"Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it." --G.K. Chesterton

Friday, October 26, 2012

Popular fundraising device is illegal

I am involved with a few non-profit charities such as The Coquitlam Foundation and regularly attend their and other non-profits' fundraising events. These often include silent- and/or live-auction items of one or more bottles of wine or liquor. The Hospice Society's annual Treasurers of Christmas gala features a live auction of a "wall of wine," as I recall. And last week's PoCoMo Youth Services anniversary event featured a silent auction of an expensive bottle of Scotch Whiskey. But according to a new B.C. government press release (below), this popular fundraising device is currently illegal. I hope the government acts quickly to change the law.



(photo by Terry O'Neill)
 NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
2012EMNG0033-001649
Oct. 26, 2012

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas
and Minister Responsible for Liquor

Liquor laws clarified to help non-profit organizations

VICTORIA - Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas Rich Coleman today confirmed the Province will take a "common sense" approach that will allow non-profit organizations to conduct fundraising using gift
baskets or similar items that have liquor as one of its components.
The law will be permanently clarified by legislative changes at a
later date.
The approach enables charities and non-profits to conduct certain
types of fundraising, such as auctions, using liquor provided it is a
part of a gift basket or an equivalent basket of goods. The liquor
must have been commercially produced and must not be consumed at the
event.
Presently, B.C. law requires anyone who sells liquor to be licensed
and for the liquor sold under that licence to be purchased from the
Liquor Distribution Branch or another approved outlet, such as a B.C.
winery.
Charities that wish to fundraise using only liquor, without other
items as a primary component of a basket, will have to wait until new
legislation is in place. For those organizations, a special occasion
licence will continue to be required and the liquor will have to be
purchased through the Liquor Distribution Branch.

Quotes:
Rich Coleman, Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas and Minister
Responsible for Liquor -
"From time to time, we find outdated liquor policies that may have
been relevant at a particular time in history but don't work today.
Our goal is to get rid of these outdated liquor laws that
unnecessarily restrict British Columbians and to regulate alcohol
responsibly in the process."

Quick Facts:
The B.C. government is modernizing liquor laws in B.C. because many
federal and provincial liquor laws have been around since
Prohibition. Changes made since February include:
* Liquor in Theatres
- Provides flexibility to live-event venues and revises liquor laws
for movie theatres.
* Corkage - Bring Your Own Bottle
- Provides opportunities for restaurant customers that want to bring
their own wine into a licensed dining establishment.
* Penalties for Bootlegging
- Police and liquor inspectors now have the ability to issue $575
tickets to people found giving or serving liquor to anyone under the
age of 19.
* Personal Importation of Liquor into B.C.
- Allows B.C. residents to bring back an unlimited amount of 100 per
cent Canadian wine if it is for personal consumption and purchased
from a recognized winery in another province, or choose to have it
shipped from the winery directly to their home.
- Allows B.C. residents returning from another Canadian province to
bring back on-their-person up to nine litres of wine, three litres of
spirits, and a combined total of 25.6 litres of beer, cider or
coolers for personal consumption.

Learn More:
To learn more about the rules for liquor licensing in the British
Columbia, visit: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/lclb/LLinBC/index.htm

Media contacts:
Cindy Stephenson
Liquor Control and Licensing
250 952-5761

Sandra Steilo
Energy, Mines and Natural Gas
250 952-0617

Connect with the government of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

City should stay out of pet-cemetery business


Photo of pet cemetery from cbc.ca.

A report on the issue of pet cemeteries came to council eight days ago, but was deferred for consideration until last night to allow councillor Mae Reid, council's most ardent animal lover, to take part in the discussion, because she was sick eight days ago.

The staff report basically surveyed the landscape surrounding the issue and made no recommendations. Apparently, the report was sparked by a request from a councillor last year, but even the apparent requester--Ms. Reid suggested that it might have been her--seemed to have a difficult time recollecting the exact reason for the request.

Anyway, there was some discussion by Ms. Reid and others about such things as memorial walls or columbaria for deceased pets in or around existing or new city cemeteries, but I helped bring the discussion to an end by informing my colleagues that many cultures and religions would find such a set-up to be very offensive. Lou Sekora also evinced little sympathy for any such project, and suggested that one rather major obstacle would be the definition of "pet." He wondered whether a civic facility be open to a snake, for example.

If such objections hadn't had the desired effect of ending discussion on the subject (a subject that, I am aware, can be very emotional), I would have debated against taking any action on the grounds that this properly should be a private matter, left to private individuals and/or companies to work out. In short, I believe the city has no rightful place in providing this sort of service.




Sunday, October 21, 2012

Honouring a North American aboriginal saint

I thought I'd do something different for the blog today, and pass along this heartening news release from the office of the Prime Minister:

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada recognizing the canonization of Kateri Tekakwitha

October 21, 2012
From Archdiocese of Ottawa
Ottawa, Ontario
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement recognizing the canonization of Kateri Tekakwitha:
“Today in Vatican City, Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha was declared a Saint by Pope Benedict XVI, making her North America’s first Aboriginal Saint.
“Saint Kateri – also known as ‘Lily of the Mohawks’ – was bestowed the highest honour of the Catholic Church in recognition of her remarkable virtue and determination, and her unwavering devotion to God.
“Born in 1656 in what is now New York State, Saint Kateri was persecuted for the faith she held so tenaciously and relocated to a Christian Mohawk village in what is now Kahnawake, Quebec, where she perished at the tender age of 24.
“Throughout her short life, Saint Kateri never abandoned her faith. She taught prayers to children, cared for the sick and the elderly, and often attended mass both at sunrise and sunset.
“Today, a number of shrines in both Canada and the U.S. are dedicated to Saint Kateri, including the site of her burial at the St. Francis Xavier Mission in Kahnawake, Quebec.
“The canonization of Saint Kateri is a great honour and joyous occasion for the many North Americans and Aboriginal peoples who cherish her witness of faith and strength of character. The Government of Canada stands with those who are celebrating her life on this day in Canada, the United States and throughout the world.”



Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Aiming for clarity in the Riverview discussion

We had a long and somewhat convoluted discussion about the Riverview lands at last night’s council meeting—and I have to admit that I was chief reason for the discussion. It all centred on a three-part recommendation from staff that we: 1) affirm council’s 2005 position on Riverview; 2) support the new Heritage Conservation Plan recently released by the Province; and 3) reiterate that council should have a role in future planning.

The major part of the debate was on whether we wanted to re-affirm the 2005 position. To my mind, that position was badly in need of revision. In the end, it became apparent that the summary of that position, in the report before us, did not really capture the fullness of the position, and so we deferred any decision until we could get clarification. We passed recommendations two and three with minor amendments.

