Alberta/Quebec - Opposite Twins

One of the advantages/disadvantages of living alone is that I have lots of time to have conversations with myself. While it does mean that I have a hard time staying on topic - at least I do not get interrupted by anyone! On occasion, a thought pops into my head - one that I don't have a clue how it got there or evolved - it is just there. At some point this week, as I was wandering down the overly crowded hallways of my mind - I thought " what would happen if Alberta and Quebec were next to each other - as opposed to being separated by a thousand or so miles and three provinces"? I wonder what kind of conversations they would be having?

Imagine - the province that gives the most towards the federal equalization program and the province that receives the most living side by side. I wonder if Quebec would be a bit more flexible in allowing Alberta's oil to pass over (or at least under) their territory if they were next door to those who would be giving them some of that money? I wonder what sort of conversations they would have about their collective alienation from the rest of Canada or their desires to be independent of all the silly rules and expectations of being part of a confederation? I wonder how well they would share - or rather what Quebec would share with Alberta? It's culture?

In Alberta, you have a province that while it appears to wear with some pride the label of being redneck through and though, in my experience many of the residents of that province are more accepting of diversity than others. On the other hand, Quebec may like to portray itself as cultured and even sophisticated, has in the past few months demonstrated a xenophobia and/or racist attitude that is nothing short of alarming and embarrassing for many Canadians. Most recently, the Quebec government has placed limits upon who has the "right" to receive services in English.

The premier of Alberta is wondering publically if they should have their own provincial pension plan - they might want to ask how well the smaller Quebec pension plan works in terms of earnings etc.

Maybe if Quebec and Alberta were neighbours - Alberta could teach a few things to Quebec including sharing - albeit sometimes grudgingly. At the same time, many Quebecers would be glad to speak to the issue of what happens when you waste 20-30 years of debating separation when it was never going to happen.

Wexit - Really?

As someone who has lived more than a few decades, I should not be surprised when people start talking about the same stuff they did 30-40 years ago. I should not be surprised, but I am. I keep on forgetting that we, as a society are not any smarter than we were then. Therefore, we are doomed to have the same political debates again and again and again.

I get that some people in the west feel as if they are being badly used by the federation. I understand how profoundly unfair it must feel when Alberta consistently pays far more into the equalization fund than they ever get out. The injustice of provinces like Quebec who get a large chunk of the funds - much of it derived from Alberta's oil-based economy - refusing to allow Alberta to ship its oil by pipeline across Quebec must grate on everyone's nerves. It must be equalling as galling when British Columbia tries to stop similar plans for transporting oil. The fact that Canada as a nation has been unable to ensure that Alberta's biggest moneymaker has access to the markets in Asia only reinforces the futility of belonging to a federation that does little to help.

There is, of course, another point of view. Not only has the government done everything to approve one of the proposed pipelines but they bought the company to ensure that the pipeline could be built. Canada has, as well, spends/gives billions of dollars in indirect subsidies to the oil industries. Those who suggest that Alberta could separate are seldom clear as to what national government based in Alberta would do to make things better. For example, if there was a way of getting the oil to either coast without having to ask people for their input and permission, I am quite sure that the Liberals and the Conservatives before them - would have done it.

In spite of the apparent injustices and the inherent unfairness of a system that argues that a federal government must do what is best for the most number of people - there are more benefits to belonging than not belonging. Even more important, leaving is never an easy thing to do. One only has to look at Great Britain and the colossal nightmare that has existed for the last few years as that country tries to negotiate a graceful way out of the European economic union. What that country has found out it that their trading partners have no desire to allow Britain to leave while maintaining many of the benefits of the relationship. Why would they? The Europeans are under no obligation to make things easy for Britain.

I have thought for some time that if Britain had negotiated with the EU before the referendum was held, and if the British people had clearly understood what would happen if they left - then perhaps they would have voted differently. I would, therefore, suggest that the newly formed Wexit party (please chose a better or at least less derivative name), that before they hold rallies and inflame those of the public who want/need bread and circus-type politics that they develop some policies. They need to tell everyone how they would deal with trade and customs agreements between a small landlocked country and the rest of the world, which currency would they use, how would they deal with Indigenous land claims etc. etc.? When they have worked out all of the details - then I would be very happy to be part of the conversation.

In the meantime - those who are arguing for Alberta to separate are just playing "silly buggers".

