The Bill That Couldn't Happen Here

Back when I worked for the House of Commons, every time an Omnibus Bill was proposed (and the usual discussions and negotiations around splitting it were occurring) we would joke about the ultimate Omnibus Bill - An Act for the Government of Canada, with everything a government wanted to do in one bill. Of course, we never believed it would ever happen in our democratic system. But that is essentially what Bill C-38 is about.

Omnibus bills were always controversial, but in comparison to Bill C-38, always focused. They might, for example, amend several crime and justice related acts in one bill or several pieces of environmental legislation in one bill. But they were still controversial and often divided into more reasonable groupings of legislation by means of multi-party co-operation. Yes there used to be such a thing, even during majority governments.

Budgets themselves would always result in numerous bills, usually an Income Tax bill, a bill related to other tax measures, and specific bills for specific policy measures included in the budget. It is unprecedented to include everything mentioned in a budget, and some things not mentioned in it, in a budget bill. It is unprecedented not only because no government thought they could get away with it but because all previous governments knew it was inappropriate and undemocratic.

This was back in the days when governments did not believe that democracy involved 40% of the people electing a dictator who would virtually govern by decree for four years, but when governments believed in Parliamentary democracy.

This was back in the days of the Progressive Conservative Party when government and opposition Members of Parliament may have differed on what the thought were the best policies for the country but respected each other because they all wanted what they believed was best for Canada. This was back when all political leaders believed in Canada and we did not have a Prime Minister who wanted to make this country something that Canadians would not recognize.

Endangered Species Legislation Wrong Approach

Trying to protect endangered species is simply the wrong approach to protecting wildlife.

What we do is allow open season on development/destruction of wildlife habitat unless it contains endangered species. Then we make a half-hearted token attempt to protect those species, often while still allowing the development/destruction of the habitat they depend on. When that fails and the species is wiped out in that area it is open season on developing/destroying the habitat again.

This of course is because the purpose of the legislation is to interfere as little as possible with development while appearing to care about the environment.

The way to protect wildlife is to protect their habitat from destruction/development before they become endangered, not after it is too late.

We need to strengthen environmental legislation, not weaken it, as both provincial and federal governments intend to do, and not even openly but stealthily using illegitimate omnibus budget bills

And Then God Created The Tar Sands

And then god created the tar sands and placed them beneath the ground, while the dinosaurs roamed above, and instructed his followers to destroy the environment in order to dig them up for fuel.

This may be what some Alberta parents will be teaching their children while they are kept home from school when everyone else is being taught science.

Legalizing Spousal Rape In Afghanistan – Not So Foreign to Canadian Law

As the CBC reports, Afghanistan's proposed law to legalize spousal rape, or to put it in other terms “make it illegal for women to refuse their husbands sex”, has rightly been widely condemned.

However, we would be wrong to characterize this as some sort of Islamic barbarism foreign to western civilizations.

Indeed, as the Globe and Mail reports, the same provision existed in Canadian law up until 1983.

Indeed, the concept has had a long history in the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries, Canada and the United States, as the following articles record:

Historical Development of the Offence of_Rape (Bruce A. MacFarlane, Q.C. Deputy Minister of Justice Deputy Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba)

Making Marital Rape A Crime: A Long Road Traveled, A Long Way to Go (Lynn Hecht Schafran, Director, National Judicial Education Program; Stefanie Lopez-Boy, Program Associate, National Judicial Education Program; Mary Rothwell Davis)

It took a long time to banish from the law books of the west, It should not be allowed to be put on the law books of Afghanistan at a time when Canadian soldiers are dying there, supposedly in the name of women's rights and human rights.

Should Public Transit Be Declared An Essential Service

As an environmentalist, I am inclined to say yes to that question because of the extensive environmental benefits provided by public transit systems, the main one, of course, being the fact that it reduces automobile use considerably and in some cases can make car ownership unnecessary.

But the first question we have to answer is what does that mean.

If public transit is essential, like police and health care services, then it must be provided. There must be legislation requiring municipalities above a certain size to provide a public transit service.

If public transit is essential, then it must be publicly provided. It cannot be left to the whims of the private sector that will only provide service where it is profitable.

It must be a meaningful service so the legislation must provide standards of service that must be provided.