The following represents my speaking notes on the issue, prepared before the meeting. If you read them, I hope you’ll understand where I was coming from in my opposition to the first recommendation.
Riverview heritage building. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

Council has been asked to affirm the city’s key priorities for the Riverview lands and to indicate support for the provincial government’s Heritage Conservation Plan’s proposed strategies to preserve the heritage-defining elements of the site, and to declare once again that the city should have an integral role in in the forthcoming land-use plan for the site.

There is no question that this is a major issue. The Riverview precinct is a treasure-house of not only invaluable natural wonders and historical riches, but also of much social-utility and economic potential. After all, it comprises 244 acres of land in the heart of the Tri-Cities, one of the most vibrant and fastest-growing areas not only in the Lower Mainland but in the entire country. Getting its future use right could be key to the future of the whole region.

With this in mind, it is important that we examine carefully the three actions we have been asked to take. Let’s deal with them one by one.

Regarding the first question, of reaffirming our three “key priorities” for the site, we must first look at what those priorities are, which were identified in early 2005:

According to the report before us, those three priorities are: “A) Riverview should provide a place for mental health and wellness; support research, education and innovation; preserve the botanical heritage and ecology of the lands; and promote heritage, arts and culture.” These are all laudable aspirations, of course, but I am wondering whether, with seven years having now passed since that declaration was made, we might now want to refine it.

The way it now reads, the city is on the record saying that Riverview must include a huge variety of future uses, everything from serving as a research centre to an art-and-culture hub. Do we really mean this? Are we really asking for the provincial government to do ALL of this on the site? I don’t think so. I think council and the public is actually saying that future uses should be limited to one or more of the stated uses, not necessarily ALL of them.

Next, we have, “B) Riverview’s heritage buildings, landscapes and arboretum should be protected and preserved.” What exactly do we mean by this? Do we really expect any future user of Riverview to “protect and preserve” all the buildings, without changing one little thing? Any anyway, do we really want all those buildings to be protected and preserved? Do we really expect any or all of the potential future users, as identified in “a”, to move into buildings that have been perfectly protected and preserved?
A magnificent tree on the Riverview grounds. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

Remember, just last year, the previous council unanimously passed a motion calling for Royal Columbian Hospital to be rebuilt on the Riverview lands, instead of undergoing a costly renovation at its present site in New Westminster. I can imagine how this massive construction project could take place without impacting the world-famous arboretum, but I cannot fathom how it would transpire without, at the very least, changing Riverview’s landscape. And do we really expect the provincial government to construct a billion-dollar hospital at Riverview while also spending how many untold tens or hundreds of millions, “protecting and preserving” every single one of the heritage buildings on the site – a demand that , as it reads now, is so severe as to preclude even-small scale interior alterations of the buildings?

Remember what momma said: You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Difficult decisions have to be made, and I believe that if we simply re-affirm this, we would be failing to show the leadership that is demanded of us.

Public tour during Treefest. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)
And one last thing on the subject of preserving and protecting, one need only look to pages 83-85 of the heritage report to see that there are actually 15 – FIFTEEN – types of conservation approaches one can take to the Riverview site, not just the two, protecting and preserving, called for in this statement. Without further refinement of what buildings should be conserved, and how far that conservation should go – that is, everything ranging from preserving and restoring the buildings in their entirety to simply preserving an historic façade and integrating it into a new building – statement ‘b’ is virtually meaningless.

On the whole then, I would say that council should NOT re-affirm its commitment to statement “b” without significant refinement.

And then we come to statement C, which says the Riverview lands should remain publicly owned and not developed for market housing. Is council still in agreement with this? Personally, I view this statement as aspirational and not practical. That is, in a perfect world, it would be nice to have it as public land, but I’m wondering if this is a practical goal, given economic realities. Nevertheless, I am prepared to re-support “c” as an aspiration statement at this time.

And so, that deals with the first of the three recommended actions we take. Number two asks us to support the HCP’s strategies to preserve the heritage defining elements of the site. This would appear to be a no-brainer, but I would be shirking my duties if I didn’t point out that the HCP contains one rather large weakness, and that is that it does not prioritize the heritage values that have been identified. That is, it considers strategies for protecting everything from the invaluable trees to the mundane and confusing road network on the site – and appears to make no attempt to judge which is more important to protect.

Remember: When everything is a priority, NOTHING is a priority. Without a prioritization exercise, it may be that the province will be overwhelmed at the huge conservation task at hand. I would suggest, then, that the CITY not blindly follow in the footsteps of the report, but, as I suggested earlier, show some leadership, and make some decisions about what we feel are the most important components of Riverview to protect. To not do so would be to invite inaction.

Finally, three: To reiterate council’s interest in having an integral role in the forthcoming land use plan for the site. I do not have a single quibble with this.

Trying a new type of Townhall Meeting

My previous attempt to gain council support to engage more citizen involvement in the democratic process didn't get any traction. So, last night, I tried again and introduced a Notice of Motion calling for Electronic Town Hall Meetings. The idea seems to have widespread support, and we'll formally discuss the motion at the next council meeting. I'm hoping it will receive unanimous backing. Here's the text of my motion, which was seconded by Councillor Selina Robinson:

Motion to Encourage Citizen Engagement in Town Hall Meetings

Whereas the Council of the City of Coquitlam holds at least two public Town Hall Meetings a year with the intention of engaging citizen input into a variety of important local issues, and

Whereas, the number of people attending those meetings, such as the one held Oct. 3, 2012 at the Centennial Pavilion, is sometimes so low as to be matched by the number of City staff and Councillors in attendance, and,

Whereas, communications technologies, including but not limited to webcasts, Twitter feeds, and email and telephone linkages exist that have the potential to broaden the engagement process of Town Hall Meetings,

Be it resolved that Council direct staff to examine the possibility of, and to report back on, the staging of future Town Hall Meetings which are webcasted and, for the benefit of those citizens who are watching the webcast, that such meetings also employ communications technologies allowing, but not limited to, the receipt and display of emailed and Twittered comments and questions, and also allows citizens to communicate their questions and comments by phone in a way that their calls can be broadcast within the meeting site.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Justin Trudeau, Liberal leader?

With Justin Trudeau set to announce that he intends to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, I thought the time was right for me to reproduce the Cover Story I wrote on him for the Western Standard's March 26, 2007 issue. (NB: The following is the unedited version of the article that I submitted to the editor; I do not have e-access to the published version. Finally, I did not write the coverlines and headlines.)

He's 35 going on 25: Justin Trudeau has the name and the buzz.

