Who is in Control?

Every once in a while I read a story about some poor soul in Canada, who facing a certain and painful death, wants the assistance of a medical practitioner to end their agonizing existence. We, as Canadians under certain conditions have the right to expect such supports to end our lives. However, in some parts of this country - there are doctors and facilities who refuse to provide this service because it goes against their moral principles.

I understand some people's reluctance, I understand that there are administrators and doctors who believe that an assisted end to life is wrong and therefore they cannot participate in such activities - even including providing assistance in filling out the forms. I understand, but I do not agree. It seems profoundly unfair that an individual's right to chose when to die to be restricted by which hospital the ambulance takes us to, or who our doctor is. Requiring an already terminally ill individual to shop around for a sympathetic doctor or an accommodating hospital seems unfair and profoundly inappropriate. I might be marginally more accepting of their moral stance if I could be reassured that all medical professionals and administrators always engage in moral behaviour.

We rely on our doctors' judgments to help us make difficult decisions. But the information they give us cannot be restricted by what they think is right or wrong. Medical professionals are obliged to give us all of the information so that we can make an informed choice. To deny an individual the right to the sort of process that is outlined bill C-14 is wrong.

Doctors, of course, must be free to choose what they think is right or wrong. I, however, should not be obliged to either pay for their education (yes I know that doctors incur a large debt while training, but surely even the most naive of them does not believe that they paid for the total cost of their medical training) or to support them in their practices. If they do not want to be part of the system, great. But then they can get their money from somewhere else.

Similarly, for those hospitals who refuse to support the process of assisted dying (frequently because the origins of that hospital were the Catholic Church) should not be using public funds to operate the hospital. There is a clear expectation, on the part of members of the community that hospitals provide a full range of services. If they get to spend public money, they do not get to decide how policy is delivered.

I can understand that there needed to be a period of adjustment for hospitals and doctors. I understand that there may be older doctors who will never be able to accept the new public acceptance of assisted death. But it would seem to me that any doctor who has been trained in the last five-ten years is in the wrong profession if they are not prepared to be fully engaged in all aspects of their patients' lives.

Doctors - feel free to have your own personal values - but please do not tell me what mine should be.

Retaliatory Politics

It is sometimes difficult for me, as a Canadian, to not be seduced by the (I hope) natural desire to respond to others who are not nice to Canada. It may be because almost all of the news articles I read are Canadian, but it feels as if Canada has been particularly vulnerable to other countries, larger countries picking on us, demanding that we conform to their specific worldviews.

Most obvious of course is Mr. Trump's rants and tweets about how unfair Canada's trade practices are while the USA continued to ignore the rulings of various tribunals as to its trade practices in Canada. Throughout the NAFTA trade negotiations there was this constant nagging fear that the bully that is our neighbour to the south of us would force us into a poor deal. Even if the deal that was finally signed is not a poor one for Canada - it will never feel like a good one. While it would have been disastrous for Canada as a nation to walk away from the negotiating table - it was still tempting to do so - just to prove that we could not be bullied. It was equally as tempting to pile on the tariffs as Mr. Trump did the same.

It now appears as if China is using the same type of bullying tactics to convince Canada to ignore its treaty obligations and release Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou from her bail conditions. China has arrested at least two Canadians and further sentenced a third Canadian to be executed for drug crimes as a not-so-subtle threat against Canada. It is tempting to remind China that there are far more Chinese visitors and business people in Canada than there are Canadians in China. Perhaps we need to arrest a few dozen visitors to remind them of this. There is no reason why we could not create laws and legal systems that are just as draconian and obfuscated as the Chinese rules and systems are.

But, of course, Canada did not retaliate and impose harsh tariffs on most American products (steel being an exception), we did not threaten to shut our borders down, we did not bad mouth the president (or at least our parliamentarians didn't) in public and in spite of the threats and insults, we quietly plodded along, negotiating when the opportunity was there seeking support from others when it was possible. I suppose there was some sort of pride when it was clear that we were taking the high road in terms of how we related to the USA -perhaps it is our Christian democratic roots that suggest that rewards will come to those who wait and who are nice - but it would have been so much more fun, at least in the short term if we had been just a little bit meaner.

