Happy Birthday Joey

Tomorrow will be the 112 birthday of Joesph R. Smallwood.  Whatever you think of him he is a clear demonstration of the fact that an individual can make a difference.

Lion's Teeth and Wetting the Bed

Consider the lowly dandelion.

Many think of it as an unwelcome weed in lawns of carefully manicured bluegrass; sticking up wildly with their jagged leaves, brilliant flower and moppy seedpod waiting to be blown by the wind or a child's breath.

For me though it also takes me to my grandfather.  Each spring before Sunday dinners he would head out into the fields and lawns (scruffy as they were) around their rural home and with his pocket knife he would cut the leaves off any dandelion he could find.  No delicate salad green for him my grandmother would boil them with salt beef to make a delicious dish of greens that would be served with the usual suspects as a welcome change. Today no-one would think of doing this for fear of what mysterious fertilizer or pesticide may have been used on that lawn or in that field.

My great-grandmother, Bess, called these flowers "Piss-a-Beds".  We though that this was just a strange nickname that she had dreamed up (one of many she gave things and people) and giggled at the vulgarity of it.  Little did we know that this name has a distinguished history going back to France where dandelions are often called "Pis-en-Lit" -- yes, "Piss in the Bed".  It seems that dandelion have a diuretic effect that must have surprised a few ancient Franks who did not get due warning from the name based on the shape of their leaves ("Dent de Leon -- "Teeth of the Lion", thus dandelion for us).

Today I enjoyed a dandelion and rocket salad.  For my grandfather this would have been a sad use of a fine leaf but at least he would have enjoyed a few hours in the sun getting them.  For me it was a drive to the market and four dollars.

Time for a National Electricity Grid

As a Newfoundlander on the far coast of Canada I have followed the Muskrat Falls hydro-development debate with some interest. For the most it part it has devolved in to a partisan brawl where it is hard for anyone to step back and take a look at the real issues. On one side the common sense says that in an energy hungry environment it is foolish for a province as well-endowed with hydro-electric resources as Newfoundland and Labrador to not develop them. For this side of the debate opposing Muskrat Falls is a failure of imagination and a form of treason. On the other side of the debate sensible people point out that taking power from Labrador, to the island and the across the Gulf of St. Lawrence to sell a Maritime power company which is then free to re-sell it to the states is madness that will just lead to the waste of money and the gnashing of teeth in the long run. This is particularly so, they point out, as the energy demand picture has changed dramatically with the decline of the eastern seaboard’s industrial economy and the development of shale gas in New York Sate and Pennsylvania.

To my mind this actually misses a bigger picture reality that I was reminded of while attending National Energy Board hearings concerning the construction of the Northern Gateway Pipeline across the interior of British Columbia to the ocean. This pipeline exists to serve one industry and one industry only – the Alberta oil sands industry. British Columbia has no real interest in the product that is being shipped and in fact takes the brunt of the associate environmental risk. Beyond a scattering of jobs (pipeline maintenance workers and tug operators mostly) BC will see few jobs or direct benefits. Instead the benefits enjoyed by BC are largely the indirect benefits that flow from improving the economy of all of Canada (offset of course by the detriment of the expected increase in gas prices). But BC’s concerns in this respect whether they are for or against are, in fact, only a small part of the decision to whether or not this project will get built. Why is this?

In the 1950’s and 1960’s Eastern Canada recognized that it was in its interest to have unimpeded access to Western energy resources. Similarly, oil and gas producers recognized that it was equally in their interest to have a regulatory system in place that was not beholden to what they viewed as parochial local or even provincial interests. As a result the Federal government asserted a strong regulatory presence in the field of inter-provincial pipeline construction that was designed to ensure not only that pipelines were regulated and developed in an orderly fashion but also that they could and would be built over the objections, if necessary, landowners, towns, cities and provinces. In the context of hydro-electric power this same power was not asserted – that is, while international power sales are regulated in Canada, the National Energy Board Act does not create mechanisms that would allow transmission companies to force their way across other provinces over local objections.

The reasons for this are obvious in one sense – Quebec would use this as a cause celebre in the fight against confederation. The optics of empowering a Newfoundland power company to use Quebec soil to transport competing electrical power are obviously not good and unappetizing in the extreme for Ottawa. This would have been particularly so in the days when Newfoundland and New York would have been the main beneficiaries. Now however, the full price of this policy should be recognized. Ontario’s economy is in part creaking and groaning because of the question of how to obtain power for its population and industry. Cheap power costs are gone and the prospect of having to refurbish or replace aging nuclear power plants looms. Local hydro-electric reserves have largely been tapped. Wind and solar power are marginal players and there is deep seated opposition to coal and fossil fuel driven generation. Access to ample and reliable hydro-electric power would be a huge boost to the Ontario economy.

The reality is that if Newfoundland could secure a useful means of transporting its electricity across Quebec it is not just Muskrat Falls that would be developed. Instead we would be talking about the development of the whole potential of the Lower Churchill. This would be squarely in Ontario’s interest as well as in the interest of Newfoundland. It would reduce the pressure to invest in very costly and somewhat unreliable nuclear plants and force Ontario and its neighbours to continue to have to figure out how to accommodate immense amounts of erratic wind generation post-haste. Yet as things stand this will not happen, simply because the Quebec file remains so controversial.

The creation of a national system for the rational and orderly distribution of natural gas by an independent regulator has led to a reasonably peaceful state of affairs between the western gas producing provinces. They are equally competitors in the production of natural gas and yet at no time do they question the wisdom of a unified national pipeline system. This system is robust and allows for the producers to flexibly reply to changes in market demand and physical production. It largely operates in a way that is invisible to most politicians except when a particularly large project comes along. Perhaps it is time that we tried to do the same for electricity – create a strong robust integrated transmission system that extends from the Atlantic Coast to at least the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border.

Unfortunately this is not going to happen until real progress is made on the Quebec file. This was a hard fight even when we had governments that recognized national unity as being the most important file to sit on the Prime Minister’s desk. With a shift of interest away from developing better relations with Quebec – for the most part much of English Canada has largely thrown up its hands – it is difficult to see how this government is likely to focus the necessary attention on this file. If there is to be any progress it will probably have to be led by Ontario and developed through a process of inter-provincial diplomacy designed to create a workable arrangement between the relevant provinces. Newfoundland and Quebec are too deeply invested in their ancient fights to possibly resolve these issues on their own. Unfortunately until they are resolved the Lower Churchill and Muskrat Falls will remain untapped and Ontario will remain underpowered.

