State Of Disunion

Unifor. Ever heard of it? If you have, you’re one step ahead of me. It happens to be the largest private sector union in the country. The “super union,” which was announced more than six months ago and officially came into being in August, represents the amalgamation of the Canadian Auto Workers and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers unions. In total, Unifor has over 300,000 members – and, yet, like me, I bet many Canadians don’t have a clue it even exists.

The idea of joining the two unions was born back in May 2011 when CAW’s president Ken Lewenza and CEP’s boss Dave Coles were attending a Canadian Labour Congress executive meeting, listening to speech after speech about the declining state of Canadian unions. The two chiefs decided that something needed to be done to reverse the slide.

The story of Unifor’s formation is nicely told by author John Lorinc in the December 2013 edition of The Walrus magazine, along with a counterpoint story about a scrappy union called UNITE HERE!, itself an amalgamation of two U.S. unions (the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union). UNITE HERE! Canada represents about 50,000 workers across the country in a wide variety of industries, mostly in lower paying occupations.

Despite being a fraction of Unifor’s size, the smaller union appears to be doing a better job of attracting new workers to its fold, mostly through a grassroots campaign that listens to workers’ concerns and tries to find solutions.

Reaching out to its workers was a key problem that already existed within CAW and CEP’s membership. In fact, one of the goals of Unifor is to provide “a new structure and identity that would better represent its members, organize and empower all workers (whether in the union or not) and build a more cohesive and strategic movement of working people.” Whether that’s happening or not remains to be seen, but it’s something that certainly needed to be addressed.

In my lifetime, I’ve been a part of numerous private sector unions, several of them associated with CEP. My first experience was in my early 20’s when I worked at a paper mill in Northwestern Ontario. Since the “P” in CEP stands for paperworkers, you’d think the union would have some understanding of the nature of the work its members did, but I often found that wasn’t the case.

As a new employee and first-time union member, I remember going to the bank when I was hired and seeing a fairly large sum of money had been taken out of my account. These were my union dues, which were being deducted regularly from my meagre savings, even though I had yet to work a day with the company, was on a “call crew” where I was only brought in when needed, and wouldn’t actually start getting a paycheque for several weeks.

I suppose I didn’t understand how unions worked at the time – and didn’t again when I was laid off for several stints but continued to have union dues deducted – but it seemed unfair to me to be paying a union when I wasn’t even being paid by the company.

You might think a union representing paperworkers would understand the sometimes-sporadic nature of the employees it represented, but you would be wrong. That was just the first in dozens of head-scratching moments over the years when I tried to rationalize what the union was ordering me to do – and what common sense seemed to be telling me I should be doing, instead.

Several years later I belonged to a union called NABET (National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians) while working at a television station. That seemed to be a good union that understood its employees and the nature of the work they did. But, as has happened with many smaller unions over the past 20 years, NABET was eventually swallowed up by a bigger union called – wait for it – CEP. It was at that point I wondered how one union could effectively represent me in such diverse occupations.

To me, that’s the crux of the whole problem, one that seems unlikely to improve under Unifor. The new union may talk about getting back to the grassroots and listening to its members’ concerns and all that positive-sounding stuff, but it seems a bit hard to believe. Bigger rarely seems to be better, as most companies have discovered when they’ve grown larger and larger.

Many people have asked, “What does the name ‘Unifor’ mean?” In fact, so many, it’s one of the five “Frequently Asked Questions” on the union’s website. Here’s part of the answer: “The name “Unifor” is intentionally ambiguous. It means different and personal things to a union membership that is increasingly diverse. The name doesn’t peg us to any one sector of the economy, or a particular workplace. Unifor is a union built for workers. But it’s also a union that reaches out to the unemployed and self-employed; to marginalized and racialized groups union (sic); to women and young workers. Simply put Unifor is a union for everyone.” Alrighty.

If I told you the new union’s name was the result of the efforts of a polling, communications and brand strategy firm, a design company, focus groups, member surveys and townhall meetings, would you be surprised? Between the generic sounding name and the non-descript “U” logo, the response from union leaders, members and the general public has been, at best, underwhelming.

But, branding aside, what really matters is whether anything will change at CAW/CEP/Unifor. Only time will tell if the mega-union will move in a new direction, attracting the same kind of grassroots dedication of UNITE HERE! and truly representing its members’ real needs and concerns – or if it will remain stagnant because it’s increasingly out of touch with the reality of a country where manufacturing jobs, Unifor’s bread and butter, continue to disappear.

In any case, the task ahead won’t be easy. Unions are being bashed everywhere you look, by political parties like Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives, by the media and by many Canadians who either don’t belong to one or feel neglected by their own current union. If Unifor hopes to regain its focus and reenergize the labour movement, it’s going to have to happen soon. Otherwise, it’s going to be too late.

 

Senators Gone Wild!

