find it.  I didn't publish the blog.

It is right and proper that we are all concerned about where Facebook gets its information and how it uses the data it collects. We  are right in feeling some unease when we learn that Facebook is being used to propagate false information; to feed us information so that we can be manipulated. But these two stories were re-posted by people I know, people who are intelligent thinkers, people who at least on some occasions debate facts and look for solutions. If we can't trust our friends to look at what stories they are re-posting, if we cannot even be sure that the people we know are trustworthy, then we are all in serious trouble.

I understand that in the world where it feels as if we are being overwhelmed on all sides by the destruction of our planet, where countless thousands of people die each day because of useless wars and famine, where politicians consistently break their promises - that the temptation to hang onto any fact, no matter how unsupported, that suggests that we are not alone, that other people are equally concerned and prepared to do something about it is almost too much to resist. I understand that in a world where so much of the news is shaped by the victors, by those who are in control, that we grasp at any fact that supports our beliefs. But we must resist that temptation, we cannot afford to blindly accept information just because it fits our world view.

 

The original blog was going to be about "if you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk". That is - if you are going to say that others need to act in a certain way - then you have to act the same way. And perhaps in some convoluted way, this blog is about that. If we demand honesty and transparency from those in power, if we argue that those people need to present and consider all of the facts, if we say that they should never hide behind their closed doors, then we must do the same.  

 

Neither I or any of my friends have a lot of control over big business and how they use social media, we can't control what some political entity pays to have posted on the internet, we can only control what we post. If we cannot guarantee the integrity of our information, then no one will be able to trust anyone. We will be reduced to only looking at pictures of cute animals.

Disappointment

I am disappointed. And that is a profound understatement.

In spite of my sometimes cynical, perhaps even pessimistic view of politics and the people who inhabit that sphere, somewhere within my very core I needed to believe that when the political leaders of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia met on Sunday that they would find a way to at least partially resolve their respective differences.  They didn't. All they appear to have done was to further entrench their positions as to whether or not the pipe line expansion would proceed. The three individuals went into the meeting with a clear agenda and they walked out with nothing changed. No compromise, no promise to continue to work together, no possible vision of a world where everyone would at least partially benefit - a world where harm would be limited. There are no indications that they even listened to each other. There were some clarifications of positions and on the part of the federal government there were clear indications of how far they were prepared to go - all of which, unfortunately were predictable.

I am most disappointed in the federal government as they, in their role of the senior government, had the greatest responsibility to demonstrate leadership. By drawing a very clear line in the sand, they have left no room for negotiation. This clear line is in part defined by how much money and political capital they are prepared to spend to ensure that the pipeline gets expanded.

In a country where there is (apparently) not enough money to ensure that all communities have access to safe drinking water or decent housing, where there are insufficient funds to provide universal day care, access to affordable proscribed medication, and a social safety net that actually works - the federal government has decided that we should give millions and millions (if not billions) of dollars to support the infrastructure of an international for-profit company (check out how much the value of their shares has increased since Sunday) ; the government has decided that in spite of a significant national debt and rising interest rates, that it will borrow even more money so that Kinder Morgan will be reassured that the pipeline will go through.

I, I confess, am somewhat conflicted over the issue of the pipeline expansion. I think that, depending on what you read, it is easy to become convinced that one's point of view is the only correct point of view. I think it is far too easy for us to only ever see one side of the story and to draw our own lines in the sand. I deeply wish that we could all have an open and non-antagonistic debate over the pros and cons, if we could look at all Canadians and determine what is best for all of us as a collective. However, I am not at all conflicted as to whether or not my taxes should be used to provide some sort of reassurances to a for-profit company - a company that if the pipeline does get expanded - will stand to make extraordinary profits. We have processes in Canada - there are traditions, regulations and laws. Kinder Morgan, while it may be frustrating to their investors, need to live within those traditions, regulations and laws. And that includes taking things to the Supreme Court to determine jurisdictional matters. For the Federal government to wave its big financial stick assuming that they can bully other parts of Canada into ignoring their rights to due process is wrong.