Questions About Shale Gas Viability

The New York Times has run a disturbing article about the potential for the shale gas explosion being a bit of a fizzle. If you want to get an idea of how important this question is bear in mind that shale gas is presently projected to provide 38% of North America's natural gas needs 2035, up from 13% now. This number is even more impressive when one considers that this is in the context of much larger demand than exists now. This is all outlined in a report prepared for KM LNG and filed with the National Energy Board as a part of the application for the approval of the export of natural gas through the Kitimat LNG facility (see pages 14 and 15 of the report for a tidy summary of the supply situation with a great graphic on page 15).

I suspect the science is out on this one for a bit but I have to say that I am a bit suspicious of anything that requires a lot more work and a lot more investment being able to produce gas at the same or lower costs than traditional gas production. This concern is somewhat offset by the fact that as gas reserves have declined the technology used has evolved toward what is now fracking (part of the technique now used to get shale gas out of the ground) but still if shale gas really were as cheaper or cheaper than conventional gas why have we been pumping gas 5000kn across North America and building LNG terminals on the Eastern Seaboard?

What is important to observe about this issue is that there are a lot of decisions being made on the assumption that shale gas production in eastern North America could or is going to completely displace or significantly reduce the demand for western gas in the east. The most obvious decision that presses for is to open up the large fields in Quebec and New England for production. Promoters will say that the decades of low priced local natural gas that will be produced and can be burned cleanly will more than outweigh the environmental damage caused by the surface infrastructure and underground fracking. If this argument carries the day it will be a bit of shock if the plays peter out after five to ten years after the rural countryside of Quebec, New York and Pennsylvania is turned into Alberta and Texas with bushes (no, not that kind, the leafy kind).

There are also decisions that will be made concerning alternative energy supplies that are being determined on the basis of shale gas providing a stable natural gas base for Canada and North America out for the next 25 years. For example, the viability, timing and pricing of the Muskrat Falls development will be very much affected by the question of whether or not New England can satisfy its electrical needs by putting a straw into the ground behind a gas generation station or two or has to bring hydro-electric power in from Canada. Newfoundland may want to be careful about committing to any further pricing arrangements based on current market projections as ultimate prices will be much higher if shale gas turns out to be a bust.

The Kitimat LNG terminal is another example of a decision that is being made on the basis of positive projections about shale gas production in North America. The export of natural gas to Asia makes perfectly good sense (from a public policy perspective) if there is an effective glut of gas in North America. From an economic point of view companies have substantial investments in western gas plays (particularly shale gas plays) and it makes little sense (it is said) to wait until the North American supply declines to develop this. Shareholders are not investing for the distant future; they are investing for returns in a time frame extending from the next quarter to the next five years. However, if it turns out that the Great Eastern Shale Gas Glut is a bust investing large amounts of money in export infrastructure and committing significant chunks of our natural gas supply to Asia in long term contracts may turn out to be not such a great idea.

Maybe before we plan the next 25 years on the basis that we are all going to be afloat in shale gas and that the environmental wreckage is worth the price, we should take a good hard look at those production numbers and really assess if there is a prize to be won here at all?

That Was A Riot

Now now everybody, step away from the panic button.

To read the papers and listen to the news over the last week and half one would get the impression that it is either a sign of the Apocalypse or at least the end of western civilization that a group of young people rioted in Vancouver after the Canucks completed their choke in game seven of the Stanley Cup playoffs. To listen to various handwringers it was instigated by rootless anarchists sent straight up from East Hastings Street; bored suburban men and women looking for a bit of excitement and lacking parental guidance; CBC and its evil big screen at Georgia Street or perhaps the police for sending too few (or to many)riot police.

Here's a newsflash for everyone. The price of living in a reasonably open urban environment is that occasionally -- particularly when fed by sports, politics, hunger, alcohol and/or testosterone -- things will get out of hand. In modern times this usually means a few windows are smashed, some consumer goods are stolen, a few comfortable people get a fright and, if everyone is really lucky, a police car is burned. These riots are picnics compared to riots of the not that distant past.

For example, in 1849, a mob of angry Protestant anglophones in Montreal rioted for several days and burned the parliament buildings and government offices to the ground. They were unhappy that Parliament had voted reparations for francophones who had suffered losses in the 1830's rebellions (a measure that had been extended to anglophones years before) and the suggestion that this might lead to true democracy in Canada. Can you imagine a group of twenty and thirty year old Canadians being motivated enough to even burn down a village hall (much less Parliament) these days?

On April 5, 1932, Townies rioted in St. John's and smashed out the windows of the legislature and caused the Prime Minister to flee in fear of his life. These people rioted out of concern about the economic management of the then-Dominion. The resulting Royal Commission resulted in Newfoundland deciding to give up its status as self-governing Dominion and revert to being a colony of the United Kingdom.

Montrealers rose up again when Rocket Richard was suspended on March 17, 1955. There was a race riot in Toronto in 1993 at Christie Pitts and riot that started serious movement the gay rights movement in the same city in 1981 after the bathhouse raids. Almost every real city in Canada has examples of their own riots.

Ancient Rome was long resigned to riots over any number of matters, including food shortages, poverty and bad outcomes at sports events. Julius Caesar's funeral was famously followed by a riot that resulted in a civil war and the final downfall of the Roman Republic (see a clip of Mark Anthony's speech inciting this event) ("friends, Romans, countrymen .." and "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" both come Shakespeare's rendition of this event). Some of these riots resulted in change -- some in broken glass.

Indeed in our Criminal Code there is a special provision dealing with riots that essentially requires the police to make an announcement and give people a chance to go home before treating them as rioters (see s. 67 of the Criminal Code):

Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

This formulation of the riot proclamation goes back to the 1741 Riot Act in Great Britain.