Oh, the life of a Canadian Senator. A nice little base salary of $135,200 per year. A guaranteed job for as long as you want it until age 75. A strenuous “workload” that fills three days a week, 29 weeks a year. And a chance to work outside and earn extra cash. That’s right. A Toronto Star article from July says that all but 17 of the 101 Senators had outside gigs, including a full-time doctor, several lawyers, members of numerous boards of directors, etc. All for doing a job that most Canadians wouldn’t even know how to describe.

But, wait. There’s more! If that isn’t enough to make you want to apply for the position right this second, Senators also enjoy generous expense allowances, too. Apparently, however, all those perks still aren’t enough for several Senators, some of whom decided a few extra expense claims would help get them through the lean times.

Hence, the ongoing revelations about several Senators who allegedly submitted questionable expense claims amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in overpayments. One Liberal Senator, Raymond Lavigne, was found guilty of fraud and breach of trust back in 2011 after claiming $315,000 in dubious travel expenses.

I hope he enjoyed all that travelling, as he’s doing much less at the moment. Currently, Lavigne is serving a six-month sentence at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, after which he’ll be under house arrest for another half-a-year. It could have been worse, as the former Senator might have been sentenced to up to 14 years in prison for his misdeeds.

Although he forfeited his $100,000+ salary when he resigned from the Senate, Lavigne still has one ace in the hole. That’s the $67,611 annual pension he receives for the time he spent doing whatever he did in the Senate (other than claim travel expenses).

Just in case you didn’t get that, a former Senator who was convicted of fraud is collecting nearly $70,000 a year in pensions, paid for with your hard-earned tax dollars.

Does this make you angry? You’re not alone. In fact, one determined Member of Parliament, John Williamson, a Conservative from the riding of New Brunswick Southwest, is so appalled, he’s introduced a Private Members Bill that was brought to my attention recently.

Bill C-518, also known as the Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, intends to do just what it says. If passed, politicians who are convicted of a crime would no longer be able to collect their pensions. Pretty simple, huh? So simple, it makes you wonder why nothing’s ever been done about this egregious situation before.

In a letter to supporters of the bill, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation explains why it’s backing Williamson’s motion and urging fellow Canadians to sign a petition showing their support, as well: “Liberal Senator Mac Harb resigned from the Senate last week. He will immediately start to collect a six-figure pension for his time as MP and Senator.

 Harb, along with Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau have all had their expense claims referred to the RCMP for further investigation. If charged and convicted of defrauding taxpayers, these Senators might have to serve hard time, but they won’t lose their generous parliamentary pensions if they resign before being convicted. (The three former Conservative Senators need to stick around until January 2015 to qualify for a pension).”

The CTF goes on to explain that, “

Resigning before being convicted is known as the “Lavigne maneuver.’” Yes, that’s right. They actually have a name for the procedure used by the above-mentioned Lavigne, whose exploits we’ve already recounted.

The Taxpayers Federation fears that, “Others will continue to enact the “Lavigne maneuver” unless we change the law.” That’s where Bill C-518 comes in. As the CTF argues, this bill “would take away the pensions from people like Lavigne or any federal politician who is charged and convicted of defrauding taxpayers.

 The bill specifically states that any conviction of those who were MPs or Senators on June 3, 2013 will result in loss of their parliamentary pension, meaning that as long as the bill passes, Harb and others, if they are convicted, would lose their pensions, even if they resign.

”

The Federation says, “We need your help to make this bill a law. We need the Harper government to adopt Mr. Williamson’s private members bill as a government bill and pass it as soon as Parliament resumes this fall.”

One way you can show your support is to sign Williamson’s petition. If you’re interested, visit  www.johnwilliamsonmp.com/C-518_Petition.pdf to view and sign the petition. You can also email Williamson directly, along with your local MP, the Prime Minister, or anyone else you can think of in Ottawa.

As I said before, the whole concept of this bill seems so simple, it’s hard to believe there aren’t already rules in place preventing convicted former federal politicians from collecting government pensions. Of course, whether the bill actually gets passed is another question entirely. As a website called hillwatch.com notes, only about 1.5% of Private Members Bills from 1993-2006 ever got passed, so the chances are slim. At the very least, however, it’s pushed the issue into the public awareness, which is a good start.

In the meantime, Lavigne will continue to enjoy his annual pension, long after his time in the Senate has become a distant memory. And, of course, taxpayers will also be on the hook for his jail time, too. I’m not sure what it costs to house a criminal at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, a provincial facility, but if it’s anything like a federal penitentiary, Lavigne is being well taken care of.

According to Corrections Canada, last year it cost just under $114,000 a year – or $312 per day – to incarcerate each federal inmate, more than the cost of staying at many all-inclusive resorts in the Caribbean. In this case, however, we hope Lavigne won’t be eligible to submit any bogus travel expenses for his time at the Ottawa-Carleton Crowbar Hilton. If he is, then John Williamson might have to come up with a whole new bill to deal with that.

Oh, the life of a Canadian Senator.

