Are we Overregulated?

 

“Behind every great fortune there is a crime.”
  - Honore de Balzac

I’m reminder of the old saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Now we seem to be trying to do that very thing.

We are consistently hearing the cry that there are too many regulations, too much red tape, too many laws.  The plea is usually from the business community who want more unfettered ability to enhance their business. The oil and gas lobbies are particularly adept at this. It’s one of the reasons that we have so few environmental laws and regulations (believe it or not). We now have our governments advocating and legislating the same thing.

But there is another side to this argument.  If we examine these laws and regulations, we can usually find that there is a reason these were put in place in the first place. The original laws now called the Criminal Code were based on the biblical ten commandments. They have been updated to their present form to account for newer criminal activity. Laws against fraud were undoubtedly developed to counter people and institutions carrying out such things. As fraudsters became more sophisticated, so the laws had to be amended to deal with this growth. The Indian Act, plus the requirement to involve the indigenous peoples which some governments want to override for “growth” (read exploitation), was designed, even in its current flawed approach, to protect that indigenous population from just the type of things that are now being promoted.

As for environmental laws and regulations, they go back to before there was any thought of climate change.  The need for clean water and air was the initial requirement. Anyone who visited Hamilton or Pittsburgh in the 1950s would understand that.  Because of regulations and public interest, both Hamilton Harbour water and Pittsburgh air have now been cleaned up. We did the same thing while forestalling the demise of the ozone layer.  We now pretty well take these laws and regulations for granted. The current requirement is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change.  Climate change is largely caused by the refining and burning of fossil fuels, and this is where the current need for environmental laws is needed.  So, it becomes a question of wanting profit in the short term or leaving a legacy of a stable environment for future generations. Where do you think those who want to get rid of these laws and regulations stand?

So, let’s not throw the baby (environment, lands, people) out with the bathwater (laws and regulations).

“Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality.”
  - George Santayana

It Might Have Been Better

 

Now, here’s an idea to chew on. It might have been better if Donald Trump had won the election in 2020. I know, I know, how can I say such a thing? Well, here’s my thinking.

Donald Trump was humiliated by his loss in 2020. He became embittered and he became angry. He sought revenge and looked for ways to “get even” with his perceived enemies.

A win would have ensured there was no January 6^th in 2021 and the subsequent denial movement.

Mike Pence would have been the Vice-President, a moderate voice rather than the radical and outspoken J.D. Vance.  Mike Pence would not have had to “betray” Trump on January 6^th.

In 2020, Trump had an agenda and was following it in his first term. Whatever its faults, it was a known agenda that people were getting used to. It probably would have done damage, but not as drastically as his present course. 

In 2020 there was no Elon Musk whispering sweet get-rich-quick schemes in Trump’s ear. There would probably have been no DOGE and the damage that was done. In his first term there was no talk of mass firings or threats to close entire government departments.

In 2020 there were no plutocrats trying to control the county by developing the so-called Project 2025. There would have been no impetus to develop that because their embittered mouthpiece (Trump) would still have been in power.

Trump’s cabinet in his first term had people who, although trying to follow Trump’s agenda, sometimes argued with him to reduce the possible downside.  But they were nowhere as radical as those he had selected this time around. Several of his current cabinet secretaries appear notably incompetent.

In Canada’s case, we had just agreed to a new trade agreement, and he would probably have stuck to it for his second term. It would not have needed to be reviewed during this current term.  In his first term, there was no talk of taking over Canada and Greenland.  He may still have gone after the Panama Canal, but that has just become a business deal.

Perhaps people did not think he would have the hubris to run again. Perhaps in 2024 they did not understand that the four-year gap would give him time and the backing to develop such a radical new agenda, to adopt such radical supporters, and to allow Elon Musk to pay for his re-election run.

And by now he would have been out of office when his second term expired last January.

Maybe it would have been better.

