Author: Sean (Page 4 of 7)

Mr. Selinger, we need some upgrades…

4 July 2014 / Sean

As I write, Brandon is experiencing another “high water event” on the Assiniboine River. Torrential downpours last weekend in Saskatchewan and Manitoba has led to an overabundance of moisture in the watershed that feeds the Souris and Assiniboine Rivers, both of which feed through Western Manitoba, the Assiniboine cutting through the north end of Brandon.

As of this morning, the Assiniboine river is over Grand Valley Road west of the Corral Centre, and has resulted in the closing of First Street North as it curves around the river in the east. Eighteenth Street is down to one lane in each direction until this evening. For the second time in just over three years, we are a city cut in two.

1st ST at 8:00am this morning. Waters coming fast. Stay safe and dry #bdnmb. pic.twitter.com/w4EkGrm11V

— Mayor Shari (@MayorShari) July 4, 2014

This morning, Deveryn Ross, Winnipeg Free Press columnist and Brandon resident tweeted the following link to his new column.

In today’s Winnipeg Free Press – Broken promises, rising waters – via @winnipegnews http://t.co/iKChIEScnR via @sharethis #bdnmb #mbpoli

— Deveryn Ross (@deverynross) July 4, 2014

In the article he points out that the province has made repeated promises for upgraded flood protection since 2011 and had promised us 1-in-700 year flood protection at one point which has been downgraded back down to 1-in-300 in limited areas.

Now, I understand why the city is letting 1st Street flood, there is simply not enough time or labour available to protect the street, they only had a day to do a job that in 2011 took weeks to prepare. It was simply an impossibility. For this event it is the right call; it is the only call.

However, when this event is over, we need to really pressure the province to bring this city up to a 1-in-700 year flood protection level. My expectation would be that that would mean we need to find a way to keep 1st Street at least partially open. It seems to me that the southbound lanes of 1st are probably not able to be upgraded as they are essentially on the riverbank. However, we have the northbound lanes which are far enough away to do something. I would like to see the engineering possibilities to raise the northbound lanes higher, up to the 700 year height level, but not as a dike, instead more of a causeway in places. That way the water could still flow past and under the street while keeping an extra artery to the north end of the city open, although at reduced capacity. First Street is a provincial trunk highway (1A) so the province should perhaps concentrate on getting something done to keep it open. Two lanes is better than none. They did after all promise that our city would receive 1-in-700 year flood protection after raising our PST rate by one percent. Perhaps they need to stick to that. In the meantime our city works to get us through this latest event. Thanks to all the officials and workers that are working around the clock to keep us safe.

Winnipeg gets the floodway, we should at least get an upgraded road.

Brandon Amusement Park?

8 June 2014 / Sean

Yesterday was our day at the Manitoba Summer Fair. The weather was beautiful and the kids had fun. I have to say though, it wasn’t cheap, and lines were long. It does make you think that perhaps early June is not the best time for a fair with a midway. Three of the five days are school days, therefore shorter, and that makes only two days that you can spend the whole day at the fair. When you pay that much for ride tickets or wrist bands, we chose bands, it makes you want to make sure you get your money’s worth.

Unfortunately everyone else has the same idea, and on a day without rain, it gets crowded. Last year was actually better because it rained halfway through and the uncommitted went home! I understand that the fair takes place when it does to secure North American Midway Entertainment’s services. I just wonder if there is an alternative, and would it be better for Brandon?

That being said, fairs do tend to be expensive, and lines long regardless of the time of year the event is held. Only occurring once a year, the Summer Fair is able to cash in on its limited time window. Believe me, I understand the market forces at work.

Every year, the midway does get me to thinking about something else. Could Brandon and Westman support an amusement park? I don’t mean a Six Flags or Disney size park, but a smaller park like Tinkertown in Winnipeg.

I think we could, if the location was right. There has for a number of years now, been repeated pushes for a Casino or a resort hotel, or both. People have also suggested a waterpark. We had a waterpark in the 1980s, however it was so far out of town that it was impossible to get to easily. I’ve also thought about a small zoo, Brandon once had one. In my brain though, it is a family amusement park that seems to have the most chance of working, and family entertainment is something that could be more available in our city.