 

The Most Boring (And Potentially Important) Story You’ll Read This Year

Pension reform. Have you stopped reading yet? Have your eyes begun glazing over? Have you already gone to the refrigerator to find something to snack on? If so, then, like me, you probably haven’t been paying attention to the issue of pension reform in this country. The fact is, the changing demographic make-up of Canada is about to have a serious impact on the future of all our pension systems. So what? Well, whether you’re about to retire – or have another 40 years left in the workforce – it’s going to affect you in ways you’ve never imagined.

First things first. The Canada Pension Plan is in decent shape, at least for the time being. Far from being the basket case it was in the early 1990’s, the system is in no danger of collapsing – for the moment anyway. The reason is that the Liberal government at the time and, specifically, finance minister Paul Martin, made massive changes to the system, which would have been bankrupt by now if things had stayed on the same course.

Similarly, Stephen Harper’s government has now introduced measures to gradually raise the age when Canadians can begin receiving their Old Age Security (OAS) benefits and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to 67 from 65, which helps bolster that part of the retirement pie. The government gave four reasons for the changes.

First, Canada’s population is aging rapidly. Over the next two decades the combination of baby boomers hitting retirement age and longer life expectancy means 25 percent of the country’s population will consist of seniors by 2030, compared with just 14 percent in 2010.

Second, because of the rising number of seniors, OAS payments will increase over the same 20-year time frame to $108 billion from $38 billion, or about 21 cents of every federal tax dollar from the current 13.

Third, with the increased payments required, the burden to fund the system will fall increasingly on younger Canadians. Right now, there are four working-age people for every senior. By 2030, there will be just two working Canadians for every senior. That will not only affect workers’ lifestyles, it will also hamper their ability to save for their own retirements.

Finally, the Canadian labour market is going to have to adapt quickly due to the huge number of retirements. If labour can’t pick up the slack, it will have a huge impact on the country’s economic growth and our ability to fund social programs, especially those for seniors.

With the latest changes, a Band-Aid has been applied to the OAS and GIS, but nothing has been done to fix the most glaring problems, which are the CPP and the decline in private sector pension plans. For the time being, the CPP is adequately funded. The problem is, benefits from that plan max out at only about $12,000 a year. Add in OAS and GIS and it doesn’t equal much of a retirement plan, especially if that’s all you’re counting on in your golden years. What else do you plan to live on?

The bare minimum most retirees can survive on is 60% of their working salaries, while most require much more if they want to live even somewhat comfortably. As reported in the Globe and Mail, a report from CIBC earlier this year says, “5.8 million Canadians face a decline in living standards of more than 20 percent when they retire. Those born in the 1980s can expect a drop of 30 percent.”

In the past, most of the difference between working income and retirement income was made up by pension plans, especially “defined benefit plans” that guarantee retirees a payout equal to a certain percentage of their best earning years. While public sector employees still enjoy those plans, most private companies have opted to switch to “defined contribution plans” where your retirement fund is made up of the contributions you and your employer make plus whatever growth you can accumulate. In other words, there are no guarantees about what you’ll be paid out when you retire and, typically, they’re much less lucrative.

Even worse, many companies have abandoned pension plans altogether – or their existing plans are so underfunded that the benefits people once expected are now gone forever or will likely be cut back severely by the time retirement arrives. Currently, less than a quarter of private sector employees even have a pension, versus 87% of public employees.

To be blunt, if something isn’t done now to address this issue, millions of Canadians will be retiring in the next 20 years with virtually no pensions, no RRSPs and no savings of any kind. As The Walrus magazine stated in an article from its September 2013 issue: “This cohort faces the very real risk of an impoverished old age that will inflict extreme fiscal pressures on social programs and health care while starving other public services. Those without decent pensions will have little choice but to keep working if they want to avoid poverty.”

It’s probably too late for many of the millions of retiring baby boomers to address the problem if they haven’t already planned ahead. However, for anyone in their 50’s or younger, new solutions need to be found – and very quickly. There are plenty of options, some voluntary and some mandatory. One would be an enhanced CPP where individuals can supplement their required contributions. Another is a Pooled Registered Pension Plan, which is similar to the enhanced CPP, except it’s administered by employers, although companies themselves don’t have to contribute. There’s already a federal framework for this and Quebec recently introduced its own version called the Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan.

The problem with voluntary plans is that they’ll likely only be used by people who are already good savers and invest regularly in RRSPs, TFSAs and other similar vehicles. For the millions who don’t have the discipline to do so, mandatory options seem to be a better solution. But, who would administer such a plan – the government, employers, or a totally separate entity?

In the article from The Walrus it talks glowingly about the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, the world’s best-performing retirement fund and one that currently has assets of $130 billion. Teachers are forced to invest a certain portion of their salaries in the fund and can’t withdraw anything until their normal retirement age, unlike RRSPs, which people can borrow against. In return, however, they enjoy a lucrative pension that most of us would kill to enjoy (hence the article’s title, ‘Pension Envy’).

Where does the solution lie and which options are most practical for the average Canadian? That’s the dilemma, one that was supposed to be on the front burner of federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, but seems to have fallen through the cracks. According to the Globe and Mail, the issue was scheduled to be debated by Flaherty and the provincial ministers in June, but nothing seems to have come of that.