Similarly, I know that Canada will not start to arrest Chinese nationals on some vague possibility that they are doing something that is not good for Canada's security. I know that we will not incarcerate those citizens for extended periods of time with limited contact with the Chinese embassy or lawyers. But there is that part of me that would like to remind the Chinese leadership that things work so much better when everyone plays by the same set of rules. It is unfortunate that some countries only understand politics when one has a big club in their hands.

Until the world becomes a bit more civilized, then Canada will, I hope, continue to plod along - doing the right thing, trying to act in a fair and reasonably civilized manner. But for small minded people like me - we can't help but occasionally wish that we carried a bigger stick.

Election Time Again??

I am a self-confessed political junkie - or at least I was. There was a time when I would look forward to reading about or even better, watching a weekend-long televised political convention. I loved listening to the commentators, usually, people who were both knowledgeable in terms of the politics of the times and the players as well as being articulate in their debates. Election night was exciting as I watched the returns come in and listened to the pundits' best guesses as to what it all meant. It was always fun to get into a long conversation about alternatives to the country's/world's problems and how they could all be solved is only the right people were elected. But somehow over the past 10 years, my enthusiasm for watching or even debating politics has waned.

Part of the reason for my ever-declining interest in the world of politics is the amount of and the depth of the knowledge that is made available. There is just too much information. It comes from every conceivable angle, whether one wants it or not. Even worse, much of the information is unreliable. The political correspondents seldom have a deep comprehension of the issues, relying instead on anecdotal proofs and the rhetoric of whatever political stream they were spawned from. The information has been dumbed down so that even the most unsophisticated of us, can get the message. As opposed to an in-depth detailed analysis of the issues, what we now get is a simplistic vision of a black and white world where there is only one correct answer. The media's job now is to longer educate its readers/viewers but rather to sell them on a particular point of view.

The other reason for my declining interest in politics is that there no longer appears to be election cycles, there is no down time between election news. Of course, so much of Canadian news is dominated by what happens to the south of us. In November, the American mid-term elections (which were talked about for the proceeding twelve months) were held. Already in mid-January, Democrats are announcing who will be running. or at least wants to run, for the president in 2020. For the next 22 months, our Facebook pages and our news sites will be ever increasingly flooded with bits of trivia and the findings of irrelevant polls as to who might win and why.

Canadian politics are only marginally less all-pervasive. In spite of the fact that the Canadian federal election will not be held until mid-October of this year, it is clear that Andrew Sheer, the leader of the Conservative party is already engaged in making speeches in key areas across the country. The leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Sing is actively campaigning for a seat in B.C., and one could wonder if Justin Trudeau ever stopped campaigning since the last election. Premiers such as Doug Ford of Ontario are also making speeches that sound as if they are flogging their particular brand of solutions to whoever will listen in the hopes that their preferred national party will become the next rulers. In every national paper and media broadcast, one can find some comment or news bit explaining why one party might win or lose. It is all so tiring. It is all so irrelevant.

One has to wonder if a life-long political junkie such as myself can become tired and jaded - perhaps even occasionally uncaring - with all of the useless political noise that surrounds us, it is not surprising that those who found the whole process less interesting ten years ago - have just given up on it entirely. The political leadership and the owners/managers of our media outlets seemed to have been convinced that if one can't provide good, informed debate (or it is too expensive) that overwhelming amounts of regurgitated crap will do as well.

All of which is rather sad for those of us who always prefer quality over quantity.

When is a Canadian a Canadian?

CBC reported on a story a day or so ago about two sisters, (ages nine and fourteen) who were trapped in Nairobi because the eldest had lost her Canadian passport. They need to leave where they are living partially because of the political unrest but primarily because their aunt - who was their caretaker - has recently died. There is no other adult who can look after them. For some reason, replacing the lost passport has become a problem. The father was asking the Canadian government for assistance to get his daughters home to Canada.

