Further Comment on Senate Reform

The Canadian senate was established to ensure distinct regions had a voice, a voice easily lost in the cacophony of representation by population. It is not nor has it ever been "illegitimate". A serious problem with the senate are the rules on how it is populated as they allowed its members to become the puppets of the Prime Minister, and the party they head, who makes the nominations to the Governor General and the Governor General who never questions the nominations. It was further weakened by the fact it gave too much sway to Upper and Lower Canada (now Ontario and Quebec) while at the same time not really taking into consideration national growth and the formation of new Provinces.

While many can say Justin Trudeau has loosened the political grip on Senators all of the weaknesses are still there, ready to be abused if a prime minister is so willing. Unfortunately to change the rules on how senators are even nominated requires amending the Canadian Constitution, as does "abolishing the senate". To make an amendment to the constitution requires, according to section 38(1) of the Constitution Act "(a) resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of the provinces." (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html).

So is any reform of the Senate possible? Only if a compromise can be found that satisfies either Ontario or Quebec (need one or the other to meet the 50% population mark as those two combine for about 62% of the current population). Sir Wilfred Laurier was noted for his ability to get compromise. Until we have another national leader of Laurier's skill and ability we won't be seeing any real effective change. And I doubt very much Justin Trudeau is anywhere as skilled or able as Laurier was.

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

Is Canada Really A Country We Should Be Proud Of?

Now don't get me wrong by the title of this post as I am a proud Canadian but unlike so many in this country I am convinced we can do a heck of a lot better at making it a better country. Instead we see in the news media efforts to make it less so. Take for example the concepts of "discrimination" and "cultural appropriation".

I for one do not believe in discrimination other than selecting the best person for any particular job, which if you want to be picky is discriminating against the inept. When push gets to shove we discriminate all the time and think nothing of it. Because of treaty rights non-natives are discriminated against as those rights do not apply to them. Others have skills that you do not have so you are discriminated against because of that, and so on. So where does one draw the line? Very simple, you ignore those traits that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, such as skin colour, sex or ethnic background!

So in Canada how do we handle discrimination? Why, we discriminate! Too few women in a particular trade? Irregardless of ability you preferentially hire women and cal it "Affirmative action" so you can feel good by doing wrong. Not enough "visible minorities", why you do the same, ignore ability. They say justice is supposed to be blind, well "social justice" needs to be too!

I remember from grade school history that the Americans to the south once promoted a "melting pot" approach whereas in Canada we would instead embrace our differences. So where has either policy got us? By embracing our differences we actually encourage non-integration of immigrants into Canadian society and in doing so promote hypocrisy; women should have the same rights as men, if your religion allows that. If not, well I guess we will make an exception. And that is just the start of a long list of double standards. Even our base "Canadian Society" has a double standard! In Canada English and French are both accepted, except in Quebec. But that is a "special" case and so doesn't count. Or does it?

Something that has been gaining a foothold of late is the concept of "cultural appropriation". You know, where by you "dis-respect" another culture by eating the food that they traditionally eat or dressing the same way that they traditionally dressed? This the same twisted logic as that used by those who oppose discrimination by discriminating.

So we really are not such a great country to be proud of because of the many double standards and hypocrisies that we support and promote!  So what do we do about it? Just introduce another double standard or hypocrisy. Yeah, I am really "proud" that we do that. Not!

So, what is the solution? Simple really. We decide what "values" we support and stick to them. Don't believe in discrimination based on colour, sex and ethnic background? Then don't discriminate based on those grounds! Note how I did not include "religion"? Too many encourage discrimination of the three cited so therefore it must be excluded as it is not compatible with them and therefore should not be considered equal. But if a religious sect is willing to accept that discrimination based on colour, sex or ethnic background is unacceptable then no problem, you are welcome too.