Time is wasting and the issue isn’t going to disappear. In fact, as the number of retiring baby boomers starts to snowball in the coming years, the problem will become more and more acute. Who is going to pay for 30-40 years of retirement for those people who are barely making ends meet right now when they’re still working? Their children? The dwindling number of working Canadians? The Tooth Fairy?

Pension reform may not be a particularly exciting topic for the average person. But it’s something we’re all going to have to deal with sooner or later. We’d better hope it’s sooner – or we’re all in very serious trouble.

 

 

This Is Why We Have Laws

If there’s one common complaint Canadians have, it’s that we’re over-governed. Too many laws. Too many regulations. Too much red tape and bureaucracy. As an example, the PC Party of Ontario noted in one of their recent “white papers” that there are 386,000 regulations in the province covering agri-business alone. How is that even possible – and how many thousands of people are in charge of making sure all those regulations are being followed?

Tim Hudak’s party says they’re committed to getting rid of one-third of all red tape across the board, which sounds like an admirable goal. But where do you start? And where does it all end? If you start cutting out all the superfluous laws and regulations, how do you know when you’ve dumped all the unnecessary ones and started chopping the ones that actually serve a useful purpose? The same goes for our whole country.

Just a little over a month ago, a runaway train carrying crude oil crashed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing at least 47 people and destroying much of the town. The train’s owners, Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, have now declared bankruptcy in the U.S. and Canada, unable to pay even a fraction of the estimated $200 million cleanup, let alone any legal damages.

There has been plenty of finger-pointing since that accident and who know where all the blame will fall eventually? In any case, it’s pretty obvious that many of the regulations that were already in place were never followed prior to the accident. In fact, part of the reason for the catastrophe may have been that some of the rules formerly enforced by Transport Canada had been transferred to the railway companies themselves to self-administer. And, following the accident, Transport Canada introduced several new emergency directives to prevent futures disasters like the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic one, so now there are even more regulations to follow.

This past week, in an accident that seems like something Hollywood might pitch for its next horror movie, two young boys died in Campbellton, New Brunswick after being asphyxiated by a 4.3 metre (14-foot), 45 kilogram (100 lb.) African Rock Python, a snake that has been banned in the province since 2009.

How could such a calamity happen when there were laws in place preventing it? A criminal investigation into the event is still ongoing and there’s no indication what charges might be laid, but there are legitimate reasons why such exotic, dangerous creatures are restricted.

Recently, in our own area, a 21-year old man from London died tragically south of Watford after he was electrocuted while setting up a large tent for a wedding. The OPP and Ontario Ministry of Labour are investigating the incident and no results have been released yet but, again, it appears on the surface that regulations may not have been properly followed.

Three horrific accidents in three different parts of the country, but they all appear to have one common connection: they might all have been preventable, if only the existing laws and regulations had been adhered to. We laugh at some of the ludicrous by-laws on the books, probably for good reason. Almost all of us flaunt speed limits on a regular basis. None of us are saints and there’s no way we can follow every single piece of legislation when there are millions of them – and more been drafted every day.

However, when we make the decision to engage in potentially life-threatening situations, it’s understood that if we choose to ignore the law, we do so knowing there may be dire consequences that follow. We live in a society that runs on rules. This isn’t the Wild West or a chapter out of Lord of the Flies.

During a recent public information meeting, an OPP constable talked about the need to strike a balance in our society so that everyone can live their lives as they choose, without causing harm to others. He said we do that through laws and regulations. It’s a balance that’s not always easy to achieve, but it’s something we must all work towards.

If we reap the benefits of having a government or a police force or a regulatory body whose goal is to protect us, we must, in turn, choose to follow the regulations they set out, even if they’re inconvenient or costly or restrictive. To do otherwise is to choose a path that puts others in harm’s way and threatens all our freedoms. It’s not Big Brother watching us. It’s all of us watching out for each other.

 

Let The Games Begin

Years and years ago, Hasbro, one of the world’s largest toy and board game manufacturers, ran a series of television commercials promoting something called “Family Game Night.” At the time, I remember thinking what a cheesy way it was to pump up their fading board games like Monopoly, Clue, Life and Scrabble. Boy, was I wrong. Although the company has gone through some rough patches over the past few years, laying off large numbers of its American workers, the products it sells continue to remain popular.

Not only that, the company has also released four collections of Family Game Night video games for PlayStation, Wii and Xbox. On top of that, the idea was even spun off into a popular U.S. television series that has been running on The Hub (formerly Discovery Kids) for the past three seasons.

If you’ve forgotten the original concept, the idea was to gather your family around the table on one specific night each week to play board games. It sounds like something created by a desperate advertising company that had run out of new ideas to get people interested in games they probably already owned and that were sitting in the back of some dusty closet.

