@ the 100th Meridian

Living, Working, and Wasting Time in Southern Manitoba

Page 3 of 7

What’s Reasonable?

10 March 2015 /

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

9 February 2015 /

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

7 February 2015 /

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?

16 January 2015 /

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.

A Vision for Downtown

6 December 2014 /

The Strand Theatre in Brandon has been vacant now for a while. For a number of years it was one of Brandon’s only 2 movie theatres along with the Towne Cinema down on eighth. With the opening of the Capitol Theatre by the Shopper’s Mall and its later expansion, the Strand was eventually closed and has sat unused ever since.

A few years ago Landmark Cinemas, owner of the building, agreed to sell the property to The Brandon Folk Music and Arts Society to develop it into a new arts hub for live performances. I have been a proponent of the idea for a few years, but it seems that the plan brought forth by the group is not catching the public’s attention. It has languished for years now. Shaun Cameron, regular columnist for the Brandon Sun wrote a piece last weekend urging for a renewed effort, and perhaps a separation from the Arts Society. A repost can be found at his blog.

This got me to start thinking about that whole block, and the surrounding area. There has been a lot of change down there in the last few years. The YMCA moved in to its new facility over a year ago; some kinks had to be worked out, but it is an excellent facility. The Kristopher Campbell Memorial Skate Plaza is a popular gathering place for city boarders in a spot that since 1980 had been a gravel parking lot. The Brandon Inn, its best days long behind it, has been torn down after being condemned and then inherited by the city. Thunderbird Bowl moved out of its old location underneath the parking lot at 10th and Princess, and the Brown Block immediately beside the Strand has been demolished after collapsing a few years back. Even the Brandon Real Estate Board moved out of their building so that a large block of land immediately south and southeast of the Strand are now vacant. The Thunderbird lot is still there, as is a barber shop that was partially attached to the Brandon Inn. There is a fairly large lot now available for development. My feeling is that the whole area has been envisioned by someone for development that would compliment the Strand project if it ever gets going. I have thought over the years what the possibilities could be for such an area.

The fist thing that I wonder is whether or not the Strand’s main entrance and a second marquis could be built on the south side where the Brown Block used to stand. There is presently a structure there that holds the strands south wall up that it used to share with the other building. Perhaps a new  modern atrium could be built in this area that would provide the necessary structural support for the original building, and provide more room in the winter for patrons to gather before and after a show. It would also connect the Strand to a new outdoor park that would encompass the entire south end of the block. What I see in my head is an outdoor summer concert bowl that shares the Strand’s facilities for offices, dressing rooms, and other amenities, while providing a permanent stage for events such as the Folk Festival and hopefully, if it continues, BUSU’s Rock the Block festival in September. This new facility would serve as a new “city square” where a multitude of other events and concerts could be held. I would also reverse the direction of traffic on 9th street so that it was one way going north between Princess and Pacific avenues. During an event, there would be gates south of the Skate Plaza on 9th that would close, and on Princess between 9th and 10th. Eastbound traffic on princess would be directed north on 9th. This way, Princess Park, the Skate Plaza, and the Concert Bowl could be treated as one big property during larger events. The last thing I would want to see is a nice brick and iron fence along Princess and 9th streets that would keep pedestrians out of traffic and avoid a tragedy like we had a few years ago during an event in Princess Park. At the time I thought that it would have been a good use of reclaimed brick from the Brandon Inn to build such a fence at minimal cost.

I have no idea if any of this has any chance of ever happening, and I obviously do not have the capital to pursue such a project, however, if an idea is never suggested, it can never be acted upon. That is all this is, an idea of what could be possible. I’m not saying we should do it, just that we could. I am in total agreement with Mr. Cameron, the Strand project is a good idea for this community. It can be the start of a re-birth of downtown if done right. Downtown will be healthy and vibrant if we transition it to a residential and arts district.

Do this right, and people will want to be downtown.

Questionable Problem, Wrong Solution

22 November 2014 /

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 p26th Street Southbound at JR Reidassed 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.

Sometimes tech isn’t the answer

23 September 2014 /

It’s no secret that I love technology. My job involves selling and repairing PCs and Macs. I am a regular listener to two podcasts on the This Week in Tech (TWiT) network online. I spend many hours in front of a screen.

