1976 - How Ontario Achieved Its Imperial Position

This article by William Y. Smith, has a lot about it that rings true.  Forty-two years later, things do not seem terribly different.

In the digital age, when communication is virtually instant, and where the great Canadian geography could often be worked to commercial advantage, for some reason, the country still clusters primarily in the "Golden Horseshoe".  Curious when we are long past the ascendancy of the horse.

Charles Dickens and the birth of the classic English Christmas dinner

A history of Christmas dinner.

Genocide in Canada

Strikes men that this article, about the fate of the Ahairmiut, speaks for itself.  The story simply needs to be heard.

Waterton

One of my favorite places in the world is Waterton Lakes National Park in the southwest corner of Alberta.  As a youth, I attended two different camps in the park. Unfortunately, this past year, a large area within the park suffered wildfire damage.  But even that would make it challenging to take away from the rugged beauty of the area.

While many focus on the mountains, in many ways the real character of the park is set by the abrupt transition from prairie to foothill, to mountain.

Find it.

If one ever finds one's self in the area, a drive up or down Alberta highway 22 in the direction of the more well-known, Banff, is brethtaking in it's own right.

Canadian Intelligence & Security Service

An unsettling report in the media today, about the activities of the Canadian Intelligence & Security Service (CSIS) apparently regularly monitoring environmental protest groups engaged in lawful protest and demonstration activities.  The report is unsettling, because this reported activity has about it echoes of earlier similar monitoring of Canadian individuals and groups who protested such things as the Vietnam war, clear-cut forestry activities, Aboriginal rights, etc.  Much of this earlier monitoring driven by a 'Red-scare' mentality. 

Even more troubling about the current report, is the apparently close reporting relationship between CSIS and 'the oil industry'.  At the very least, this relationship between the security establishment and industry leaves an impression that social and economic interests of the oil industry are co-terminus with Canadian security interests generally. 

At the same time, there is another news report today, about the formation of a political action interest group called The Buffalo Project.  This group, characterized as "the equivalent of a US-style political action group", so far claims that it intends to stand up for "the West" (sic) within a united Canada.  According to a spokesperson for the group, “Western Canadians are beyond frustration and we are simply another group that has decided it’s time to take action.”  

Interestingly, the Canadian 'West', in the eyes of this group, actually may not include the most-western Canadian province, British Columbia.  But that aside, as someone born and raised in my formative years in Alberta, I am very familiar with what we, in the Canadian confederation, have called western alienation.  It is not exactly like Quebec separatism, but there are significant parallels.

Frankly, in my view, if CSIS is wanting to monitor lawful groups "in an ancillary manner", as informal targets, presumably they will be including groups such as The Buffalo Project. 

Indeed, CSIS already seems actually to be meeting directly with some of these 'Western" interests.  Infiltration apparently has already begun......

Anthropocene: The Human Epoch

I have been away for a while -- at least away from the blog.  For a time, the bright shiny thing that is Facebook was absorbing my attention.

However, I recently walked away from Facebook because of their tepid stance about the ongoing presence of offerings of violence by subscribers, particularly toward children and women.  Not that I suspect that Facebook really cares that one person has stepped away.  But I care.

I only had a score of 'friends' (mostly extended family), so even though I was fairly consistent in posting offerings about social issues and concerns, I was not exerting much in the way of influence.

More than anything, my offerings were a way of keeping an ongoing record of things about which I care.  A kind of open diary.  Of course, Facebook had the added social-media advantage of allowing me to stay digitally in touch with family and friends.  But, in the end, I felt that I would need to give up those connections so as not to be seen supporting a platform that seemed to me to increasingly being socially irresponsible.

Today I was made aware of the film (perhaps it is a series?) "Anthropocene: The Human Epoch":

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/movie/anthropocene-the-human-epoch/id1433617345

So far, I have only seen this trailer.  But it has caught my attention, as has the film maker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Burtynsky

I suspect that I am quite late to an awareness of this Canadian and his offerings.  But better late than ever.

I am left wondering why his profile appears to be lower than David Suzuki, and apparently less-polarizing...?