As hokey as the premise might be, over the past few years our family has actually gotten into the idea, although our game nights only occur maybe six times a year when the stars align perfectly and we manage to get a few of us in the same house together for an evening. That’s a rare event when your kids have their own lives and are all over the country doing their thing. Strangely enough, however, it’s now one of the events we enjoy most whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Family Nights at our household aren’t necessarily for the faint of heart. Things can get a little weird, especially as the evening drags on. Guests are sometimes involved – friends and other relatives – and that can take the bizarreness to some pretty epic levels. At times, the “game playing” can become an almost forgotten part of the actual Game Night, as the conversations and level of humour degenerate into some very strange territories. Usually, the whole event ends up imploding at some ungodly hour as we half-heartedly agree to call it a night.

In any case, it’s one of the few excuses we have to spend time together, other than the occasional mealtime or birthday celebration. It’s a crazy, busy world we all live in, one where planning get-togethers takes a backseat to all the other aspects of our lives. Nonetheless, it’s gratifying to know that holding one of these sporadic Family Game Nights can instantly re-bond us, giving us a chance to catch up on recent events, share some laughs and forget about all the other things that occupy our lives.

Unfortunately for Hasbro, I’m not sure many of the games we play actually come from any of their numerous companies, which include Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley, but they certainly deserve some credit for the original idea, I suppose. On the other hand, I’m sure we’d be having these Family Game Nights even if some guy on Madison Avenue had never pitched that particular advertising idea to Hasbro almost 15 years ago.

If you’ve never had your own Family Game Night, why not give it a try? Dust off some of those old games you never thought you’d use again – or pick up something new and different. You might discover it’s just the thing to bring your family a little closer together, even if it’s just for one night. Roll the dice and let the games begin

 

Gazing Into A Crystal Ball

Imagine being able to predict the future, knowing what lies ahead in your life and all the amazing changes that are in store for our world. This past week, I found an unread magazine in a kitchen cupboard and glanced briefly at the date, noticing it was from June. I got absorbed in a fascinating feature article about the history and future of Calgary before something suddenly seemed amiss and I checked the publication date again. As it turned out, I hadn’t looked closely enough, because the magazine actually turned out to be from June of 2012. Oops.

Unless you’ve been hiding out in a bomb shelter the last month, you know what kind of unprecedented maelstrom the great city of Calgary has been going through lately. Massive flooding, extended blackouts, a state of emergency and derailed freight trains are just some of the tests the residents have been put through. Somehow, they’ve still managed to pull it all together in time to hold their signature Calgary Stampede, which is a massive tribute to its citizens’ fortitude, resilience and positive attitude.

Of course, reading an article from last year, it was like none of this had ever happened – because, of course, it hadn’t yet. If that same article was written about the city today, it makes you wonder how differently it would have turned out.

Similarly, another article was about the financial and artistic success of Montreal’s Cirque du Soleil, the worldwide billion-dollar entertainment juggernaut. How things have changed in the 12 months since that article came out. In January, the company announced the layoff of 400 employees, close to ten percent of its workforce. On top of that, a veteran Cirque acrobat died during a performance in Las Vegas at the end of last month, the first fatality in the troupe’s nearly 30-year history.

Again, with those earth-shattering changes taking place, how would a story about the Cirque du Soleil be different if it was being written today, rather than being composed a year ago?

All of this made me ponder the precious, unpredictable nature of our lives. Day after day, we go about our business without giving much thought to what could possibly lie ahead. I am guiltier of this than just about anybody. Routinely, I take for granted my family, my friends, my health and, indeed, my very life. And I bet that applies to many people.

When our anniversary comes up each year, we might thank our spouse for being there for us. If our boss gives us a pat on the back or a small raise, it reminds us that we’re lucky to have a job. When Canada Day passes each year, we think about how fortunate we are to live in a free country with universal health care and a decent standard of living. But, for so many of our days we’re content to let life wash over us, without stopping to consider how quickly it could all be gone.

Not to be too dramatic, but everything we have, every single person we hold close to our hearts, all the tiny things that make our lives what they are could be gone in an instant. Boom. That’s it.

“Be thankful for what you have; you’ll end up having more. If you concentrate on what you don’t have, you will never, ever have enough.” Although she may not be the world’s most eloquent philosopher, Oprah Winfrey was definitely on to something when she said those words.

There’s nothing wrong with dreaming big or wanting more, but it’s easy to get caught up in chasing rainbows – when many of those rainbows are already yours to enjoy. Right here. Right now. People used to say, “Take time to stop and smell the roses.” There are likely hundreds of other quotes and song lyrics and philosophies that restate the same premise in a different way.

However you want to say it, absolutely no one knows what’s around the next corner, let alone what the future holds down its long, winding, unpredictable path. All we can know for sure is what we have at this very moment – and how important it is to take every tiny morsel of our lives and celebrate it for all it’s worth. The party starts now.

 

The New Trudeau: Justin Time For A New Generation?

Quite frankly, I can’t say I’ve been all that impressed so far with Justin Trudeau, the newly elected leader of the federal Liberal Party. Having been a youngster when his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, swept across the nation in a whirlwind of Trudeaumania back in 1968, Justin seems, at first glance, to be a pale imitation of his dad and certainly has less practical, hands-on political experience. Then again, I’m hardly the young, impressionable voter that the new Trudeau is counting on to set his political career on a rocket-powered journey into the Prime Minister’s seat when Canadians go to the polls again in October 2015.