Daylight Saving Time

It is 7:30 on a Sunday morning. I have been up for an hour. The clocks were all moved back an hour last night and my internal clock, at least in terms of when I wake up, has not yet been adjusted. That is okay - for just over 70 years, or to be exact 141 times my body has been required to either fall back or move ahead an hour. You would think that I would be used to it. And I am. Certainly, when one is retired, there is far less stress about any adjustments - especially in the fall when it feels as if we have gotten an extra hour in which to do anything we wish. Of course in the spring - it is not so great.

The province of British Columbia has made it official that it wants to do away with the whole business of changing our time back and forth every six months. The bill that they have proposed only allows them to do it - it does not say when they will. The whole conversation is absurd.

1) The BC government conducted a survey last year asking residents if we should do away with changing the clocks back and forth on a semi-annual basis. 93% of the people who responded to the survey said yes. Those of us (the majority) who either do not care, have learnt to live with it or who think that the whole question is a silly waste of our time - did not participate in the survey. Of course, the majority of people who responded wanted a change, but it should not be believed that it was a binding referendum.

2) With the exception of Saskatchewan, who has never participated in the daylight saving scheme, no other province in Canada - or any state in the US is planning on making a similar change anytime soon. Given the strained relationship at the present time between Alberta and BC, it is reasonable to assume that Alberta, in the foreseeable future, will not do anything that BC wishes or suggests. It should be noted that the most eastern part of BC is in the Mountain time zone and therefore will not be part of any change. Doing away with the loss and then the gain of an hour on a yearly basis might make some sense, but only if everyone agreed to it. It makes virtually no sense for BC to do it alone when our nearest trading partners will be sticking to the present system.

3) If BC does make the change - it would be good news because for six months of the year, the time difference between Ontario and BC would only be two hours. That would make it slightly more convenient for my daughter and me to arrange for our 50-minute telephone chats every 10 days or so. But there is so much else to deal with - issues that are critical to people's survival including the problems with drug abuse, the lack of affordable housing, the limited access to services in the northern areas, the multitude of issues involving our environment - the list is almost endless.

I get that by addressing the time change the government appears as if it is doing something about something. It is meaningless. Please work on important issues. Come the spring, I will regret that hour of lost sleep - but I will get over it - I always have.

Haiti - How the World Failed It

I have just finished reading Jonathan M. Katz's book - "The Big Truck That Went By". It is a depressing read. Katz, a reporter for the Associated Press was in Haiti when in 2010, that country experienced a massive earthquake. His book chronicles in a very personal way the consequences not just of the earthquake but as well the effect of the billions of dollars of poorly allocated donations, or in so many cases - the failure for that money or aid to come. However, for me, what was most alarming was the fact that I believed so many of the myths that are perpetuated when the stories of such disasters are reported. I should know better.

For example, there was no mass rioting or civil unrest in the aftermath of the earthquake. In fact, Katz reports that there have been numerous reports for the past century clearly stating that people, after a disaster, are far more likely to be supportive of each other than harmful. The press reported that Haitians were rioting. That was false. The press printed a retraction but no one remembers that. Forty-two different governments sent military aid, the USA sent more than 22,000 troops. The money that it cost to support those troops were counted as part of the cost of the humanitarian aid. Haitians did not need soldiers to control them - they needed people to assist with the disposals of thousands of bodies and to help to rebuild their destroyed homes and businesses. Any rioting that occurred was because the food distribution "system" created by outside governments and the various NGOs was at best, inadequate. The food in many cases just did not get to the various camps that the outside forces had created.

Another example - There were constant concerns and allegations about the leadership of the Haitian government stealing the money. Consequently, much of the money was left under the control of outside bodies who appear to have seldom understood the needs of the Haitian people. That may have been because, for the most part, there were few Haitians allowed to participate in the discussions as to how that money should be spent. The is no doubt that at a minor level bribery and/or manipulation may have occurred. But as Katz notes the level of financial manipulation at the highest level was all-pervasive. In Western governments it is perfectly allowable for a Senator, who receives campaign donations from a specific company, to ensure that that company gets a contract worth millions of dollars, to sell their product to the disaster relief effort, but it is not acceptable for a Haitian to attempt to influence who locally gets small contracts. The bureaucracy, from Katz's report, was unwieldy, expensive to operate and ineffective at delivering the needed supports. It was a star-driven (eg Bill Clinton, Shaw Penn) show that may have done more damage than good. The textile businesses that were supposedly created to create jobs and income for Haitians were only viable businesses if the rate of pay was so low that Haitians would not be able to sustain themselves. It is worthwhile to note who benefited from the sale of land to this business and who supported them.

