Living, Working, and Wasting Time in Southern Manitoba

Category: opinion (Page 1 of 4)

Remove Party Names from Ballots

With the election of a Liberal government on Monday, it looks like we may finally get electoral reform in Canada. Some pundits don’t think that a majority government will do it, but I believe that there is enough evidence that strategic voting got the Liberals their majority that they may actually follow through, knowing that they will lose those votes by the next election if they don’t do something.

My top priority for voting reform if of course the ranked or preferential ballot. My second priority, something I haven’t discussed before, is the removal of party names from the ballot. It seems like a small change, but I think it is vital.

There is a law in Canada that party advertising is not allowed in a polling place. The idea is that it may affect the outcome of the vote as people may be more inclined to vote for a candidate after seeing an ad for that candidate. Makes sense to me, keep the playing field level.

But then, once you get to the ballot, the name of the political party appears next to each of the candidates. It can be argued that this takes away the “level playing field” between candidates, making what is supposed to be a local decision into one based on national party. And that is really the crux of this. In our system, you vote for the local candidate, not the national leader.

The idea of voting for a local candidate is so that that person, who has a personal knowledge of the riding, can make decisions based on the wishes of the electorates in that riding. A party only gains power in our system when enough of those local representatives give it the confidence of the House. Many of the problems we have had of late have been because the national party dictates to the local member instead of the other way around.

If you remove party names from ballots, what you do is make it more important for the local candidate to become known. A candidate like Brandon-Souris’ Larry Maguire would have done just fine on Monday because he ran a locally focused campaign based on his own personality and with a catchy local slogan, “Rehire Maguire.”

Inky MarkIf you look north, to Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa, there may be an example of a riding that may have had different results had party name not been on the ballot. In that riding, you had Inky Mark, former Conservative MP, running as an independent along with the other regular party representatives. As it stands, Mr. Mark only got 8.1% of the vote on Monday night, versus over 40% for his Conservative opponent. I have no way of proving it, but I suspect that had there been no party affiliation listed on the ballot, Mr. Mark’s numbers would have been higher, and Mr. Sopuck’s (Conservative) would have been lower. Both men are known to stand for small “c” conservative values, and both have won the old riding of Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette with over 18,000 votes.

Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am then removing the party name will have no affect on the outcome of an election, no harm, no foul. If I am right, then party name on a ballot is affecting the outcome, essentially acting as advertising inside a polling place.

Some would argue that removing party affiliation from a ballot would impede the ability of some people to vote. If, after 36 to 78 days of a campaign, if you are not informed enough by that point to be able to identify your local candidate’s name that will best represent you, then perhaps you are not informed enough to vote. The only reason to have a party name on a ballot is to help “direct” you to which candidate that you should vote for. It amounts to an advertisement for the party, something Elections Canada should not be helping parties do.

Advertising inside a polling place is illegal for a reason.

The Cowboy and the Niqab

This happened at a polling station in Edmonton during advanced polling last weekend.

Cowboy voter at advance poll was protesting niqab at citizenship ceremony
(CBC.ca)

 

As a protest of wearing a niqab to vote or to swear a citizenship oath, this guy’s stunt was an abject failure. He got it wrong. He was allowed to vote, as he should have been, the same as someone wearing a religious face covering. He didn’t actually prove anything.

However, in the story it also mentions what brought this on.

He was in court last month, supporting his partner who had to testify, when he was asked by the court clerk to remove his hat. When he responded that it was his cultural practice to wear his hat, he was told that he would be physically removed from the courtroom if he failed to comply.

Before an election, a woman wearing a hijab in Quebec was told by a judge that she could not appear without removing the head garment. The judge was thoroughly lambasted by many people as being culturally intolerant or even racist. Some political leaders said that the judge was wrong to not let the woman testify.

Here’s the thing. After thinking about it… for quite a while,  I also came to the conclusion that the judge was being intolerant and should have heard the case. How the hell does a woman wearing a niqab affect the judge’s ability to effectively do her job? The excuse that one should show respect for the Court by removing head coverings is not a good enough reason to cause this woman what could be profound personal anguish if forced to remove her religious garment.