But is he an empty suit?


By Terry O'Neill

Justin Trudeau strolls through the front entrance of the posh clubhouse at the Nicklaus North golf course in Whistler, B.C. just before dusk on February 23. There’s no fanfare, no entourage, and no paparazzi in tow, which is surprising, considering that Trudeau’s dreamy mug is all over the front pages of the morning’s newspapers in recognition of the fact he announced his official entry into federal politics the day previous in Montreal, just before he jetted off to Vancouver. Yes, Trudeau had finally ended months of speculation by declaring his intention to represent the Liberal Party of Canada in the Montreal riding of Papineau. This meant, of course, that Pierre Trudeau’s eldest son had at long last made the big decision to try follow in his late father’s famous and controversial footsteps.

Justin Trudeau was at the upscale ski resort to raise money for the Canadian Avalanche Foundation, with which he became involved as a director shortly after the death of his brother Michel in an avalanche in 1998. The dress code was advertised as “mountain evening,” which the invitation explained should reflect something alpine. Many guests arrived in ski sweaters and crisply-pressed slacks, but Trudeau didn’t follow the script. Instead, he showed up in blue jeans with a designer rip in the left knee, a sports coat and a striped shirt—its wide-open neck revealing an almost-hairless chest.


Revellers at the $175-a-plate event wouldn’t necessarily have known it, but his get-up was virtually the same outfit Trudeau wore to many of his numerous public outings over the last several months, whether it was to announce his candidacy or to address members of a Chamber of Commerce, like he did in February in London. Trudeau even embraced the tie-free, two-buttons-open look at a more-formal avalanche-fundraising gig in Calgary on Feb. 24, although he did ditch the jeans and jacket for a natty sand-brown suit.

The look is definitely a youthful one. But then, even at the age of 35, if Justin Trudeau is known for anything, it’s for his youth and the promise he holds for a Liberal Party of Canada desperately seeking some vitality. A press agent couldn’t have put it any better than did Glen Pearson last November, when Trudeau attended a rally to support Pearson’s ultimately successful bid to win the London-North Centre by-election. “We have someone in our midst who some day may be prime minister,” Pearson gushed about the Trudeau prince. “We are in the presence of royalty.”

But while much is being expected of the nearly middle-aged Trudeau, he seems to be the very embodiment of someone 10 years his junior. And it’s not just the way he dresses. Consider this: while many other men of his age and privileged background are married with kids, well established in their careers, and settling into their lives, Justin Trudeau is childless, has flitted from job to avocation to cause to acting gig with little apparent impact in any area in which he has alighted, and has only now settled on attempting to find a place for himself in the House of Commons. And even then, politics is a profession for which, despite the many figurehead positions he has held, he actually has few legitimate qualifications—other than his famous last name, of course, and the celebrity that accompanies it.


Yes, he’s been a teacher, but so have hundreds of thousands of other Canadians. And yes, he’s sat in the board of Katimavik, the youth-volunteer organization, but he clearly got the job through family and political connections. Yes, he’s working on a master’s degree in environmental geography at McGill University, but being a 35-year-old grad student isn’t exactly an accomplishment to write home about. And, yes, he hosted last year’s televised Giller Prize to honor the country’s literary set, but he’s never written a book, let alone a major policy paper.

In other words, he’s a lightweight, but at least a well-known and apparently youthful one. “He’s not taken very seriously,” political commentator and recently retired Liberal MP Jean Lapierre said upon learning of Trudeau’s decision to try to run for office. “So he will have to show that he has something in his belly. We don’t know that yet.” Lapierre also revealed that Trudeau hadn’t even been a member of the Liberal party until last fall. “I sold him his first membership card about four months ago,” Lapierre said, “so he never really cared about the party before.” Ouch.

Nevertheless, the fact that Justin Trudeau is a Peter Pan-ish 35 going on 25 may explain why the Liberal Party of Canada chose him to head its youth task force last year, even though he was nine years older than the official age limit of 25 for membership in the Young Liberals of Canada. In fact, that youth task force is as good a place as any to begin a consideration of the young Mr. Trudeau’s record, which in recent years seems to have been designed to give him maximum possible publicity with the minimum of actual accomplishment.

The “task force on youth and civil engagement” was one of several such study groups the Liberals established in an attempt to “renew” itself following its defeat at the hands of the Conservatives in January 2006. Two things are immediately evident about the youth task force’s interim report, which was made public late last year. The first is that, despite his name being on its cover page, Trudeau was not actually its primary author; a reader has to turn to the inside to discover the report’s “lead writers” were actually two other individuals, Chris Holcroft and Danielle Kotras. Exactly how much work Trudeau did on the report is not clear.

The second notable aspect of the report is its vacuous but still ominous findings: vacuous in that the paper’s most important specific recommendation seems to be that Elections Canada “work with school boards across the country to hold comprehensive mock elections in high schools” to help young people understand the electoral process; ominous in that the paper declares that the young Canadians with whom the task force met “want a return to activist government.”

The paper doesn’t spell it out, but to anyone who lived through the governments of Pierre Trudeau, “activist” clearly means a high-spending, high-debt, interventionist government. It’s nothing to worry about if you’re a left-winger, but it’s cause for great concern if you’re on the right or even a main-street centrist. Moreover, this type of government is anathema to the West, especially Alberta, which bore the full brunt of the elder Trudeau’s “activist” government in 1980 when the Grits imposed the National Energy Program, which is estimated to have sucked $100 billion out of the province’s economy.

But Justin Trudeau’s expression of this sort of interventionist sentiment, especially in relation to the need for government to take action to “save” the environment, shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone who has been listening to what he has been talking about in his many public appearances and interviews over the past half year. In fact, Trudeau has become something of rich man’s David Suzuki, the environmental Jeremiah who preaches global-warming doom, and big-government salvation.