Anyone who has studied politics, history and economics understands that it has long been the responsibility of governments to support the capitalist; that it has always been the role of the ruling elite to ensure that those who control the "means of production" continue to do so. It has always been that way. But that does not mean that it always needs to be that way in the future. It is time for Canada to, at the very least, stop supporting companies who want to use our natural resources to make obscene levels of profits and at the same time want protection from some of the risks.

The debate over the use of carbon based fuels, who uses them and how they get to the consumer is a valid, perhaps critical debate. There can be no debate over whether or not we subsidize companies to do so.

To Be or Not to Be (a Politician)

I never wanted to be a politician. I have never had the desire to be that much in the public eye, to be accountable for and to have to defend the decisions made by other people or to be publically derided by those who disagree with those decisions.  A politician is someone who has to pretend as if (1) they have all of the answers and (2) that they like listening to others prattle on with long winded self-interested stories. I know that no one, least of all me has all of the answers and I really dislike pretending that I like someone when I think they are a bit of a fool or worse.

None-the-less I can admire some politicians for their stick-to-it-ness.  Take for example Trudeau, Notley and Horgan - a strange collection/combination of politicians if there ever was one - who are meeting on Sunday to discuss what to do about the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. A federal Prime Minister who skates somewhere on the poorly defined ideological border of liberalism, progressive conservatism with the odd bit of new age socialism scattered about, is meeting with two NDP premiers who are on the diametrically opposite sides of the issue of whether or not the pipeline should be expanded. All three of the leaders are well and truly entrenched into their position, buttressed by their own statements made in the press and supported by the most vocal and demanding of their supporters. At this point in the discussion it is not clear to me as to whether or not any of the three leaders actually believes in the rhetoric that has been spouted about.  All three of the leaders have other issues to deal with. This issue, as important as it is to those folks living in Southern BC and along the coast, and as vital as it is to those Albertans who have spent their entire working lives on the roller coaster of bust and boom oil prices, may not the most important issue that any of the three governments need to deal with.

No matter what the three leaders talk about tomorrow, no matter what they finally agree or disagree about, at least one of them will be in a position of losing face, of appearing to "give into the opposition". At least one of them will need to leave the meeting saying "the  fight is not yet over".

Of course some might argue that Canada was built and has been strengthened by its capacity to find the middle road, to develop strategies based on consensus and compromise, of finding ways where the majority benefit and the minority do not lose. Those people would argue that leaders are not lessened when they look past the loudest of advocates to what people really need and want and address those issues, that one's status is increased, not decrease, when one works collaboratively with someone else.

However, it would appear to me the three leaders meeting tomorrow, although they might be really nice people in private and that they may in fact have a lot in common with each other, are not allowed to be themselves. That no matter how much they might want to find a solution that makes sense to most of the people, their political futures might lie in them being obstinate and inflexible.  

And that is why I could never be a politician.

Clever Folks at Kinder-Morgan

There is a part of me - perhaps an embarrassingly large part of me, that admires the political skill of Kinder-Morgan. Not that I agree with them but one has to admit they have placed themselves in a position where everyone else may lose and they are almost guaranteed to come out a winner.

Kinder-Morgan, in an ultimatum published yesterday,  have given the Federal government two month to resolve the provincial conflicts and all other jurisdictional issues over the proposed pipeline. If such a resolution is not possible, Kinder-Morgan state that they are prepared to withdraw from the project.

The Federal government, no matter what it does, will come out of the whole process looking at best as being incompetent and at worst as the wrong party to be running the country. If they force the pipeline through they run the risk of losing most of their seats in southern British Columbia; if they stop championing the expanded pipeline they lose any chance of any having Liberal seats in Alberta for the foreseeable future. Not only that, but if Alberta feels unsupported the province may withdraw from their carbon tax agreement with the Federal government, a cornerstone of the Liberal's environmental platform.