Perception is Everything - Or So Some Think

It has taken me considerable time to find on the web a readable copy of the full, 80-page, public, court document related to the scandal in the Senate & PMO (Information to Obtain Production Orders). 

This, notwithstanding that many political commentators have suggested that every Canadian adult ought to read the contents.  Better to get the information first-hand.

It strikes me that this document is interesting to read while pretending to be the judge whose role it is to decide whether the contents of this report seem sufficient to grant the RCMP a warrant to do further searching. 

I finished reading the 80 pages....... whew. 

At points, quite mind numbing. This is not because it is uninteresting, but it is challenging to keep all the characters straight over such an extended time line.

Three initial observations from me:

1. One can hardly overstate the importance to democracy of independent news media.
2. An absolutely astonishing amount of very high-priced political staff and legislator time has been expended on attempting to manage this mess. And yet the purposes are unclear.
3. It seems clear to me that there would have been much, much less of a mess had the current Federal government, and in particular the office of the prime minister, been less interested in attempting to control political perceptions and more interested in ensuring moral, ethical and legal conduct and accountability.

I have many other observations, but those are the ones that came immediately to mind.

Certainly, if I were the reviewing judge, I would see the need for more information in order to determine if criminal offences had been committed.

It also seems clear that regardless of the original intentions for the bicameral system of federal government in Canada, the members of the current Federal government really believe that the structures ought to function administratively much more like a corporation than a democratic institution with intentionally-distinct powers.  At the very least, this is a sad commentary on the level of civics and historical education among those we have elected, and perhaps among Canadians in general.

Canada's Petroleum Potential in a Time Warp

In the Vancouver Sun newspaper (November 23, 2013), I  read with interest the Weekend Extra, Edmonton Journal article about the oil/tar sands in a global 'marketplace'.  It was an interesting and detailed analysis of macro economic issues related to oil production across the globe and implications for Canada as a petroleum producer.

Unfortunately, the analysis only tells us part of the story, and frankly, the item seems to have been written using and analytical framework from the 1950s, rather than from the 21st century.  The unbridled enthusiasm for petrochemical exploitation seems curiously out of date.

The forgotten part of the analysis relates to consideration of the marketplace implications of expanded exploitation and consumption without any considerations of the costs -- economic, social and climate -- of further expansion.  Not a whiff of a mention. The analysis is presented as if there are no global economic costs attached to being aggressive petroleum producing competitors on the global stage.

Curious.

Kenny Tells Employers to Raise Wages

Stop the presses; stop the presses!!!

Finally there is something that Jason Kenney, Federal Employment Minister, and I agree about (not that Mr. Kenney or anyone else cares what I think).

If the report in the Vancouver Sun Business section, November 14, 2013, "Kenny Tells Employers to Raise Wages" is an accurate reflection of Minister Kenney's beliefs on Canadian wages and employment training, then -- the issue of funding transfers aside -- I am with the minister on this one.

As a former adult educator, I am aware that it has been well known for years, if not decades, that Canadian employers have been riding on the back of public education when it comes to training for employment and even for employee upgrading.  Canadian employers when compared to other OECD countries have put much less into the education and training pot than has been the case in other economically-developed countries around the world.  And in whining about the lack of skilled employees, it is also clear that employers have been keen users of temporary foreign workers, and even immigrant workers while keeping wage levels low and not investing in home-grown people wishing to enter the workforce.  Some unions also may carry part of the blame.

Time for a change.

I am still not sure that the ham-fisted strategies and policies of the current Canadian federal government will be the tools that can be successful in turning around these decades of employer dependency, but I must say that hearing such ideas from Minister Kenney is at least a start.

Critical Thinking @ University

I read with interest the recent opinion piece (Oct 22, 2013) by a collection of BC university presidents, extolling the virtues of a university education.  Indeed, I am a university graduate, albeit of many years ago.  I generally support the notion of a university education as a potential contribution to enrichment of our culture.

I am less convinced by the PR argument raised by the presidents, particularly around the matters of critical thinking and the development of an engaged and thoughtful citizenry.  In my view -- even as the presidents describe -- the university enterprise has become too focused on turning out narrowly-defined, job-ready employees.