It makes me think of a metallurgical process called "alloying"; you take different metals that share some common traits, melt them together and voila! You end up with an alloy that while it honours the differences merges them together to produce a substance with superior properties! Maybe the "melting pot" idea that the American's once promoted wasn't such a bad idea. Just too bad they didn't understand the process and ended up with too many impurities resulting in an inferior product although we have nothing to be proud of either.

The Energy East Pipeline

I originally wrote this just over a year ago and submitted to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal. It was not published. Even so the opinions given and their reasons are still valid!

The fact there is any opposition to the Energy East pipeline is mind boggling! North America is criss-crossed by a multitude of pipelines, both natural gas and oil, primarily in the US or from Canada to the US. Some, such as the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline traverse some of the most challenging landscapes possible. Spills of any sort are extremely rare.

Trans Canada Pipelines has proposed to convert an existing gas pipe line to one that would transport oil. So they are proposing taking a structure designed for carrying high pressure gas to oil, a substance that would apply much less strain to the pipe.

The petroleum industry is one of the key components of the Canadian economy with positive economic effects that extend well past the boundaries of the Prairie Provinces that are our primary producers. One issue of late is that the existing limited pipeline infrastructure results in a lack of marketing opportunities as the vast majority connect only to the US. Thus we are at the economic mercy of the US and it’s, at times such as now, quixotic politics.

Instead of opening up access to other world markets we do our best to shoot ourselves in the foot by supporting those who lobby against either building new pipelines to either coast. Or, in the case of the Energy East proposal, converting an existing yet under used asset so it will benefit the nation. Unfortunately too many, including Ontario Premier Katherine Wynn, are so narrow mined and self-serving they just can’t see that this type of economic development has a wide ranging impact right across the country.

We need to think of ourselves as one country and that anything that can benefit one part will have a cascade effect right across our nation. But only if we work together!

Where art Thou Caribou?

According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Boreal Caribou (formerly referred to as Woodland Caribou) occur in naturally low densities in mature boreal forest habitats. Based primarily on observation rather than any scientific studies it has been speculated that their range has receded northward to approximately the 50th parallel within Ontario and Quebec with some isolated southern populations such as the Slate Islands.

As an example Christopher Wilkinson published the following map in volume 28 of "Rangifer" (http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/index.php/rangifer/article/view/147):

Note especially how the 2007 line compares with the range shown in the following map from "State of the Woodland Caribou Resource Report" published by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 2014 (https://www.ontario.ca/document/state-woodland-caribou-resource-report-part-1):

Amazing how reality (the second map) doesn't match very well with speculation (the first)!

Gord Miller, the former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, stated in his 2010/2011 annual report that woodland caribou "to date only crude population estimates and delineation of herd ranges have been publicly available". This bears the question, why? And if all we have are "crude estimates" then how were they identified as an endangered species?

When the population is sparsely distributed how does one get a reasonably accurate census? Similarly back at the end of the 19th century, which is the time that most references to their former range refer to, how could they have been observed with confidence? The only access at that time in Northwestern Ontario was either by canoe routes or the recently established Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). Even today occasional sightings are made far south of what is considered their current southern limit. Could those sighting from over a century ago have been of similar transients?

Even I have speculated that the Boreal Caribou may have moved north to where there is no interaction with humans. But in reflection that does not explain for example the herd in the Onaman Lake area that is south of the Canadian National Railway (CNR) which one would assume would be the southern boundary if that premise is true.

When it comes to caribou there is only one thing certain; we know very little about the species and only in the current century has much research been done. So why is a species that is found right across the width of Canada with its range pretty well defined by the northern half of the boreal forest a) considered "endangered" and b) the source of public policy when there is no evidence that human contact has had a negative impact on its range, both real or imagined?

Consent no Barrier, or is it?

One thing that has been bothering me for a long time is the capitulation of Provincial and Federal Governments to the Indians. You know, those covered by the "Indian Act"? Note that it is not called the "First Nations Act" or any other "modern day" derivative. I for one expect our governments to honour the terms of those treaties. Note that from the Ottawa River westward to the Rocky mountains much of Canada is covered by treaties, some such as the Robertson Superior dating back to the middle of the 19th century.