Here’s the thing though, justice needs to not only be applied equally, it needs to be seen to be applied equally. That means no special rules based on religion, especially in a courtroom.

To me, this means that he should have never been asked to remove his hat in the courtroom. Was he just doing it to be an ass? Most likely. Unfortunately, being an ass doesn’t automatically mean that he was wrong.

He should not have been asked to remove his hat, and if politicians such as Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair, and Marc Garneau are true to their word, they will defend his right to wear what he wants.

After all, just a few months ago all three vowed to defend the right to wear what you want, even if it was unpopular.

Make Gas Companies Compete

Gas prices look like they are going to drop today. That’s a good thing relative to the current price, but considering how much they went up last week, they’re still going to be kind of high. 119.9¢/L seems a little bit ridiculous when the price of crude is hovering at or under $50/barrel, some of the lowest prices in years.

Courtesy WikipediaWe’re never going to be happy when gas prices go up, that’s a given. It’s always a given that sometimes costs go up for businesses, and therefore the price of their product needs to go up. I understand how businesses in a free-market economy don’t want to be regulated by price boards, similar to what utilities face. Competition is healthy.

Unfortunately, to the layperson like me, these businesses appear not to compete. I’m not talking collusion, and multiple government studies into collusion in the oil and gas industry have came up empty when looking for it.

Then again, who needs to collude when you know that if you up your price, the other guy will match it… or if you drop your price, he’ll match it too? You don’t need to collude once the pattern has been established. The problem here is not collusion. The problem is no real competition.

So, make them compete.

I think it would be fairly easy to force competition, legislate price differences. The way I see it, there would be a two step approach.

  1. Make it the law that if you raise your fuel price at a station, then the station must stay at that price for 48 hours. If competitors don’t raise their price, you are stuck there and will lose business. This means that nobody will raise their price unless absolutely necessary, for fear they will lose 48 hours of business.
  2. When raising prices, require that the pump price cannot be the same as the 5 closest competitor’s stations, or within a certain radius. If station A goes to 124.9, then station B would have to go to 124.7 or 125.1 – Small differences, but it forces an actual competitive price, instead of everyone going up the same amount within hours of each other. Price matching would not be required when lowering prices, that way after the required 48 hours you could lower your price to match the competition. What this does is “punishes” the first station to raise the price, as most competitive stations would go lower.

Would these necessarily change gas prices or make them necessarily lower? Probably not in the long run, but at least it might slow down increases and force gas companies to at least compete some of the time.

And after all, isn’t healthy competition what the Free Market is all about?

A Majority is Harper’s Only Option

Sometimes the data doesn’t appear as it seems. Take the latest data on the CBC Poll Tracker from Éric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com:

PollTracker

Looks pretty straight forward. If the election was held today, the New Democrats would get more of the popular votes, but the Conservatives would most likely win more seats. Conventional wisdom is that Stephen Harper would form a minority government. Traditionally, that is what would happen. The Governor General will ask the party with the most seats if it can form a government. This is where it gets dicey.

In this situation, Harper has to try to form a government. To do anything else is to admit defeat. After all, he formed a minority government back in 2006, increased his seat count in 2008, and got a majority in 2011. The man has experience governing in a minority parliament.

However, this year would be different. Going from a comfortable majority to a minority would be seen as a defeat. During the first minority governments of Stephen Harper, his party was always showing an upward trend; this would show a downward trend. Also keep in mind that back then, the other two parties were hesitant to force an election against a Conservative party that was increasing in popularity while their own fortunes might be failing. It was in this way that Stephen Harper kept the confidence of the House; everyone knew that he had a legitimate mandate.

This time I’m not so sure.

If the Conservatives come in with a result any lower than a majority, they lose. Sure, if the current numbers were to be somewhat similar on election day, then the Governor General will ask Mr. Harper if he can form a government. The only thing that will stop that is if Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau agree to form a coalition government in the first hours following the election. Chances are a formal coalition is not going to happen as it is not in Justin Trudeau’s best interest as leader of the party to give up that leadership to Tom Mulcair. The machinery of the once dominant Liberal Party would never let that happen, it would be too much of a defeat.