The article suggests that a university education today turns out well-rounded, critical thinkers.  This assertion falls flat in the face of recent on-campus displays of student initiation programs rife with sexist and racist themes, apparently replicated mindlessly year after year by more senior students and orientation staff and faculty.

There seems to be some distance between the picture painted by the presidents and what we observe on the ground.  Most recently, the explanation of the reason for including distasteful references to indigenous peoples is that the students were basing their chant on history learned from a Walt Disney animation movie......  Huh?

I do not think such empty-headed undertakings are fixed by more-direct supervisory control of initiation and orientation programs.  It strikes me that universities need to re-introduce in all programs (business and technical programs as well), curriculum elements that deal more broadly with aspects of history, citizenship, arts and culture.

If we want thinking students and citizens, then universities need to return to being more than technical schools. This does not happen through selling us on the ideas that universities are working, but by actually showing us that they are working.

Tar Sands and Pipelines - What's the Gold Rush

I live in British Columbia.  At the moment there is a black-gold rush going on in Canada with regard to the efforts of large, multi-national petrochemical companies seeking to exploit the Canadian tar sands.

The tar sands represent a huge petrochemical resource in Canada, albeit one that is locked in a tar-like form, which when extracted is called bitumen.

The multi-national companies, with the support of the Canadian Federal Government are strip mining the Western Canadian hinterland.  The investments are in the multi billions of dollars.

From the point of view of the above players, since the primary anticipated markets for this oil is off shore, the difficulty they face is that the resource they are tearing out of the ground is landlocked.  The challenge they are currently attempting to overcome is one of moving the bitumen thousands of kilometres to ocean ports.

The challenges of movement are not technological as much as political.  Most of the population who live in areas through which the bitumen is intended to move do not want to have this troublesome product in their back yard.  Especially if the increased production is to be used primarily to feed the insatiable appetites of far off lands.

In fact, at the moment, these same corporations already move product from the tar sands to offshore markets.  And frankly, this is a solid export for the Canadian economy.

The problem is that they are currently in the process of attempting to hugely expand production, and it is the intended expanded production that has many crying foul.

Unfortunately, the dispute is often cast in terms of polar opposites.   On one side, people who are keen for growth in extraction and who argue that this creates great revenue for Canadian citizens and for government revenues.  The suggestion is that on the other side are people who only want to shut everything down and close the door to petrochemical extraction.

I think that the latter characterization is not helpful.  While the people with concerns likely are very concerned about human-cased global climate change, most of we Canadians also know that even with the best of intentions no nations are going to be able to immediately shut down our use of hydrocarbons.  And since tar sands petroleum is already part of the mix, one would hardly expect us to immediately close the existing extraction processes.

The biggest concern at the moment is the plans for INCREASED EXTRACTION.   If we don't increase the extraction, we don't need the additional capacity to export more than is being done at the moment.

Faced with climate change, we certainly need to think very seriously about the use of all carbon-based emissions; but more importantly at the moment, at least in terms of the tar sands, is that we need to BACK WAY, WAY OFF the idea of UNBRIDLED EXPANSION.

For the moment, it is impractical to turn off the spigot; but this is not an endorsement of opening ten fire hydrants full blast.

Public Service Pension Plans Not Created Equal

Based on a recent Fraser Institute report, the Vancouver Sun editorial (Sept. 20, 2013) headlined "BC must address problem of public service pension plans" is wrong both in fact and tone.  It is one thing for the Fraser Institute to pen a disingenuous, ideological offering in which it conflates various public pension plans across the country; it is quite another for the Vancouver Sun to uncritically transfer these whole-cloth ideas as an editorial.

The first distortion is that public sector employee plans are lumped in with the self-serving, gold plated pension plans of members of parliament and members of the legislature.  These plans are not the same and they are not funded in the same way.  The latter include taxpayers' contributions of many multiples of the contributions regular public employees.  With public service plans, the employee from earnings and the employer usually contribute very similar amounts.