An article in the September 21, 2015 issue of the Thunder bay Chronicle Journal caught my eye titled  “Can we talk? Study touts free, informed consent as key to resource development” (http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/national/can-we-talk-study-touts-free-informed-consent-as-key/article_eaa3c030-4a9a-5bd5-9674-15f3b52de7b8.html). It describes an attempt by a group to rewrite history including the terms of existing treaties in the false hope that by caving in to extortion, moving mining projects especially, forward will become easier to the point of ending the current impasse we see at the Ring of Fire.

The articles of Treaty 9 for example, the treaty that covers the Ring of Fire area, are very explicit: “the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government ..., all their rights titles and privileges” with the  “right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing ... subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the government ... saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.”

Three times the Supreme Court has issued rulings in which it invoked a duty to consult: 2004 Case 73 Haida vs. BC; 2004 – Case 74 Taku Tlinget vs BC; and 2005 – Case 69 Mikisew Cree vs. Canada. In the first two, as little of BC is covered by treaty, active negotiations were, and still are, in place and the BC Government attempted to deal away rights they had no title to and were chastised in that they had a duty (Honour of the Crown) to consult with those tribes they were negotiating with. The third on the other hand dealt with First Nations covered under Treaty 8, with very similar articles as Treaty 9. In this case the Federal Government contracted the construction of a winter road through the Mikesew reserve without consulting them. This was further complicated by having a “200 metre no firearm corridor” that impacted their right to hunt. Again the Supreme Court chastised the government, and rightly so, as First Nations rights to reserve lands can only be affected “with their consent first had and obtained”.

An important aspect of the Mikisew Cree decision is that the Supreme Court, while agreeing there was a duty to consult explicitly states that it does not grant the right of “veto”, in other words the ability to grant consent.

So while there can be, and the Supreme Court has left the threshold rather vague, a need for consultation, nowhere in either the treaties or in any applicable Supreme Court ruling have First Nations, when they have ceded their rights, retained the right to give consent. And now the Boreal Leadership Council wishes to give them something they don’t have in the hope it will make getting new projects approved? For example try that with the First Nation at Big Trout Lake (Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug) and see how far you get. Nowhere, and that indeed is a barrier.

The Television Media in Canada

Another item from my archive. This was written in September of last year but is still as relevant now as it was then!

In Canada we have four primary television broadcasters: CBC, CTV, CITY and Global. Of those, one, CBC, is funded from the public purse. As a result it owes its allegiance to all regardless of political affiliation and thus can, and should, act in an impartial way when it comes to any political commentary whether when reporting the news or for entertainment purposes. But it has been a long time since I can remember a CBC broadcast as being neutral, or better yet, "objective".

Yes, a free press is a cornerstone of a democratic society and as such one could say that they have the right to report as they see fit. But they have an obligation to those who pay their bills, we the “shareholders”. And that it did for a very long time being well respected for its even handed and unbiased reporting so that no matter your personal political leanings you got fair reporting. I have fond memories of “The Journal” with Barbara Frum.

Now I know that the government in power should be considered fair game but the incessant Harper bashing is ridiculous. For example Rick Mercer can be very entertaining but a person making the same rant episode after episode gets awfully tiresome. South of the border “The Simpson’s” has been on for what seems forever. Their secret? They skewer anyone and everyone and then just move on leaving all viewers feeling entertained and in a position to make up their own minds rather than being hectored to.

The net result is that the CBC has become a very pale image of its former self with declining viewership and increased demands for public funding. As I rarely watch anything on CBC anymore I certainly wouldn’t miss it if it faded into black. But it is not too late for it to go back to its roots and become once again the National Broadcaster that set the bar for fair and well balanced reporting and general programming.