Recent Thoughts

 

Mental Health and Crime

The recent tragedy at the Filipino festival in Vancouver, when it was revealed that the perpetrator had mental health issues, has put a spotlight on those who suffer from that affliction. Calls have gone out, once again, for involuntary interment of such patients. Such a notion horrifies those of us who have a mental health issue. Where would such incarceration begin and where would it end. If I have a bad few days with my clinical depression, will I be turned in by someone and taken away? The truth is that it is estimated that about 10% of the population suffers from some sort of mental health issue, that is about 4 million people. Are we all at risk of involuntary incarceration? Would those who are incarcerated be guaranteed treatment, or would the volume of them overwhelm the resources that are available, inadequate as they are even in the present circumstances? Almost all people who suffer from mental health issues live crime free lives.  Many have treatment options that allow them to live healthily and productively (no matter what you think of my blogs, at least I’m doing something). Others have learned to cope with their malady.  Only very few carry out outrageous actions. Let’s do away with this notion that mental health should mean involuntary internment.

Alberta Separation

So, a large segment of the Alberta population wants to separate from Canada and become what? A separate country? The Republic of Alberta? Do they understand all of the things that will have to be done, even if they do break away against the many legal hurdles in their way? They will need to set up a legislature and a head of state.  Will it be a President or a Prime Minister. What will give this new country its legitimacy? How about a constitution.  How will that be made? Will there be a bill of rights? How about the many national institutions that will need to be established. A judicial system.  The existing one will not be enough. A national police force, no more RCMP. Border security and an immigration system. Border posts and employees. National security, armed forces and the resulting equipment. A postal system. All of the things that the federal government currently provides. It will not be cheap. It will not be cheap.  Canada is not going to give those away. An intelligence agency is a necessary evil in this day and age. A health care system.  Will it be state run or reverted to a private system.  Good luck making people happy with that.

There is an alternative, of course, and a few people want this. Become the 51^st state of the United States and all that that would entail. Good luck getting any break from Mr. Trump.  Oh, he will love acquiring your oil and gas. How will you set up a state election process to satisfy US requirements.  How will you vote? Will you find the Republican Party okay, or a bit too far right even for you? Will a Republican majority legislature welcome a new state that may add a few more Democrats to their number and shift the balance of power?

I hope that Albertans have the answer to these questions before they get too carried away with this separation idea.

Oh Yeah, the Election

In my opinion, the right party and man won. It is, however, a shame that some of the smaller parties did not get more representation.  What I do find interesting is the hubris of Mr. Poilievre who seems to believe that he has a right to continue to lead the opposition and be the leader of the Conservative party. Doesn’t he get it, he has lost his seat!

In a future blog I will discuss electoral reform.

Federal Leader’s Debate, 2025

 

(At least we hope there isn’t another election in 2025)

I watched the leader’s debate in English on Thursday evening, as I’m sure many of you did.  I came away with some impressions that I would like to share with you.  I’ll do them by party from right to left on the platform.

Bloc Quebecois

Mr. Blanchette, it turns out, is a one trick pony, “Quebec, Quebec, Quebec”.  His constant reference to “Quebec and Canada” became annoying but it did show his only message. To paraphrase – I’m only interested in getting things for Quebec. That was about all he contributed.  He was also quick to butt into other speakers’ discussions and demand a response for Quebec. It is obvious that he wants to win a preponderance of Quebec seats.

It is interesting that the Bloc, who only field 78 candidates is included in the debate, whereas the Green Party, which is fielding 200, is excluded. It shows you that it would be very hard to start a new political party in Canada. (Note that the Peoples’ Party was also not included)

NDP

Mr. Singh wants, so badly, to be the fly in the ointment; to have a minority government that will need an agreement with him to stay in power.  He obviously enjoyed when he had the agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. He constantly referred to the various social programs that he claimed he got through because of it.  The fact that, during that arrangement, he didn’t need to pay for the programs did not arise. He was, by far, the most prolific interrupter throughout the evening.  He was mostly trying to overwhelm Mr. Carney.

Liberal

Mr. Carney is the shortest leader in height which makes him look vulnerable. But he does not act vulnerable. He tried hard to explain his platform, although some of the explanations were a bit hard to fathom. He did not respond to questions, or accusations, about his previous employment nor his net worth and this will be seen as a fault, but his net worth is, in my opinion, nobody’s business. He was “accused” of having more discussion time than the others, but a lot of that time was taken up by other leaders, most notably Mr. Singh, interjecting and trying to talk over him which made it very difficult to get his message across. Nonetheless, I was impressed by his ability to keep his cool and keep trying without retort or remark.

