I know.

We all have to be responsible and do our part to make the air cleaner, find greener sources of energy, and generally make the world a better place environmentally.

I also know.

It’s only $4.00 and it’s only a one-time fee.

But.

This fee was not debated in the House, consumers were not forewarned about it, and frankly I feel we pay enough on our Hydro bills already for the mismanagement of others.  If it wasn’t covered by the news media, we the consumers would never have even seen it coming.

Do we have any assurances that this will be a one-time fee?  Really?  And, given that Hydro is a necessity here in Canada rather than a frill, do we really have any choice as to whether or not we pay it?

Nope.

And on that note, I pass the virtual floor to Conservative opposition leader Tim Hudak and NDP leader Andrea Horwath to stir things up on the subject.

Ah, democracy.  Or lack thereof.

We, in Canada, are suffering from Conservative fatigue.

It’s not like we haven’t noticed what the minority government of Stephen Harper has been doing.  We know that he gave MPs a good three months paid vacation – called proroguing Parliament – just to avoid dealing with the Afghan detainee issue in public.  It was positioned as an opportunity to “recalibrate”.  Instead, we got a budget with a couple of red herrings.

Not quite sure what a finance minister tying his shoes has to do with the budget, but clearly the Government of Canada does ...

An exercise in distraction, we focused on whether or not to make the national anthem gender neutral rather than the fact that the government will be spending money on X or Y and cutting back funds to A or B.  Our currency will be moving away from paper towards plastic.  Does this create jobs?  Is the plastic bisphenol-A free?  Nobody is quite sure.

But that’s ok.  We’re all still basking in the reflected glow of all of those olympic medals.  Perhaps the glare off our national pride has pushed the clear misuse and abuse of power into the shadows of our collective ennui.

Photo by Yahoo Canada Sports

That neither the Liberals nor the NDP are presenting themselves as an enticing – or even notably different – alternative to the Conservatives is not helping.  Harper knows that, even with his myriad faults, he is still showing himself to be a stronger leader than any of our other options right now.  We do not have an Obama to unite the left and the right; we do not have any one shining torch, other than that of the Olympics, for the political centre to follow.

Sure, we could revolt.  It’s a very un-Canadian thing to do though, and clearly it’s not going to happen.  If Ontarians didn’t overthrow the government over the new Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), it seems highly unlikely that anything as minor as democracy and abuse of power would push Stephen Harper and his Conservative party into line.

But that hasn’t stopped Rabble.ca from trying …

From Rabble.ca

My question – and the question a lot of Canadians, both in the media and otherwise, are asking – is this: what is the Harper government trying to hide?

Despite what feels like a general malaise on the subject around the water cooler and coffee maker, there has actually been a reasonable amount of coverage on the subject.  And yet, in my opinion, not enough people are talking about the challenge to our fundamental rights and freedoms – those we have come to take for granted in a democracy – that this move by the government represents.

One of the most interesting articles I saw on the subject comes from Michael Wheeler on the Department of Culture site, titled The Harper Dictatorship is Over (if you want it).  In it, Wheeler basically calls on the other three parties in Parliament – who, collectively, received millions more votes than Harper’s Conservatives did in the last election – to move beyond partisan politics to band together for the good of the country and democracy in general.

From the grassroots, social media side of things, there is a Facebook group called Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament started by Christopher White.  Setting aside perhaps your wonderment that something happening on Facebook is now considered “news”, the ever-growing size of this group (more than 65,000 members strong as I type this) is notable as a marker of Canadian discontent with the Harper government’s move.  Even more relevant though would be to examine the numbers in context.  How many Canadians are on Facebook now?  Of those, what percentage have joined this group?  Has there been an incremental increase daily in its growth?  If I were leading the government right now, these are facts I would be looking for before making a change in policy.

Perhaps the strongest thing Harper’s government has going for it right now is our collective lowered expectations (think Mad TV) attitude when it comes to politicians.  Our expectations are so low, every new nail in the coffin of democracy just reinforces our attitude – rather than, unfortunately, pushing us to effect change.  After all, Facebook groups are great – but they are about as active as signing a petition.