The second contrast I would make is a very critical contrast between the public service pension plans in the Federal government and the public service pension plans in British Columbia. 

The Federal Government funds annual public-service pension payouts from general revenue.  Over the years, the contributions of employees from their earnings does not go into a separate pension fund.  Direct contributions from the employees' salaries are transferred into general revenue along with a 'matching' book-entry payment from the taxpayer. 

So, when a Federal Government employee begins to collect the defined-benefit pension at the end of her or his career, there is no separate fund.  These payments are funded by the general revenues, year to year.  Hence, in the case of the federal pension, there is an ongoing unfunded liability.  So, in the case of the Federal government, there is a 'pension problem'.  But the problem is not a problem created by the rich treatment of employees; it is a problem of poor fiscal arrangements made by the Federal Government policy makers -- the politicians.

The public service employee pension plans in British Columbia operate very differently and there is no taxpayer problem.  In British Columbia, on each pay cheque, the public sector employers and each employee make roughly similar contributions to specific defined-benefit pension plan funds (College Pension Plan, Municipal Pension Plan, Public Service Pension Plan, Teachers' Pension Plan, Work Safe BC).  In these cases, the funds are actually deposited and administered by an organization at arm's length from government, the BC Pension Corporation.  Ultimately, the BC public sector pensions are funded by these funds; not from ongoing general revenue.

I am a retired member of one of the BC plans.  My gross monthly pension is $1,564.47 or, in pay-cheque terms, about $782 by-weekly.  As indicated above, none of this before-tax pension money comes to me from the taxpayer.  It comes from the built-up pension fund and the revenue earned by the investments of that fund.  In this regard, the operation is similar to the manner in which the Canada Pension Plan operates. 

On behalf of current and future pensioners, those administering these funded plans, invest the monies in order to fund the future payouts.  For example, the March 31, 2013, report for the College Pension plan indicates that over the past 23 years, the fund has earned a return of in excess of 8% annually; and for the last year reported, investment income was in excess of 5%.  All the other BC plans operate similarly.  The BC pension payouts are funded overwhelmingly by earned income from investments.  Not from the taxpayer.

It is true that pension contributions by employees and employers are adjusted regularly to take account of actuarial assessment of the funds liabilities into the future; but just as with any other expenses one considers nowadays, the costs of future pensions is not static.  Costs go up.  Such costs likely would go up also for the defined contribution plans apparently favoured by the Fraser Institute.  In this world of ongoing inflation, surely no employer would hold employees to a one-time-only pension benefit amount.

While I am grateful to have the pension I have, I would argue that it is anything but gold-plated and though it is a defined benefit plan, it is NOT a problem to the BC tax payers.  In fact unlike the Fraser Institute, I pay income taxes just like most others. 

 The tax-free status of organizations such as the Fraser Institute -- now that really is an editorial worth writing.

Quebec Secular Charter - Stop Yelling

Canada is the only formally-declared multi-cultural country in the world.

The Canadian multi-cultural policy was adopted by the Canadian government in the 1970s and 1980s.  The multi-cultural idea is based on the notion of cultural and religious pluralism, and the ideal that a wide variety of cultures and religions -- generally imported by immigration from elsewhere -- can coexist, and in a collage-like way, will make up what we call Canadian culture.

Generally, this collage or mosaic analogy is juxtaposed with the 'melting-pot' image generally declared as the way that immigration into the United States operated.

Regardless the Canadian multi-cultural social experiment as policy is very young and still very much in the process of being worked out in practice.  The most direct federal legislation related to this policy is the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically, section 27 of the latter.

The separatist government in Quebec recently proposed a Charter of Quebec apparently intended to curtail the wearing -- while actually on the job -- of religious adornments, by people employed in the Quebec public service or by government-supported agencies such as public schools.

At the time of the writing of this blog entry, I have found it impossible to find the actual text of the proposal, although there exist some sample images of religious adornments that the Quebec government suggests would be both unacceptable and acceptable under this proposed charter.