It is equally as shameful of how countries trumpeted far and wide about how much they had donated when in fact most countries just never met their announced targets. Of the money given - much of it went to hire non-Haitian employees who got paid high salaries and living costs and to purchase items from outside of Haiti.

Another example - The cholera epidemic that occurred months after the disaster was not caused by poor hygiene habits or even the lack of infrastructure. It was the direct result of Nepalese armed forces (who were there to protect something that did not need protecting) and their poor hygiene habits. Cholera had never existed in Haiti until soldiers from Nepal who were infected came to Haiti and then dumped their raw sewage into a river.

The book is well worth reading only to be reminded that it is not enough for us to donate money to a disaster fund if we do not ensure that the NGO has the capacity to deliver the needed services. It is also not enough for us to pat ourselves on our collective backs about what a generous country Canada is. If we are to give money, then we must give money to the people and the organizations that need it. Giving it to corrupt governments (and there are many) or to fat NGOs does not help the people who are dealing with the consequences of the disaster. And finally we must not always believe the narrative of the donators - they may have a different agenda than you do.
,

Election #8 Winners and Losers

Of course, in every election there are winners and losers. In fact, there are always a lot more people who lose than those who win. But in this particular election, it seems to me that the number of losers is exceptionally high.

Ralph Goodale from Regina lost his seat after 26 years of serving his constituents. From all accounts - he was a good member of Parliament and he had served his country well. He lost not because he had done anything wrong, or the people running against him were better but because the people in his riding were convinced that another party could better protect their interest. Unfortunately, I think they were wrong and got sucked into the rhetoric of a party who had been in power for 8 years and did little to help the west.

Jane Philpott from the Markham area was a Liberal, was dismissed from cabinet and then from the party because she vocally supported a friend and colleague. She ran as an independent and lost - her friend won. It somehow feels wrong that she lost her job because she had enough integrity to support a friend. Perhaps she could have been more diplomatic about it - but she did not deserve to lose her job.

Elizabeth May - she won her seat and her party won one additional seat, but considering the Green's strength provincially in parts of the Maritimes and on Vancouver Island, I think most of us thought the party would do better. The Greens once again, are just a group of people - who do not have party status in the House and may have zero real influence in this session of Parliament. As much as I like her - the party needs to re-think its strategy for next time. A strategy that may not include her as leader.

Maxime Bernier - not only did not get elected, no one from his party did either. Proof that he should not have been at the leader's debate. With any luck that is the last we will see of him or his People's Party of Canada.

Justine Trudeau - while he won his seat and the party he leads will most likely form the next government, his star is significantly diminished. His party lost seats and more importantly, they have clearly lost the trust of some Canadians. I cannot imagine how he will keep the NDP (who I assume will form some sort of coalition with the Liberals) happy with his stance on climate control and pipelines while at the same time attempting to reach out to the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan. He is a bright man - he must know that in spite of the reins of power he holds, that he lost.

Andrew Sheer - the Conservatives won a slightly higher percentage of the public vote than did the Liberals. That could feel like a bit of win and it might be enough for him to withstand any sort of leadership review. But in spite of a rather nasty campaign with all sorts of misleading statements and sometimes intentional lies, Sheer is not going to be the Prime Minister anytime soon. He may have some leadership potential that is not obvious to me - but it was not obvious either to others in the East, central Canada or the west coast.

Jagmeet Singh - I am not sure if he is a winner or not. I suppose doing better than anyone thought you could do is sort of like winning - even if you lost seats. The NDP just didn't lose as many seats as people thought they might. However - he is the person who will decide if Trudeau gets to form a government and how long that government lasts. It may not be a total victory - but of all of the leaders of major Canadian parties - he perhaps came the closest to achieving what he needed.

It is going to be interesting in Ottawa during the next few weeks and months.

Election #7

Tomorrow the federal election campaign of 2019 will be over. - thank heavens! By almost any definition one could imagine the whole process has been a dismal failure. Policy has not been discussed in any real detail, debate has been defined as saying "I am right and you are wrong", social media's various bots and trolls have had a good time keeping the pot stirred with innuendo, misinformation and outright lies and at least according to some polls the two main parties are about where they were when they started.