Last week, I received a solicitation letter from Trudeau asking for my support and, immediately, I tore the letter in half, partly because I don’t actively support any political party and also because, if I did, it likely wouldn’t be one led by Trudeau. My 25-year old son was surprised, saying that he liked and admired the 41-year old leader (his father was nearly 50 when he was elected, just for comparison’s sake). I said that he didn’t seem to have any policies or platforms and very little experience, but none of those things affected my son’s impression. Instead, he liked the new Liberal leader’s optimism and positive approach.

Indeed, reading Trudeau’s letter, there is absolutely nothing about specific things he wants to do as the Liberal leader. The entire missive is filled with words like “hope” and “change,” but not much about how he intends to go about running the country. The closing message reads: “Let’s turn hope into action and show our young people that positive change is possible. And let’s get down to the very serious business of building a better country.”

If this message sounds familiar, perhaps it’s because it appears very similar to the type of crowd-pleasing speeches that helped get Barack Obama elected for the first time to the U.S. Presidency. So far, it seems to be working very well for Trudeau, so why change if it appears to be doing its job? Certainly, it helped him get elected to the Liberal leadership and it’s already pushed the Liberals into the lead in recent polls over the Conservatives.

So, does this signal the beginning of Trudeaumania 2.0, a phrase that was jokingly tossed around last fall – but now appears to actually be a verifiable phenomenon? What’s Trudeau got that’s attracting large numbers of new supporters and making him appear to be a legitimate leader? In an article by veteran reporter Richard Gwyn in the latest issue of The Walrus, he says what the younger Trudeau possesses is “an abundance of emotional intelligence,” which he contrasts to his father’s “intellectual intelligence.”

It’s an interesting argument, but one that certainly seems to fit with the type of support Justin is gaining. Gwyn says, “Trudeau is exceptional at street politics, because he genuinely likes people. He in turn is impossible not to like, a carefree extrovert, forever smiling, happy to kiss babies and their mothers, happy to hug their fathers and blessed with a keen remembrance for people’s names.”

The author goes on to say, “He has the intelligence to understand that people are not moved by analysis or reasoned argument but by emotion and empathy. He has thus spotted, as many others have yet to do, a major new political trend.”

By comparison, his main opponent, Stephen Harper, is seen as an intelligent, dry, humourless leader who has a good idea of how to manage the economic part of Canada, but not much in the way of compassion or warmth.

So far, it all seems to be working pretty well for Trudeau. As Gwyn points out in his summary, “By virtue of his personality and, as can never be underestimated, his name, he has helped revive the underlying sense, now part of Canada’s DNA, that there is more to the country than balancing the budget and trimming the fat, or that there should be and so can be again. “

For argument’s sake, let’s say Gwyn is correct and that, indeed, Trudeau’s “emotional intelligence” is something that Canadians are buying into and that it’s what has helped him win the Liberal leadership race and top the polls, all in just a few short months. Will that be enough to maintain the momentum for the next two years and keep voters mesmerized until the 2015 election?

When Pierre Trudeau was elected Liberal leader in April 1968, his party was already in power, so he instantly became Prime Minister. He called an election for two months down the road, with the public still salivating for his new brand of politics. Prior to becoming leader, he had been a high-powered Justice Minister who introduced groundbreaking legislation on such issues as the legalization of abortion, contraception and lotteries, the decriminalization of homosexuality, the use of Breathalyzer tests for deterring drunk drivers, tighter rules for gun ownership and many other major legal precedents (thank you, Wikipedia, for that information).

Contrast that with Justin Trudeau’s meagre resumé and it’s obvious that he’s got a long way to go before he can earn the trust and respect of the average Canadian voter. As Trudeau says in his recent letter, “We have a long road ahead of us, and I’m going to need your strength, energy and support.”

Emotional intelligence is a great weapon to have on your side, but only time will tell if it’s enough to convince people that you’re ready to be Prime Minister. As Gwyn concludes, “The ball may yet slip out of his hands, but it is still in play.” Let the games begin.

 

The Dark Side Of The Web

A police officer I spoke with several months ago compared the Internet to a dark alley where every criminal in the world is lurking, just waiting for you to enter. Think about that for a second. It’s true. Every scam artist, sexual predator, thief and other scoundrel you can imagine has you and every other potential victim right at his or her fingertips online. And they’re all just waiting for you to slip up in some way to take advantage of the opportunity to wreak havoc on your life.

The officer’s warning came back to me this past week when I read about the devastating circumstances of 32-year old Tim Bosma, who was murdered after two men answered an ad for a pick-up truck Bosma was selling online. Allegedly, the people involved stole the truck and burned the body of the churchgoing, married father of a two-year old girl to cover their tracks. The bizarre circumstances of the crime captivated Canadians – and also made us question the safety of online advertising sites.