Consider this collection of his musings of late:

*“Canada actually isn’t doing so well environmentally. We’re falling behind. Were not taking care of things and a large part of the responsibility is on its citizens.” (Owen Sound Sun Times, Oct. 2, 2006)

*“We are completely misunderstanding the fundamental relationship we have with this planet that sustains us. Our relationship with the natural world needs to fundamentally inform, shape and guide our lifestyles from the simplest element to the biggest.” (Victoria Times Colonist, Oct. 19)

*“All of our advances in science and everything have led us to this point, and now we’re going to have to do something that no civilization has ever been able to do, which is to have certain behaviours, to reach the top, and then suddenly change direction, change our habits, and change our ways away from the very things that brought us here.” (National Post, Nov. 8)

*“We have achieved tremendous success with this civilization, but it has come at a cost. We’re at a point where the behaviour and habits that got us here are the very same ones that will ruin us. They will cause total collapse.” (Montreal Gazette, Feb. 15, 2007)

Sound like something Suzuki would espouse? It’s not a coincidence: Trudeau has said he admires the Vancouver geneticist and broadcaster, and was even seen assiduously taking notes at one of the environmentalists’ recent lectures.
As evidenced by Lapierre’s less-than-laudatory comments about Trudeau’s decision to seek the Liberal nomination, his entry into politics hasn’t exactly been cheered, even by fellow Liberals. In fact, he was criticized within the party for making his headline-grabbing announcement on the same day as leader Stephane Dion was delivering a major speech about Afghanistan. Nevertheless, criticisms from both within and outside the party have centred more on his lack of experience than on his public pronouncements. Clearly, though, his calamitous predictions bear scrutiny too. The Western Standard sent a selection of his quotations, including the ones above, to two expert observers. Their reactions were less than positive.

Jason Clemens, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, says Trudeau is just plain wrong when he says the environment in Canada is getting worse. Measurements consistently show that water and air quality are actually improving in this country, Clemens says. Moreover, he argues that Trudeau shows a basic misunderstanding of the free-market economy when he argues that big government should intervene, through such mechanisms as subsidies and taxes, to improve the environment.

“So I guess my challenge to him would be, name me the situation where that approach has actually solved the problem. I mean, historically, I just can’t think of any major problem where the government took that activist approach and actually made things better.” On the other hand, Clemens says that one thing going in Trudeau’s favour is that, unlike Dion, he actually seems to recognize that there will be hefty price tag attached to green initiatives.

Environmental consultant Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, believes Trudeau “is certainly apocalyptic” in his worldview. “I had many of the same sentiments at that age,” Moore says, “now I believe it is wise to remain calm at all times, especially if a sink is sinking.” Moore has hope that new energy technologies will reduce fossil-fuel consumption and that the Earth’s population will stabilize. “[Trudeau] sounds like a bit of a dreamer and is too pessimistic for me,” Moore concludes, “but like so many people today, probably just buys into Suzuki, [former U.S. vice-president Al] Gore, and [environmentalist James] Lovelock.”

There are always two sides to politics, of course: style and substance. Moore and Clemens don’t think much of the substance. What about the style? Political scientist Faron Ellis of Lethbridge College thinks Trudeau’s celebrity may actually backfire on him. “People who are looking for the second coming of the old man,” he says, “are probably going to be sorely disappointed.” Once one looks past all the hype surrounding Justin Trudeau, it’s evident, “This is just a rich kid who has done nothing,” Ellis continues. “He was supposed to be a teacher, but didn’t stick with that. He’s got the celebrity. You know, the most important thing that brought him celebrity was the deaths of family members, right? His dad and his brother. You know, you’ve only got so many family members to keep that going.” Double ouch.

(Trudeau’s first big media splash came when he delivered a eulogy at his father’s funeral in 2000. He won wide praise for the speech, but it’s a little known fact that his long-time buddy Gerald Butts, currently an assistant to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, helped write the eulogy. Moreover, in retrospect, the speech seems sophomoric, especially in its use of an inappropriate quotation from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar—“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”—as an opening line. As any literate English-speaker knows, the line following that, which Trudeau didn’t cite, is “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” Had Justin come only to bury his father, and not to praise him? Of course not, but that is what one might have been led to believe by the strange opening citation.)

B.C. political analyst and broadcaster Bill Tieleman uses the “D” word to describe Trudeau: “dilettante.” “I think that he has not distinguished himself with actually having done anything,” Tieleman says. “You can’t even say he’s written some interesting papers on politics, has been involved as a door knocker or organizer. He’s a media creation at the moment.” This doesn’t mean he won’t get elected though, even though “Justin Trudeau’s political weight seems to come more from his mother’s side than his father’s.” Triple ouch. (That’s a reference to Justin’s mother, Margaret, whose bizarre and scandalous behaviour while still married to Pierre Trudeau was to the Canada of the 1970s what Britney Spears’ current shenanigans are to the world today.)

Of course, Justin Trudeau need not be disqualified from politics simply because he is the son of a famous politician. U.S. president George W. Bush is the son of a former U.S. president, of course. And in Canada, former prime minister Paul Martin’s father was a prominent Liberal cabinet minister. Former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis’s father, David, was a national NDP leader.

Justin Trudeau refused to be interviewed by the Western Standard for this piece, although he did give a brief comment about his candidacy when approached at the Whistler event. “For me, being involved with communities, like the mountain community, like the avalanche community, has allowed me to connect with Canadians, and understand some of the real priorities they have,” he said. “My life has been, over the past decade or so, being involved with a number or organizations, and this is one of the organizations that I have learned and grown an awful lot though, and understood a lot of the way that society needs to take on its responsibilities, involving education, involving funding of particular organizations and programs, and that is all sort of an amount of experience that I will bring with me to Parliament.”

Asked how important it would be for him to carve out his own reputation, distinct from his father’s, Trudeau was straightforward: “Well, listen, everyone already has their minds largely made up about me from the outset. My challenge is going to be to have them discover who I really am and what I really stand for at the base. And no amount of me telling them what I am and what I stand for is enough. I need to get to work and show them that. And the first way to do that is what I do very well, and is to connect with people and listen to people and learn how to present, particularly the constituents in Papineau.”

Not exactly stirring stuff, except, that is, if you’re a member of “the avalanche community.” Trudeau had nothing to say about everyday concerns involving employment, taxes, education, the economy and childcare; in fact, he didn’t even offer any concrete ideas about how he’d implement his environmental agenda.

It was the same the day before when he announced his attempt to win the Grit nomination in Papineau, a riding currently held by the Bloc Quebecois. True to form, Trudeau talked style, not substance, saying he wants “to change the way the game is played, to a certain extent, try to bring back a certain amount of nobility and reduce some of the cynicism there is around politics these days…Canadians need to hear a different message. Canadians need to start believing in something noble about politics and I’d like to be a part of that.”

Trudeau’s evocation of nobility implies, of course, that he believes he, himself, is noble. Maybe he actually thinks he is. After all, the first definition of the word, in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, is “belonging by rank, title, or birth to the aristocracy.” But that’s the easy part for a fellow with such a famous and successful father. It’s the second definition—“of excellent character; having lofty ideals; free from pettiness and meanness, magnanimous”—which is the real challenge.