Don't get me wrong here: rioting has its price. During the riot rioters stand a real chance of getting beaten, trampled, shot, cut or burned. A friend of mine in Toronto who was a regular protester outside the American Consulate used to say that he did not feel it was a real protest if he did not get hit with a billy stick. Similarly, on the theory of "don't do the crime if you can't do the time", if you get caught, arrested or turned in (particularly if you are stupid enough to post pictures of yourself rioting with a confession attached on a public electronic bulletin board) you should take the usual penalties for doing what you did. These may be quite severe and may extend beyond criminal sanctions to civil sanctions and things like social stigmatization.

Likewise, we should probably think hard about creating situations where rioting is easy -- say a hot button political meeting in downtown Toronto or assembling a bunch of drunken louts in the middle of downtown Vancouver. We should probably study what happened to see how policing can be improved without destroying civil liberties. More importantly we should think about the social conditions which make riots either frequent events or more severe events. It does not take a lot of poking around to see that often entails a mass of people with time on their hands and a well fed sense of grievance arising out of poor social and economic circumstances.

What we should not do is delude ourselves into thinking that rioting can be avoided all times in all situations -- or that this would even be a good thing. Setting that as a target creates a hopeless task and one with a high price tag for even attempting. Rioting could be controlled by banning crowds at sports events; banning protests around controversial political events; and banning gatherings for concerts, fireworks or whatnot. However, would it really be worth living in a country like that? There would also be the real potential that such preventative measures might, in and of themselves, create riots (read about the Winnipeg General Strike for an example of this).

In the meantime, buy property insurance; stay home if it looks like it might be too hot for you; board up your store front when 25,000 drunken louts are gathering around the corner; put your merchandise away and recognize that with all those consumers, workers, students and families comes a few riots now and then.

The Aesthetics of Power Generation

Neil Reynolds, one of the Globe's stable of conservative columnists recently commented on the aesthetics of wind power generation in Ontario. He is on to something here.

Wind generation differs from most other forms of power generation (other than 1960's nuclear) in that that infrastructure is not situated in distant locations out of sight of the consumers of the power. Even nuclear plants in Ontario are hidden carefully behind berms to make sure that they are not easily seen from the highways or nearby communities. Because of this proximity to major urban or suburban communities wind power has met with howls of outrage which largely relate to the whoosh of the blades and the unsightliness of the towers.

Oddly the same objections are not made to massive oil sands projects, shale oil development, coal bed methane production or hydro-electric reservoir creation. Could it perhaps be that these projects largely only affect aboriginal communities whose concerns about aesthetics maybe don't have the same political weight? Try picturing an oil sands project being built just outside of Toronto and you have your answer.

The Liberal Turning Point

It will be many years before the results of the last election are fully understood but I have no doubt that that election will be viewed as a watershed election in Canadian history. The simple story is that this election marked the death of the Liberal Party as it has been known for close to a century. While there may be a re-birth of the Liberal Party in some form over the next decade the interesting question will be “what will it look like?” This question really starts to point at what is really interesting about the last election, namely that there are many signs that it marks a fundamental shift in the subject matter of national debate in Canada. There are all the signs in place that a number of major changes have occurred (over a span of twenty years or so) in what people in Canada want to talk about and what actually determines their vote. This change is going to force a lot of people to think carefully about where they want to place their political efforts (if they want to place them at all).

The most obvious re-alignment that has occurred is in the emergence of a clear left versus right debate in Canada. While many Conservatives have viewed the Liberal Party as a quasi-socialist party the reality is that most true left-wingers have not thought of the Liberal Party in that way. Indeed, many NDP supporters have had a poor view of the Liberal Party for precisely this reason – that is, they viewed the Liberal Party as something of an economic wolf in sheep’s clothing. There is a great deal of merit to this position, particularly when one looks at the last twenty years. During the Chretien-Martin era the Federal government, under the leadership of the Liberal Party, engaged in a determined program of cost cutting and program termination which eliminated the deficit and greatly reduced the significance of the national debt. It also effectively removed the Federal government from almost any significant role in the development of social policy in areas such as health, education, childcare, social welfare or housing. These matters were left to the Provinces and much of the debate since then has really, for better or for worse, been a series of provincial debates.

This period began the process, I think, of disengaging young progressive voters (who by the way will often grow up to be old regressive voters) from the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party had captured a significant number of these voters in the past by harkening back to the days of Lester Pearson and the early Trudeau era when the Liberals were instrumental in rolling out a range of national social programs. That era is long ago now – the first Trudeau government is as far away from a new voter today as St. Laurent was from me when I cast my first vote; Pearson is as far away as Mackenzie King or Bennett. Even in the Trudeau era it is hard to identify a lot in the way of society changing social programs. Trudeau’s main contribution in the economic world was in the form of large scale economy engineering efforts to address the economic crises of the 1970’s and early 1980’s (for example the Anti-Inflation Act and the National Energy Program).

Despite these limited economic social progressive credentials, the Liberals managed to keep hold of many progressive voters because socially progressive people were largely gripped by other topics and, more importantly, the political agenda in Canada was largely gripped by other topics. If a person between the age of 18 and 33 or so were dropped into 1970’s and early 1980’s Canada they would not recognize the debate.

At that time the dominant topics of debate outside of French Quebec were: (1) how to maintain Canadian unity; (2) how to advance Canada’s interests on the world stage and (3) how to protect individual human rights inside of Canada. The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives (who are definitely not the same as the Conservatives) did not argue over whether or not these topics mattered. Instead they argued over which party could best advance these interests. The Liberal Party with its strong French contingent, its internationalist leader and its agenda of introducing a Charter of Rights and Freedoms won all of these debates hands down. They further managed to keep the left-right debate from heating up by having a strong Bay Street cohort running the economic files and keeping a good chunk of the economic progressives engaged by riding on momentum from the Pearson era.

Then things changed. The Liberal agenda and mystique started to disappear. First, the Liberals won a number of their wars. Trudeau and Chretien successfully scotched the separatist threat by winning two referendums and passing the Clarity Act. In doing so though they burned all bridges to French Quebec. Second, Trudeau successfully embedded the Liberal’s old core agenda of protection for minority rights throughout Canada into the legal system (thus reducing the need to have a pro-minority rights political party). Third, the Pearson progressive momentum ran out.