I am a tech geek.

That being said, I have never understood the fascination that some people have with trying to introduce technology into the voting process. To me it seems that it is an unnecessary use of technology. Voting isn’t broken, we need not fix it.

Case in point. Yesterday, the province of New Brunswick held an election. Apparently they were using vote tabulating machines. Apparently polls closed last night and results started coming in quite fast, which of course should happen when using a computer to count votes. Theoretically, if polls close at 8:00pm, you should have a result by 8:01pm; computers are very efficient at this kind of counting. This did not happen last night in New Brunswick. Poll results came in until 10:30pm and then stopped… for over two hours.

As a student and a user of technology, I know that it is possible to build a perfectly secure vote tabulating machine. I also know how hard perfectly secure would be. You need code reviewed by multiple people, checked and rechecked, secured against unauthorized changes, and a reliable and accurate paper trail created for each vote cast.

The first problem with electronic voting is that often it involves machines designed by private companies and the code is considered intellectual property and is not subject to public scrutiny. You need the code to be open to know that it is actually correctly written, bug-checked, and that no “secret” routines are included in it. The anchors on last night’s New Brunswick election coverage on CBC were very concerned about so-called “missing” memory cards in last night’s election. I understand their concern, however the cards were most likely just in transport and there are ways programmatically to ensure the cards have not been tampered with. If those precautions have been taken by the tabulator manufacturer then they need not worry. Unfortunately, how do we know that those precautions were taken?

As a proponent of a preferential or weighted ballot system, I am one of the first to realize that in such a system, computer counting may be needed to get a result in a timely fashion. I am not against the use of technology. What confuses me though is how some jurisdictions are relying solely on the machines. For example, last night the Progressive Conservatives were pushing for a hand recount of the votes; mostly because they were on the losing side of the count. My question however is why would you not hand count the votes anyway, every time? The computer should be used to make results timely (the machines should be faster most times, unlike last night), leaders can make their speeches, everyone can go home. But the paper count should always be done, with everyone acknowledging only the paper count as the official one.

Most people who understand technology realize why its a bad idea as the sole way of counting votes.

Perhaps we start local

20 September 2014 /

Election season is now in full swing. This past week saw the deadline for nominations for candidates in the upcoming civic election in the city of Brandon. We now have four candidates for mayor and various candidates for councillor throughout the city.

The Brandon Sun has started its full election coverage with a weekly feature questioning each mayoral candidate on various topics facing the city. This week the topic was infrastructure, which to readers familiar with this blog, is an issue I’m very interested in, especially transportation infrastructure within the city.

Mark KovatchAs a result of reading that article, I consider that Brandon has three serious candidates for mayor. Mark Kovatch, owner of Turtle Crossing Campground, answered the questions the clearest of the four. Frontrunners Mayor Sherri Decter Hirst and former councillor Rick Chrest had okay answers but you could tell that they are practiced politicians. John Paul Jacobson just didn’t connect with me. My feelings on that feature is that Mr. Kovatch was the clear winner in my mind, and I will now take a harder look at him as voting day approaches.

This again brings me back to a problem I had with the federal by-election last year, and our broken first past the post voting system. If I decide that I would like to eventually vote for Mr. Kovatch, I would like my vote to actually count. I would like other people who would like to vote for perceived third or fourth candidates to also feel that their vote counts for something. I would like to not have to consider voting strategically if there is a candidate that I could absolutely not want to be in office. This is why, as I’ve stated before, we need a preferential ballot system. My belief is that we need it at all levels, but I think the local level would be a good start.

For those unfamiliar with a preferential ballot, it works like this. Instead of marking an X next to the candidate of your choice, you instead number rank them. In the case of the mayoral election, you would number them one to four, 1 for your top pick and 4 for your lowest pick. In an election such as this one, where two candidates are considered favourites, if your first pick is not a frontrunner, and it comes down to the frontrunners, you still get a choice between them. I have in the past voted for someone who is not my first choice because they are the best chance to defeat a candidate that I very much dislike, but has a chance of winning. In the by-election, more people in Brandon-Souris voted for left leaning candidates but the right wing candidate got in. Had we had a preferential ballot, most likely our MP in Ottawa would currently be a Liberal.