If people have problems with legitimate sites run by honest people, such as those used by Bosma, just imagine the problems created by the millions of questionable sites and the unscrupulous people who operate them. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received almost 300,000 reports from fraud victims last year totaling over a half-a-billion dollars. Obviously, that’s just a tiny fraction of the worldwide scams that are being run.

After reading Will Ferguson’s frightening novel “419” last year, I realized what a scary business this can be. Although it’s a fictional book, the title refers to a section of the Nigerian Criminal Code that deals with fraud. If you’re not sure what I’m referring to, think of the hundreds of emails you’ve received from “Nigerian princes” and you’ll know what I mean. It’s hard to believe people are actually taken in by these scams, but the fact that they’re popular in dozens of countries and “employ” thousands of people worldwide must mean they’re also pretty effective.

On top of the hundreds of millions of dollars involved every year, they’ve also led to kidnapping and murder, along with suicides by the victims whose lives have been ruined.

If scams don’t scare you, what about cyberstalking and cyberbullying? One of the most worrisome parts of the Internet is its anonymity. It’s been well-documented that people say and do things on the web that they wouldn’t dream of doing in person. During a recent session on cyberbullying, I learned how easy it is to decipher someone’s identity through chat rooms, Facebook and other social media. Yet, time and time again, people let down their guards online and give out personal details to virtual strangers whose real identities they have no clue about.

In one horrifying incident, a male teenager befriended someone online who he thought was a friend his own age and shared the same passions and sensibilities. The boy revealed personal details of his life he thought would remain private. Suddenly, the “friend” turned against him and revealed all those details to his friends and family, turning him into a social pariah. The initial damage that was done and the bullying that followed led the youngster to commit suicide, bringing a tragic conclusion to what had begun as an innocent friendship.

If you’re appalled by this story, wait until you hear the ending. It turns out the cyber-friend who the boy thought was someone in his own age group was actually an ex-friend of his mother. When the relationship between his mother and the friend ended, the spurned acquaintance decided to get back at the mother by exacting revenge on her former friend’s son. The story is almost as unfathomable as it is heartbreaking, but provides a valuable lesson for everyone who surfs the net.

When my kids first started going online, I’d often tell them, “Never believe anything you read on the Internet.” They thought I was just being facetious but, as they’ve grown older, they’ve realized what I meant. The message I tried to impart was, simply, to question everything, to assume that there may be an ulterior motive or unsavoury purpose for every online offer, invitation or solicitation you receive.

Recently, one online shopping network that offered unbeatable prices on high-ticket items received some bad attention in the media. People were buying up jewelry, designer clothing, and other outrageously expensive products for pennies on the dollar and were surprised when the items they received were actually cheap knockoffs worth exactly what they’d paid for them.

In the article I read on the scam, the vast majority of commenters said the problem wasn’t with the sellers but with the buyers, who believed naively that someone would be selling $2,000 diamond rings for $25.00. Although the expression “You get what you pay for” may be an old one, it still applies quite nicely to what’s happening more and more frequently online today.

Perhaps it may seem like pretty cynical advice but, honestly, it makes good sense to trust no one, question everything and expect the worst when you’re dealing with people you don’t know online. After all, if you’re going to enter that dark alley where all the criminals in the world hang out, it makes sense to be well-armed before you wander in. Beware.

 

The Winds Are Changing

Forget everything you’ve ever heard about industrial wind turbines.

Forget about the fact that some people can’t sleep because of them. Or that they cause property devaluations by up to 50%. Or that they’re a blight on the rural landscape.

Forget about the fact that they make life unlivable for many autistic children. Or that many countries in the world are in the process of abandoning them. Or that they only operate less than 30% of the time and often when they’re not needed.

Forget about the fact that they create virtually no jobs. Or that they seriously affect tourism. Or that they kill birds, bats and other wildlife.

Forget about the fact that they’re causing the destruction of valuable, productive farmland. Or that much of their profits go to U.S.-based corporations. Or that they cause tinnitus and other hearing disorders for many people.

Forget about the fact that it will likely cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to tear them down in two decades or whenever they need to be decommissioned. Or that they’re driving a wedge between rural neighbours. Or that many people suffer headaches, dizziness, vertigo, nausea and other health disorders because of them.

Forget about the fact that they’re so unreliable they require other traditional forms of energy production just to supplement the meagre amount of power they produce. Or that when the nearly 800 litres of oil they contain starts burning most municipal fire departments are instructed to stand and watch them go up in flames because of safety and insurance concerns. Or that in the winter they throw chunks of ice as large as refrigerators hundreds of metres through the air.

Forget all of it. Just remember this. Industrial wind turbines make absolutely zero economic sense. And, finally, the reality is starting to sink in across the province.

Don’t listen to me. Don’t listen to all the propaganda and rhetoric and hyperbole that get tossed around regularly by both sides of the wind energy debate. Listen to the Auditor General of Ontario whose damning 2011 report on Renewable Energy Initiatives, including industrial wind turbines, paints a bleak picture of Ontario’s energy future.

