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.

Of Walruses and Pigs

In my blog of August 21, 2018 I made a comment as to Esther the pig and the extraordinary amount of social media attention she has received. I was trying to make the point that it felt as if the world was more than a little bit weird when someone could raise over $640,000.00 to ensure that a pig got an advance level of medical attention while at the same time we collectively argue about how much medical support a child in the far north can receive. It was not a particularly pithy blog. I did little reading about Esther and assumed that her story was an anomaly.

Apparently I was wrong to take Esther and her story so lightly. In the September issue of The Walrus - a Canadian magazine that presents itself as a magazine that encourages thinking - there was a nine page celebratory article (including one, two page picture and 2 half page pictures) on Esther and the two people who take care of her and a handful of other animals which have been rescued from fates worse than death. Only those who are new to the world of not eating meat and are therefore still in their evangelistic phase would find this article unbiased or quite frankly that interesting.


As I read the article I became even more upset/angry/frustrated than I had been before. I understand the desire to preach about what has become important to you - I am quite sure when I stopped eating meat forty plus years ago I was probably unbearable in my enthusiasm. I am sure that for the two people who have managed to create and support a lifestyle based on one pig, it all feels quite wonderful. For all of those who have sent in the thousands and thousands of dollars to both buy the scanning machine to look at the insides of Esther and other medically privileged large animals (it is worth noting that the scanning machine is primarily used on horses that are worth more money than any of our houses), and to support the farm, I am sure that they feel as if they have done something good. They feel this because they get to see cute pictures of animals with clever names living in a serene setting. They get to feel good because the pictures on Facebook convince them that they are part of a large group of friends who all believe the same thing. They, because of the feel good nature of the page, get to feel as if they are making a difference.

Really???

I don't want to infect reality on those people but keeping one pig alive does nothing to stop the cruel slaughter of millions of pigs that are eaten by humans in North America each year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/263964/number-of-pigs-in-selected-countries/). If they are at all serious about reducing the amount of suffering caused by humans on animals - there are a hundred things they can do including spaying their pets and stop eating all meat. We should do those things not because some animals are cuter or smarter (according the Walrus, pigs may be as smart as a three year old child) than others but because we think it is the right thing to do.


But whether or not we eat meat or not is not the real question. In a world where we clearly state that there is a finite amount of resources to address problems, where it is constantly being articulated that that we as a people lack the capacity to fix all of the problems all at once -why do we spend our charitable dollars supporting two people and their hobby farm when we all have neighbours who are struggling, where almost every town and city in the country (except for Medicine Hat, Alberta https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/medicine-hat-homeless-free-update-1.3949030) have people who are chronically homeless, where some people can not afford to access all parts of the health care system, where communities spend decades on "boil water" advisories, or where children do not have equal access to a high quality education.

Our failure to address these issues (not solve- just recognize that they should be our priorities) while wasting our time and money on selfish, feel good ventures will define what the future thinks of us far more than how we supported one pig and those who benefit by looking after her.

Guns and Rights

There has been some discussion lately as to whether or not Canada should forbid the ownership of hand guns. The debate is driven by the increasing number of deaths occurring mainly, in urban areas done by young people killing other young people, defending or taking control of specific areas for the purposes one assumes, of selling drugs etc. I suspect that many of us would not mind terribly much if the killings were limited to dark alleys and if the only people being hurt were only those who were involved in these "turf wars". However they are happening in busy, well populated areas, in broad daylight and other people are getting hurt. Clearly the politicians need to be seen as doing something.

The debate (both here and even more so in the USA) hinges on whether or not law-abiding citizens should have their rights violated (by losing the right to own certain types of guns) so that perhaps there might be fewer deaths caused by mal-adjusted individuals. While the debate in the USA is hampered by the fact that within their constitution is the "right to bear arms" statement, in Canada there is no such provision. Blessedly, our "founding fathers" were not infatuated with the sound of musket shots rattling in their ears and therefore never even considered making have a gun a right, if not an obligation. In fact if anything, owning a gun in Canada should be conceived as a privilege, not a right. A privilege that is earned - just like driving a car is a privilege that is earned and one that can be taken away if circumstances warrant it.