All of which makes some sense - except for the fact that while the father is a Canadian citizen and therefore both of his girls are, neither girl had ever been to Canada. In fact, it appears as if there had been originally little intent for them to ever live here. How can someone claim to be a citizen when they do not live in Canada and may never do so? The fourteen-year-old may not speak either of our two national languages, has never attended a Canadian school and in all likelihood knows almost nothing about Canadian culture, politics or history. And yet - in four years, when she turns 18 she will be able to vote in a federal election. She will also when she does get here have full access to medical and educational resources. I am not sure if she should.

Canada has a reputation for being relatively open about accepting and embracing people from elsewhere. While we struggle with some of the issues that arise from such policies, Canada has generally been successful in assisting immigrants and refugees to become Canadian citizens. Our economy and our culture need people moving here from other countries. And most of us know it.

However in spite of our good intentions to be accepting and our attempts to insure that all have full access to our rights and freedoms, it may be that we have been too generous in awarding citizenship to those who may have no intention of ever using it - until they are in need somewhere halfway around the world and then demand Canadian government intervention.

Canada is, of course, far from perfect. Our collective record of racism is something that we are only now starting to acknowledge; we have not always been as welcoming of other cultures and indeed there are still many Canadians who struggle with accepting those who are different into their communities. We are a work in progress. I, however, am not convinced that handing out Canadian citizenships to people who may never live in Canada - just because one's father is a Canadian- does anything to either redress the wrongs of the past, or to ensure that they do not happen again.

Canadian citizenship should be reserved for those who wish to make Canada their home and who have a desire to make it a better country for everyone.

How a Doctor Wasted My Time

Yesterday I had an appointment with my new cardiologists - in Victoria. Not a big deal - but I had been waiting a while to see him. Not that anything new is going on but it seemed to me that it was important that a specialist review my relatively minor heart condition just to ensure that things had not changed.

To cross the Malahat - a relatively small mountain that lies between Duncan and Victoria, the law requires one to have snow tires. It doesn't often snow in southern BC but that particular highway can be a bit slippery and one accident can block the road for hours. I do not have snow tires so I took the commuter bus. It left at 6:15 AM. It cost $10.00 - one way.

I got to Victoria by 7:30, had a great breakfast at my favourite breakfast spot in town (John's Place), got on a city bus (I bought a day pass for $5.00) bought some warp cotton at a store and then got on another bus to get to the doctor's office. I knew I would be early, but I had a book to read and I was content to wait the 45 minutes.

The doctor was a bit behind schedule - to be exact he was 45 minutes behind schedule. His assistant did the cardiogram but did not do a social history or collect any information at all. The doctor came into a room - we talked for about six minutes and we were done. It was obvious that he had not read my file or even looked at my most recent echocardiogram. I gave him the original referral letter from my cardiologist in Peterborough but he demonstrated little interest in my medical history. When I mentioned that I was chronically tired, he suggested that sometimes the medication I am on has that effect. He suggested that there were other options including a different medication or surgery. As the possibility of surgery to correct the problem had never been discussed with me, I asked him about it- but all he said was that that would be in the future.

He made another appointment for September.

I hung around Victoria until the first commuter bus left at 3:45 and I was back in Duncan by around 5:00.

11 hours of travel and hanging around and $25.00 in transportation costs - all for 10 minutes total time of medical contact. Whatever the province paid the doctor for his time was a waste of the tax payers' money. My GP could have done exactly the same thing - wasting less of my time and while she may not be technically as qualified as the specialist was - I would not have left her office as dissatisfied as I did yesterday in Victoria.

I know doctors are busy - I know that there are ever increasing demands on their time. But I would have preferred to wait a few extra weeks for an appointment if it would have meant that I would have had a more detailed review of my current heart health. As it was - he just wasted my time.

Citizenship and the Right to Vote

I read somewhere last week that the Supreme Court had ruled that Canadians who lived outside of the country should be allowed to vote in federal elections regardless as to how long they have been out of the country. Previously, the limit had been five years.