Once a year during the summer months we take the kids in to Winnipeg and we go to Tinkertown. It is located on the east side of the city, just off the Perimeter Highway, interestingly enough, next to a waterpark. Tinkertown has both kiddie rides, 7 of them, and 13 family rides. The Tilt-a-Whirl, the Scrambler, Paratrooper, Spinning Apples (Dizzy Dragons with a different theme), miniature train ride, and bumper cars just to name a few. If Tinkertown was up on the North Hill somewhere, we would definitely go more than once a year. Heck, probably more than once a month!

The thing I like best about Tinkertown is the price. A wrist band for the day costs $15 per person. That’s $60 for a family of four, but it beats $152 plus adult admission at the fair. Personally, I think it could be a good venture, though I am not the risk taking type so I doubt that I would be the one to do it. If someone did though, I would be one of the first in line. I also think that it could be a good employment opportunity for area youth.

If you build it, we will come!

More radio choice, not less

7 June 2014 / Sean

Recently the group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting floated speculation that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was considering eliminating CBC Radio 2 as an over-the-air entity and would take it online only. FoCB routinely makes dire predictions about the CBC that seem to rarely come true, however it is good to have a group dedicated to keeping Public Broadcasting healthy and available in Canada.

CBC Radio 2 is the public broadcaster’s arts, music, and entertainment channel, while CBC Radio 1 is the news, talk, and information channel with some entertainment thrown in for good measure. Radio 2 at one time was known as the “Classical Music” service but has recently diversified into more forms of music. We often listen to Radio 2 Drive in the afternoon as an alternative to the Assiniboine College station CJ106; host Rich Terfry presents a good mix of modern rock, pop, and singer-songwriter music with much attention given to Canadian content. Great Canadian content. So the elimination of Radio 2, at least in our house, would be considered a loss.

The idea that CBC would take Radio 2 off the air and go internet only did not make sense to me. If you are still doing the programming then you are still spending the bulk of the money to reach a smaller audience. Most of our listening of Radio 2 goes on in our car, when we are away from a reliable internet connection at a reasonable price. Take away the broadcast tower, you cut significantly into the audience. Sure, you are spending less overall, but spending more per listener.

That is not efficient. It would be the wrong approach.

What should be looked at is a more effective use of the broadcasting assets and of new technology. This means adding more choice, not taking it away. This also means that the CRTC has to hurry up and approve newer technology after approving the wrong one over a decade ago.

Years ago Canada had a plan to move to digital radio, with a technology known as DAB that was and is in wide use in much of the world. Digital Audio Broadcast was an attempt to move away from the current AM/FM analog services to something with better sound quality and better use of bandwidth. It never took off. The problem? We live next to the United States and they never adopted the same system. South of the border they have opted to stay on the AM and FM analog frequencies while employing a new digital signal on top of the existing station. This hybrid means that older radios still receive the station’s regular signal, while newer HD radios receive a higher quality digital signal which can also supply extra information and even multiplex for extra audio streams.

So, what does this mean for the future of the CBC and Radio 2. It means that they should keep their current broadcast assets, the towers and the frequencies, and do the necessary upgrades for HD Radio. On AM, this means that Radio 2 could “piggy-back” on the signal for Radio 1; AM tends to propagate further than FM so it would be my assumption that it could reach more people, assuming that the signal would still carry as far. (I am not a broadcast engineer, my apologies if I’m wrong). edit: multiplexing only available on FM as far as I can see. As far as the FM signals go, Radio 2 currently has its own frequency. If you multiplexed another stream onto it, that would mean that the current online-only service CBC Radio 3 could be moved onto a broadcast platform. Radio 3 is a mix of new rock, pop, hip-hop, and alt-country. It is CBC’s new music station, available online and on satellite radio. Why not offer it on a broadcast platform?

Yes, I know that this all costs money. However, it seems that the future of radio in North America is this Digital-Analog hybrid known as HD radio. Some experts point out that the system has problems, and I would tend to agree. It has one important thing going for it though, consumers. To introduce a new system, consumers want to know that they will not lose what they currently have. If I put a new radio in my car for the new technology, I want to know that I will still receive Radio 2, Radio 1, CJ106, BobFM, Star, NCI, FARM, and even CKLQ when and if I want to listen to them. I want more choice, not less.

And here is the wonderful thing about this move, it would possibly be good for choice across all stations. CBC Radio 1 could offer news and weather as a second stream all day long, a radio version of CBC News Network essentially. Bell could offer extra streams on its current stations. BOB’s second stream could be a rock station more akin to what CITI or Power97 are like in Winnipeg. Perhaps you could even call it KX96. The FARM could offer a classic country or oldies stream, as could CKLQ. Perhaps NCI could offer a stream aimed at Native youth. There are many possibilities here.