Here’s the thing though. As I understand our Parliamentary System, you do not need to have the most seats in parliament. You don’t need to form a formal coalition. All you need to govern is the confidence of the House. That puts Tom Mulcair in charge.

It is not that difficult to reason that Stephen Harper’s government falls at the first non-confidence motion introduced in the House of Commons. After almost a decade of Conservative government, the opposition parties would not be able to say that they have confidence in the Government. For the NDP and Liberals, a confidence motion will defeat the Harper government, neither can be seen to support him at this point.

This puts Tom Mulcair in a very interesting position, he doesn’t need Justin Trudeau, just his party’s votes. As long as he gets more seats than Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, Tom Mulcair most likely becomes Prime Minister before the following election. With so many overlapping policies, the Liberals would surely have to give their support to the NDP if just to throw out the Conservatives. A formal coalition doesn’t seem to be required. Personally, I think Mulcair knows this and his offer of a coalition was an attempt to make himself look like the bigger statesperson.

In this election, I’m sure everyone is playing to win. However, for the NDP or Liberals, while a majority would be nice, first place the more likely prize, but in this case second place is pretty much as good. For the Conservatives anything less than an outright majority is devastating.

Believe it or not, despite the numbers, it is Harper who is in the most precarious position this election.

Opportunity Missed in 2011

We need to commission a study.

The Eighth Street Bridge in Brandon is on the public’s minds this week as it is once again partially closed in its march toward the end of its usable life as a traffic bridge. The city closed it down to one lane until structural tests can be done to see where the bridge currently stands.

I have been a vocal opponent, at least online and in this blog, of the rebuilding of the structure. At $20,000,000 to $34,000,000 we just cannot afford to replace this bridge. I’m also not convinced that the Daly Overpass is actually the problem with 18th Street. The problem is too many cars that should be elsewhere. The question is, what should we do about it? I’ve discussed both these topics before.

A bridge unneeded…

Is the Daly Overpass the Problem?

Now, I don’t know what all the solutions are, but i have some ideas. I don’t seem to be the only one either. Local resident and Winnipeg Free Press columnist Deveryn Ross also has written about problems in the area. In particular the Canadian Pacific (CP) railroad main line that goes right through this area. In fact, the CP yards sit right there, hence the need for the 8th street bridge to traverse them.

Time to pull up tracks in Brandon?
(Deveryn Ross for the Free Press)

In his article, Mr. Ross talks about moving the rail lines, especially since there are currently three bridges traversing them that need to be upgraded or replaced, or in the case of 8th street, converted for other use. Moving the line might be cheaper than building the bridges. Who knows?

This is why we need a study.

Of course, this should have been done back in 2011 when we commissioned a consultant to look at the options for the 8th street bridge. Of course, the consultation was useless since it didn’t even consider not replacing the bridge. A total waste of money.

A proper study at the time would have looked at the reasons for a bridge, the need for a bridge, and what other options may be available to rectify the problems in the area. It would have considered rail lines and bridges as an entire system. It would have looked at rail line or at least rail yard relocation. Not doing this has already cost us a ton of money, and it is about to cost us at least $40,000,000 more. Forty million is the price tag quoted by premier Selinger to replace the 1st street bridge starting this fall, a number that given past experience with the Thompson bridge, will most likely balloon out of control. New CP Rail Bridge at PTH-110 (Google Earth)There was also a new bridge built on the CP main line for Provincial Highway 110, the Eastern By-pass, to pass under the tracks. Chances are CP would not be too keen to abandon a brand new bridge. As for 1st street, in the four years since 2011 it has been found to be in such a state that we must replace it immediately, no time for alternative plans.

However, there is perhaps a solution somewhere in there. Maybe the main line stays where it is but we move the yards outside of the city, either east or west. If you reduce the line to just one or two tracks inside the city, then 8th street can become a level crossing. Put another level crossing around 22nd street and perhaps you reduce traffic on 18th to the point where the Daly Overpass can handle the traffic in its current configuration. Perhaps the solution is in one of my other posts. Perhaps the solution isn’t any of those but something that the engineers haven’t looked at yet, because nobody has asked. Some people claim that some of these solutions will cost too much, but the reality is that they don’t know, because we haven’t examined the problem adequately.