A key notion of the charter proposal apparently is that, in a 'secular society', clients of public services may feel uncomfortable, intimidated or pressured by being served by an employee who is wearing prominent religious garb or adornments.  Implicit is the idea of the separation of 'church and state' in the provision of government services.

The proposal, as some media have suggested, has set off a firestorm of controversy, now including public demonstrations.  Not just in Quebec, but across the country.  Indeed, many commentators have called the proposal abhorrent, especially in a multicultural nation such as Canada. Others -- particularly in the religious community --argue that the proposal is a violation of the right to have or practice religion, or even to be religious.  Frankly, there is so much hair on fire at the moment that I am having a good deal of difficulty trying to get to real substance of the arguments for and against, particularly as they might relate to the Canadian context.

Many political commentators have questioned the motivations of the Quebec government, suggesting that the government is less interested in the substance of the proposal than in attempting to deflect political interest away from the economy, and to something which may appeal to a disaffected segment of the Quebec electorate.  Others suggest that the motive is to perhaps create a diversion in terms of relations between the federal and provincial government.  Frankly, I am not interested in such speculations. I do not belong to an organized religion.

What interests me is that the Quebec government, intentionally or unintentionally, has offered Canadians an opportunity to discuss what it means for us to live in a secular, multi-cultural state.  If such a discussion has ever taken place in Canada, I have no recollection of it.  And if we think we do live in a secular but multi-cultural country, how ought that to look and operate as we go forward? Ought we to be involved in any mid-course corrections to the policy?

Since the notion of multi-culturalism was codified in Canada not all that long ago, and aside from an ongoing process of court proceedings around the various aspects of operationalizing the concept, the citizenry has not -- to my knowledge -- taken an opportunity to revisit the idea in open debate.  How we are doing?  Where are we headed after a few decades?  What, if anything, ought be happening in terms of the evolution of the ideas and ideals of multi-culcturalism and secularism as national values?

I think it is past time we had such a discussion and I hope that it emerges as a result of the Quebec proposal, regardless of what happens to their particular proposal.  Having such a discussion -- conducted in a mature fashion (if people would stop setting their hair on fire) -- would, I think, offer the opportunity to fine tune the Canadian multi-cultural ideal without resorting to the kind of sectarian name calling and ultimately to the violence that has erupted in many other nations across the globe.

Like most legislation, I do not think that the original Canadian multi-cultural legislation arrived full-blown, absolutely complete and evidence prescience about all matters that would arrive as Canada continues to develop as a country.   We need to talk.  We need to stop yelling at one another.

Nothing Like Being There - Conspicuous Consumption

A relative recently made a Facebook posting, expressing concern about the drop in the Great Lakes water levels.  The Great Lakes contain 21% of the world's fresh surface water.

Apparently the water level has been falling for some time now and shows no signs of recovering.  This, of course, is particularly disconcerting to those who live around the lakes and who, in many cases, depend on the lakes for such things as transportation, agriculture, drinking water and the like.

My relative is one of these.  She is retired and lives in a lovely home right on the margins of one of the lakes.  Her lake front, however, is receding into the distance.

My first reaction to the complaint is that this change may well be yet another example of the ongoing process of climate change.  I have no specific evidence of this, but the notion makes some sense.  There also may be other factors involved.  As I understand it, the geography around the Great Lakes has continued to rise as a result of the release of pressure from the last great ice age.  But the most immediate reason seems like it would be climate change.

Regardless, my relative is expressing some level of despair about the changes and is wondering out loud what ought to be done.  This presumes, I guess, that mankind might, in fact, be in a position to influence such climatic events.  I do happen to be a person who believes that a good portion of the circumstances we now see as climate change are being influenced by human activity.  Mostly the activity of those of us in industrialized nations, as well as those nations who are currently rapidly moving toward industrialization.  In general, this attribution is related to the release of greenhouse gases.

A few weeks back I used a computer application to take a snap shot of one the human activities that contributes to the increase in greenhouse gases.  The following is a snapshot of almost-world-wide commercial aircraft traffic at about 4:30 pm, Pacific Daylight time, August 28, 2013:

 My understanding is that this image does not generally include smaller, non-commercial aircraft and does not generally include military aircraft.  As I recall, there were in excess of 10,000 aircraft in the air at the time this snapshot was taken.