In the report, the AG notes that when the Green Energy Act was passed in May 2009, the Ministry of Energy predicted modest annual increases of 1% in electricity bills because of the cost of adding renewable energy sources. Within a year, the same Ministry had revised its estimates to indicate increases of almost 8% annually for the next five years.

And that’s just for residential users. The increased cost to businesses will be astronomical. In the AG’s report, it’s estimated that the Renewable Energy-related Electricity Charge will increase by 1000% between 2010 and 2018. It’s going to make Ontario one of the most unattractive places to do business in all of North America.

The AG’s report also notes that, instead of sticking with a Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program that included competitive bidding, the Ontario government introduced the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program in 2009 that added about $4.4 billion in costs through extremely generous incentives to energy providers.

Because a large portion of wind energy is produced when we don’t need it (at night or in lower-use seasons), it has to be dumped or it’s lost forever. As the AG’s report notes, “Ontario deals with surplus-power situations mainly by exporting electricity to other jurisdictions at a price that is lower than the cost of generating that power.” That’s great news for the U.S. states that buy the cheap electricity from us, but not so much for the people here in Ontario who pay for it.

And for what? The Ontario Power Authority says both average and peak demand for electricity will drop between now and 2025 and that both our installed and effective capacity is already more than enough to meet that demand. However, we’ll still be paying handsomely. As the AG’s report notes, “Renewable energy generators who have contracts with the OPA will get paid even though Ontario does not need their electricity.” Those contracts last 20 years.

And that’s just the tip of the ice-encrusted, 40-ton, 180-foot turbine blade. From whatever economic perspective you look at them, industrial wind turbines are a financial disaster that we’ll be paying for long after they’ve stopped generating even a trickle of power.

At long last, the media in larger centres are starting to catch on. Rather than assuming it’s just some scattered grassroots complaints from people they like to call NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), people in urban areas are beginning to see the big picture, that we’re all headed down an economic sinkhole from which we’ll never recover. It’s about time they realized the truth in what people from rural areas have been saying for years. This delusional, wind-powered flimflam scam must end. The Ontario government got us into this mess. Now it’s time for them to get us out, whatever the cost, before it takes down the entire province.

Tax This! Tax That!

A reader sent me an interesting article last week about a new report from the Fraser Institute that says, “Canadian families are spending more money on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined.” The Yahoo story says that almost 43% of the average family’s income went to pay federal, provincial and municipal taxes, while less than 37% went to the other three necessities.

Furthermore, it says that Canadians’ tax bills have gone up almost 1800% since 1961 – and that the balance between taxes and necessities has changed dramatically in the last half century. They claim that food, clothing and shelter accounted for 56.5% of the family budget back in 1961 and taxes took up just 33.5%.

The conservative think-tank, which often comes up with such alarming statistics, also says their numbers don’t include government deficits, which aren’t covered by taxes today but will have to be paid off somewhere down the road.

Scary stuff, for sure. And it makes it sound like life was pretty rosy back in the early 1960’s.

But, hold on for a second. Before you get your bags packed for a trip in the “wayback machine,” you might want to check out a counterpoint offered by the left-wing Broadbent Institute, run by former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent. In rebutting the Fraser Institute’s claims about the exploding 1800% tax bill, Broadbent says, “While that’s a clear exaggeration that ignores inflation, what is astounding is that their numbers don’t even remotely hold up.”

Broadbent says the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development indicates Canadian tax bills are a bit over 38% of GDP and that, rather than increasing, the percentage has actually dropped from a high of about 45% back in the late 1990’s.

As well as failing to take inflation into account, Broadbent also reminds us how different life was back in 1960 when there was no universal health care, no Canada Pension Plan and paltry Old Age Security benefits. Additionally, his report says access to post-secondary education was mostly limited to the rich and there was a massive wage gap between men and women.

Broadbent also questions why it’s considered a good thing that 56.5% of a family’s income went to basic necessities back in 1961, while it’s only 37% now. He makes a good point. When you add up the totals, 90% of income went to taxes and necessities in the old days, while only 80% is allocated now. That leaves a larger chunk of disposable income for the average household, on top of the fact that we have universal health care, a national pension system, more security for seniors, better access to education and a host of other social services already being factored into our tax dollars.

The Broadbent Institute concludes, “The fundamental point is that we are much richer as a society than we were back in 1961. Not only do we have more to spend on consumer goods today, we also choose to spend a bigger slice of the pie on social programs, education, and public services.”

Looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses or bending numbers to make things look better is nothing new. It happens all the time. When people talk about “the good old days,” they’re often just remembering the positive points about the past, while conveniently sweeping all those pesky negatives under the rug.

Life today certainly isn’t perfect. If you want to, it’s not too difficult to compile a massive list of all the bad things about the world we live in. But, if you honestly believe you’d be better off living back a half-century ago or in some other long-past era, maybe you should take the time to start an alternate list of how much better life is today. Once you do, chances are you’ll cancel your plans for that trip in the wayback machine. As Broadbent says, “The Fraser Institute can stay in 1961 if they want… but I’m happier to be living in 2013.”