We need these answers. We need someone to look into them. We need this done before we spend $60,000,000 or more, lots more, on the Daly Overpass. This doesn’t even consider the costs of replacing all this infrastructure again in 50 years, and 50 years after that. How many times are we going to keep making the same short-sighted decisions?

If the past has taught us anything, it is that not looking at options early enough can become costly in the future. We backed ourselves into a corner with 1st street. I hope we don’t repeat the same mistake.

Let Elizabeth May debate

Elizabeth May should probably be in the election debates this fall. She is the leader of a national party with two MPs currently serving in Ottawa, and they run a fairly full slate of candidates across the country. The Green Party of Canada is truly a national party.

Of course, the other parties would like to keep her out. In an election, getting exposure is the number one priority, so limiting your opponent’s exposure, if you can manage to do it, is something worth doing to improve your own chances. The big three established parties, formerly four with the Bloc, will therefore use their “official party status” in the House to try to keep May out. Since the three have a lot of pull with the broadcast consortium that televises the debates, they will generally get their way.

I don’t understand why they have any pull at all.

Frankly, in my mind the debates should be scheduled and determined by our independent election watchdog, Elections Canada. They are a neutral third party, and should therefore form the rules and tell the party leaders where and when to show up. Every election I hear about negotiations between broadcasters and the parties to make these debates happen. It’s like we didn’t know the damn things were coming every time the writ is dropped.

As for rules, I think it should be pretty simple. For your leader to be in the debate, you should need to be running candidates in at least 25% of ridings (I think even 40% or 50%) would be reasonable, in at least two different provinces. I would also like to see the two province rule applied to the House, so that a one issue and single province party like the Bloc Quebecois could never happen again. A party should need to represent more than one narrow interest to get national funding. It would also prevent an Ontario-centric party from forming at any time in the future. It promotes nation building as opposed to regionalization. These simple rules let the Green Party,  a national party, in and they keep the regional party out, namely the Bloc.

I don’t think that this is too far fetched of an idea and I really don’t understand why it hasn’t happened before now.

I also have my own reasons, I have narrowed my choices down this year to the NDP and the Greens, and I have to admit I’m leaning heavily Green. Their policy statements cover a lot of the same ground, but the Greens cover a few points that the NDP don’t touch on, that I find important . It seems that the Greens are actually unafraid to take a stand. I respect that. I also want to see how the leaders of those two parties perform those nights.

I want Elizabeth May to have a fair chance.

What’s Reasonable?

Sometimes it is easy to pick a side in a debate, one side is so clearly wrong that one can easily point out the problems and holes in their logic. Some debates are black and white.

Others are so many shades of grey. There are nuances that few tend to see, and as you start to peel away the layers of the onion, one problem after another starts to appear. Sometimes, a decision seems like the right one, but starts you down a slippery slope that you only realize has happened once you’re halfway down the damn thing.

Sometimes there is just no fair answer.

I fear that this is the problem we face when we deal with religious rights and what is known as reasonable accommodation. It is a laudable goal to respect a person’s religious rights and to make reasonable adjustments when those rights seem to go against what others may consider normal practice. The problem of course becomes – What is reasonable?

I fear we have hit that wall on the issue of religious articles of clothing such as the Niqab and the Hijab.

McGill UniversityJustin Trudeau made a speech at McGill University on Monday night on the politics of fear that is being practiced by the current government of Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives. He is right, the bills introduced of late by the Conservatives have often been about stoking the fear of Canadians and using that fear to sell a law and order agenda that frankly is unneeded, and by most reasonable people’s interpretations, would go against the Charter. For much of his speech, I am in wholehearted agreement with him.

However, during his speech he commented on the topic of religious face and head coverings. He referred to a recent court decision that said that it goes against the Charter to ask a religious person to not cover their face with a Niqab during a citizenship ceremony. He also brought up a recent case where a Muslim woman was denied a court hearing in Quebec because she would not remove her Hijab.