On the other side of the ledger there was a concerted effort underway to change the channel. Preston Manning (a career politico), the NCC, the Fraser Institute, and the young Stephen Harper started a concerted campaign of ideas in Canada that paralleled the longer standing effort in the United States to move the debate to “why should the government be allowed to take my money?” As such these people framed the debate around the concerns of “taxpayers” (rather than citizens) and around the core principle of personal economic independence (and responsibility). While the social conservatives came along for the ride, fundamentally the focus for about twenty years was on making this the issue. National unity became an unimportant sideshow and, as the West become more powerful, increasingly a negative – many in the West would say “let Quebec go if it enhances my economic freedom.” Internationalism – the only international position to advance is that which advances Canada’s interests. The old 1970’s idea of being an “honest broker” or international boy scout does not matter. That is why, despite all the ballyhoo, the loss of the election to the Security Council did not matter – Stephen Harper did not care and he (and his movement) have convinced most Canadians not to care. In essence a majority of Canadians have internalized “it’s the economy stupid” and when they do the Conservatives win hands down in the present climate.

This may make things very challenging for socially progressive people over the next few years. No doubt it is exciting to have the NDP as a pure party of social progress and to have a clean left-right fight with no mushy Liberal middle. It will not be as exciting if that fight is always lost and there is no coalition or brokerage party such as the Liberals to advance a few of these causes. What may also be shocking to many on the left is that over the next decade the Liberals may well rebuild themselves as a party on the centre-right to resume their role as the alternative party to the Tories. They will be the weaker party – playing the role of alternative party to the new Natural Governing Party of Canada (the CPC) – but they would then become the home for Canadians wanting to ‘refresh’ governments when the CPC has been in power too long. For progressives this will not be a happy story as this will be a story of truly right wing parties switching places. It should not be discounted though – the Liberals have re-invented themselves many times: Blake was a Provincial rights advocate; Laurier a Free-trader; Pearson-Trudeau strong centralists and economic nationalists; Pearson-Trudeau big government; Chretien-Martin small government. The Liberals have a history of figuring out how to give the people what they want.

An even sadder story for progressive voters would be to see a strong progressive opposition that never, ever becomes a government. Think it can’t happen? See Alberta.

A Thousand and One Nights

A friend of mine recently asked me to write a short story about an experience. Another friend suggested to me that telling a story was no different than doing the thing.

So is a telling a story no different than doing? In other words, can the telling of a story of experience be the experience itself?

For me the telling of a story is other than experience. Experience belongs to the world and to the people who share in the experience. It is seldom – I would think never – clean and/or clear as it should be. Experience is rich with irrelevancies and incongruities that can – and should – be cast out of a story. Experience has no narrative; no moral; no point – it just is what it is.

Story on the other hand reflects nothing but the choice of the storyteller. The story of a person's first intimate moment can be fundamentally changed if the storyteller decides to mention the fact that their partner did not take their white gym socks off or that they were dumped the next week for the good looking fellow from the other school. These facts may be true or fictional -- it matters not -- the choice to include them colours and flavours the story.

A story is nothing but narrative; moral and the point. A good story is experience extracted to paint a picture for the intended audience. We choose in telling a story what we want our audience to know. We choose what we want them to know about us. We choose what we want them to know about the others in the experience. We choose what we want them to think is important or funny. We choose what to hide. We choose the tone. When we tell a story – even when it is not of our own experience -- we paint a picture of ourselves and the relationship we want to have with the person to whom we tell the story. We also define the relationship we want to claim we have with the subject of the story.

No story though can be as complete, unbiased or as uncaring as experience. As we have an experience we feel the good, the bad and the ugly. As we eat a delicious meal we try to convince ourselves that the tastes and textures are all we experience but in truth we see the sauce on the white tablecloth; we hear the couple at the next table; we feel irritation (or happiness) at what the others around us do or say. Beyond even those things that we notice (and later elide from the story) there are all the things that we do sense but are as much a part of the experience: the struggle in the kitchen to make the meal; the stains on the carpet disguised by the dark lighting; the waitress eager for the guests to leave. To relate all of this would make a poor story – we crave narrative, tone, moral – not just overwhelming description.

The telling of a story is in itself an experience – and a different one than the experience that provides the fodder for the story. Scheherazade and Shahryar are changed by Scheherazade’s stories -- not by the experiences related in the stories. It is in the way that Scheherazade refuses to finish a story when the sun rises; the way that she makes each story more engaging; the way in which she takes Shahryar way from himself that stays his hand and, in time, leads him to love her. It says much that she knew the stories that would entrance him.

Senate Reform in Canada

Yesterday's appointment of three still smelling losers to the Senate was a little reminder that there is still a need for Senate reform in Canada.

Actually reforming the Senate in any serious way is a massively difficult project under the Constitution given the amending formula's high hurdle for achieving any such change. That being said however, I think there is a way to do that would be successful and meaningful.

Now to understand this I think there are two things to bear in mind. First, I think the only Senate reform worth talking about is abolition. An appointed Senate is an affront in this day and age. It is obviously undemocratic and serves no legitimate purpose that I can see. The so-called "sober second thought" function is largely a joke since the only time such thoughts seem to occur is when the Senate majority can be called upon to ditch a project that the party leadership don't like (both CPC and Liberals have been guilty of this).

Second, an elected Senate -- without massive re-working -- is even worse in some ways. At least as they stand the Senators know that they are the illegitimate bastard children of politics and so keep a low profile most of the time and let the Commons have its way. If elected there will be no such constraint on the Senate. Suddenly legitimized we can expect that they will start poking their nose into all sorts of areas and substantially weakening the power of the Commons. Given the radically undemocratic distribution of seats in the Senate this would make what is already a bad situation in Canada worse. Further, given the weaker central government we have here in Canada (as opposed to the United States) the case for needing disproportionately empowered provincial or regional blocks in Parliament to ensure these interests are respected is weak. The Provinces do this quite well on their own thank you very much.

The simple route to Senate abolition then is this. A brave Prime Minister would announce "we are having a national referendum with one question : Should we abolish the Senate? Yes or No?" He (or she) should then promise that is this passes in every promise the resolution will be introduced in Parliament and, when passed, each Province will be asked to sign-on. If it does not -- then Senate reform will be dropped forever (or at least until there is a new government). It seems to me that this campaign would be a no brainer -- ask any ordinary Canadian if they would like to fire a Chamber full of unelected clowns with serious salaries, staffs and pension entitlements and you will get a resounding "yes" -- even in Quebec.