The far right of the gun owners club likes to argue that any attempt on the part of the government to restrict the use of hand guns is an attack on rural people's life style by urban dwellers. While it is true that many urban dwellers do not hunt or that they do not have any recent family history of hunting. It is also true that they may have a limited understanding of a culture that celebrates an annual gathering of the (mostly) male members of a club to go out an hunt their winter's meat. However, the banning of hand guns is not an attack on rural values or lifestyles. To the best of my knowledge relatively few farmers hunt for food or protect their livestock with a hand gun. I suspect that far more hand guns are registered in Toronto than in the rest of Ontario. Banning hand guns is not an attack on traditional values. It is, if anything, an attack on new values that are destructive to the community.

There are all kinds of things that could be done to reduce the possibility that young people engage in such criminal activities - in what use to be called juvenile delinquency. Government funded programs such as recreational activities for teens or safe places they can go can be useful to effectively reduce gang membership (Reducing Youth Violence: The Role of Afterschool Programs). Providing supports to schools and to families specifically in communities that are under pressure ( - Canadian Psychological ) has also been proven useful. To the best of my knowledge banning hand guns has never been proven to prevent violence. Violence is a social issue that needs to be dealt with by making people's lives better.

I appreciate the fact that the government would like to be seen as doing something, but band aid fixes are not the answer. If we truly would like to see a reduction of people shooting each other then not only do we need to restrict their access to firearms but we also need to enhance their opportunities to make positive life choices.

Winners and Losers

It may be my imagination or maybe it is just that I am turning into a crotchety old man who only looks to the past because things seem to have been easier back then, but it feels as if our world is turning more and more into a place where there can only be winners and losers. That is - every discussion or issue has a right side and a wrong side; that if someone wins an argument, it means that someone else has lost it; that there is no way of resolving a discussion by coming to a mutual agreement; that it is not possible anymore for both sides to feel as if they have gained what they needed to.

There is no doubt that the leader of the nation to the south of Canada has done much to perpetuate this ideology that there can only be one winner ( and therefore everyone else must be a loser). His most recent comments about the NAFTA discussions stated very clearly that if he did not get everything he wanted, the deal would not happen; that the USA would win what it wanted and he did not care if Canada lost. It may be that Trump's limited vocabulary or any awareness of some of the nuances within the English language exacerbated his stance. It maybe that he is unable to express something in any language other than in black or white terms. Regardless, while he may be the most public figure perpetuated this dogma of winners and losers, he is not alone.

Fundamentalist groups at either end of the political spectrum have always articulated the belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Such groups have never accepted that there is room for any compromise. For most of us, most of the time - we knew such extreme groups were on the fringe and ignored them as often as possible. However, what appears to have changed in the public's psyche is that such extremes are not seen as extreme. Even mainstream, well-speaking, political and community leaders talk publically about winners and losers. Most recently similar language (of absolute winners and losers) was used by the opposing sides of the Kinder Morgan pipe line debate after the latest findings of the Federal Court. In fact, part of the not-so-gradual transition to a win/lose society may be a result of the increased tendency to arbitrate our disagreements in court.

By definition, courts are an adversarial process. Civil courts were created to find a winner and a loser when there was no other way to decide who was right. But civil courts were never meant to be the first line of defence but rather they were meant to be used when every other option had been explored. It feels as if our society has shifted to " I will sue you" as our method of choice of getting someone's attention (see blog of June 27/18 - Lawsuits and the Unfairness of Insurance). By embracing this singular strategy of getting what we want from someone, we have allowed our thinking, our language and our society to ignore the possibility that in some discussions/debates, it is possible that both sides may neither be total winners or losers. We have allowed debates to be polarized so that there can only be two sides. We have created an environment where the only option appears to be aggressive; where we are not only allowed to be, but expected to attack the other side.

Perhaps I am a crotchety old man who looks too fondly at the world I grew up where it was acknowledged, at least by some of us, that there were very few things that could be looked at through black or white lenses; that many of the issues had a multitude of sides and therefore that the solutions were complicated and multi-faceted. But I can't help but think that such a view allowed us to be just a little bit more civilized to those we disagreed with.