Firstly, I do not think it unreasonable to expect a person to show their face when taking an oath of citizenship. To be able to see one’s face, to be able to see that the person taking the oath is the one that is supposed to take the oath is not an unreasonable request. Even the Charter uses the term reasonable.

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The second problem I see here, and perhaps those of us that are secular humanists and atheists see this differently than the general population, is that sometimes religion gets an extra set of rules that it gets to play with. Case in point, the court in Quebec that denied a Hijab wearing woman her day in court.

Now let me be clear, my gut feeling on this is that the judge most likely was coming at this from a position of bigotry. I have a feeling that there are many people who came into said courtroom in the past, wearing religious headgear of some other religion, and this judge took no issue. I suspect that that is the case. There is no way for me to know at this moment, but I suspect that that has happened in the past. If religious headgear or symbols have been allowed in that courtroom before, and if the judge allows people to swear on the Bible or the Koran, then the claim of that court being secular is total bunk. I suspect that that is the case. I have that feeling.

But lets pretend that the judge does run the courtroom in a secular manner; just for argument’s sake. Lets say that everyone in that courtroom affirms that they will tell the truth with a secular oath. With that established, lets say that the judge asks the woman to please remove her Hijab as a sign of respect for the secular courtroom. Is that unreasonable? I’m not going to answer that.

I would actually put it a different way. If we as a society think that it is wrong to make that woman remove her head covering because it goes against her deeply held religious beliefs, then are we obligated to honour those feeling? Before we answer that, another situation.

Justin TrudeauRobert is a hypothetical individual. Rob is an obsessive fan of the Montreal Canadiens. In 1993, he was wearing the cap of his favourite team and for some reason he never took it off outside his house that year. The team went all the way, won the cup. From that point on, every year the Habs make the playoffs, Rob wears his hat. It’s his good luck charm, and despite them not winning the Cup since, Rob truly believes that wearing his cap makes a difference. It is a deeply held, personal belief. I can judge it, I can think it’s a ridiculous belief; but it is his belief and he has every right to have it.

So, one day Rob lets his son borrow the car, and the car gets impounded. Rob goes to court to get his car back. The judge refuses to hear the case because Rob refuses to remove his hat. Rob gets kicked out of court.

How is this not the same thing?

Both “Rob the sports fanatic” and the woman wearing the Hijab are doing the same thing, refusing to remove an article of clothing that they have a strong belief that they have to wear when they are out in public. The fact that Rob’s belief is not based in a religion does not make it any more or any less valid. All that matters is that he has a deeply held personal belief and that going against that belief will cause him deep personal angst.

As an atheist, I cannot see Rob’s situation as any less or as any more than that of the woman wearing the Hijab. I have seen many people comment that a baseball cap is not the same as a religious headpiece? I would ask who are they to make that judgement on behalf of the person wearing said non-religious headpiece. If the religious person gets to wear their head covering, then everyone gets to wear their head covering as they see fit. To do otherwise is religious discrimination against those that do not hold said religion. It gives special treatment to those who claim a religious exception over those that live a secular existence.

It would seem that I have Mr. Trudeau on my side.

“For me, this is both unconscionable and a real threat to Canadian Liberty. For me, it is basic truth that Prime Ministers of liberal democracies ought not to be in the business of telling women what they can and cannot wear on their head during public ceremonies.”

I would hope he’d be just as fervent in Rob’s defense.

Crossing the floor

I really need to remember not to read the comments section on news stories.

The floor of the House of Commons - WikipediaThis morning, Eve Adams, the Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Brampton South crossed the floor from the Conservatives to join the Liberal Caucus under Justin Trudeau. Now, I have no idea what kind of MP Ms. Adams is, although I have heard that she has had questionable dealings in and with her former party during the nomination processes in her former and neighbouring ridings. Apparently she broke some party rules, however from past experience I know that that can be a murky mess too. Brandon-Souris had its own nomination irregularities in the last by-election which still seem questionable to me. But that’s another topic.

