 September 25th, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. Do you have the feeling I get when I hear people talk about the “dirty oil” that is sent around the world from Alberta. Are we sending the world dirty oil? Why are we doing that?
Isn’t Canada the country that brought about the Peace keepers – those United Nations guys with the blue helmets?
Aren’t we the people who said no to having American nuclear bombs in Canada?
 Didn’t we take a pass on sending troops to Iran?
And if we’re selling “dirty oil” –why is it dirty?
If there is such a huge profit in the oil sands in Alberta why aren’t we using a part of those profits to do research on ways to make the oil cleaner?
I thought we were the good guys – not like those guys south of us. We were the country that has state medical coverage while the American are still trying to make that happen.
We are the country where everyone doesn’t have a gun in there house and for the most part we are a gun free society.
We are the country that did away with capital punishment. We don’t have to kill people to punish them.
My sense of being a Canadian is diminished when I read that we are shipping dirty oil. I don’t understand why we are not spending large sums of money on finding ways to clean up that oil and spare our environment the harm dirty oil does.
I feel ashamed that we are fighting decent people in the United States who don’t want our dirty oil working its way through oil pipes in their fields. They tell me its good business. Really?
We Canadians have one of the best educational systems in the world. We’ve invented some pretty good things. Our banking system is the envy of the world – yeah some of those banking fees are a little on the outrageous side.
And the cell phone fees are out of whack – but the phone service we have is one of the best in the world. Almost every time a space ship goes up – it has one of those Canada Arms on it – we did that!
But the dirty oil thing – can’t we do something about that. Do we really have to sell a product that does a lot of harm to both people and the environment.
 September 24, 2013
By Piper King
BURLINGTON, ON. I had originally planned to compare the desserts from the several different restaurants run by a group in the city. I drove out to the location of the first one but couldn’t seem to find it. I was looking for the Local Eatery & Refuge. My stepson, Jordan and I decided to start our adventure there but when we arrived at the location (4155 Fairview Street), the name on the building was Dymond’s Social Kitchen & Bar . Puzzled, we parked and entered the establishment.
When you walk in, Dymond’s has a classy feel to it, but with a slightly retro kick. The tables and chairs are dark, but it thankfully lacks a claustrophobic feeling, due to the large and airy interior. The walls have a mix of wood paneling and light brick. The ceilings are a mix of industrial and dark night club blocks, which gives it an upscale, chic feel.
 Kasia – took good care of us. The server, a tiny blonde lady named Kasia greeted us warmly. We asked for a booth seat, and she ushered us over and took our drink order. I asked if they have milkshakes (which these establishments usually do not) and much to my delight, she responded YES! Jordan ordered a chocolate shake and I the peanut butter and chocolate.
When Kasia returned, I asked her if this was still the Local Eatery & Refuge. She said that it’s under the same management, but they broke away from the Tortoise Group of Companies April 1st of this year and renamed it Dymond’s Social Kitchen & Bar, after the owner Ryan Dymond.
We were both amazed when our milkshakes arrived! Basically, we received two shakes for the price of one! I took a sip of my shake and it was absolutely delicious! What struck me was that it was a lot lighter than the typical milkshake you’d get from either Wimpy’s, or Lick’s, which by the way is no longer in business – the bailiff had posted a notice on the plate-glass door. A bonus for me with the shake in front of me was that I could taste more of the chocolate and less of the peanut butter (score)!
When Kasia returned she took our order: Jordan chose the Bacon Cheese Burger with fries and I chose the Arizona Dog and chips.
 You could feed a family with this burger. A few minutes later, Kasia brought out the largest burger we had ever seen, I mean this thing was piled high with lettuce, tomato and an onion ring (it was almost Alice in Wonderland/cartoon huge)! My dog was another amazing feat of Foodie heaven! I have NEVER seen a hotdog piled up with so much deliciousness. When we make hotdogs at home they’re usually a meager chicken or beef dog and a thin, no-name bun.
 The condiments alone amount to a meal. This was quite literally, the king of dogs, hands down! The chips were served in a deep fryer basket. (I wondered if they were served in the very same basket they were fried in)? I didn’t ask. The presentation for both meals were amazing. The food was hot and delicious! I suddenly remembered a Carl’s Jr commercial I used to see when I lived in Arizona. Carl’s Jr is known for the messiest burgers, so much so that their slogan was, “If it doesn’t get all over the place; it doesn’t belong in your face.” This Arizona Dog would have made Carl’s Jr. proud!
When we “finished” our meals (I managed to eat half of the hot dog and only half of the basket of chips), the owner, Ryan Dymond came over and introduced himself. He struck me as a person who’s passionate about food and the restaurant industry.