The direct approach to affordable housing

The top item in the City-produced Coquitlam News in Brief this week is entitled “On the Street Where You Live.” The item reads as follows: “Coquitlam’s Affordable Housing strategy will soon have a new direction. It will replace a five year old document that was prepared long before the new realities of growth and the impact of the Evergreen line on overall development. One of the critical components of the new strategy will be to clearly define the City’s role in affordable housing. The process will begin immediately and be a two phase strategy with several opportunities for public input with Council making the final decision on what the future holds in the months ahead.”


City Centre condo developments. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

You may read or hear in the coming days that I voted against updating the above-mentioned Affordable Housing Strategy (AHS). But it’s not that I’m against affordable housing. Rather, I’m for a more-immediate discussion of a crucial aspect of affordable housing: rental accommodation.

The rental discussion was supposed to take place this fall but, as I learned on Monday, it has now been cancelled in lieu of the AHS review. For now, the “interim” rental strategy, which council approved in late July and which was supposed to be in place for only a few months, will stretch at least until the end of next spring. And I’m simply not ready to support that. It’s more than just “the principle of the thing.” Rather, the rental strategy we are now stuck with embraces a quasi-prescriptive approach which has the potential to force the buyers of market housing to support folks who choose to live in market rental. And that’s simply not fair.

The forced subsidy would not be a direct tax. Rather, under the now-semi-permanent rental housing strategy, developers can be offered “incentives” to persuade them to build rental accommodation. One incentive would be to waive any Community Amenity Contribution related to new rental floor space.

But, given the fact that community amenity contributions will still be collected from the sale of condos, this means that the cost of new community amenities will fall onto the backs of the developers of for-sale condos, who will then pass those costs onto the buyers of the new condos. Another scenario might see all existing property owners, including the buyers of new condos, paying higher property taxes to cover the costs of the amenities that are needed by, but not funded by, the renters or the developers of rental properties.*

I am not opposed to very-well-targetted programs that would help the very poorest members of our society find a decent place to live, but I certainly do not support more far-reaching programs that benefit market rental. After all, it’s supposed to be “market” rental, and “market” forces should prevail.

On Monday, I had something to say about the general AHS update, as well. I noted that the AHS’s current vision statement is, “All residents of Coquitlam will be able to live in safe, appropriate housing that is affordable for their income level.” I believe this is pipedream – a utopian vision that, if acted upon in earnest, would bankrupt the City.

I simply do not believe that everyone who decides they want to live in Coquitlam automatically has the right to an “appropriate” and “affordable” home. This is dreaming in Technicolor. This is the nanny state saying that it will look after all its helpless little citizens. This is fostering an environment of entitlement. This is simply unworkable.

I pointed out that, rather than mire itself in a complex mishmash of programs and policies surrounding affordable housing, the City might simply recognize that it already has a rather good approach in place—its densification and housing-choices policies, the latter of which frees the way for the rezoning of older single-family lots to classifications allowing second homes, duplexes, triplexes the like. Insofar as the City can improve and refine such policies and continue cutting red tape, it will be accomplishing plenty.

Upon further reflection, I can add that I believe the city should strive to do what it is supposed to do, and that is manage land use and make decisions efficiently as part of that prudent management function.

Part of the problem with affordability is the length of time it takes the free market to respond to housing demand because of the drawn-out approval process. I hear that, in Coquitlam, it takes just under three years from the time a developer acquires a piece of land (that is not zoned for multi-family housing) to see it through the rezoning process, the development permit process, the building permit approval process, the actual construction, and the final inspection. Builders might schedule half of a project’s time for actual construction and the other half for municipal approvals. No wonder costs are so high.

My colleagues and I will, I hope, talk at length about this sometime in the middle of next year, when the AHS update comes back to Council.

*Yet another party may end up bearing the cost of the amenity contributions not be paid by renters or developers of rental properties, and that is the original land owners of property developed into for-sale condos. Their sale prices might be driven down by developers who know that they’re going to have to pay through the nose to cover the costs of community amenities.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Let's avoid bad propaganda art

On Monday, council voted in favour of proceeding with something called the Library Art Project, which takes advantage of a provincial government grant of $35,000 to place a piece of art in the foyer of the new City Centre Library, which is now scheduled to open in November. However, before we unanimously supported the project, I took the opportunity to raise some concerns about the potential pitfalls of the project--with the result that both the NOW and the News published stories on the ensuing discussion.

Picasso's Guernica: A masterpiece of propaganda art.
Here's the background: My internal alarm bells start ringing more than a week ago when I read the background report about the project. The first alarm sounded when I saw that the project will bring together "community members from different cultural and faith groups with a professional community artist, using art as a tool [emphasis added] to examine issues of racism, diversity, integration and inclusion, and explore how the Coquitlam community can become more welcoming and inclusive."

Now, I certainly have no problem with furthering the causes of integration, inclusion, diversity and anti-racism. These are laudable goals, indeed. But my concern is that any time you set out to use "art as a tool" to do anything you are very clearly setting out to use art as a propaganda tool.
Maoist propaganda art: No artistic value.
Propaganda is defined as "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." We most often hear about propaganda as it relates to advancing some evil cause, but propaganda can be used to advance a good cause, too.

My concern is that propaganda art can very easily not be art at all, but simply a piece of rubbish or pap with no aesthetic value. Yes, some propaganda art, such as Picasso's Guernica (which aimed to influence viewers about the horrors of the Axis' aerial bombardment of a Basque village) can be stunningly successfully at an artistic level, of course. I fear, however, that, once an artist's unique, internally derived vision is tampered with by imposing an external demand on it -- in this case, demanding that the piece be "a tool" to fight racism -- that the artist will be handicapped and the work produced will suffer.

The second alarm sounded when I considered the implications of the fact that the artist will get his or her marching orders from a series of community workshops. It seems to me that this is "art by committee," and had the potential to be a "too many cooks spoil the broth" kind of disaster.

I quipped that, if we wanted to play it safe, save some money, and accomplish the "world at peace" goal to which we aspire, we might simply install a Coke machine in the foyer, and play "I"d Like to Sing the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony" on a continuous loop. I hope nobody took me seriously!

In the end, I'm glad we approved the project, and glad to have spoken up in favour of aesthetic quality. Let's set our sights high, and not settle for dreck.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Big marijuana changes coming...eventually

Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.
The City has now received a response, from Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, to the letter (about which I blogged on Wednesday) that Council sent to Ottawa earlier this summer asking for better regulation of medical marijuana. The good news is that Ms. Aglukkaq confirms that more stringent rules are, indeed, planned. The bad news is that they are still many months or even years away. Here are the pertinent paragraphs of her letter, dated Aug. 29, received by the city on Sept. 6, but only distributed to councillors yesterday:

"In June 2011, I announced our intention to reform the MMAP [Marihuana Medical Access Program] in resonse to the public health and safety concerns raised by numerous stakeholders... The Department is proposing improvements to the MMAP that will reduce the risk of abuse and keep children and communities safe, while significantly improving the way program participants access marihuana for medical purposes.