Just like any time that someone crosses the floor to another party, or leaves the party to sit as an independent, you start to hear people saying how dishonest the floor-crosser is, how they should resign and run again. The idea is that the representative ran under the party banner and got a bunch of votes from people who voted for that party.  That’s what I saw in the comments section, except with more name calling.

One problem. We don’t vote for parties in Canada, we vote for candidates. I really wish that people would catch on to this when they make these assertions. When you vote for a candidate, you vote for that person to represent your constituency. You do not vote for a party to represent your constituency. If that was the case, when Merv Tweed resigned his seat, then the Tories could have appointed someone to “their seat”. They were not allowed to do that, there had to be a by-election, because the person who held the seat vacated it. I really wish these commenters would learn how our system works before they comment. Eve Adams has the right, perhaps even the responsibility, to cross the floor if she thinks that the party she represents no longer represents her constituents. I don’t know if that is what has happened in this case, perhaps she is just an opportunist who jumped ship when she had pretty much been tossed overboard. Time will tell.

However, the right to “cross the floor” is one of the few threats that an MP has against their party, especially a party in government. It is something that is an integral part of our system.

Personally I would go further. I would like to see the removal of party names from our ballots. To me, the party name is a form of advertising for the candidate. Political advertising is forbidden by law inside or within so many metres of a polling place. Some will say that the party name beside the candidate lets people identify who they want to vote for. I would argue that if you have not been able to figure out who is the representative of your favourite party before you go into the polling place, then perhaps you have not done due diligence in researching and knowing the positions of the candidates in your area. If you cannot even identify the political affiliation of someone that you want to represent you, perhaps you don’t know them well enough.

I would hope people would put more thought into their vote than just picking a colour.

Competent Adult Persons

The Supreme Court of Canada

In what is being called a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday struck down the total ban on doctor assisted suicide. The Court found that the ban went again the Charter right of “Security of the person” and as such struck that section of the law down.

Insofar  as  they  prohibit  physician-assisted dying  for  competent  adults who  seek  such  assistance  as  a  result  of  a  grievous  and  irremediable  medical  condition that  causes  enduring  and  intolerable  suffering,  ss. 241(b)  and  14 of the  Criminal Code deprive  these  adults  of  their  right  to  life,  liberty  and  security  of  the  person  under  s. 7 of  the  Charter.  The  right  to  life  is  engaged  where  the  law  or  state  action  imposes death  or  an  increased  risk  of  death  on  a  person,  either  directly or indirectly.  Here, the prohibition deprives  some  individuals of  life, as  it  has  the  effect  of  forcing some individuals  to  take  their  own  lives  prematurely,  for  fear  that  they  would  be  incapable of  doing  so  when  they  reached  the  point  where  suffering  was  intolerable.  The  rights to  liberty  and  security  of  the  person,  which  deal  with  concerns  about  autonomy  and quality  of  life,  are  also  engaged.  An  individual’s response  to  a  grievous  and irremediable  medical  condition  is  a  matter  critical  to  their  dignity  and  autonomy.  The prohibition  denies  people  in  this  situation  the  right  to  make  decisions  concerning  their bodily  integrity  and  medical  care  and  thus  trenches  on  their  liberty.  And  by  leaving them  to endure  intolerable  suffering,  it impinges  on their  security  of the person.

In my opinion, the Court used an interesting term when they said “competent adults”, as it underlies a basic freedom that most of us should be seen to have. If we are of sound mind, in other words, a “competent adult”, then decisions that we make in accordance with the use, misuse, or end of use of our bodies should not be impinged by other people if we are not causing harm or undue hardship to others, or costing other people or society unreasonable sums of money.

In the case of assisted suicide, a competent adult person should be able to determine the end date of their life. With multiple safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable, I see no reason why it is any of modern society’s business when any mentally competent person decides that they do not wish to live any longer. To me whether or not the person is in grievous pain does not enter the picture. If you are going to protect the sanctity of my life, then you must also protect my right to not live that life too, if I choose. If you do not leave me to determine what is best for me and my body, then you do not respect my right to my security of the person. I can and will determine what is best for me and my body and I do not give anyone the right to tell me differently. To put it mildly, my body, my choice.