As our public broadcaster the CBC provides important services. They also can be the catalyst to making the Canadian radio industry have more choices, rather than less. It’s a better use of resources.

Two Governments; Two Attitudes

6 June 2014 / Sean

There were two very different laws in the news this week that concern what an adult individual can freely do with or to his or her own body and life.

The first law was actually a bill introduced on Wednesday by federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. The act is basically a replacement for the prostitution laws struck down by the Supreme Court back in December. The Court struck down the provisions on communication, keeping a common bawdy house (brothel), and living off the avails of prostitution, as it determined that those provisions of the law made sex work more dangerous. The Tories had a year to pass a new law, and this is it. The law makes communication illegal in most locations, makes it illegal to live of the proceeds of prostitution, and makes it a crime to purchase, but not sell, sex.

The second law in the news this week was the passing of bill 52 in the Quebec National Assembly. The “dying with dignity” law is the first law of its kind in Canada. It allows a framework for terminal patients in Quebec to ask for and receive medical assistance to die.

Both laws come down to a person’s right to choose. It is firmly my belief that an adult person of sound mind should be able to determine what they want to do with their own body. As a society we should try as hard as we can to help people avoid having to make these decisions in the first place. We should make sure that terminally ill people are as comfortable as possible and try to keep their quality of life as high as possible for as long as possible so that they need not feel that an end of life decision needs to be made. If that means making available powerful pain relieving drugs, including opioids, then we should do that. However, once someone has freely made the choice to end their own life, then we should respect their right to determine what happens to their own body. Quebec has got it right.

An adult person should also be able to decide what they are going to do with their own body with other consenting adults. I concede that many people are in the sex trade and participate in sex work against their will. As a society we should be making sure that these people have a clear and easy way out of this trade, or a way to avoid it altogether. Nobody should be in sex work that doesn’t want to be there. However, if someone has determined that they want to work in the sex trade, then we should respect their right to do so. It is not my place, or the government’s, to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their own body.

There is a certain smugness to the prostitution bill. The Court told the federal government exactly the kind of bill that could not be passed, and the government introduced exactly that bill. The new bill actually reintroduces at least two of the three provisions struck from the original law, just reworded. The Court said that any provisions that made sex work more dangerous for sex workers would be unconstitutional. There is no doubt that this bill will make sex work more dangerous. Making the purchase of sex illegal, something that was never the case before, means that the purchaser will want to transact in more dangerous locations for the sex worker. There is no way that this new bill, after becoming law in a Conservative dominated House, will survive a constitutional challenge, and there is no way that MacKay doesn’t know this. That is the most maddening part, he is openly demonstrating his contempt for the court, which, as John Ivison points out in his National Post article, goes against his duties as Attorney General of Canada.

I find it disheartening that the Conservatives and their base abandon their core principle that government should stay out of the way of the daily economic pursuits of the populace. Apparently, that only applies if that economic pursuit does not make them feel icky or goes against their own religious or moral beliefs. I just don’t understand how their beliefs get to run roughshod over someone else’s beliefs. To me imposing your own moral code onto someone else who does not share it is unethical.

The other part of the prostitution bill that I find disheartening is the insistence of the government to confuse the matter by making this about child prostitution and human trafficking. Child abuse and human trafficking are already illegal, as they should be. I agree that any prostitution law should be crafted in such a way to minimize these occurrences, but this bill does not do that. By making the consenting adults criminals also, it makes the child abusers and human traffickers harder to find in the now larger crowd of lawbreakers.

What would have made more sense would have been a new law based on the “New Zealand” model where brothels are legal and health requirements including mandatory use of condoms are strictly followed. Add other protections for the safety and security of the workers as needed, including strict ownership rules for brothels. Not allowing recent immigrants to work in legal brothels would also help in the prevention of human trafficking in the industry. The Conservatives had a chance to actually help sex workers with real protections for their safety, but instead chose to play politics by playing to their base. It’s politics at its worst.

In the end, it all comes down adults choosing what they want to do with their lives. The government’s only role in this is to make sure that nobody is doing something against their will. A free society means at the very least the freedom to one’s own self.