Conservative

Has anyone else noted that Mr. Poilievre seems to have a perpetual sneer. Nobody challenged him on his platform (or lack of it). He certainly does not seem to have a sound climate plan, except to ship the problem overseas. He wants to increase oil and gas exploitation but ship it to foreign countries (China and India were mentioned) so it would not count against Canada’s contribution to GHG.  He was not often challenged on any of his statements, but he too often tried to shout down Mr. Carney. His big push was on crime where it seems quite prepared to use the Charter’s not withstanding clause to impose harsher and harsher sentences.  I have always been against the use of that part of the Charter for any reason and I find it very dangerous in the hands of the federal government. He even hints that he wants to do away with bail, at least for some accused. This platform on crime seems to be based on a misinformed idea of the state of crime in Canada.  (Saturday’s Globe and Mail has an editorial about the real state of affairs in this regard.) He tried to defend his reasons for not getting a security clearance, perhaps not realizing that even without it, if he sees or discloses classified information, he is still subject to the Official Secrets Act. He reserved his biggest blasts against the idea of a fourth Liberal term in office. It was almost like another one of his three-word slogans, “No fourth term”.

Summary

The debate was interesting, but I’m not sure that it would change very many minds. Mr. Poilievre did not land the killer punch he no doubt hoped to. Despite the interruptions, Mr. Carney did not come across as weak nor a copy of Justin Trudeau. He is his own man and has his own ideas. Mr. Singh did not endear himself nor did he come up with anything new that might entice some people to change their votes to him. Fortunately, most of us do not have an opportunity to vote for Mr. Blanchet. I’m not sure anybody outside Quebec would want to.

Elections are always important, and this one is probably a bit more so. I’m not sure that debates such as this are designed to explore new ideas or defend existing ones. To me, they are most valuable for showing the character of the contenders.  On that question, I think this debate was a success.

Wouldn’t it be exciting to see a leaders’ debate where at least half of the leaders were women.

Electioneering

 

Today (Tuesday, April 15^th) I attended an election event. It was a “coffee with candidates” in my riding of Peterborough – Kawarthas.  It went from 9 am to 10 pm today so there is no way of knowing how many people will show up during the entire day.  Each of the candidates was there and were allowed to make a short introduction speech.  I missed the first couple of speakers but got a chance speak to one of them later.

There were tables set up around the room, one for each candidate. I tried to get to speak to at least three of the candidates. But I never got a chance to talk to the NDP candidate because she never showed up anywhere near her table and I did not know what she looked like to see if she was roaming the room.

 I next succeeded in talking with the Conservative candidate.  She is the incumbent in this riding. But there was always a large number of people wanting her attention. I tried twice but did not get a chance to talk to her. If the number of people surrounding her are any indication, she will probably win her seat back. For the Conservative party, I wanted to find out if they would, in fact, use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to impose a law that has already been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If so, I think that it is the worst thing that could happen. Some of you may remember that I have written in previous blogs about my negative feelings about that section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how it has been misused by some provinces. In the hands of the federal government, it is downright dangerous.

I moved on to the Liberal candidate.  After a short wait, I was able to talk to her about my main interests in this election: national defence; and climate change. Unlike other candidates, she had briefing papers for a number of her party’s platforms.  I started by reading a couple of these and then was able to talk to the candidate about these two subjects. Most of the discussion was about national defence. Having spent quite a bit of my working career in defence procurement, both in my military and civilian careers, I have a pretty good idea how the procurement system works. I did not ask about what the party would do, that was explained in the paper, but how they were going to do it. I got some very positive answers on that.

What’s interesting about my presence at such an event is that it is the first time I have attended any such political event.

An interesting fact about this riding is that all the party candidates are women, all five of them.

Elections are a vital part of our democracy, and we should make every effort to vote in them. But remember what you are voting for, not against.

 

Gripes

 

Thinking

Do we think any more? More importantly, do we think critically anymore? Can we listen to other opinions and decide if they make sense? Higher learning is supposed to promote critical thinking and expose young people to alternate ideas and theories. And yet we see institutions that cancel or turn away speakers who may not adhere to the “staff answer”.  In doing so, they deny people of exercising their critical thinking about whether the speaker is telling the truth of if their truth aligns with the listener’s value and truths. It’s no wonder that people so readily accept the misinformation and distortions of self-proclaimed demigods such as Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Victor Orban and other such proclaimers. Most North American universities tend to be left leaning so right-wing speakers are turned away. We tend to be more sympathetic to the Jewish and Israeli cause, so we don’t want to hear from those who plead for Palestinians. The list goes on. When are we going to start thinking critically again?