"....[A] key element of the proposed improvements is the establishment of a new supply and distribution system that uses only licensed producers. This would mean that the production of marihuana for medical purposes by individuals in homes would be phased out. The licensed producers would be the only legal source of dried marihuana for medical purposes. They would have to meet regulatory requirements related to elements such as quality control standards and security measures. This would reduce risks to public health, safety and security. It would also mean that municipalities would be fully informed of any licensed marihuana production within their jurisdiction....

"Health Canada is currently in the process of drafting new regulations, a process that can take from 18 to 24 months..."

Meantime, the NOW has published a story about my earlier response to the City's letter to the minister.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Keeping alive the voter-encouragement idea

OK, so my voter-encouragement idea went up in flames on Monday night. But that's not necessarily the end of the story. In fact, I've decided to try to keep the idea alive by writing to AG Shirley Bond about it. Here's the text of the letter I mailed this afternoon:


Honourable Shirley Bond

Minister of Justice and Attorney General
PO BOX 9044 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC
V8W 9E2

Dear Ms. Bond,
I note that the B.C. government has officially requested that the chief electoral officer convene an independent panel to examine the potential for using Internet voting in the province. I understand that the action is being taken in response to low voter turnout at both the provincial and municipal levels—a trend that is evident in the City of Coquitlam, where the last general election saw just 21.7% of eligible voters cast ballots.
It was in response to this that I recently put forward a motion, asking for my Council colleagues’ support in seeking a legislative change that would encourage more voter turnout. My idea calls for the full publication of the names of persons who vote.
At present, the names are made public for only six weeks following an election, and are accessible only to those visiting City Hall in person; no copying of the names, other than in longhand, is allowed. My proposal would give municipalities the right to publish the names online and in print as a way of thanking voters who cast ballots and celebrating their commitment to democracy, thereby encouraging all voters to ensure that their names are put on the list.
Tabling of my notice of motion generated stories in both the Coquitlam NOW and the Tri-City News, as well as interviews with CBC One in Vancouver and CKNW’s Michael Smyth.
The idea came from an article in the summer edition (the” Ideas Issue”) of Atlantic magazine which, in turn, was based on a study done in Michigan. Copies of both are included, as are a copy of the blog item on the idea that I published and a copy of my formal motion. Regrettably, council chose on September 10, 2012 not to endorse my motion, and so it was not forwarded to the LMLGA or the UBCM (and thence to the provincial government) for their consideration.
Nevertheless, I still believe the idea has merit, and therefore am writing about it to you directly for your consideration.

Thanking you for your time,
Terry O’Neill
Councillor, City of Coquitlam

My problem with the City's marijuana letter

UPDATE: Mayor Stewart has now commented, on his Facebook page, about this item. While my specific concern still stands, I'd like to thank him for taking the time to present such a comprehensive explanation.

Today's news, that marijuana smoking is linked to testicular cancer, follows by only a few weeks a report that teenaged pot smokers can expect to see a permanent decline in their IQ. The two troubling reports add to my longstanding concerns about any move to legalize marijuana usage.

Photo from marijuana-addict.com

I raise this matter now because of Coquitlam Council's recent engagement with the marijuana issue, during which we unanimously banned already-patently illegal retail outlets and also the commercial growing of "medical marijuana" in residential areas.
We also voted to send a letter to the federal government "requesting that [it] establish as soon as possible a regulatory framework regarding the production and dispensing of medical marijuana."
I supported the latter motion because, at a time when the federal government has made the medical use of marijuana legal, it only makes sense to have a better regulatory framework than the highly inadequate one that currently exists.
My support of the motion did not mean that I also supported the medical use of marijuana in the first place; it only meant that I recognized that the medical use of marijuana has been established and, this being the case, that better regulation is necessary.
The aforementioned letter was sent to federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and Health Canada on August 23 under the signature of Mayor Richard Stewart. But, rather than simply conveying council's concern for a better regulatory framework, it ended with a paragraph declaring far more. I quote:
"Either this drug is a legitimate therapy for some patients (based upon a favourable risk/benefit profile) or it is not. If it is not, then the MMAR [Medical Marihuana Access Regulations]  should be repealed. But if--as our Council has generally concluded--there is a legitimate medical and society benefit to be derived from controlled access to medical marihuana, [my emphasis] then the MMAR must be revised as soon as practical to allow the safe, timely, and properly regulated filling of prescriptions for this therapy. As already noted above, the current approach is, in Council's opinion, untenable."
I think you can see the problem. It may be true that the majority of council does support controlled marijuana usage and, therefore, that the Mayor is correct in saying that "Council has generally concluded" there is a benefit from it. Nevertheless, our motion did not instruct the letter to say this. Furthermore, we never actually debated either the "medical" or the "societal" benefits derived from controlled access.
Yes, we heard testimony from marijuana proponents about the alleged benefits, but that was never the issue; the issue was the regulatory framework. If the issue had been the "medical" and "societal" benefits of controlled usagage, then we certainly would have had to extend the public hearing by several more hours, if not days. And, of course, we would have also been intruding into federal jurisdiction.
I talked with Mayor Stewart on Monday afternoon about my concerns with the letter, and told him that I was thinking about raising the issue either in-camera or at a public session. In the end, I decided that, because of time constraints during what was a very busy day, I would make the matter public through this medium.
I recognize that it is not the most pressing issue facing us today. However, I believe it is important enough to bring to the public's attention.

Friday, September 7, 2012

In praise of a true homemaker

My six brothers and I all contributed to the eulogy that will be read by my youngest brother at my mother's funeral this morning. This is my contribution:
As a child, I remember asking mom what she had wanted to be when she grew up. She answered that she was doing exactly what she wanted: being a wife, a mother and a homemaker. I asked whether she really hadn't dreamed of being a nurse, or a teacher, or something else, and she answered quite adamantly, No, this is the life she had always envisioned for herself.
I've often thought about that answer. And the thing I keep coming back to is that being a homemaker is a profoundly important job. Just think of the word -- homemaker / "a maker of a home." It implies planning, building and maintenance of one of the most important institutions in our society.
A home isn't just a house. It's not just a place where we eat, sleep and watch TV. Rather, it is a place of nurturing, of safety, of guidance, of relationship building, of happiness and, most importantly, of love.
Mom was a true homemaker for my dad, my brothers and me, and unhesitatingly built new rooms onto that loving home every time a beautiful new bride came into the family or a wonderful new grandchild came into the world. Let's hope our children and our children's children enjoy as much success in their careers as mom did in hers.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Remembering my mom, Patricia O'Neill

My mother passed away on Monday morning, and while we're all sad to see her go, we've also been remembering what a marvellous person she was. Here is the obituary that's appearing in today's papers:

O’NEILL, Mary Patricia Josephine (nee Davis)


March 17, 1931 – September 3, 2012

A loving wife, mother, grandmother and great grandmother, Patricia passed away in her beloved West Vancouver home, surrounded by her caregivers and her husband of 63 years, John Joseph O’Neill. Always caring and passionate, Patricia continued to be a vital part of the large family of which she was immensely proud, even as she endured a series of medical problems that culminated in the heart condition to which she finally succumbed.