Quebec seems to understand the concept; Ottawa does not.

Let the market decide…

19 May 2014 / Sean

I’m not a fan of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. It is not fair to the immigrants that it purports to help, and it is not fair to Canadian citizens who are looking for work at a fair wage and cannot find it.

There are a few things that bother me about this program, and most of them involve the sheer hypocrisy of the proponents. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are responsible for this mess, both have had their hands in the program over the years. However, the NDP I suspect would not be much better on this file. Both sides have their reasons to support the program, although purely political. When it comes down to it, from a purely philosophical position, it goes against all parties’ values.

The Conservative position has always been the position that the free-market should be allowed to exist and prosper with little government interference. The mantra of small-c conservatives has always been “let the market decide”. It is widely considered the number one rule of conservatism. The government should stay out of the way of business. Go to the food or retail sectors and suggest that something needs to be regulated or inspected more and people will say that the industry should be able to self-regulate. If consumers do not like it, they will find another company for the goods and services they want, and the demand for that company’s products will go away. Again and again the laws of supply and demand are used to keep government interference as low as possible. The Conservatives are the owner’s of this mantra, but the Liberals, being a center-right party, often buy into the same argument.

It’s not a bad argument. Let the market decide is usually a good way to go. The government should try to keep its interference as low as possible. As long as companies are acting ethically, treating their employees with respect, paying a living or competitive wage, and producing safe and effective products, governments should just stay out of the picture. I understand that and agree with it.

This is where the TFWP makes no sense to me. If a company cannot find workers for its business at the wage it is offering, then a company should raise its wages until it can find workers that are willing to work for it. That is how supply and demand works. You have a high demand for workers and a low supply, then you have to pay more for workers. If you run a meat packing plant, you cannot expect people to work for you at the same pay rate as people who are working at the local fast food place. Your work is harder work and you therefore have to pay more. That is how the free market works, live with it, you helped create it.

Dan Kelly, head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says in a CBC article, “Retail, restaurant margins are already razor thin. I fully expect that particularly across Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, there will be restaurant closures as a result of this, taking Canadian jobs with them.”

Of course Mr. Kelly is being disingenuous. He statement tries to blame razor thin margins as the catalyst of the current situation. What he is essentially saying is this, “We have to hire temporary foreign workers because Canadians would want higher wages and we cannot afford that because we charge too little for our products already.” Why is it the responsibility of the Canadian government if a restaurant is charging too little for its product to stay in business? Essentially, he is saying that his members are poor managers.

The big argument I always hear is how greedy Canadian workers are. How they don’t want to do anything or expect the world on a silver platter. That is generally not my experience. Canadians are hard workers, and all they ask of their job is that it pays a living wage. Sure, we have some stragglers, but all societies do. Mostly all Canadians want is a sense of fairness. Pay me what I deserve for a job well done and I’ll do it. And there is the problem, that deal has been broken.

Around here, the example brought up is our local hog processing plant. It is often stated how hard it is for the facility to find local workers, and that is why a foreign worker program was needed. In fact, our Mayor goes on about that in an article from Saturday’s National Post.

“The majority of day shift at Maple Leaf’s Brandon facility was staffed with local and regional hires, but there was never quite enough employees to run the plant at optimum efficiency, and no capacity within the regional labour force to staff a second shift, which was essential for the plant’s viability. There was no doubt that the local and regional labour market was not going to provide the workers needed for this demanding, physical work, regardless of how much the company paid, or how many additional benefits were offered.”

So, what Mayor Decter Hirst seems to be claiming here is that either the company didn’t have any foresight into the realities of the Brandon and Westman labour market, or that they did know and were planning on recruiting elsewhere from the start. I personally have no idea what Maple Leaf Foods plans were for Brandon and area, and I would like to think that they truly believed that they could find enough workers here. Was their research of the Brandon labour market that flawed? Did it exist? Were they just going by assurances of the local politicians at the time?

I do find it interesting that the exact same scenario has played out in town after town since Iowa Beef Packers, now Tyson Fresh Meats, first started lowering meat packing wages in the 1960s.

See: The Chain Never Stops by Eric Schlosser – Mother Jones

Here’s the thing that really bothers me about this program, and the Mayor’s love letter to Maple Leaf in the National Post, it goes against her self-claimed NDP roots. I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone in the NDP can support the TFWP.