Cry, the Beloved Country

I originally wrote this back in March of 2016 but the angst I wished to share still applies. I have updated it by referencing the change in leadership of the Conservative Party in Great Britain as it makes a good example of how things should be here in Canada.

Back in March of this year (2016) the moment I saw the headline announcing the Federal budget the title of Alan Paton’s famous novel came to mind, “Cry, the Beloved Country”, because while I love my country all I wanted to do was cry. We are now powerless while the spendthrifts are in charge with no hope until the next election and even then so many will be so desensitised that they will have forgotten how it used to be and will end up re-electing these same fools.

Yes, we will all be of the same social class pretty soon; poor. Those that can afford to will have had already left leaving the rest of us with no future.

I have commented to friends in the past that in this country we have allowed politics to devolve into a “democratic dictatorship”. This has been brought about through bad policies put in place originally by the Liberal party, a party that at one time long ago could be summarised by the phrase “fiscally responsible but socially conscious” - ironically the same principals I believe in.

These policies were implemented under the guise of more power to the constituents but actually centralised more power with the party leader. They were quickly adopted by the other parties. But the Liberal party, both federally and provincially, has lost its way and opened the door to infiltration by “greenies” – environmental radicals that imagine themselves as gods who can control the world around them yet are so stupid that they do not comprehend the impacts of their “solutions” that put our industries at a distinct disadvantage. As a result, since so much of our economy is dependent on foreign trade, our home grown industries can no longer compete resulting in layoffs and company closures. Even those industries that are more resilient, such as mining where you cannot move a mine to a more politically favourable country, are unable to help because they cannot even get started anymore.

But I digress. The point I wish to make is that once a leader of a political party has been selected by party members, typically those who know little about the candidates, they are pretty much in full control- in other words a dictator. And if that party is elected with enough seats to form the government their leader has full control over that party. They will not be sanctioned by caucus as the leader has sole discretion as to who will be allowed to run for office come the next election thus keeping their caucus members in line. If this “leader” happens to be a fool we as a nation are even worse off. For those anti-Harper people across the country you now know what you helped replace him with, and a pox on all of you! If anything Mr. Harper calmly accepted all of the slings and arrows without ever over reacting and in return gave us reasonably good government!

 In the British system, from which our Canadian system was originally modelled, it is still the caucus, the elected representatives, who decide who amongst themselves, will be chosen as their leader and if enough become dissatisfied they can, and have, chosen someone else. As an example look at the rapidity that David Cameron was replaced! First, he showed great honour and respect for his country that he willingly stepped down as Prime Minister as he saw the obvious hypocrisy of negotiating an exit from the European Economic Union when he in fact believed Great Britain  should stay a member. Within a matter of weeks the caucus had selected a new leader of the party who thus became the new Prime Minister; Theresa May. Could this happen in Canada, a country whose parliamentary system is supposedly modelled on the one in Great Britain? Not a chance!

This devolution of our political system has been compounded in this country by a disgraceful fifth estate, the news media,  that collectively rather being the nation’s conscience, have either been strongly partisan by being anti-conservative or at best weakly open minded. The most disgraceful of all has been the CBC! This is a publically funded media empire that for the last decade has been so pro-Liberal that it has been sickening. For example I gave up watching the Rick Mercer Show due to his “Rant” as I became very tired of his continued attacks on then Prime Minister Harper and his government. Could the other parties be ridiculed for slips of the tongue and other faux pas’? Of course, but I certainly don’t recall any. Any public broadcaster should be neutral, or at the very least satirise all parties equally as none has the moral and ethical high ground and the March budget exhibited that to a tee for the current Liberal government.

As an aside I have noticed no more calls for “proportional representation” and other forms of “democratic representation” that do nothing but favour minority views. Obviously now that the shoe is on the other foot the Liberals are now more comfortable with “first past the post” after all. What hypocrites!

For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for all of us as we are doomed with this insanity. My apologies to John Donne but I cry for my beloved country.