Born in St. Boniface, Manitoba, Patricia was predeceased by her parents, Senator John Caswell Davis, OBE, and Priscilla Emmerling Davis (nee Guilbault), and siblings Edward Davis and Lucille Huot. She is survived by her sister Yvonne Pratt. She is mourned by: her husband, Jack; her seven sons, Robert, Terence, Kevin, Lawrence, Stephen, Douglas and John; their seven wives, Beverly, Mary, Marie, Maureen, Susan, Wendy and Leah; her 19 grandchildren, Taryn (and Garret), Timothy (and Ashley) and Sean, Patrick and David, Shannon and Erin (and Tyler), Brian and Colleen (and David), Jaclyn, Shane, Colin and Blair, Danielle, Mitchell and Jocelyn, and Megan, Christopher and Michael; and one great grandchild, Arianna. Her many nieces and nephews throughout North America will also miss their cherished Auntie Pat.

Pat and Jack met and married at a young age and their dedication to each other was obvious to all who knew them. They were seldom apart but, when they were, they spoke frequently. Pat and Jack started their life together in Winnipeg, but also lived in Brandon and St. Boniface before moving to Vancouver in 1959. Pat devoted herself to her family while also engaging in countless acts of charity, for which she is warmly remembered by many friends and organizations.

Everyone who loved Pat was especially appreciative of the fact Jack enabled her stay in their home during her last years and was able to provide her with such a nurturing environment with the best caregivers possible. Pat often mentioned how Jack was taking such good care of her and how grateful she was. The family is indebted not only to those wonderful caregivers, but also to the numerous medical professionals who supported Pat in her final years, and to the priests who provided pastoral care.

A Mass of Christian Burial will take place at Christ the Redeemer Church, 599 Keith Road, West Vancouver, at 11 a.m., Friday, September 7, 2012. A reception in the church hall will follow.



Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Longest Day


We look significantly fresher in this photo, taken last December, than
we did in the wee hours of this morning when Monday's council
meeting finally came to an end.

What a council meeting yesterday. I started at 10 a.m., driving to several locations to see first-hand some of the properties that we were considering for rezoning. Well worth the effort. Then some informal meetings at City Hall from 11:15 am til noon, then:
Noon: In-camera meeting;
2 pm: Council in Committee;
4 pm-ish: Back to in-camera;
7 pm: Public hearing;
11 pm-ish: Regular council;
1 am-ish: Adjournment.

One of the biggest issues on a very full agenda was Polygon's proposal to amend the development agreement, between it and the city, for the western part of the Windsor Gate development.

The company's first iteration of the amended plan, which called for more units and more high rises than originally agreed, had generated a lot of opposition from existing residents. Polygon then unveiled a series of downscaled plans, ending with one that called for the same number of units (albeit slightly larger) as originally agreed, but transforming two eight-storey mid-rises into a pair of high-rise condo towers.

Throughout the process, my colleagues and I were in constant touch with Polygon's Hugh Ker and with residents in Windsor Gate, and, by the end, I was very pleased to support the final iteration of the plan, even though I know some residents are still opposed.

I think all my colleagues and I, not to mention Mr. Ker (who spent several hours at the council committee meeting, and then sat through the long, long evening's affair), were expecting the issue to generate some discussion when it finally arose on our agenda after midnight. But none of us spoke and, in an instant, we voted unaniously to approve it.

I put it down to the effects of the long day and the fact the air conditioning appears to have cut out earlier in the evening! I want to explain this because it's important for all residents to know that the lack of public discussion early this morning does not mean we made an ill-considered decision. Quite the contrary. I know, by talking to my colleagues before the meeting, that they've all been quite involved in the issue, and have carefully thought out their positions.

In the end, the months-long exercise spoke to all that makes municipal governance click: a responsible developer, an engaged electorate, lots of discussion and compromise, and a final decision that is good for the entire community. (Here's a link to the NOW's story about the decision.  One correction, though: the two new high-rises replace the two mid-rises, and are not in addition to them, as the story suggests.)

And on the issue of council's long meeting, my motion, regarding the encouragement of voter participation,  came up at the very end of the meeting. We were all very tired, and I wanted an informed and vigorous discussion, so I moved that the motion be deferred until our next meeting in September. My colleagues were most thankful, and backed the deferral unanimously.

As for some of the other business, here's our communications department summary of the day, followed by some of my comments.

Medical Marijuana


Following a lengthy Public Hearing, Council unanimously approved new bylaws with the authority to regulate the production and distribution of medical marijuana grown in licensed operations. Council's decision followed lengthy discussions where all sides of the sensitive issue were presented by citizens representing various positions.

My two bits worth: We took action to shut down clearly-illegal dispensaries, and we limited the home-based, federally-allowed growing of marijuana, for medical purposes, to personal use only. Commercial operations must local in commercial zones.

What's in a Name?

Apparently quite a lot when you are naming one of the stations destined for the Coquitlam portion of the Evergreen Line. Officials from TransLink advised Coquitlam City Council about a number of regulations and rules associated with naming the stations. Preventing confusion for riders and establishing names with a long shelf life are at the centre of the TransLink mandate. Council members provided some reaction and guidance to TransLink officials who unveiled several concepts and are still in the working stages of the project.

My two bits worth: I like Coquitlam Central Station as the name for the station that's going to be in the big transit exchange-bus loop/WestCoast Express area. I favour Lincoln Station for the stop that's in the northeast corner of the Coquitlam Centre parking lot. And I like Lafarge Lake Station for the final stop.
A bigger issue, which Transit couldn't answer, is: What's the new line going to be called? Since the Evergreen will be merged, and will be one continuous line, with the Millennium, it can't very well be called one thing for half the length and then magically get another name for the second half. My suggestion is to call the whole line the Evergreen Millennium.