Then the question would be, would any provincial premier seriously try to turn a "yes" result into a chance to whine about other things when the result might be keeping these people in power?

Reviving the Blog

After a somewhat extended absence (who does not get distracted from time to time) I have decided to revive my blog and get back to some non-work writing for a change. Thanks for tuning in ... (or not, as the case may be).

The Federal Government Implements Ignorance is Bliss

The Federal government decided to scrap the mandatory long form of the census in favour of a mandatory short form and a voluntary long form. Of course, as any statistician will tell you a voluntary survey is largely useless due to the problems that come with selection error. That is, it is likely to be those who are specially motivated who will fill out the form and send it in while the ordinary Joe or Jane is likely going to to put off adding an extra piece of work to their life. Even if by some miracle a perfect selection-free sample was obtained there is no way to know this and so the results will always be open to being accused of being biased. Say, for example, the voluntary survey showed 35% of Canadians were atheists (or born agains) then the church (or secular humanist) leadership would point out selection error as the explanation whenever anyone wanted to act on these numbers.

Why this change you ask -- well here is the explanation given by the Globe and Mail and a spokesman for the government:

The move is a response to protests from some Canadians who resented the personal questions in the long form. Similar opposition has been raised in the United States by some Republicans opposed to Washington collecting and analyzing data.

“Our feeling was that the change was to make a reasonable limit on what most Canadians felt was an intrusion into their personal privacy in terms of answering the longer form,” Erik Waddell, spokesman for Industry Minister Tony Clement, said Tuesday.

Given that this information is locked away in the bowels of the archives and annonymously aggregated for analysis it is hard to see what the real priovacy concern is here. Furthermore, sometimes minimal intrusions into privacy should give way to the idea that decisions should be based on knowledge and understanding rather than ignorance and prejudice. Of course, this government has largely been dedicated to the idea of decision making on a data-free basis (see management of the prisons and crime file for this purpose) so why should anyone be surprised?

No Way to Do a Gun Control Debate

There is no topic after the abortion issue that gets tempers through the roof so quickly as the issue of gun control. In Canada we have had a lively and vociferous debate over the long gun registry for a few years now and I expect that there are more debates to come. In the United States the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment applied to state and local laws thereby severely constraining the ability of these governments to limit or restrict gun ownership. I will provide a link to the judgment here but tell you to not bother reading it unless you are incredibly interested in the intricacies of American constitutional history. Reaction of course is polarized with the Tea Party and NRA crowd hailing the decision as a vindication of constitutional rights while the liberal pansies (as I suspect the NRA hooligans would call them) of the New York Times condemns the decision as a distortion of the history of the Republic.

Both sides of the debate seem crazy to me as they largely focus on a few obscure sentences written as amendment to the American Constitution in the circumstances of the 1790's and the 1860's. The debate is largely over which group of judges got American history right and properly understood what the connection between the right to bear arms and a well regulated militia might be. While this is of course necessarily of interest to the judiciary it should be of no interest whatsoever to sensible human beings living in this day and age. Instead, it seems to me, the real debate should focus on the question of whether it makes sense to entrench gun ownership and the ability to raise militias in the Constitution at all. That is, maybe the time has come in the United States to have a debate about whether or not to amend or expunge the Second Amendment. It is hard to see that debate ever happening however given the climate of the United States on larger issues.

What this makes me think however is the danger that comes with having an unamendable constitution. In the United States this hardening of the Constitutional arteries comes from the worship of the Founders and the acceptance as religion of American exceptionalism. We in Canada though have the same problem for a different reason -- namely the stark regional/ethnic divide in constitutional visions brought to light by Charlottetown and Meech which make it impossible to adjust the Constitution (except on highly local matters like the Newfoundland school system or changing the name of Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador). While our 1982 Constitution is not that old and some of the problems are just starting to show, our 1867 constitution is definitely getting creaky (Senate reform anyone). However, we cannot have a healthy debate about these kinds of issues from first principles but instead -- like the United States with the Second Amendment -- have to turn it into a legal debate about the meaning of ancient legislation.

The Kahnawake Problem

The decision of the Kahnawake band council to cast non-aboriginals off the reserve has been in the paper for the last few weeks and is likely to continue to cause smoke for the next little while (it will be interesting to see if the Council actually enforces the eviction order). There is a curious thing about this affair however, why have the Conservatives not used this event as one of their usual occasions to condemn special race based rights for aboriginal people joined with a promise to reform the Indian Act? Lysiane Gagnon comments on this point in her column today where she frames the problem this way:

Why would Quebec and Canada tolerate the trampling of people's basic individual rights by a policy based on bloodline? The Quebec government is looking the other way on the pretext that Indian affairs is under federal jurisdiction, and no one raised a question in the National Assembly. Last week, Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl lamely said that, even though he didn't like the band council's decision, he couldn't do anything since the move is legal and the first nations are “sovereign” on their lands.

The answer is actually easy in the case of the Federal government. The Federal government is busily entrenching exactly the same concept in the Indian Act for a much wider range of matters and cannot be seen to even suggest that there is a Charter or Human Rights problem. Last year the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered the Federal to bring the definition of status in the Indian Act into compliance with the Charter. In doing so it identified a very narrow problem and skirted the much broader problem that the Indian Act incorporates a definition of Indian status which is a classic "blood quantum" approach -- that is, if you have enough non-Indian ancestors in the last two generations you are off the list.

This rule is draconian. It does not matter how culturally "Indian" you are or how connected to your community you are, if your momma or your poppa is not status and your parents are similarly "impure" -- you are off the list. You could have spent every day of your life on reserve but you are not an Indian. If you have a white dad but your sister has an Indian dad, she is on the list and you are off the list -- even if you lived on the reserve and she lived off. You could feel entirely a part of the community and be entirely engaged with the community but in the eyes of the Federal government you are no more an Indian than I am.

Being off the list means a number of things -- it means no a tax exemption, no automatic rights of membership and -- and this is why the Federal government is so circumspect about this issue -- no federal funding for medical, dental or education. You are officially the Province's problem and the Federal treasury is relieved off any issues related to you whatsoever. Likewise the funding levels for the band as whole can be cut back and treaty settlements can be made smaller as there are fewer Indians to deal with.