I’m not talking about just our local situation here, all I see with this program is a continuation of the exploitation of the foreign worker that has been going on since the day of the building of the trans-continental railroad. You bring in a foreign worker to do a job. Sure, you pay them minimum wage or just above to do the job, so you feel good about yourself. To me that’s not enough. Many of these workers must stay in the job that they came over to do, even if someone was to offer them a job that paid more, was more in their field, or that fit them better. If the worker cannot leave the current employer for a better position, then how is that not indebted servitude? Just because you are paying someone does not mean you’re not treating them as a slave.

A couple weeks ago the CBC Radio program, Cross Country Checkup, had the TFWP as its topic. One caller ran a restaurant in a rural prairie town. Apparently the only way that they could keep in business was to have temporary foreign workers running the kitchen, as hometown people kept leaving the town. It never occurred to her that perhaps if the only way that she could keep her business open was to bring in people who couldn’t leave, maybe her business was no longer viable; maybe her town is not either.

Cross Country Checkup
Is there a place for temporary foreign workers in Canada’s economy?

Taking advantage of someone’s poor job prospects in their home country does not make you a saint. If you believe in the free market, it makes you a hypocrite, plain and simple.

This is why I cannot understand the article written by Shari Decter Hirst. I’m not sure, despite being mayor, that she actually understands the situation. She says near the end of the article,

“Canada would be far better off to adopt Brandon’s approach of treating foreign workers as transitional workers and recruiting these individuals into secure jobs with opportunities to bring their families over. In my experience, these reunited families are focused on building a strong community for their children.”

I agree with her, Canada would be far better off to adopt such a policy, but that is not what Brandon has. I have always been in favour of immigration and multiculturalism. My argument is that if someone is good enough to be a temporary foreign worker, then they are good enough to be a landed immigrant and get to choose, like any other Canadian, where they want to live and work. Forcing them to work at one place, all the time fearing possible deportation, does not make for fair treatment. How is one supposed to advocate for fair working conditions and fair pay, the two hallmarks of the labour movement and of the NDP, if the employer holds all the cards?

It’s not a fair game, it’s stacked too much in favour of industry. It’s also not very Canadian, at least not the Canada I would want.

Someone is confused

12 May 2014 / Sean

Some people just don’t understand what religious freedom is, such is the case with a Sound Off comment in today’s Brandon Sun.

If we are free to believe what we wish, then why is the Bible and the prayer taken out of the schools? When I was raised, the prayer was in the schools and that meant a lot. As Christians we would like to have some of our faith in the schools, too, not just the other. We can’t have Santa Claus, oh no … we can’t have a play because we are not Muslim. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, you say it is supposed to be one state thing … no, no! Our faith is going down and we are driven to believe in other faiths and I will not! I am a Christian and I will stay a Christian.

Anonymous Writer, Brandon Sun, Page 2, May 12/2014

The Brandon Sun runs Sound Off as an anonymous reader forum every day as a way for the people of Brandon and western Manitoba to be able to comment on things that they may not feel comfortable putting their name to. I for one like the space and I hope that the Sun keeps it for a good long time. It is good to have a place where you can see people’s real thoughts without filter. It gives you a good idea where society is.

Apparently when it comes to understanding what religious freedom is, some people are sadly still way out to lunch. The writer of the above Sound Off seems to think that religious freedom is getting to do whatever you want within the constraints of Christianity. It doesn’t work that way. The Muslim comment really just shows the writer’s prejudice.

We are free to believe what we want to believe, or not believe. The bible and prayer have been taken out of public schools because public schools are a government run institution to which children of all faiths are required to attend unless their parents make other private educational arrangements. You cannot make children of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or even Atheist parents go somewhere by law every day and then make them listen to Christian prayers and teachings. I remember when there was still prayer and bible reading at school and it really meant very little to me, and that was at a time when I believed in those teachings. Looking back, it was very divisive. I didn’t understand back then why my best friend would leave the room during that exercise; now it makes me angry that we lost valuable learning time to do something that was non-inclusive of all students and completely unrelated to the curriculum.

The writer seems to be under the impression that other religions get special treatment at public schools. I’m not sure where this is coming from. Using their example of Muslims, I would like to know exactly what Muslim teachings are going on in Manitoba schools that they are aware of. As a father of two boys in the public school system in Brandon I have never ever seen the promotion of other religious rhetoric in Brandon schools. I have seen cultural references to Christmas and Easter, maybe a reference to Hanukah, but not much else. Religious teachings? No.