Still with Evergreen-related Issues

The Transit-Oriented Development Strategy (TDS) is a "go." Aimed directly at issues surrounding ongoing development adjacent to stations along the new Evergreen Line in Coquitlam, the new strategy will give clear and defined direction around a number of planning and community issues facing residents and the City of Coquitlam. Coquitlam City Council has been part of the process and provided critical input as the concept moved forward to reality. Several major issues surrounding parking and rental housing in the Burquitlam area will be the focus of the ongoing work of the City's TDS team.

My two bits' worth: The big issue with me was what policy we adopt to deal with the potential loss of rental units in Burquitlam. I lean towards market solutions, but the interim policy sees the city being quite interventionist. Nevertheless, I supported the interim policy after very strongly stating that the promised in-depth discussion on this issue in the fall must not assume that the interim policy sets some sort of benchmark. I am particularly opposed to using money, originally designated for social housing, to prop up market rental, and I supported Councillor Nicholson's amendment making that clear.

Another Piece of the Tourism Puzzle

Looking for a hotel room in Coquitlam will become much easier in the years ahead. Coquitlam City Council has approved the construction of a new hotel in the United Boulevard area. A Great Canadian Hotel and Conference facility will rise adjacent to the existing casino . As well as 176 more hotel rooms, the 10-storey facility will also feature a new café, banquet and conference centre adjacent to the Highway 1 corridor.

My two bits' worth: Yes! I supported this initiative.

Going for Gold

The City of Coquitlam's bid to potentially host the BC Summer Games has been given the green light. The bid package will go forward in the fall of 2012 for review by the provincial governing body. Coquitlam is one of several communities vying to host the event. Coquitlam is requesting consideration for the 2016 or the 2018 summer competition.

My two bits' worth: Again, strong support.

Check Out the New Checkout

The Safeway grocery store on Austin Avenue will be replaced by a building that has several design amenities aimed at improving not only the look, but the function of the market in the neighborhood. Special attention will be made to the facades of the building that face both Austin and Ridgeway Avenues.

My two bits' worth: Some tremendous work by our staff and Canada Safeway to ensure that the ugly rear end of Safeway, that fronts Ridgeway, will be transformed into a series of small shops.





Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Positive reinforcement to encourage voter turnout

Would publicizing the names of people who vote in elections help increase voter turnout? I think so, and that's why I introduced a notice of motion at last Monday's council meeting asking council to support the idea.

I'll explain more about the idea later. First, some background. Only 17,961 of 82,839 eligible voters cast ballots in last fall's election in Coquitlam. That's a turnout rate of just 21.7% .

No one knows exactly why the turnout is so low. Some optimists think it's because people are generally satisfied with the way civic affairs are being managed -- either that, or they don't think civic affairs are important enough to warrant the effort necessary to inform themselves and then cast a ballot.

Most analysts and experts are concerned about the lack of engagement. Of late, some have suggested that the province allow municipalities to make voting easier by opening up the process to on-line balloting. I don't think this is a good idea, though.

First, it would open the system to abuse. We seem to hear about a new computer virus every week or so these days. I think hackers would have a field day if elections went on-line.


Traditional way of encouraging voter turnout.

Maclean's magazine reported in its April 16 edition    that, after the University of Western Ontario's alma mater's student council set up a on-line voting system, a Western alumnus hacked into the action and briefly changed a candidate's name to "Justin Bieber's Haircut."  And at UBC's Senate election in 2010, 731 votes came from a single IP address.

I also think there should be some effort involved in voting, to better encourage fuller engagement with candidates and issues. Otherwise, you end up with "drive-by voting." Let's not cater to "slack-tivisim."

And that brings me to my motion. The current issue of Atlantic magazine reports on a Michigan study that found that voter turnout increases if people think the names of people who voted will be publicized.

Currently, municipal governments make public a record of all voters who cast ballots for eight weeks after the election. But members of the public are only allowed to view the list in person, and are not allowed to make photocopies.

My motion calls on the provincial government to amend all relevant legislation to allow for the publication, in print or on-line, and distribution of such lists. I can see a municipal government keeping a permanent record on its website, and perhaps even buying a supplement in the local newspaper thanking everyone who voted.

That's positive reinforcement at its best! And, of course, many potential voters would not want to be seen as being off the list, and they'd work to ensure they're on it.

Would people read such a list? Of course. Just think of how often you've scanned the names of the winners of the latest hospital lottery or participants in the Sun Run.

The biggest objection I've heard to my idea is that it would infringe on voter privacy or the secret ballot. I don't agree. The list would not say how the person voted. And, as stated above, there's already no absolute privacy, because the list is made public for eight weeks.

We'll be discussing my motion (seconded by Councillor Linda Reimer) at the month's end council meeting.

Friday, July 6, 2012

The hottest place in Hell

Martin Luther King once said, ""The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."

One wonders what he would have made of the state of moral confusion found in the Western world in the year 2012. He might opine that the "hottest place in Hell" could become very crowded, indeed.

Hear no evil; see no evil, speak no evil.
I've been thinking of such questions in response to a variety of controverisal stories over the past few months--stories that that have appalled all decent-minded Canadians. One involves a member of the Coquitlam RCMP.

I won't comment on the specifics of the case, but my examination of the RCMP's Code of Conduct prompted me to think about the issue of moral confusion and its twin, moral relativism.

For the record, Section 37 of the RCMP Act states:

"It is incumbent on every member, (a) to respect the rights of all persons; (b) to maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the administration of justice; (c) to perform the member’s duties promptly, impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law and without abusing the member’s authority; (d) to avoid any actual, apparent or potential conflict of interests; (e) to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not concealed or permitted to continue; (f) to be incorruptible, never accepting or seeking special privilege in the performance of the member’s duties or otherwise placing the member under any obligation that may prejudice the proper performance of the member’s duties; (g) to act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner; and (h) to maintain the honour of the Force and its principles and purposes."

It is noteworthy that the section uses the words "integrity," "improper" conduct, "incorruptible," and "honour."

I have to wonder, however, whether such words have been now become virtually meaningless.

I don't blame the RCMP. I blame the relativistic view of morality that has overtaken modern Western society, a view that does not allow for opposition to some palpable evils.

Indeed, in the name of almighty tolerance, we seem to have painted ourselves into a corner out of which it is impossible to take a stand against certain behaviours. Integrity? It's a personal choice.  Proper or improper? Feeling good is what's important. Incorruptible? You've got to believe in the concept of corruption to begin with. Honour? It's in the eye of the beholder.

Which leads me to conclude with a quote from the American moral philosopher Peter Kreeft: "It is not reason, but the abdication of reason that is the source of moral relativism. Relativism is not rational, it is rationalization."