I and my relative are of an age and in a socio-economic strata, where many friends and acquaintances are happily fulfilling bucket list options with regard to retirement travel, or who think almost nothing about flitting about the globe to visit family and friends.  My relative, in the last year or so, has travelled at least three times to far-flung areas of the globe for 'wonderful vacation' events.   She has many more planned.

She is not alone in this regard among my acquaintances.  In fact, among we retired people, one of the most common topics of conversation when we get together is to talk about the exotic places to which we have travelled lately, or to which we plan to travel in the near future.  And when people of my age and stage are entering retirement, one of the most common plans for retirement is travel to distant and exotic places.

When I look at an image such as the above, I wonder about the degree to which many of these flights are booked mostly by such discretionary travellers.

As my relative expresses concern about the retreat of the lake in front of her home, and as she genuinely seeks for some solution to the water problem she sees, I have not yet had the heart to wonder out loud to her whether she has considered staying at home as one possible approach to the problem.

I should conclude by saying that I expect that a lot of the air travel one sees above also results from business-related travel.  I do not know if such travel is increasing or decreasing, but in the technological age of social media, applications such as Skype and many others, one wonders if a lot more of the business of the world (including the facsimile of face-to-face) ought not to be conducted electronically?

I am not suggesting that reducing air travel is the human behaviour that ought to be first in line in order to address climate change, but the above image certainly ought to give us some pause.

Shapeshifting

A recent offering in the Vancouver Sun newspaper,  "Issues and Ideas" page (Sept. 13, 2013), by the CEO of Urban Development Institute, caused me to reflect on the extent to which our shared ideas are being influenced by particular interests.

Most Vancouver Sun readers will be aware of two prominent policy advocacy organizations that often appear in the Canadian news media, The Fraser Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.  Many will also know that these two organizations generally represent opposite perspectives on many matters of public policy.  The Fraser Institute being informed by a more libertarian, free-enterprise, corporate perspective and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives having a more socially-progressive orientation based in part on the notion of the common wheel and support for a blended government-private sector economy in Canada.

The article authored by the CEO of the Urban Development Institute, however, caused me to pause and consider the variety of advocacy organizations that offer us viewpoints aligned more or less with either of the two perspectives represented by the above two organizations.

I am hard pressed to think of advocacy organizations similar to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives except, perhaps, the Council of Canadians.  My recollection is, however, that the Council of Canadian offerings appear very seldom in the op ed pages of the Vancouver Sun or other other sources I regularly read.

On the other hand, there seems to me to be a huge variety of apparently different organizations that speak from a similar viewpoint to that of the Fraser Institute.  Upon investigation of the Urban Development Institute, the overwhelming corporate sponsorship indicated on their web page makes it clear to me that this organization would likely operate from a similar perspective to that of the Fraser Institute. But there are many other such organizations that are familiar by their presence in the media; for example:  the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, the C.D. Howe Institute, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.  There are others, but these are the organizations I most often see represented in the conventional media.  My sense is that all of these Canadian-based organizations are significantly funded by the corporate sector, and their perspective certainly seems more oriented to that of the Fraser Institute than the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

I have begun to think of this perspective as having a shape-shifting presence in the media. The shape shifting gives appearance of a variety of perspectives being offered, but, in fact, they all come from a generally similar and well-funded viewpoint.

I have little difficulty with any of the above-mentioned organizations being free to offer comment from their viewpoint; but it strikes me that one perspective is more often represented than the other, regardless of the different labels.

Perhaps most interesting of all is that ALL of the above-named organizations -- regardless of sponsorship -- are registered charities for the purposes of Canadian taxation.  As such, donations by their supporters are treated as charitable donations, not unlike donations to religious organizations or to many community-based organizations which actually do charitable work.

So, because funding support is tax deductible, these advocacy organizations -- corporate or socially oriented -- are all taxpayer supported to a significant extent.  Having said that, it appears to me that organizations that offer a corporate or commercial viewpoint are significantly more represented and, based on the financial reports available, they are significantly better funded, including by the taxpayer contributions.