As it appears by a quick reading of the Elections Act of Manitoba, we would need the province to amend the act to allow preferential ballots in Manitoba civic elections, something recently done in Ontario. Interestingly enough, it seems that preferential ballots were the norm in Manitoba for much of the early part of the twentieth century up until 1954/55 when they were changed for partisan reasons.

My thoughts are that if we had such a system, candidates like Mr. Kovatch, who might actually have people interested in voting for them, might make a much better showing. You may get a situation where such a candidate is actually the first choice of more people than a perceived frontrunner. It evens the playing field, if only just a bit.

My question for mayoral candidates and others running for Brandon Council is this,

 “Do you favour the adoption of a preferential ballot in Brandon before the end of the next term?”

We might find we get a better race.

Give them some respect

13 September 2014 /

Sometimes North American society confuses me; well, actually, most of the time. Case in point, our expectations and understanding of the younger generations. There seems to be something about “the adults” that they forget how it was when they were children, teenagers, and young adults. The worst seems to be how many adults see older teenagers and twenty-somethings as somehow unable to make real decisions about their lives.

Somehow we expect children and teens to make life decisions about education and career (I’m 40 and I’m still not sure what I want to do when I grow up), but when it comes to everyday things like what items they will consume or their sexuality, we somehow as a society seem to think that teenagers and young adults are unable to make good, well-informed decisions.

MillerBeerSFor example, today in the Winnipeg Free Press (and the Brandon Sun), there was an article about how the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) was urging the province of Manitoba to consider raising the age of alcohol consumption to 19 years of age from the current 18 years. A government spokesperson responded, “We are not planning to raise the drinking age, which is 18 and the age of majority in all other respects.”

That is the correct response.

I do not like the actions of “helicopter parents” as it is. That is, those parents that have to be involved in, and have a say in, every aspect of their child’s life, even when that “child” is legally an adult. What I hate even more is when the helicopters start hovering over other people’s children and young adults. Raising the drinking age to 19 would be a nanny state imposing its will on citizens and voters that in every other way are considered adults. It is often said that if someone is old enough to join the army then they are old enough to have a beer. I happen to agree.

Yes, I know that anecdotal evidence should be taken with a grain of salt, but I do recall being a teenager and a young adult. What I remember is this. Those that had unreasonable curfews and rules set upon them tended to rebel the most against those rules and curfews. Those who were banned from any alcohol whatsoever tended to be the worst for using alcohol in irresponsible ways. Those of us who had no curfew and whose parents would say, “If you want a beer, have it with us,” we tended not drink very much and often got home at a reasonable time. Our parents expected us to have some responsibility and we met that challenge by actually acting responsible.

That’s the thing. Many would think that my parents set a low expectation by not putting those limits on me, but it was actually the opposite. They expected me to rise to the occasion and make decisions that were in my best interest. The other side of that was that when I made a questionable decision, it was my problem to deal with the consequences. If I got home at three o’clock in the morning on Friday night it was my problem if I had to get up at 4:30 to help milk the cows on our farm, not theirs. One soon learned to get home earlier.

This is the problem I see with raising the drinking age to 19 or to 21. It tells young adults that we do not trust them to be responsible with alcohol. When we set such low expectations, we should not be surprised when they meet them. The fact that Saskatchewan’s eighteen year olds come to Manitoba or Alberta to drink and then drive home is not Manitoba’s or Alberta’s fault. If Saskatchewan treated these adults as adults, then they would not have to leave their own town to begin with, and would not be as prone to binge drink when they were elsewhere.

Personally, despite the fact that I rarely drink, I think that our liquor laws and attitudes in North America towards alcohol are too restrictive. We treat alcohol as a forbidden fruit and then act surprised when people binge drink or abuse it in other ways. My personal opinion is that we need to teach more about responsible alcohol consumption and from an earlier age. For instance, it should not be seen as socially unacceptable or even illegal for a teen to have a glass of wine with their parents at a licensed restaurant.

Teach responsibility… it’s a lesson that can be carried throughout life.

Mr. Selinger, we need some upgrades…

4 July 2014 /

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.

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

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.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 @ the 100th Meridian

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