Category: Provincial (Page 1 of 2)

Opportunity Missed in 2011

17 May 2015 / Sean

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. 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.

Competent Adult Persons

7 February 2015 / Sean

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.

Questionable Problem, Wrong Solution

22 November 2014 / Sean

Reduced speed limits in school zones came into effect this past September across Manitoba. The provincial government had earlier passed a law enabling local governments to reduce speed limits next to schools if deemed necessary. Of course, not wanting to look like they didn’t care about the children, many local councils including the one in Brandon passed such a bylaw.

The signs went up in August.

So, of course, the debate started on eBrandon.ca and twitter the first week of school. Predictably there are a number of people who think that the whole thing is just a money grab with increased speeding tickets, with others arguing that we should do anything we can to keep the children safe. To be frank, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I question if it was really a safety issue.

So, let’s actually do something that makes children safer. I’m not convinced that this is it. I think a better idea is higher fines in school zones for speeding, as does former Brandon city councillor Stephen Montague, as pointed out in this June 6, 2014 editorial in the Brandon Sun.

“While signage is a minor concern, we think Coun. Stephen Montague (Richmond) wasn’t wrong when he suggested there could have been other options to lowering the speed limit, like keeping the limit the same but increasing fines for speeding in school areas.

He also said better enforcement of no-parking and no-stopping zones near schools where stopped vehicles narrow the path for passing cars and limit lines of sight could also provide a benefit.”

This becomes really apparent on 26th Street in front of J.R. Reid School. As you approach the school from the south you cross Park Avenue which is a lighted intersection, and immediately enter the school speed zone. It seems possible to me that at some point as drivers slow down through the intersection that someone is going to get rear-ended by someone else more worried about the lights and less about the zone. I could very well see the accident numbers going up at this intersection as a result of this speed change.

I’m also not convinced that the speed limit had to be reduced. Again, at J.R. Reid it never appeared that people going the previously posted speed limit of 50km/h were ever a problem. I’m sure that there were problems with speed, but I’m guessing that the problem was most likely people going 60km/h or more in that zone. Yes, technically the drop to 30km/h makes the spot even safer, but I sense that it is already pretty safe. Again, the Brandon Sun looked into this city wide, and from that same editorial:

“But there don’t seem to be any major injuries or deaths in Brandon school zones in nearly a quarter-century.

As we reported yesterday following a search of the Brandon Sun archives, two children were killed by vehicles in recent years, but neither incident was outside a school.

The closest fatality to a school that could be found was in March 1991, when a five-year-old boy was hit on Knowlton Drive — on a Sunday —after walking into traffic from between parked cars, in front of the Sportsplex near Kirkcaldy Heights School.”

It seems to me that we are dropping the speed limit to prevent accidents that are not happening, and I would expect that we will see an increase in rear-end collisions as a result. It would not surprise me in the slightest if this costs Manitoba Public Insurance more money in the long run. Those of us who obey the posted speed limit were never the problem, in fact it seems that there wasn’t actually much of a problem. If in there was a problem, then Victoria Avenue and 18th Street would have a 30km/h speed limit next to Earl Oxford School as one would suspect that to be the most dangerous school zone in the city, yet we do not reduce the speed limit in that area. That tells me that the other zones are not about safety but about the appearance of safety. “Safety theatre” I would call it.

We already have double fines for speeding in a construction zone, we could do the same or higher in a school zone. Signage in a school zone could read, “School Zone: Speed Fines X 4”. That would hit the problem drivers where it hurts, the pocketbook, and leave us other drivers to drive at a reasonable limit. It would also mean that Earl Oxford would have a safer zone as more people would observe the 50km/h speed limit.

The provincial government needs to revisit this law and provide for these higher fines in school zones. Local governments could then have the choice of reducing the speed (if it makes sense), or of multiplying the fines. Choose one or the other, but not both, depending on the school. Schools on residential streets actually make sense at 30km/h, like Meadows or Green Acres for example. However, schools like J.R. Reid, Earl Oxford, and King George, which are next to major routes, do not make sense to have a reduced speed limit; we should find a better solution.

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.

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.

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.

An enhanced misstep

18 April 2014 / Sean

I’m in the process of getting my passport. I don’t currently have travel plans, but the fact that I can’t even go to Bottineau right now without the right documents is annoying. I could have obtained a Manitoba Enhanced Driver’s License (EDL) for less money, but it’s inability to be used as a travel document for anything but land and water crossings, and the fact I lose it if I move out of province, makes it less than ideal.

According to the Winnipeg Sun, as of August 31, 2012 the Manitoba EDL program had issued 18,821 pieces of I.D. since the program started in 2009/2010. Apparently the program cost about $14-million.

Manitobans are not exactly running to sign up for this thing. As a comparison, in 2011 57.47% of Manitobans had passports according to Passport Canada. Assuming that the population of Manitoba is the 1,208,268 as stated in Wikipedia, then that would mean that 694,392 Manitobans currently have passports. That means that the rate of passports use in Manitoba is over 36 times as high as EDL use.