It must also be affordable to all citizens, especially lower income citizens. In order to do this fares must only be used to cover a portion of the costs, no more than fifty percent.

Since municipalities have the least effective and least equitable taxing powers of all levels of government, funding must be provided by all three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal.

And for it to be effective in getting people to make permanent lifestyle changes it must be reliable and provided without interruption.

This would require removing the right to strike from workers and the right to lock-out workers during labour disputes from management and replacing it with a fair system of compulsory arbitration when negotiations and mediation fail. It should also be noted that despite whatever legislation may be in place strong unions always maintain the ability to strike if the alternative measures are not applied fairly.

Legislation declaring public transit an essential service must include all of these factors if we are truly treating it as an essential service. It has to be a lot more than just taking rights away from workers.

While we are discussing declaring services essential for their environmental benefits, I would suggest that a comprehensive system of commuter bike routes also be declared an essential service that must be provided by all municipalities.

TTC Strike - Special Weekend Fifth Column

So what is going on here.

The first factor to consider is why did the membership reject the tentative agreement, proving yet again, that despite what the right wing says about radical union leaders, it is often the rank and file that is more radical than the leadership. When the leadership negotiates what it believes is the best agreement it can get and it is rejected, it is usually a sign that there is a bigger problem than the contract provisions. Usually it means there is a bigger labour-management issue than wages and benefits and that the workers feel ill treated or not respected by the employer. Or, as some have suggested in this case, it can mean that the members do not feel well represented by their leadership.

What of the union response. The official response is a legitimate one. If the union had announced a strike would begin at the beginning of the work week on Monday there would have been considerable public outrage over the weekend and grounds for concern for the safety of the workers.

What if the union had responded otherwise. The union is in a legal strike position and the membership had democratically rejected the tentative agreement by a significant margin. If the union had not announced an almost immediate strike allowing the system to be shut down in an orderly manner, there would have undoubtedly been wildcat walkouts leading to a disorderly shutdown of the system and greater public outrage.

As it is, the union leadership’s response sets the stage for transit service to resume on Monday morning.

The Two Issues in the Chalk River Nuclear Safety/Radioisotopes Affair

Stephen Harper is starting to remind me of Larry O’Brien. They both seem to have no concept of the role of government and public policy beyond the Do What I Say I’m the Boss School of Leadership.

There are two issues involved in the Chalk River nuclear safety/radioisotopes affair.

The second issue is whether Parliament should have passed legislation requiring restarting of the reactor. What Parliament essentially said was that the shortage of radioisotopes justified lowering the normal safety standards for the reactor. It is Parliament’s role to balance competing interests. While many of us disagreed with the legislation, it was within Parliaments role.

The first issue is whether the government should have attempted to influence and intimidate Linda Keen and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission into not doing their job and then fire her for doing her job.

The government claims she was fired for lack of leadership. If Linda Keen has demonstrated anything it is leadership. The government may not have like the leadership she provided but it is ludicrous to suggest she did not provide leadership.

It is the role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to set and enforce safety standards in the nuclear industry. That is what they did in the case of the Chalk River reactor. When Atomic Energy of Canada Limited failed to do required safety upgrades the Commission it did it’s job and ordered the reactor shut down. It is not the role of the Commission to let outside factors or interests influence it’s decisions. Indeed it would be derelict in it’s duty if it let outside interests, or political intimidation, influence it’s decision-making.

If anyone lacks leadership it is Stephen Harper who does not understand the difference between leadership and intimidation.

Should Bicycle Helmets be Mandatory

This column was inspired by a discussion on MTB Kanata

Whenever I see someone on a bike without a helmet, whether on the trails or the road, no matter how expensive or fancy the bike might be, I always assume the rider is not a serious cyclist, because a serious cyclist would be wearing a helmet.

So should we be legislating common sense and requiring everyone to wear a helmet by law. I think we can all agree that legislation on it’s own is not the answer. We simply do not have the enforcement resources. Public education and changing attitudes is always the best answer. That is ultimately what reduced impaired driving, though increased sentences, as a sign that society’s attitudes had changed, was a big part of that.