I am not sure how many Canadians this ruling applies to. I would imagine that there are some fairly young Canadians who are finishing their university education somewhere other than Canada and it is conceivable that they could be gone for five years. There are also employees of the Canadian government or NGOs who may spend extended times in some other countries as well as those who are employed by the numerous multi-national for-profit companies. But it is difficult for me to understand why anyone with the exception of students or public service employees, would want or need to be away from their home country for more than five years. If the individual is only away because they can make more money in some other part of the world, then I would wonder if perhaps they should not move permanently there. If they are maintaining Canadian citizenship only because it offers them some business advantage or perhaps even some safety, then it feels as if it is inappropriate that the individual gets a vote.

Being a Canadian citizen is not a one-way street. There are numerous advantages to being a citizen but along with those rights and protections come some responsibilities. I am assuming that those Canadian citizens who work outside of the country pay some income taxes etc. but being a good citizen is more than just paying taxes, it is about contributing to their community, it is about participating in the lives of their neighbours, and in the lives of their children's friends. Being a good citizen is at least partially about buying locally, using local service such as dry cleaners or mechanics or the corner store to buy milk - not just because it adds income to the local economy but because those type of service build and strengthen the local fabric of a community. Being a good citizen is about developing, maintaining and adding to the social networks that sustain us and our neighbours; it is about shovelling the driveway of an older neighbour, or feeding someone's cats when they are away or about volunteering at a neighbourhood centre. Being a Canadian citizen should mean that you are involved in the very fabric of the country you chose to call home. If you are gone for five years - you are doing none of those things. I do not know how they would decide what their community, their country needed if they were not there.

None of the articles I read discussed what riding their votes would be registered in? Is it the last place they lived, the home of their corporate headquarters, or some random place that they might want to live in the future?

I believe in democracy and in the concept that all citizens have the right to vote - but sometimes I wonder if we need to re-visit what being a citizen means.

First Nations - Who Decides?

The hereditary leaders of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation, in northern BC, are insisting that the proposed natural gas pipeline not go through their traditional territory. In spite of a ruling by the BC supreme court that the company be allowed to proceed, the leaders and other supporters are blocking the road, knowing that arrests are likely.

I am not sure what all of the fuss is about. I think the law is clear: on land that is not governed by treaty, the traditional Indigenous peoples have the right to control what happens on their land. If the corporation does not have permission from the people to build a pipeline - the pipeline cannot be built. End of story.

My only question is who - within that specific First Nation, gets to decide what is allowed. The present situation is confused because the elected leaders agreed to the pipeline being built while the hereditary leadership did not. In fact, they may not have been even asked.The elected leadership system imposed upon those people by the Canadian government is flawed. One person, one vote is not part of the cultural heritage of most (any?) First Nations. The other option, based on centuries of tradition is that leadership is hereditary. The right to lead is passed down through either the maternal or paternal line (1).

As someone who believes in democracy, the concept of someone inheriting power and control is an anathema. It is contrary to every social, economic or political value I have. There are far too many examples in our collective histories where an individual, because they believed that they had the right to have control due to who their parents or grandparents were, oppressed their people. We do not have kings or queens ruling our lives for a reason.

While I fully appreciate that in our drive to create lives that are easy and comfortable, we may have lost some of those core values that may be critical for our survival as a species. In our never-ending search for maximum comfort with a minimum amount of energy expended, we have willingly destroyed hundreds of thousands of hectares of irreplaceable resources. Having a leadership that is at least in part immersed in cultural values would have perhaps insured that the destruction would not have been so complete. But at what cost? Would such immersion in past cultural practices limited our capacity to grow? However, regardless of my opinions as to who should govern - it is not my decision. It is the decision of each First Nation.

But they must decide who gets to have control. We cannot demand that governments and companies engage with Indigenous communities in a meaningful, respectful way if those communities cannot agree who should be at the table. There is no point having negotiations if the signed agreement will be contested by members of that community.

I am not too sure how a consensus could be reached. But the communities themselves must find a way. The national government can not/should not decide for them



1) https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/hereditary-chief-definition-and-5-faqs