Courage

We all see depictions of the physical courage shown by sports players, those who make extraordinary plays, or soldiers in war or western movies.  These men and women are extolled in every medium.  They are enshrined in Halls of Fame or with medals and honours.  But what about other types of courage.

In grades seven and eight I attended a brand-new school named after a British Field Marshall, Bernard Law Montgomery, he of World War Two El Alamein and Northwest Europe fame. Each year I was there, he would visit the school and give a talk to the students.  His message was about moral courage.  He told the story of the boy (himself?) at a boarding school who, despite the hazing of his classmates, would get down on his knees each night before bed and pray.  That was his example of moral courage.  And it stuck with me. I also remember my parents showing the same courage when they were the only two to stand up to oppose a church measure agreed to by all the rest of the congregation.

Today, I have to ask what has happened to moral courage. Why do we meekly go along with the so-called consensus even when we disagree with it. Why, for instance, are more people not speaking out against the outrageous pronouncement and decision coming out the US White House? The President seems, for example, to want to destroy the press if they question him. Where is the moral courage to decry lies and distortions coming from politicians in almost every democratic country?  On an individual basis why are people not willing to resist when some outspoken person shouts you down when they tell you that your ideas or political leanings are all wrong? Too many seem willing to just keep quiet to preserve ‘harmony’.  Can we not address these people with reasoned arguments about our leanings?  I seem to be a bit cowardly in this regard since I do my arguing in writing.

I am certainly not holding myself up as some paragon of moral courage, but I do see where this lack can lead us; unquestioned acceptance, lack of reasoned opposition, loss of freedom of speech or belief.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
  - Michael Crichton

 

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
  - George Orwell

 

None of us are a paragon of virtue, but surely, we can have the moral courage to be the conveyers of truth.

 

Thoughts on America

 

Light Moments

Men – if you need a haircut in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, I recommend ‘Biker Babe Barber’.  Yes, there is such a place and person, and she gives a good haircut.

The only two types of television ads in the U.S. appear to be for injury lawyers (“Morgan and Morgan, the largest injury law firm in the world”, probably because Americans are the most litigious people in the world) and prescription drugs (most of which don’t tell you what they are supposed to cure, but the side effects seem worse than any disease they may address).

Serious things

Among my other ridiculous habits is my habit of collecting quotations.  You may have noted that I use them frequently in my blogs.  However, they can be handy in illustrating messages using the wisdom of notable people from the past. So, here a few which could well describe the United States of today.

“Whenever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.”

  - Harry S Truman (Elon Musk, are you listening)

 “Democracy was a fragile thing, stable and steady until it was broken and trampled. A man who didn’t care about shattering every convention and then found new mays to vandalize the contract that allowed free people to govern themselves, could do unthinkable damage.”

 From ‘A fever in the heartland’ by Timothy Egan referring to D.C. Stephenson, founder and leader of the Klu Klux Klan in 1920s Indiana.

 “In America, anyone can become president. That’s the problem.”

George Carlin

 Okay, enough of quotes.

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper (and it even got published!) in which I wrote that Mr. Trump should rightfully be called CEO Trump rather than President Trump. In examining why Mr. Trump wants to annex Canada and Greenland, I said, “One must look into Mr. Trump’s background to find the answer. He made his mark as a land speculator and real estate developer.  He still thinks like one. The one thing that both Greenland and Canada have is a lot of land.”

When I expounded of why Mr. Trump should be referred to as the CEO, I said the following, “CEOs have almost unlimited control of their company.  They can hire and fire on a whim. Promote whoever they choose. They can reduce their decisions on anything to do with their company to a memo.  Executive orders are Mr. Trump’s memos.  Although most CEOs must answer to a Board of Directors, Mr. Trump sees himself as the Chairman of the Board, a board of one.”

It would appear that the US, and by extension many other countries, is in for a very hard two to four years. In the 2026 mid-term US elections, where every congressman (congressperson?) and one third of the senators must stand for election, we may see a shift in power in the American legislature.  But that is not guaranteed. Come 2028, who knows what the situation may be. Remember what has been described as an ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”