Thus Chuck Strahl cannot speak out about this because Chuck Strahl needs this. Despite requests by many aboriginal people to do away with the blood quantum rules and move toward rules based upon community membership, the Federal government has consistently (and this is true of Liberal governments as well) turned a deaf ear. To actually act on this problem would mean that the Federal government would not be able to look forward to the "Indian Problem" being solved by romance. Instead it would have to address its own race based discrimination in the status provisions of the Indian Act.

This issue, contrary to what Ms. Gagnon says, does not go back to just 1981. In fact, when one of the very first predecessors to the Indian Act was passed in the 1800's there were two Indian Acts passed -- one for Upper Canada and one for Lower Canada and each had a different definition for Indian. In Upper Canada it was a wider, community based definition that did not discriminate on the basis of sex. In Lower Canada it was similar to the present definition in the Indian Act with the old marrying out rule built in (that is, a woman who married out lost their status). Why the difference? Because the Mohawks at Kahnawake were unhappy about the number of non-Mohawks on their land.

Insite Goes to the Supreme Court

The Federal government has announced that it is seeking leave to appeal the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that let the Insite safe injection site stay open. This is actually not that surprising a decision on the part of the Federal government since the rationale of the case strikes at the heart of substantial chunk of the body of federal law governing psycho-active drugs and their management. The Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision held that the Federal government was out of bounds in regulating Insite because it crossed the line into provincial jurisdiction over health. The Supreme Court of Canada is there to hear issues of national importance and this qualifies on almost any understanding of that term.

What is more interesting is the inevitable cross-appeal that will come on the Charter issue that was raised in this case, that was effectively left unresolved in a 1-1-0 split between the three judges. This attack squarely raises the question "can you effectively criminalize addiction if it is in fact an illness rather than a moral failure?" From a certain perspective, the criminalization of drug use in various ways is very much akin to the idea of criminalizing fast food to fight obesity. This challenge will put the Supreme Court of Canada in a tight spot given some of its rulings over the last decade.

John Gunter -- Back to 1776

John Gunter, a columnist for the National Post and former editor of the now defunct rag known as the Alberta Report, recently gave insight into what the Canadian Taxpayer crowd harken back to. In a column for the National Post (the home for many refugees from failed right wing rags) he evoked the happy taxtation levels of the Americans in 1776 as measure of what we should view as outrageous. He made this observation in commenting on how we have too much government:

The American colonists, by comparison, felt they were groaning under a crippling tax burden. Many of their staples, they felt, were onerously taxed while they received little from England in return and had no say in how large the levies against them would be.

My point was: Quebec, a net beneficiary of Confederation, was chomping at the bit to break up Canada, while, compared to the 13 colonies, they had little to complain about.

So out of curiosity, I asked the historian what the level of taxation was in 1776 that caused the U.S. to declare its independence.

I will always recall his answer: "the equivalent today of about 5% to 7% of their income."

Let's see Lorne, what would you like to give up and go back to from that time?

Let's get rid of a few things that your pals on the right really like, say like, a standing army and regular police forces. Surely we can just stay home, unengaged in international affairs and let the gangs police themselves rather than spend all those lovely tax dollars on such wasteful things. I guess you would be happy to dismantle the prison system by bringing back hangings for trivial offences.

How about we get rid of a few of those other post-Revolutionary frills that we have picked-up, like sewer systems, water treatment facilities and public landfills -- we could save a bundle on muncipal services if we ditched those. Public highways as well -- if anyone really wants pavement they can pay for it themselves. Public education -- surely every child's parents can pay for a proper education and if they can't, well the child didn't deserve or need to be educated anyway. Railways and airports -- pshaw -- it is madness that so many public supports were given to building that all that infrastructue. Things would be so much better if the Crown just waited for the highest bidder to step-up and buy public lands at fair market value and deal with providing such things themselves. We also would not have to pay for all that nasty airport security then -- we could just have differential airfares for people who wanted to fly on airlines that screened for highjackers and those that did not (perhaps we could also offer people in tall buildings a chance to pay a special charge to divert highjacked planes to buildings who were unwilling to pay).

I have no doubt that the real programs Mr. Gunter would like to cut are those that he sees as only helping the undeserving -- you know, the unemployed and those who cannot pay for their own doctors. Let's get rid of all those expensive public hospitals and if rural areas end up with no doctors -- well, you can always pick where you live. Heck, for that matter, since we have gotten rid of public education, public hospitals and public sewers, we might as get rid of all those public health offices too and stop forcing vaccinations on families. Sure we will lose herd immunity pretty quickly but the diseases that should be going around after our first round of cuts finish people off pretty quickly anyway so they will not have that much of a chance to spread to the upper classes, right?

We won't have to worry about retirement costs since we should be able to get life expectancy down to well below 65 on this scheme and there will be few people who will ever become eligible for retirement and pensions in any event. Without public education (think of all those savings in teachers' salaries) we will see a marked drop-off in university attendance and we will be able to scale back public expenditures on professors, students and research within a few years. If all goes according to plan we should be able to cut out public subsidies for universities in about twenty years.

Muddy, smelly, dirty, disease ridden and ignorant -- the wonderful world of John Gunter and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Supreme Court of Canada Cops Out

The Supreme Court of Canada has started doing an odd thing -- it has been finding that the Government has either broken its own laws or the constitution but then saying it will do nothing about it except leave it to the government to figure out how to address its own wrongdoing.

In the Miningwatch case the Supreme Court of Canada restored an lower court decision that had been overturned by an appeal court. The Court found that the Federal Government has deliberately set about redescribing a mining project so as to avoid having to an indepth environmental assessment (as opposed to a destop once over lightly). But then the Court held that since the poor mining company (which had been involved in the case after all) should not be made to suffer further. What about the poor public who actually expect that proper environmental assessments are being done in accordance with the law.

In the Khadr case the Court said that the Government of Canada had breached Omar Khadr's rights. Effectively Canada participated in the process of torturing Mr. Khadr who -- odious as he may be -- is entitled under the law not to be tortured. After finding this the Court effectively said "international affairs are too delicate and complicated for us so we'll just leave it up to the government to figure out how to do the right thing." I would like that kind of approach to my potential wrongdoings.