I do not have a clue what this election has cost the Canadian public both in terms of Election Canada and the expenditures of the various parties. But I have to believe that there is a better use of the millions of dollars spent to be at the same spot as when we started. To be fair, the next Parliament will look significantly different than the last. No party will have an overwhelming majority that would allow them to ride roughshod over the House of Commons. In fact, it appears at least likely that whoever is asked to form the government will be able to do so only if at least one other party agrees to support them - which is always a tricky proposition. But because there has not been a real discussion as to what needs to happen in the next four years - for example, what to do about climate change or how to transition to a greener economy or how to manage our continuingly increasing health care costs, any changes that occur in the next few months regardless of who gets elected, will not be because of any type of collective consensus. The party will argue that we knew where they stood before we elected them - but how could we when none of the parties ever engage in a real discussion?

As the electoral process continues to devolve into a morass of poorly defined visions, petty accusations of the opposition's morality, deliberate attempts to deceive the electorate and a general inability to listen - the public is facing the ever increasingly difficult task of picking the party who is the least unattractive.

There is some good news - sort of. While the Green party will not win a significant number of seats, they have done their job by constantly reminding us that we do need to do something about the environment. It would be nice if they picked up a couple of new seats - perhaps one or two on Vancouver Island and maybe a few on the East Coast. As smart as Elizabeth May may be, I do not think she will be the kingmaker she dreams of being.

The NDP who from all polls before the election was called had nowhere to go but up. They have done exactly that. Jagmeet Singh has pleasantly surprised people with his capacity to connect with people in various communities. The NDP won't do exceptionally well in central Canada. They are likely to lose seats in Quebec, but they may pick up a few in BC, Northern Ontario and maybe in the Maritimes. What is particularly exciting is not the number of seats they will win, but rather the proof that some Canadians at least are very comfortable supporting a party whose leader wears a turban. Maybe there is hope for us after all.

It would be nice to believe that with both May and Singh demonstrating the capacity to engage in gentler and perhaps more rational discussions, that our next parliament will exhibit those traits.
For an older person - I am still surprised at my naivety.

Balderdash - Excuses Not to Vote

In less than a week, political pundits and others are going to start talking about the low numbers of Canadians who voted. They are going to suggest (again) that Canadians do not vote because (1) peoples' lives are so busy that polling times just do not work for them, (2) that people feel that their votes do not count and (3) that the public perception of politicians is that they are corrupt and/or disconnected from the voters. To all of that I want to cry balderdash!!!

Peoples' lives may be more complicated than they were half a century ago, but there are so many more options available as to when to vote than there used to be. Certainly, in my area advance polling stations were well advertised and in great locations. Those polls were open for 12 hours a day, for four days. It is hard to believe that someone, if they were going to be out of town on October 21, could not have found time during those four days - if they had wanted to. I remain unconvinced that letting people vote via the internet would significantly increase the percentage of voters.

There are, depending upon how you count them, two political parties who have a chance of forming the next government. There are also two other parties (plus the Bloc in Quebec) who appear to have a reasonable chance to act as power brokers in the case of a minority government. How many more choices does one need? Certainly, there are far more choices than there were in 1960. In this election it would appear that those who vote for the smaller parties could have a real influence on the outcome. Only someone completely ignorant of our political history would suggest that peoples' votes in 1960 counted for more than they are today.

Of course, there are corrupt politicians. Has there ever been a time when there have not been a few (or perhaps even more than a few) politicians who were more concerned with their power or their money? Following the lead of our sometimes corrupt first prime minister and his cronies, every government has made decisions that have benefited people that they knew and either liked or were obligated to. To assume that all 338 newly elected Members of Parliament are only there to serve all of the constituents, all of the time is naive at best. But they are only disconnected if we remain unengaged. The best counter to corrupt politicians is a large number of citizens who are engaged.

We, as Canadian citizens have ample opportunity to vote, there is, if anything too much information available to help us make out decisions and we are allowed to be as engaged as we choose to be.

If someone decides not to vote for any of the above reasons - that is on them. Blaming the system for not being perfect (and Lord knows it is far from that) is not a reason for not voting - it is an excuse.

Perhaps the media pundits should stop pandering to their laziness or apathy.