However legislation can be an important part of a public education campaign. The example of seat belts is an excellent example of how that works. We have mandatory seat belt laws. The police do not devote extensive resources to enforcement but occasionally do blitzes as part of the public education campaign. We see these less and less as public attitudes have changed and we now have extremely high seat belt usage in Canada as a result of this combination of legislation and public education. This is how mandatory bicycle helmet legislation would work.

One of the biggest ant-helmet law argument is the individualist argument, or the right to be stupid it does not affect you argument. We live in a country with a social contract. This is not the capitalistic individualist United States. We have Canadian values that include caring about each other. But we also have a much more practical stake. We all contribute to a publicly funded universal health care system - and opting out is not an option. So we all have a practical stake in preventing needless deaths and injuries. As cyclists we also have a stake in keeping injuries down to avoid excuses to put restrictions on cycling. Mountain bikers, in particular, know the impact concerns about injuries and liability have on trail access.

Some have suggested we only have legislation for children, which is what we have now and it is not enforced and completely ineffective. The main reason it is not effective is because it is hypocritical. Children and young people do not respond well to hypocrisy. It is like the parents you see on the trails or paths everyday telling their children “don’t worry you only have to wear your helmet now when I’m watching, when you get older like me you won’t have to wear a stupid helmet”, which is what they are telling their children when they go out riding with their children and do not wear a helmet themselves. We teach best by example, and worst by hypocrisy. That is why we see so many young people, for some reason mostly girls, riding their bikes with their helmets dangling from their handlebars.

A huge part of public education in today’s society is the influence of role models. This is what started the discussion on MTB Kanata. Stunt riders performing at the Tour Nortel, ironically a fund raiser for the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), were doing dangerous stunts without wearing helmets, setting the worst example you could find (unless the idea was to create future business for the hospitals head and brain injury wards). Yes, I’m shaking my head too. There was actually controversy about whether this was a bad idea with the suggestion if children follow the example of their heroes and get injured it is their own fault for being stupid and having parents that raised them to be “morons”.

Children, and adults too, are highly influenced by role models, their heroes, particularly in today’s mass media society. I remember seeing a photo of Lance Armstrong riding without a helmet in the Tour de France. It was explained to me that, while helmet use is mandatory during most of “The Tour” at certain stages it is not (apparently because the risk is less at those stages). This just sends mixed messages, particularly when you have photos of the world’s number one cycling hero riding without a helmet. If everyone always wears a helmet you would have a level playing field and you would be sending a message that hard core riders always wear their helmets, rather than the message that they do not, leaving children wanting to imitate their heroes, such as the helmetless riders at the children’s hospital fundraiser.

So if public education is the answer who should be doing the education. Public authorities such as schools certainly have a role to play, and the probably are not doing enough. You would also expect an organization that calls itself Citizens for Safe Cycling (CFSC) to perform that role. While CFSC does do rider safety training, their main emphasis, when it comes to helmet use, is to mount an extensive campaign against mandatory helmet laws while paying lip service to the benefits of wearing a helmet. Their position on bike lanes, that I and many other cyclists agree provide a safer and much less scary riding experience, is also really perplexing.

CFSC, and others, argue that requiring people to wear helmets will deter people from riding because of the helmet costs. Helmets meeting safety standards can be purchased for $20. They also argue that it will scare people away from cycling because they will think it is dangerous. Would anyone argue that young (or old) hockey players should not be required to wear safety equipment because it might scare them away from the sport. The fact is cycling does have risks, but learning how to cycle safely and wearing a helmet will make it a relatively safe activity. That is what should be promoted, not underplaying the risks to encourage people to cycle.

Read more about CFSC policies.

Then there is the “I only wear my helmet when it is dangerous” argument. I can remember an experience riding on a relatively tame trail (Old Quarry) with a much more experience hard core rider than me and he crashed on this easy trail. Of course he was wearing a helmet. We tend to concentrate more on the dangerous stuff and less on the easy stuff, which actually balances out the risk. You cannot predict when you are going to need your helmet to protect you.

One of the best reasons to always wear your helmet because if you do you will always have it on when you need it. Developing a habit is the best way to avoid forgetting to wear it when you need it. Let me tell you a story about a rider who always wears his helmet, except that he decided he did not need it riding his trainer in the basement over the winter. On the way back from his first ride of the season on his mountain this helmet use proselytizer discovered he was not wearing his helmet. Luckily I did not need it on that ride.