Mr. or Ms. Sound Off writer, your religion is not under attack. You are free to believe whatever you want, not matter how serious or silly it may seem to other people. What it does not mean is that you get to shove your religion down other people’s throats. You are free to practice your religion at home and at your place of worship. Why you find it necessary to indoctrinate other citizen’s children into your religion at there place of daily learning is beyond me. It seems that to you freedom of religion only applies to your religion, no one else’s.

As for the statement “you say it is supposed to be one state thing “, I assume the writer is trying to say that the state officially supports atheism. I think that the writer mixes up secularism with atheism. As an atheist, I do not believe that the school should be telling people that there is no gods, the same way that I don’t believe that the schools should be telling children that there are gods. The secular school system should be neutral on the matter. Teach language, math, social studies, and fact based science curriculum. Leave the rest to parents and if the parents want, to the churches. Ironically, though the writer probably doesn’t realize, if Canada was to be seen as having “one state thing” it would be Christianity. Our head of state is Elizabeth II, the head of the Anglican Church, a Christian church. Christianity also gets a special place in our Constitution and national anthem. Christianity is hardly going down in any official sense.

Sound Off writer, nobody is driving you to other faiths. You can and will remain a Christian for as long as you desire. It is your right, no more, no less.

Just no need for this

9 May 2014 / Sean

I found this about halfway home from work last night, just sitting on the ground beside the sidewalk on 18th Street South. This is the second time in two weeks that I have found an intact six-pack ring, or drink yoke, just laying on the ground. Both were in a couple hundred metres of each other.

If you find one of these laying on the ground, please pick it up and dispose of it properly, which means cutting it or pulling it apart so that none of the rings is still intact, including the small holes also. These rings are insidious little devices when left out in nature. Wildlife get themselves tangled up in these and end up choking or starving to death, or in some cases becoming deformed as their bodies try to grow around the obstruction.

Such a thing happened to Peanut the Turtle here years ago in Missouri. Her body continued to grow after getting caught in the yoke. She will be shaped like this for the rest of her life. Lucky for her it didn’t kill her, but its an unfortunate outcome that could have been avoided. Many animals are not as lucky as her.

Now, drink yokes are not the most pressing issue out there, and there are probably bigger issues for humans when it comes to the environment, but this one seems so unnecessary. From the person who tossed this drink yoke out irresponsibly, to the drink distributor, and the yoke manufacturer, there are a number of people perpetuating a product that we really have no need of.

Please stop buying drinks that are packaged in this fashion. Cardboard packs recycle very easily and if improperly disposed of, do not threaten wildlife in such a horrible way. To the politicians, it would probably be fairly easy to just ban these things form sale in your jurisdiction, be it municipal or provincial. To those that say that politicians have more pressing matters, I would agree, however, I tend to think that our elected representatives can do more than one thing at a time, so this would not take away from other importantvmatters.

Mayor Decter Hirst, MLAs Reg Helwer and Drew Caldwell, and Premier Selinger; I would ask all of you to consider getting rid of these unneeded consumer waste product in Brandon and in Manitoba. Drink manufacturers have other options; banning these hurts nobody.

It’s not the two drink yokes that I found within meters of each other that scare me… it’s the ones I didn’t find.

Make an offer they can’t refuse

27 April 2014 / Sean

On Friday the Supreme Court (SCoC) released its decision on Senate reform.

Essentially, to reform the Senate the way that the Conservatives wanted, with fixed term limits and elected senators, would require a constitutional amendment involving at least 7 provinces that represent at least 50% of the population of the country.

The NDP dream of abolishing the Senate would require agreement of all 10 provinces. That is most likely not going to happen without some major concessions from the federal government. It is Tom Mulcair who is most hurt by this decision because it shows that his party was completely out to lunch on this issue. There is no way all 10 provinces would agree to abolition. Ontario and Quebec have too much power in the Senate to give it up. It wasn’t going to happen.

Harper is not the loser in this that people are claiming. In fact, this could be a big win for the Conservatives, and in particular Stephen Harper. In this case he needs to think more like Jean Chretien; worry about getting the job done and if it has negative effects on, or limits the power of, his successors, so be it.