There is another side to this -- perhaps the court would not point out wrongdoings at all if it had to determine the conseuqences of holding the governmemt to account. However, I wonder if there is really that much difference given the present government's contempt for the idea of judicial review and being held to account.

Beautiful Meal

Last night I went to Massimo Capra's restaurant (in Toronto), Mistura. This was my second visit to this restaurant and, as was my experience on the first visit, I had a wonderful meal.

I mainly note this because of the fact that I am normally fairly dubious about celebrity chefs like Capra. Capra writes in the Globe (not too time consuming) and also appears regularly on Restaurant Makeover where he is an affable mentor to a any number of struggling cooks. There is nothing in his television presence to give a clear picture of what a dab hand Capra is at creating meals that flavourful yet delicate and a space that is interesting without being domineering.

This is a good night out experience -- don't plan to go there for your budget meal. The food is interesting without being freakish. The atmosphere is light enough to feel comfortable, yet tranquil enough to allow for conversation. There is no sense of being rushed -- which is a good thing when the food deserves to be lingered over (which is normally hard for someone like me who generally wolfs their food). The service was pleasant, helpful and informative -- when we asked what gave the duck its flavour the waiter explained and even brought out a bottle of the exotic preserved fruit from Cremona that was used to flavour the skin. Everyone on the staff (including Massimo who was sitting at the bar tasting some new terrines) seemed to be enthusiastic about the food and about seeing the customers arrive to enjoy the food.

The Terrible Idea of Senate Reform

The word is in the air that the present government again proposes to reform the Senate. The Government proposed to introduce Senate elections, which will commence as senators retire from the senate and their seats come open to be filled. There is no suggestion that the powers of the Senate will be reformed at the same time or that the distribution of seats within the Senate will be modified.

There are nice legal questions around the ability of the government to make these changes without following the amending procedure set out in the Constitution Act, 1982 that are worth a momentary comment. The 1982 Constitution provided Canada with a domestic means of amending the Constitution (no more trips to England to politely ask Westminster to do the job). It has two provisions regarding the Senate. First, s. 41 provides that unanimous consent of all of the provinces is needed if a proposal is made to change the rule that no province will end up with fewer senators than the number it had in 1982. Second, s. 38(1) combined with s. 42 says that "the method of selecting Senators" may only be changed if the Senate and the House of Commons agree and two thirds of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population agree (there is a procedure for dispensing with the Senate's consent if they refuse and the House of Commons insists). While there are various ways in which the "method of selection" could be left theoretically unchanged while still allowing for elections (eg. having the elections be advisory while leaving the power to appoint in the hands of the Governor General) my suspicion is that most courts would see introducing elections in any form as a significant change to the "method of elections." However, that is something that will get sorted out in court proceedings.

The more interesting question is whether or not it is a good idea at all. The Senate is a spectacularly undemocratic body. There is a first obvious reason for this, which the election proposal appears to address -- that is, Senators are appointed and hold office until tehy retire at age 75. However there is a second, I think, more important reason. The Senate is deliberately set-up on a quasi-regional/provincial basis with the seats being distributed without any real regard to population. Thus a senator from Prince Edward Island represents approximately 33,000 residents while a senator from British Columbia represents somewhere in the neighbourhood of 690,000 residents. If we throw in the territories this gap becomes even wider.

The undemocratic nature of the Senate, however, is tempered by the very fact that it is not elected. When we look at the history of the Senate in the last fifty years there are a very few incidents where it actually stymies the legislative agenda of the government. For the most part it tinkers with and refines legislation and only on a few matters has it really stood up to the government of the day. Even in those cases where it did stand up to the government (say free trade and the GST) once the House of Commons showed that it was intent on proceeding or an election was held, the Senate got out of the way. This is actually quite remarkable given the fact that the Senate is populated with senators who are often of the opposite party than that which holds power through the support of the Commons (Mulroney, Chretien and Harper have all been in this situation). So why this restraint?

The answer is that the Senate lacks any form of popular legitimacy and the senators know it. While it is easy to think of the senators as a bunch of undemocratic, political hacks, the evidence suggests that most of them are democratic in their views and fundamentally accept the idea that in Canada we have a system that endorses a government that is responsible to the House of Commons. This understanding and lack of legitimacy acts as a practical brake on the willingness of the Senate to throw its notional power around, despite the fact that on paper it is largely co-equal with the House of Commons. Thus, like the notwithstanding power in the Charter, the power of the Senate to stop legislation or to initiate legislation is really a reserve power -- rarely to be resorted to (if ever). This allows the Senate to serve a useful function as an agency to tinker with legislation, develop big picture policy on background matters and act as an emergency governor in the face of rare, radical proposals. However, it is not a real power.

Senate elections will fundamentally change that dynamic. With Senate elections there is a necessary development of a form of legitimacy and with that will come an expectation that the newly elected senators will use their power to do what they were elected to do. Thus we are likely then to see the Senate flex its muscle on a wider range of matters and in doing so influence legislation and government policy in a way that is intrinsically unrepresentative. The local interests of Prince Edward Island (which is already over-represented in the House of Commons) will become even more important. Similarly, the interests of rural Canada will be given even greater predominance over urban Canada (which is under-represented in the House of Commons). The Government will becoming increasingly accountable not to the overall will of the electorate but instead to a bewildering combination of local interests and coalitions. Members of the House of Commons will become irrelevant to the point of being gelded.

Canada is undemocratic enough as it is. Introducing an new elected player into our system that is even more divergent from any concept of one person one vote will not help this. The interests of the Provinces are best looked after by the Provincial governments -- who have strong, independent jurisdictions within their boundaries. Allowing national interests to become too preoccupied with provincial issues helps no-one. Perhaps the best answer would be to abolish the Senate -- but that is unlikely ever to happen give our amending formula. In the absence of that solution, let's not do anything to take it off the sidelines.

Terrorists Lay Down Arms

The BBC reports that an independent monitoring group headed by a retired, but widely respect general, recently confirmed that another religious terrorist group has laid down its arms as part of bringing decades of sectarian strife to an end.