This does not mean that the concerns of the disabled are not without some merit. I do however think that some of the fears are overstated, or perhaps more likely, misplaced. The arguments that I heard yesterday from disabled individuals opposed to this decision was that they feared that some disabled people would choose to die because they were not able to live with pain in instances where proper pain management techniques were not being offered to them, or even withheld. To me, that would not be covered by this decision. That would be a failure of the medical system to provide care. As my spouse pointed out yesterday, the hope would be that palliative care in this country would now become more front and centre as many in the industry tried to improve end-of-life conditions so that fewer people would feel the need to end their life prematurely. Perhaps terminal patients in this country will now find their pain-management and quality of life are more important now than they ever were before.

This idea of competent persons should really be seen to apply in other instances as well. We have too many laws that infringe on what a person can do with their own body, when doing so causes no harm to others. Cases in point; drug use and prostitution laws.

As I have argued before, the right of an adult person to decide who they will have sex with should be a basic right. The fact that money may be a deciding factor in that decision should not be the business of the government. If the people involved are competent adults and they make the choice freely without duress, then it is their choice, and theirs alone whether or not they proceed with that action. What we as a society have a responsibility to do is to make sure that anyone who makes that choice is doing it with free will and not seen as a last resort or as an only choice. Yes, many people are in that industry that do not want to be there, our duty is to them to make sure that nobody finds themself in that position. However, telling those that want to be there, and are of competent mind to make that decision, that they cannot, takes away their right of self determination.

As for those that take drugs. Yes, many people abuse drugs or alcohol and it has a devastating effect on their life. However, many people use alcohol and drugs recreationally and never have a problem functioning, or in fact thriving, in our society. I personally do not drink, smoke, or ingest any illicit drugs, but I do not for one second feel that it is my right to tell others who seem to be able to do it in a responsible manner, to not do it. Again, what a competent person does with their own body is none of my business.

Now, this does not mean that people should now be able to do what they want with no consideration for other people or of the common good. For example, I was challenged yesterday as to whether or not this means that I am against seatbelt use. No, I am not, and I think that you are an idiot if you do not use one. I would argue though that not doing up your seatbelt is your right, just do not expect an insurance company to pay for your choice in the case of injury, or more likely death. If you do not take the reasonable precautions to avoid grievous injury as prescribed by your insurer, then you should not expect them to pay large sums of money to your estate in the event of your untimely death. The same would go for not putting children in seatbelts, they are not competent adults and it is not the right of the parent or guardian to make a decision that will increase their chance of death or injury. It is not in the child’s best interest.

Another case in point is the anti-vaccine movement. The choice to not vaccinate is not one that affects only the person, but of all of those around the person also. Because the true effectiveness of vaccines only really exists in the “herd immunity” achieved when 95% of the population is immunized, by not immunizing one also makes medical choices for those other than one’s self. If immunization was 100% effective for every person, and every person could get it, then your choice not to would be yours alone. Immunizations do not work that way though, so for the greater good of society, everyone who can get the vaccine should get it, to protect those who cannot for other than philosophical reasons. In other words, not just your body, so not just your choice.

We definitely need to consider the rights of a competent adult person more often when we are crafting public policy. The litmus test I would say is whether or not the choice made by someone infringes on the rights of another. If nobody else’s right are being impinged on, then perhaps we should stay out of these decisions.

Target Canada, what went wrong?

Target Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota announced what many suspected yesterday, but was still surprising; they would be closing their Canadian operation after less than two years in business. About 17,000 associates at 133 stores and 3 distribution centres would be losing their jobs. The term “epic fail” will refer to Target Canada for the foreseeable future.

What went wrong?

Many people have their theories, but what it really comes down to is that they failed to recognized that they were entering a different market, with different consumers, and a different attitude. The easiest way to understand what went wrong is to contrast the entry of Target into Canada with the entry of Walmart into Canada 19 years earlier.

The store here in Brandon at the Shopper’s Mall demonstrates the differences well, as it has existed as all three retailers, as well as Woolco since it first opened in the early 1970s.