And unless readers are paying close attention, one might presume that we are getting a broader viewpoint than actually is the case.

End-of-Life Planning in British Columbia

I thought I should probably talk about an upbeat topic for once, so thought I might share a couple of thoughts about planning for end-of-life care.....

Doggone it.  You know, there are just so many things in the world that need addressing, I most often find it hard to ignore them.

I am at the stage of life where, if one is paying attention, one realizes that there is much less time ahead than has gone before.  So, I have been nosing around end-of-life plans, and in particular, I am concerned about issues around the absence in Canada for explicit policies supporting the right to die.

Frankly, I am mostly filled with self-interest in this regard.  To me, this is a case in which, in the absence of clear public policy (other than the default position that nobody has the right to be facilitated to terminate one's life), I need to think clearly about what I want and how to achieve my preferred exit -- one without undue pain or what can be very nasty complications.  As one friend said, while many people can pass in calmness and with minimal discomfort, the fact is that some dying can be very, very messy.

So, I found myself writing about the matter to the new British Columbia Minister of Health.

In a fairly timely fashion, I received back a response from a fellow in the Ministry of Health, with the title "Executive Director", although I know not of what.  His response was response number "987259". The content was comprehensive about current government policy and legislation, although none of it addressed my specific concern about a "right-to-die.  Nor was there any promise to address this issue.

The note, however, does include several links to BC Government policies and services, one of which is a link to "new fee incentives for family physicians and specialists ... to support medical practice in end-of-life care."  The document is about four pages long (  http://www.gpscbc.ca/system/files/GPSC%20Palliative%20Care%20Initiative%20Billing%20Guide-2010-revised_Nov_2010_0.pdf  )

I am heartened (excuse the pun) to learn that if I am considered to be terminal and should I choose to die in the community -- as opposed to in a palliative care facility -- the BC government will compensate my physician to the extent of a maximum of $465, to provide me and my family support care specific to this need.  This includes an initial 45-minute planning consultation, including filling out the paper work for the plan.

Oh, I am SO much looking forward to this next stage of my life......

I cannot help but recall that when our dog was euthanized very peacefully recently, after a one-day turn for the worse, the bill from the veterinarian was about $500.

Both my wife and  I wondered how we might find a source for the medication used by the vet.

Addictions, Villains and the Idea of Twins

In the column by Craig McInnes in the Vancouver Sun on Saturday, May 25, "Selling Oil Doesn't Make Us Villains", he makes an argument that I have been beginning to hear more frequently with regard to British Columbia becoming a trans-shipping point for increasing amounts of hydrocarbons -- LNG, bitumen and coal.

In short, the argument seems to be that if British Columbians do not get a piece of this economic action by increasing our involvement in providing increasing levels of fossil fuels to the world, then someone else in the world will.

I would like to draw an uncomfortable analogy.  Accepting the notion for a moment that the human race is addicted to energy based on fossil fuels, it strikes me that the above argument is not unlike some who might similarly argue -- in the face of apparently unlimited demand -- that:

"If I don't sell crack cocaine (substitute any other addictive substance you might prefer), someone else will.  So I might as well have a piece of the action".

Of course, forgotten in this simplistic argument is all the other attendant consequences.  I hasten to add that I realize my analogy is comparing a legal to an illegal substance, but most agree that both products are surrounded by all kinds of uncontrolled, negative consequences. 

My hesitancy in accepting the above argument is not about suggesting cutting off or reducing current flows of hydrocarbon products.

We should not forget, particularly with these "non-traditional" hydrocarbon transfers, that what is being proposed is not simply about sustaining usage at current levels, but about massive expansion of extraction, transport and ultimate use.  I believe that I and others who are concerned about wider negative consequences are really trying to draw attention to the proposed hyperbolic expansion. 

For example, it sounds almost benign that Kinder-Morgan is planning to 'twin' its current pipeline.  Unfortunately, based on recent reports, the new 'twin' of the proposed expansion will increase the current 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels today.  Some twin.