An EDL costs $30 over and above your driver’s licence, $50 for the non-driver version, and you renew normally every 5 years. A Canadian passport on the other hand is $120 for 5 years or $160 for 10 years. So in 10 years you would spend $60 on an EDL and $160 on a passport. The passport obviously costs more, but it is a document that allows you to do more in the long run. I’m not sure why we spent $14-million to save 18,821 people a hundred bucks each, we should have just cut them a cheque if we were being realistic.

This brings me to another point. If the Government of Manitoba wanted to make travel documents cheaper for Manitobans, they should have just looked at subsidizing passports. Now that we have the option for a 10-year passport, the province could subsidize the 10-year option by $30 bringing it down to $130, which is only $10 more that the five year. Convince the federal government to toss in a another $10 and 10-year passports for Manitobans would be the document of choice.

Assuming that 10% of passport holders would apply of renew each year, that works out to about 69,440 Manitobans per year getting a Canadian Passport. At a subsidy of $30 per person, the cost of the program would have been just over $2-million per year. That’s seven years of a program for the same cost that would have benefitted 36 times more citizens of the province.

The EDL program just wasn’t thought out.

As an aside, another thing I find annoying is how you go about the process of getting a photo for your passport. It seems ludicrous to me that I have to go get a private photo, have it certified by a guarantor, and then send it in. In 2014 when every province has photo driver’s licences, why do you not have them pull your latest provincial photo onto your passport. This seems like a simple cost-saving, cost-sharing solution between the levels of government.

Manitoba flag still sucks…

1 April 2014 / Sean

I dislike the Manitoba flag. I have for years. I first noticed how much I disliked it back around 2001. I was sitting in the parking lot at Superstore waiting for my spouse to pick something up when I looked at the flags flying there. We had just moved back from Saskatchewan that March and it struck me how much more the Saskatchewan flag stood out compared to the Manitoba one. Superstore there flew the Canadian and Saskatchewan flags, while here it is Canada and Manitoba.

I love the Canadian flag. Despite its relatively recent adoption in the late 60s, it is a wonderful symbol of our country. At once unique, simple in design, and unmistakeably Canadian. It is a wonderful flag. The Manitoba flag, not so much.

How do I know that it was 2001? Well, in June of that same year, the North American Vexillological Association (NAVA), a group dedicated to the study of flags, released a survey of their members on the flags of North American States and Provinces. We beat many states, but as far as Canadian flags go we were dead last.

Just looking at the thing, I knew it wasn’t a good design. It was kind of just intuitive. After NAVA’s survey I knew why. From their website at Nava.org:

The 5 Basic Principles of Flag Design

Keep It Simple – The flag should be so simple that a child can draw it from memory…

Use Meaningful Symbolism – The flag’s images, colors, or patterns should relate to what it symbolizes…

Use 2–3 Basic Colors – Limit the number of colors on the flag to three, which contrast well and come from the standard color set…

No Lettering or Seals – Never use writing of any kind or an organization’s seal…

Be Distinctive or Be Related – Avoid duplicating other flags, but use similarities to show connections…

Using those basic principles it is easy to see why the Canadian flag is great flag design, and the Manitoba flag is not.

First, Manitoba’s flag (top) probably is fairly simple until you get to the coat of arms on the right hand side; then the thing gets overly complicated. It uses way too many colors , and worst of all, it is not distinctive. It is terribly difficult to tell apart from a number of other flags in Canada and the Commonwealth both historically and current.

It also not only duplicates the flags of Ontario (centre), and the Canadian Red Ensign (bottom), but all three actually contain the Union Jack from the United Kingdom in its entirety.

Worst of all, it is not distinctive. Fly any of those three flags to the left, and on a calm day you would not be able to tell them apart. That’s not even taking into account all the uses of the Red Ensign design outside of Canada. Sure, the flag does represent our history by using those symbols, but it ignores all the other peoples who have contributed to this province.

Because of its non-distinctive nature, the flag fails its most important role as a symbol. I look at the flag and it does nothing for me. It does not cause any feelings like those of the Canadian Maple Leaf flag. At least when I look at Saskatchewan’s flag, I see how it says “Saskatchewan.”

So, in 2001, after the news of NAVA’s flag rankings broke, I wrote to the Winnipeg Free Press and I suggested that they hold a contest for a new Manitoba flag. I included my idea for a Manitoba flag as seen to the right. I knew that the eventual winner would most likely not be adopted, but the Free Press ran with the idea anyway. My design was to keep it simple, at least simple enough to design in MS-Paint! The blue was to represent our northern lakes and expansive skies while the green represented our vast prairie landscape. The bison of course is a well used symbol of our province going back many years. It was also meant to have a similarity to the flag of our western neighbour Saskatchewan who we share much of our identity with.

My entry if I recall correctly made the top 10, which I was pretty happy with.

I do have to admit though, that I instantly fell in love with the winning entry, from Heather Jones of Winnipeg. I would be proud to fly it. It is distinctive, it is meant to represent Sunny Manitoba and the inclusion of the bison uses one of our most recognizable symbols. It has been suggested that the bison be reversed so that it is facing the flagpole as to not be considered rude, but other than that, it is perfect. I’d actually like to buy one to fly it.