When Target first announced it was entering Canada, it did so with the purchase of the leases of most of the existing stores of Zeller’s from the Hudson’s Bay Company. Target made a point of just buying the leases, pointing out it had no interest in the stores, or in the current staff. Any Zeller’s staff would have to apply for jobs with the new company. Part two of the plan was to renovate all of the stores at an average cost of $10,000,000 per store.

In 1994 Walmart announced that it was entering the Canadian market, it did so with the announcement that it was buying the discount chain Woolco, not just the leases, but retaining most of the company assets including employees and other infrastructure across the country. They modestly renovated the Woolco locations while remaining open, the biggest changes being replacing the cafeterias with McDonald’s locations. Walmart went on to become the dominant retailer in Canada.

What was the difference?

Walmart came into this country knowing that they were in foreign territory and that they would need Canadian expertise to help them succeed in the new environment. They didn’t come in and promise to open 133 Supercentres on day one, but instead integrated an existing trusted Canadian retailer into their corporate culture and ways of doing things. In the first year you would see Walmart associates with nametags that said “20 Years of Service”. Walmart recognized the importance of having a Canadian perspective right out of the gate. They also realized that Canadians would not expect a replica of American Supercentres, but would understand that Walmart would slowly but surely transition Woolco to a better retailer. They under-promised, knowing that the benefit would come later when they over-delivered.

Target should have known better. If you are the number two retailer in your home country, and you decide to enter a market that your number one at home is already in, you should probably follow their lead and copy their successes.  Target did not, but instead did everything the opposite that Walmart had years earlier.

Many have opined that Target made the mistake of buying the Zeller’s chain, with its run down image and locations. My take is the exact opposite. Target’s problem is that they didn’t buy the chain, but instead opted for its leases only. Had Target entered Canada the way of Walmart, then they would have bought the entire chain; stores, delivery centre, logistics, and yes, the staff. Had they kept Zeller’s intact, then they would have started out from a point of lowered expectations from which they could slowly transform into the Target they wanted to become. People would have seen the incremental changes, thought that they had improved upon Zeller’s, and would not have expected the American Target experience on day one. The other benefit, a fully operational distribution and logistics network. Absorbing Zeller’s would have prevented the problems that eventually ruined their reputation.

Perhaps the biggest expense that Target encountered in the Canadian rollout was the renovation of all of the previous Zeller’s stores. Now, there is no doubt that many stores needed a renovation, however, many did not. A good example of this were stores in Winnipeg and Brandon that had been renovated a short time before. Target in Brandon, MBThe Zeller’s store at Shoppers Mall in Brandon had opened in May of 2006 and closed in November of 2012 after only 6½ years of existence. The store had been fully renovated on the interior during the early winter months of 2006 to look a lot like a Target store. In 2013 Target completely gutted the store to the point that all that remained was the roof and pillars. After that they completely rebuilt it; it essentially looked the same as before, but without a restaurant. At an average cost of $10 Million per store, it was a colossal waste of money during which the store was closed and not bringing in a dime.

And the roof still leaked.

Another thing they would have known had they kept the Zeller’s team would have been the attitude of the Canadian shopper. The Canadian shopper is less about flashy and aspirational purchases which Target targets in its American stores, and is more about value for money. Another difference with the Canadian customer is that they do not tell you when you have disappointed them or made them mad. I have seen research in the past that said while an American customer will pester or even yell at a retailer, later buying if acknowledged, the Canadian consumer is more apt to stay quiet and just leave disappointed, never to return. Canadian consumers will also let all their friends know about the bad experience. Fail one of us, word gets around.

Target wasn’t prepared to enter Canada and they did not know it because they didn’t do their research. Walmart knew enough to know that they didn’t know the country and were willing to take it slow while getting to know us. While Walmart collects the fruits of its slow and steady remodelling of Woolco, Target leaves 133 empty stores where similar looking Zeller’s stores once stood. What would be really ironic would be Hudson’s Bay taking over the spaces with a revived Zeller’s brand, over 100 essentially new stores in your existing colours that you didn’t have to pay for building would be the retail industry’s coup of the century.

« Older posts