Don't They Have Any Real Work to Do?

The May 25th Vancouver Sun carries a story (Artist Says Government Monitored Her Climate Change Work ) about a Canadian Artist, Franke James and the fact that after approving a $5000 grant in support of a European tour of her work, the grant was suddenly withdrawn, allegedly because her work   ' advocates a message that is contrary to the government's policies on the subject'.  Apparently the denial was based on monitoring of Ms. James being done by several senior Federal Government officials.

Well, clearly the government has the power to decide who they fund and who they do not.  Although one would hope that in the spirit of nurturing multiple viewpoints (a spirit for which the current Canadian Federal Government is NOT noted), the funders would encourage all Canadians to give voice to multiple perspectives -- especially in the arts.

But what really bothers me is that with all the apparent concern over matters such as personal safety, terrorism, criminality, and so on, why would a clutch of senior officials apparently have so little to do that they would decide to focus on the views of one Canadian artist?  Haven't they got enough to do?  Really.

Shucks, if I keep writing this kinds of postings, perhaps they will start monitoring me as well.  Or perhaps they already have.....

Note to Feds.  I'm not worth it.

Still We Wait

Canadians found out more than a week ago that the Canadian prime minister's chief of staff apparently cut a $90,000 cheque for a Canadian senator who had been inappropriately charging the taxpayers for questionable benefits and expenses. 

Finally the Chief of Staff is gone; the senator is out of the caucus; the Prime Minister is conveniently out of the country; the original expenses case has been transferred back to same Senate committee that truncated the earlier process.  The Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner is investigating, but has no responsibility for the Senate

There remains no evidence at all that anyone -- including the Prime Minister -- in the Harper Government is urgently seeking or disclosing the full facts.   We do not need investigations of most of this; we simply need the government to start coming clean, rather than constantly attempting to cast aspersions on everyone else in their view.

Unfettered Human Greed and Climate

The Vancouver Sun (May 18) included columns by two editorial writers of separate newspapers, Pete McMartin (Vancouver Sun) and Licia Corbella (Calgary Herald).

Each columnist's offering apparently was informed by views from a different lobby group.  McMartin by the work of the Seattle-based, "Sightline Institute", and Corbella by the United Kingdom-based, "Global Warming Policy Foundation".  Both columnists' respective description of the agencies are rather benign.

McMartin describes Sightline as a regional think-tank and Corbella describes the Policy Foundation as a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization.  However, a little research indicates that, in my opinion, both these operations are mostly involved in advocacy, including but not limited to lobbying both the public and public policy makers.  Let me hasten to add that I see nothing particularly wrong with organizing for advocacy.  Although in reviewing each organization, it would be useful if they were more forthcoming about the details of their funding.

As consumers of information, we need to consider the world views informing all the various viewpoints presented to us.  And we would make a fundamental mistake to presume that any single-source viewpoint is 'news' in the conventional sense.

The respective columnists argue compellingly for each of the viewpoints; but as a reader, I cannot help but want to remain a bit skeptical about the various assertions presented. Corbella seems to argue for a return, in Europe (and world wide), to a business-as-usual, non-renewable-energy-consuming economy, taking full advantage of the recent (and perhaps final) glut of non-renewable energy resources.  McMartin hints at what such conspicuous consumption might actually look like in this region, if only in terms of a clutch of very massive infrastructure projects.  He suggests heading this direction certainly will result in a short-term economic burst, but asks a serious question about what happens after the flame has burned bright.

In the end, I am more moved by the details set out by Mr. McMartin's offering.  Proximity may have a lot to do with my choice about to whom I ought to give most consideration, although the massive non-renewable energy infrastructure projects McMartin lists clearly are not simply to meet local needs.

In the end, Mr. McMartin points to two global climate indicators which ought to give each of us pause with regard to our climate future.  I would add one more ecological (if not, climate) example of the effects of unfettered human greed.  I think regularly about the massive collapse of the Atlantic Cod biomass -- driven mostly by the greed-driven human desire to plunder, to take the last fish.  And so they did.  Then what did they eat?