The Op-Ed piece which ran in The Ottawa Citizen on December 31, 2009, Cynical, sad leadership, opens with this very telling bit:

Fewer and fewer Canadians are surprised at Stephen Harper’s willingness to overreach. He’ll get away with proroguing Parliament. But his fatal flaw — arrogance — might catch up to him in the end.

One can only hope.
.

.

.

.

Reposted from the National Post; byline credit to Gary Clement.

Interesting article in the Globe and Mail online (Ontario ponders sale of Crown corporations to beat down deficit by Andrew Willis and Boyd Erman; December 15, 2009).  It seems that the Ontario Government, in an attempt to tackle their multi-billion dollar deficit, is looking at various crown corporations as possible salable assets.  Logic is, if I understand correctly, that they can sell off these businesses for money which can then be used to pay down the massive debt.

One of the key assets on the table is Hydro One.  You know, that company which provides electricity and — for many Ontarians — heat; a necessity in this the Great White North.  That company to whom we all pay a “debt reduction charge” each month, above and beyond our usage rate, in order to help them with their debt load.  (Author’s note: if only I could convince province residents to help pay down MY debt load!)

So here is what I want to know.  If the Ontario government sells off Hydro One to private investors, do those private investors then take on that debt which Ontario taxpayers are currently on the hook for?  Will that charge come off of our bills immediately?  Will our hydro rates rise commensurately with the theoretical removal of the debt retirement fee?  How will rates be regulated moving forward — or will they be?

The other crown corporations concern me less, to be honest — I just don’t see the Ontario Lotto and Gaming Corporation (OLG) or the LCBO as fundamental necessities.  The fact that they do provide revenue to the Ontario Government coffers does, however, make me wonder whether a one-time sale can make up for ongoing revenue.  If these crown corporations are profitable, does it not make sense to keep them on as a long-term investment with guaranteed base revenue?  What happens if Ontario sells off these assets in a one-time bid to reduce overall debt, but then finds itself unable to respond financially the next time it finds itself in the hole?  Higher taxes yet again?

Bottom line: I’m concerned.

Read the original article in the Globe and Mail online here.

As you may have noticed in postings elsewhere on this blog, I find the concept of how Canada takes care of its citizens who choose to travel abroad very interesting.  I’ve taken the rather pessimistic view that if you’re a Canadian who leaves the country and doesn’t find that flag sewn onto your backpack to be adequate protection, you are pretty much out of luck – that our government, either by default or design, will not come to get you.

But it seems I may be wrong.  According to James Loney, writing in the November-December 2009 issue of This Magazine and himself a citizen who got into trouble abroad, it may be more a matter of who the Canadian government chooses to help and who they choose to ignore.

He cites the following examples in addition to his own experiences:

Brenda Martin: Canadian citizen, arrested in Mexico under potentially dubious circumstances.  Canadian government paid her fine and brought her home.

Omar Khadr: One of the most infamous of Canadian citizens to be left abroad in Guantanamo after he was arrested at the age of 15 more than eight years ago.  Ordered by a lower court to bring him home, the Canadian government has instead chosen to appeal each and every ruling which would compel them to do so.  Several blog posts on the subject in Mediaviber as well (here and here).

Abousfian Abdelrazik: Jailed, tortured and interrogated in the Sudan, apparently at CSIS’ request and with its full knowledge, for more than six years until a court order forced the Canadian government to bring him home.

Abdihakim Mohamed: Held in Kenya for more than three years now, this autistic 25 year old man allegedly doesn’t match his passport photo.

Suaad Hagi Mohamud: The most recent publicized example of someone who was stranded in Kenya for three months, jailed for a portion of that time, because the government felt that she didn’t match her passport photo.

There are more – both in Loney’s article, and no doubt if one were to do a bit more digging.

From what I have been able to gather, it seems that a government’s decision to intervene on a citizen’s behalf takes into consideration – in part – a few fundamental criteria.  (Author’s Note: These criteria are based on my own observations, readings and analysis rather than any list provided by the Canadian government or CSIS):

1. Did the citizen opt to travel into a country or region currently under a Canadian travel advisory?
2. What was the nature of the citizen’s offence, if any?
3. What kind of security risk would they pose to Canada if they were to be repatriated?
4. Is this person originally from Canada or did their first citizenship reside elsewhere?
5. If elsewhere, where was that else?