With a majority in the House of Commons, Stephen Harper can basically get anything through there that he wants to. After making appointments to the Senate, which he HAD to do whether he wanted to or not, he also has a majority there. Getting things through the House and the Senate is no problem, so opening up the Constitution for smaller changes is no problem for Harper at the federal level. The trick is what to pass that the provinces would also; what can he give the provinces that would make them pass the amendment too?

Basically, he needs to make them an offer they can’t refuse.

Harper’s big push with Senate reform was the idea of term limits, and of an elected body. He needs to add one more piece to this puzzle. Give the power of appointing senators to the premiers. Basically, you pass a constitutional amendment in the House of Commons and the Senate that establishes term limits. Secondly, you give the provincial legislatures the ability under the constitution to have their own Senate election laws, but you don’t require it. If a province does not pass an election law, the job falls to the Premier. My guess is that most provinces would eventually go the election route because it would look undemocratic to do otherwise. Frankly, a Manitoba senator should be decided by a Manitoban, either the premier or the electorate anyway. Alberta already has Senate elections, so one piece of the puzzle already exists in that province.

I’m not sure what province would not agree to such an offer. I also can’t see why Harper would not do such a plan. An elected Senate takes the power out of the Prime Minister’s Office, so he was already giving that up anyway. With this plan he sets the whole mess in the Premiers’ laps, slightly screws over his successors in a Chretien-like move, and gets his term limits. As a bonus to the PM, any future Senate scandal falls at the feet of the premiers, not him.

Frankly, on Friday the SCoC gave Stephen Harper a gift. They showed him a road map and all he needs to do now is follow it. He can reform the Senate exactly the way he wants, just by giving that power to the provinces.

Tom Mulcair on the other hand got handed a lump of coal.

Time to get this move moving?

26 April 2014 / Sean

I grew up in on a farm just southwest of Brandon in the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis. I went to school in Brandon for all of my educational endeavours: Meadows Elementary, Earl Oxford Junior High, Neelin High School, and Brandon University. Never did finish at BU, but I’m currently attempting to rectify that situation. Two more courses this year will bring my renewed attempt to three; looking forward to some introductory political science and more psychology. For better or for worse, I’m a product of the Brandon educational system.

I’ve never attended Assiniboine Community College (ACC), but I have two brothers as well as many friends and colleagues who have attended or even taught there. ACC is a valuable piece of our educational puzzle here in Brandon and Westman. When I first saw the plan to move the college to the more spacious and by then unused Brandon Mental Health Centre (BMHC) grounds I thought it was a grand idea and a welcome expansion to our city.

As of 2014, the job is not completely done. The Brandon Sun reports in today’s edition that the main campus, currently at Victoria Avenue East and 17th Street East still needs to be relocated to the Parkland Building at the BMHC site on the North Hill. The move will take millions of dollars and a lot of construction work. For a more detailed rundown and the challenges of the move, the article by Lindsey Enns in the Sun is a good read.

ACC tries to stay on funding radar – Brandon Sun, April 26, 2014 (Paywalled)

One thing that I would urge the provincial government to consider is that when they are considering the move of ACC to its new home and the costs involved, they must also consider the costs involved in waiting too long to complete the project. Yes, there is the regular concern with actual costs going up with inflation that every project has to deal with, but I’m not talking about that. What I’m referring to is other needs of the citizens of Brandon that at first do not appear related to ACC.

My biggest concern is the fact that the Brandon School Division (BSD) has made it known to the province that the city will require another school in the south end in the next few years, presumably for early and middle years students. As a resident of the south end, the fact that some residents in this area end up in the Riverheights catchment area, a school that is in the far west end, shows that this need is most likely very real.

Another thing that I have noticed is that the vocational programs at Crocus Plains Regional Secondary School in the south end always seem to be bursting at the seams. I have had many people, parents and kids, tell me that the most popular programs are difficult to get into. We seem to have a couple of growing problems with education in this end of the city.

Believe it or not, the south end is over-served when it comes to high schools. Neelin and Crocus are essentially on top of each other. They are a 2.2 kilometre walk apart, I suspect that “as the crow flies” they are less than the 1.6 kilometres that the BSD and province use to determine bus eligibility. They are really close.

It seems to me that the solution here would be to look at making Neelin something other than a high school. A short time ago, Earl Oxford was converted to a kindergarten to grade eight school; Neelin with its single story design seems even more suited to such a conversion. That partially solves the problem with the south end not having enough early and middle years capacity. But where does the population of Neelin then end up?