Oddly enough this reuslt was achieved not by maintaining the protagonists "no negotiations with terrorists" position but instead involved an intelligent use of military force, police investigation, intelligence gathering, moral suasion, education, economic development and (horrors of horrors), negotiations.

Of course there is some danger that all this is about to come undone thanks to the raging hormones of a nineteen year old boy and a 58 year old Northern Irish MP

Homelessness and Magical Thinking

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has effectively called Victoria city council to task for magical thinking regarding homelessness. No-one who lives in Victoria or its surrounding municipalities can rationally believe that there is not a serious homelessness problem in Victoria. There are however different perspectives as to who suffers from this homelessness problem.

At one side of the spectrum there are those who expressly or implicitly think of homelessness as a self-inflicted injury on the part of the homeless -- that is, the problem would be solved if only the homeless would stop taking substances or get a job or take their meds or just 'straighten-up' and have some self-respect. At the other end of the spectrum there are those who see society as having inflicted the injury of homelessness on itself by failing to provide protection for children or adequate health care for the mentally ill or basic welfare for the poor or affordable housing for those who are low in income. As is generally the case with spectrums, most of us take views which are a blend of these thoughts.

To my mind however, the injury of homelessness is done to all of us. The suffering of those people who are without homes is obvious. Even in Victoria the elements are not kind at night. In the winter it is cold, wet and dark and in the summer it is just cold and dark. It is also a dangerous environment, as night always brings out the drunk or the risk-taking who will do things that are near unthinkable in the light of day when, if nothing else, the regulatory pressure of being observed serves to regulate some of our baser behaviour. I suspect that there are few homeless people who have not encountered situations where they have been assaulted or threatened while outside without shelter or protection in the night. While it is easy to fault those who are left without homes for drinking or taking drugs or allowing themselves to retreat in to psychosis, I wonder who would not want to do this when faced with the rigors of the outdoors. If the trials of tough day at the office require a glass or two or wine or a few beer at the end the day, how can the stress of the street not require something stronger.

Society as a whole suffers too from homelessness. In one sense it suffers the same way as the homeless themselves, for they too are full members of society who are entitled to all of the rights and protections guaranteed to all citizens. Their homelessness is our homelessness, as they are rendered unable to care for themselves or make the contributions to their families or society that they may want or we may expect. But even those who view all of that as mushy left-wing thinking would agree that the society at large suffers from the scourge of homelessness. Streets are rendered either unsafe or threatening. Neighborhoods see upswings in crime and the disruption that comes from desperate people with no basic provisions, no hope, no where to go and no investment in society having to 'hang about'. The physical environment suffers as people have to live their lives without the basic sanitation that our homes provide to us for the disposal of waste and the maintenance of personal cleanliness and hygiene.

On the ground in Victoria what has been seen and continues to be seen is a deterioration in our pubic spaces. Victoria is not a large enough city where there can be a "no go" zone that is distant from most of the neighborhoods in the city (such as is the case in Vancouver). Instead homelessness is pervasive throughout the downtown and into many public areas that are not all that downtown in character. There is no "going around" the homelessness problem (if one is unwilling to look upon the poor or the destitute); there is only fleeing it by living one's life outside of the city altogether. This undermines our sense of social cohesiveness; undermines the quality of life in the city and threatens the social fabric of Victoria as people become reluctant to live and work in the City. It is here that magical thinking begins to infect the thinking of Victoria's city council.

Magical thinking is the phenomena of confusing or divorcing causes from effects. Thus in a world of magical thinking blowing a whistle will cause a steam train to appear as we all know that whistles precede the arrival of a train by mere minutes. If the train does not come then we must have been blowing the whistle the wrong way -- perhaps a bit louder or a bit higher or perhaps we just need a couple of whistles. So to does Victoria city council think that homelessness -- or at least its adverse effects on public space -- can be solved by merely passing a by-law banning the erection of shelter in parks or on public spaces. Surely with such a law being passed the homeless will fade into the background and perhaps even find jobs, get themselves cleaned up or whatever is necessary so that the good taxpaying (rather than sponging) citizens of Victoria can walk on Harris Green in comfort. This is so much cheaper and easier than shelters, public health nurses and needle exchanges -- everyone in favour please raise your hands.

And yet, they still camp? How can this be? Perhaps we just need to beef up our by-law with a bit more paper and ask a judge to give us an injunction which will magically make the homeless go away. Or at least make them stop cluttering up our public spaces. A bit more paper and the problem will be solved.

In the end the British Columbia Supreme Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to engage in that sort of magical thinking. These courts accepted a simple argument -- banning people with no homes who live outdoors from erecting shelter over their heads in all public spaces directly threatens their personal security unless some alternative is offered to them. To offer a few hundred shelter beds to shelter a homeless population in the thousands does not cut it. The by-law has been struck down and council -- and all of us -- have been sent back to rethink the approach to the problem.

Now we have to figure out what to do -- and here comes the tricky part. It is clearly the hope of those who fought this case that Victoria will respond by building more shelters and allowing for more beds. Whether this will work or will merely result in the "if you build it, they will come" phenomena we see with highways is an interesting question. Ideally this would be joined with more extensive and meaningful interventions to help those who want to leave the streets do so. There is another route open to the city now -- to regulate outdoor camping rather than banning it outright. I fear that what we will soon see is a few parks or public spaces abandoned to the homeless as semi-permanent shanty towns -- a phenomena that has been growing in the United States. Perhaps the city will throw in a few porta-potties and some sinks and then ban camping everywhere else. This is a cheap, dirty and ugly response to the problem that fits well with the out of sight, out of mind approach we have seen with many governments in Canada.

Of course one of the real problems in coming up with a response to the problem of homelessness is that it has been largely left to the cities and charity. The provincial government and federal government have largely washed their hands of the issue both in terms of funding and, as importantly, thinking. Yet the reality is that these are national problems. People do not become homeless and remain in their parents backyard. They migrate to the city from suburbs, small towns and reserves. The problem is thus a national problem that is transported to the cities but the homeless are not always (or probably even predominantly) the children of the cities. They are the children of the nation. As such they should be helped by our national and provincial governments so that the burden of homelessness can be borne by all of us and not just exported to cities. It is only with this approach that we are going to ever develop effective solutions to the problem of homelessness that are not just stopgaps (shelter beds) or magical thinking.