Loney sums it up effectively in his article, when he says:

They are part of an even longer list of Canadians in need of assistance. Who gets help and who doesn’t is a matter of “Crown prerogative.” That’s a fancy way of saying if the government likes you, if they see you as an upstanding citizen or a worthy innocent, they’ll go to bat for you. But if you have thick lips or dark skin, if you have a funny last name or you’re mentally ill, if you were born in a country with a bad reputation or if you yourself have a bad reputation, sorry, you’re out of luck. Some Canadian citizens count, it seems, and some don’t. Brenda and I must be among those who count.

He goes on to argue that all citizens need to be treated the same when it comes to running afoul of anything which threatens a Canadian when away from home.

My opinion?  I believe that Canadian citizenship is a privilege, something we should not take for granted.  That being said, I admit that I don’t have a high degree of confidence that my government would help me out if I had an issue when not on Canadian soil.

I will never forget actually having an issue when traveling in the Middle East about 20 years back.  I had crossed the border into Egypt from Israel.  On my way back into Israel again, my visa was changed such that the date I was supposed to leave the country was about a week before my flight was actually booked to depart.  I was worried and went to the Canadian Consulate.  After waiting several hours to see the Canadian representative, who basically shrugged and provided zero assistance, it was ultimately the Israeli receptionist who looked at the paper and told me it wouldn’t be an issue.

What if I had actually encountered a problem when I tried to leave though?  Who would have come to help me out – the receptionist?

Loney’s article makes for interesting reading.  Click on the link below to view the original.

*      *     *

Read the original article, “Canada came to rescue me.  Why not Arar, Khadr, Mohamud?” which ran in the November-December 2009 issue of This Magazine.

*     *     *

]]> http://mediaviber.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/ask-not-what-your-government-can-or-will-do-for-you-canadian-citizens-abroad/feed/ 1 Bibi thismagazine_wordmark CA_RescueMontage_(dec14-2009) http://mediaviber.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/speaking-of-jumping-through-hoops-and-in-front-of-lines/ http://mediaviber.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/speaking-of-jumping-through-hoops-and-in-front-of-lines/#comments Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:17:52 +0000 B Silver http://mediaviber.wordpress.com/?p=404 ]]> Currently working its way through the email circuit (original source unknown).

If you have any idea where this one originated, please let me know.

According to Toronto Public Health (taking their cue from Ontario Public Health), the current priority group is pregnant women, children under the age of five, and anyone under the age of 65 with an underlying health condition, health care workers and those caring for or in household contact with high risk individuals who can’t have the vaccine.  Nobody is quite sure what range of conditions might be covered by the “underlying” category beyond such things as diabetes or asthma, but it’s enough to get us all concerned.  Those who fall into those priority groups are told to go to a crowded vaccination clinic location, at least in Toronto, and wait in line – often outside, and in the cold – for hours on end.  Doctors’ offices in the city have been waiting to get the vaccine, and their patients – those who can’t or won’t wait in day-long lineups – have been waiting as well.

Let’s contrast this with the quality of care and ease of access to the vaccine provided to the elite: professional athletes and executives.  There was an outcry when it was discovered that players on the Calgary Flames, as well as their family members, were given the vaccine without having to wait in line and without being in a priority group.  Sure, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach fired the senior health official who could be considered responsible for the decision but it’s by no means an isolated incident – within a day, we discovered that exactly the same thing had happened with the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Toronto Raptors.  Wait another day?  We find out that members of the Board of Directors at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital were also vaccinated on October 26 – several days before the clinics opened to the public.  Come today?  Behold: members of the Board of Directors at all four hospitals in the University Health Network (Toronto Western, Princess Margaret, St. Michael’s and Toronto General) were all offered the vaccine without being part of the “priority” group.

So far, nobody has lost their job over it.

Maybe we have a higher tolerance level here for a multi-tiered system.  After all, Toronto – for all of its poverty – boasts some of the wealthiest people in the country.  It’s also home to at least one private clinic – for a yearly membership fee of $2,300.00, you too can have access to the vaccine (as well as a host of other above the line medical services) without having to stand in line with everyone else.

Capitalism is dead; long live capitalism.