That’s where ACC comes in. If the move to the Parkland Building gets done, that opens up a building in the east end, a building that has hosted an educational institution for years, and a vocational program for years. The former ACC site could very well be home to a new, larger third high school for Brandon after any needed upgrades, and that location would serve the east end, and possibly the north end, better than Crocus and Neelin do now. A second high school in Brandon offering the vocational track seems to be something much needed in this growing city. I would personally be sad to see Neelin no longer be a high school, I graduated from there, but things change.

We need to make sure that we are spending our money in the right places. Yes, it is important to not spend money that we don’t have to, and I commend the government for not just throwing money at the ACC relocation without restraint. However, we need to make sure that that restraint will not cause us to have to build another school when our current infrastructure may do the job in a reconfigured way. Do we spend money on ACC that does not then have to be spent on public schools?

Sometimes spending money now may save you much more later. The question becomes, does this make sense?

I think it does.

Flip this house…

20 April 2014 / Sean

It is starting to get fairly evident that the next provincial election in Manitoba is not looking that great for the governing New Democratic Party. A number of recent polls have had the opposition Tories approaching the 50% mark in popularity, with the NDP hovering around half that, and the Liberals not far behind.

I fear it will only get worse for the NDP. In a province where politics is usually bland, where differences between the NDP and Progressive Conservatives seem minimal, it seems like the NDP have made enough people mad that voters will switch their vote to the other guy. The NDP seem sure to lose this next election. An unpopular rise in the provincial sales tax rate, a badly viewed decision on Bipole III, and former cabinet minister Christine Melnick being ejected from caucus all are making this look like a government becoming mired in controversy after over a decade in power. Many people see little difference between the two main parties, so switching your vote in Manitoba is often seen as fairly easy unless you are a die hard partisan. Hell, at one time both parties were led by a guy named Gary.

It’s looking bad for Premier Greg Selinger, and pretty awesome for Opposition Leader Brian Pallister. This is the part that frustrates me, there is a third party here, and if I had a feeling that more voters who would normally vote NDP would jump to the Liberals also, I would like to vote Liberal too.

The Liberals have a new leader with rural Manitoba roots, a unique perspective as a visible minority and a woman, and who is a graduate of law at the University of Manitoba. Rana Bokhari seems to me to be an interesting choice. I would like to see the Liberals have a chance in this election. During the last number of years, the Liberal’s former leader, Dr. Jon Gerrard, always seemed like the best choice each election, and often seemed like the most informed and thoughtful in the house. This party doesn’t seem to get enough of a chance in this two-horse province of Manitoba.

It seems like something other that our regular politics needs to happen right now, and until today I didn’t know what it was. As often happens, you need to bounce ideas of of someone until something sticks. Today was one of those days.

My brother and his wife were visiting on their way back home near Winnipeg when we started to discuss this very topic. We all agreed that something has to happen to make Manitobans see the Liberal party as a viable alternative to the NDP instead of trying out the Conservatives whenever we get tired of an NDP government; something needs to shift that momentum to the Liberals. We have a centre-left party (NDP), a centre-right party (PC), and a centre-centre party (Liberal). There needs to be a reason for Manitobans to see the Liberals as the progressive party in the next election.

Why?

Because most likely the NDP are going to be destroyed’’, is why. As someone who leans left, I know that the NDP are not forming the next government, and I will not be voting for the Tories. I would like my vote to count and I now lean toward Liberal.

So what needs to happen?

Some disenchanted NDP MLAs need to cross the floor, not to the Tories, but to the Liberals.

There are currently 37 members in the NDP caucus. I would not find it hard to believe that out of 37 members, that a few backbenchers would not find the current government’s trajectory in the polls worrisome, especially if they are personally quite liked. They may feel that they would be pulled down by the party brand in the next election. Jumping from the NDP to the Liberals in Manitoba would not be much of a philosophical jump either.

Brandon East is a good example where such a jump may help a candidate. The area has voted strong NDP for many years, but it seems that in the next election that the Tories may have a chance there. If the incumbent wants a better chance, maybe unhooking the dead weight of a faltering party might be a good first move. Caldwell has won the riding enough times that people are voting for him, not necessarily the party.

It gives the Liberals some much needed momentum, voters another progressive choice, and disenchanted NDP MLAs a life raft from a sinking ship.

Time to flip this house, and give some of these orange walls some red paint.