If the minority B.C. government do not fight the pipeline expansion with every tooth and nail that they have at their disposal they will lose the support of the B.C. Green party and thereby risk being voted out from government within a year of two of being elected. They therefore, must be prepared to deal with rising gas prices and the resultant ire from citizens who are less enthusiastic about resisting the pipeline. Of course if the pipeline does get built, people will say they did not fight hard enough and they will lose the next election. If the pipeline does not get built there will be enough people arguing that the NDP lost too many jobs because of the cancellation.

The Alberta government has clearly staked its position in the debate. They need the pipeline and will do anything they can to insure that the project is completed, including investing public funds in the pipeline. For the NDP party in Alberta, having the pipeline built is their only hope of being re-elected. The new conservative party in Alberta is champing at the bit, ready to be oil's best friend, to promise that they will "beat" the Federal government and scrape any of the environmental protections that the present government has created (e.g. carbon tax). Everyone in Alberta knows that it was not that long ago that another Alberta premier cut off the flow of oil to the eastern parts of Canada and forced the Canadian Government to back down.

Kinder-Morgan wins no matter what happens. If the Federal Liberals prevail to somehow manage both provinces and the Supreme Court (who surely at some point will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of some point or another) to allow the pipeline to be built - Kinder-Morgan will make billions of dollars over the life of the pipeline. If the pipeline is not expanded, Kinder-Morgan will be allowed to sue the Canadian Government for billions of dollars under a NAFTA agreement, not only for money already spent, but for money that they could have earned.

As I said, one can admire the political skills of the folks at Kinder-Morgan. They are guaranteed a financial win no matter what the outcome is, everyone else loses. The next time someone says that large business are at a disadvantage in our current political environment - perhaps they should think again.

  

Who Pays for Free Choice?

I sometimes (actually most of the time) wonder if the government is far too involved in our lives. I need to believe that most adults are, most of the time, reasonable competent individuals who have the capacity to make decisions for themselves.  Then I read about some idiot who drinks far too much, gets into his car and causes some horrific accident that kills an entire family, or about the people who want to do an incredibly poorly conceived stunt copying someone else's poorly conceived seen on a YouTube video and kill themselves (e.g. car surfing), or for that matter deciding not to wear a seat belt. I then realize that there are some people who need to be protected from themselves, that there are some people who do not have the capacity to make reasonably safe decisions for. It is a sad statement but sometimes people need to be protected from their own stupid thoughts.

I personally do not care if people wear helmets when riding a motorcycle. In fact because I rode on a motorcycle in Quebec in the mid 1960s when helmets were not compulsory  I understand the desire to feel the wind. It is absolutely none of my business if someone wants to risk their lives. As long as the bike rider is capable of understanding that if their unprotected head hits the ground - they in all likelihood will either die or have significant brain injuries - let them do what they want to do. It is none of my business. Except....

It becomes my business when that helmetless rider is injured in an accident and my publically healthcare system becomes responsible for taking care of that person not just during the initial acute care period but perhaps for extended periods of time as the person lays there in a near coma like state. It becomes a legitimate concern of the State to try to insure that things that are preventable do not occur. It is appropriate for the State to insure that people, at least some of the time, are protected from their own selves.

Recently the Alberta government, following the lead of Manitoba and BC, have decided that Sikhs no longer have to wear a helmet while riding a motorbike.  The government did so because they were convinced that to force people from that particular community to wear a helmet would be a violation of their religious freedoms. I understand the problem, I am sure that alternatives to wearing a standard helmet were looked for and none found.  I am equally as sure that the prospect of charging Sikh bike riders for not wearing an helmet and then having those charges go through the court system - perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court was just too much. So the government gave in and took the easy way out. The change in the law affects very few people, the only ones who will complain are those who are conceived to be on the right side of the political spectrum and/or slightly racist and a small minority of voters (Sikhs) who may like the government a bit more than they did before. Of course for the hopefully small number of parents, spouses and children who may lose someone close to them because of an accident - they will not be happy.

None of my business - I really don't care . But I do think that included in that change of law sould have been the additional provision that any injuries resulting from not wearing an helmet would not be covered by the provincial health care system. I am all for people having free choice - I just do not want to have to pay for their stupid decisions.