At the other end of the accessibility spectrum lies the aboriginal and native communities across Canada.  Never mind the body bag fiasco of a few months back in Manitoba coupled with Manitoba Public Health’s hesitancy to distribute alcohol-based hand sanitizers for fears that natives would drink it rather than use it on their hands.  It is known that these communities are at a much higher risk of contracting H1N1 and experiencing serious complications as a result of their sub-standard living conditions.  And yet, somehow, distributing 3000+ vaccines to private clinics (never mind athletes and executives) is considered a higher priority than targeting those groups and communities most at risk in this outbreak.

I have spoken to many people who would be willing to pay to get this vaccine and move to the front of the line.  It’s a sign of concern from people with adequate disposable income that taking the fee-for-service route for their health care is an option.  But shouldn’t our basic health care coverage be adequate?  Aren’t we all supposed to have equal access to health care, especially when it comes to such preventative measures as a federally-funded vaccine roll-out?

Apparently George Orwell had it right in his 1945 book Animal Farm. We are all created equal; it’s just that some of us are more equal than others.

*                                    *                                    *

Interesting side-note: I just heard from a reliable source that at least one of the Community Health Centres here in Toronto does have the vaccine and has made it available as well.  To locate one near you, go here and enter in your postal code.

Barbara Ehrenreich rocks. Intelligent, cutting, analytical — I’ve been following her and reading her works, off and on, for many years now.

So when I heard Ehrenreich on CBC Radio’s The Current last week talking about the fallacy of “positive thinking”, it got me thinking.

Shameless plug for a favourite commentator: Ehrenreich has released a book which caught my attention:  Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking has Undermined America. (Ok, plug for me too — if you click on the link and then buy the book online AND I configured the link properly, I make a few cents off the transaction.  But don’t feel obliged or anything.  Heh.)

In her interview with host Anna-Maria Tremonti, Barbara Ehrenreich talked about her personal experience with breast cancer. She talked about how there is this attitude that cancer is something you almost bring upon yourself by negative thinking, and how if you just think positively you will overcome this disease — that it happens on a cellular level just using the power of your mind. The flip side of this, of course, is how the victim of such a disease is blamed for succumbing to it — if they just thought positively enough, they could overcome it. Science is cited as a basis for these claims.

The reality, she points out — as a trained scientist — is that this is complete bunk. Studies have shown that you can think as positively or negatively as you want; it has no impact whatsoever on whether you beat cancer or it beats you. All the positive thinking pressure does is make you feel bad if you aren’t getting with the program.

A side note touched on by Ehrenreich is the industry surrounding the breast cancer industry itself, the fundraisers and the gimme bags given out at these charity and awareness-building events. At one such engagement, she noted, she was given a bag of stuff to take home which included a stuffed animal (possibly a teddy bear) and crayons. So she asked the organizer what the deal was with the crayons. The person responded that they were in there in case Ehrenreich (or any other breast cancer survivor) wanted to write about her/their experiences.

Barbara Ehrenreich’s comment on that was basically, come on, I’m a writer — you think that if I want to write about what I’m going through I’m going to use crayons? Really??

Bottom line – as Ehrenreich pointed out in the interview, these stuffed animals and crayons (ubiquitous hand-outs in relation to breast cancer) only serve to infantilize the women going through this. Teddy bears and crayons aren’t going to make them feel better. What these organizations should be spending their time and money on is addressing why exactly there is such an epidemic of women getting breast cancer in the developed world. And then devoting their efforts to doing something about the causes so that cancers can be prevented in the first place.

Barbara Ehrenreich also has a blog.   In it, she addressed another aspect of the dangers of positive thinking in relation to the economy and the current recession we find ourselves in.   Polyanna-ish thinking, she argues, is touted as the key to success both in the corporate world as well as in our own personal worlds.   Thinking positive will get you that great job, that high income, hardships will be overcome — you just have to believe it.

The reality, she posits, is actually that over-emphasis on either optimism or negativitism will not solve anything. The key is realism — being able to balance the positives and negatives of a given situation in order to figure out a realistic solution which takes everything — all the factors, whether we like them or not — into consideration.

If you have about 23 minutes, you can listen to the podcast of her interview on the CBC here.

If you prefer to read about it on her blog, you can check out the post I’m referring to:  How Positive Thinking Wrecked the Economy