Ryan, a Burlington resident for many years, explained his reasoning for breaking away from the pack. He wanted a restaurant that supports local businesses and he felt that this could not be accomplished as a franchise. Once separated on April 1st, he ensured that all the food served in the restaurant would be sourced from local food businesses. Most restaurants provide a menu for pairing the food with a fine wine, but his vision is to pair their foods with amazing, locally brewed craft beer. The only outsourced beer he advised us, is Samuel Adams (which hails from the U.S.). He wanted to create a restaurant with “downscaled food in an upscale setting.”
 Ryan Dymond – broke away from a corporate environment and struck out on his own. The menu suggests he will do well – will the Dueling pianos give him that edge? He went on to explain that every Friday night (and starting in October, Saturday night too) they have an amazing musical spotlight called Dueling Pianos. It’s basically two pianos set up in a central location so both the bar and the dining room could request and enjoy the music all night. He explained that he had renovated to ensure that everyone could enjoy the music and that no one would feel isolated. Plus, for one Friday out of every month they feature a theme night, whereby they’d play to a specific theme – such as an “all Elton John songs” night.
It was truly a pleasure to meet Ryan and he was so good about posing for a photo or two. I will definitely go back one Friday, or Saturday night to check out the Dueling Pianos and see what the atmosphere will be like at night-time.
All in all, Jordan and I give Dymond’s Social Kitchen & Bar four thumbs up! The food was delicious, the atmosphere was relaxed and it really had an upscale feel to it that would appeal to Burlington’s affluent society, but the fare will cater to the “inner kid”.
Jordan summed it up this amazing event with his spontaneous observation at the end of our meal “Best part about this experience? “Heart” just came on the speakers.” So, we can give Dymond’s another gold star for amazing musical taste.
Dymond’s Social Kitchen & Bar
4155 Fairview Street Burlington L7L 2A4
905.633.9464
 September 24, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. “Toronto is a great place to live, if only you could manage to get to work” – so says the Toronto Board of Trade. Commute times in the greater Toronto area were the longest of 19 major cities in a recent survey. It takes the average commuter 80 minutes round-trip, a full 24 minutes longer than it would in Los Angeles, the very birthplace of urban sprawl.
 Ray Rivers, the Gazette’s political columnist with Premier Kathleen Wynne and MPP Kevin Flynn on the left and Dr. Eric Hoskins on the right – all at the recent Roundtable held in Burlington. So Ontario’s Premier Wynne has made it a priority for her government to improve the lot of commuters by building transit. “It is a matter of social justice, I want to improve people’s lives by allowing commuters to spend more quality time with family and friends,” she emphasized in an exclusive interview last Friday. Ms. Wynne had earlier test-ridden the new half-hour GO train service, en route to a meeting with the Burlington Chamber of Commerce. Flanked by her Minister of Economic Development, Dr. Eric Hoskins, and the Parliamentary Assistant for Transportation, Kevin Flynn, Kathleen Wynne shared some thoughts on this topic with me.
 Premier Wynne believes that this level of traffic eats away at the time people deserve to have with their families and that the time spent in cars is damaging the provincial economy. Is GO the answer – and will we go along with that kind of a solution? The Premier’s goals are straight forward: invest in people; provide much-needed infrastructure; and improve business opportunities that will result in job creation. But she has her work cut out for her. We know that most of Ontario’s urban areas are poorly configured for efficient public transit. Three generations of urban sprawl have made public transit costly to deliver and inconvenient to ride – so the result is gridlock. And yes, the Greenbelt, introduced by her predecessor, was intended to curb urban sprawl, but the benefits of that initiative will not be seen for another generation – until after all the approved developments in the queue have seen their day.
Back in 1990 former Premier David Peterson, another Liberal, had proposed an ambitious $6.2 billion expansion of public transit for Toronto. Then he lost the next election to the NDP, who cherry-picked elements of that plan. The NDP lost the next election which resulted in a virtual cessation of transit progress under Mike Harris. Even when the Liberals did return to power, progress was slow as the Toronto kept changing its mind between subways and light-rail and subways again – making sustainable funding difficult.
The Province can’t really afford to do much in the way of funding these days. Ontario has been bleeding red ink since the 2008 recession and is now carrying a staggering quarter trillion dollar debt-load on its books. Metrolinx, the organization tasked with creating some order to the provinces transit mess, is saying they need $2 billion a year for needed transit expansion,and they are probably right.
 This is clearly not working? That money is not likely to flow from the business community; having lowered corporate taxes earlier, it is unlikely the province will raise them again. One of Wynne’s priorities is to promote business development, not scare it away with higher taxes. Wynne talked about bringing more jobs out to the suburbs, places like Burlington, so fewer folks need to be on that long daily commute. There are fewer businesses paying taxes these days as we become more reliant on imports.
 Is this a better option? Can we rely on the public sector to deliver consistently reliable service that works within the reasonable budgets they are given? Worse still, if we are to believe one think-tank, the left-leaning Centre for Policy Alternatives, we should expect an even greater decline in our industrial base following conclusion of the planned Canada-EU trade agreement.
Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the Harper government’s economic blueprint, has committed $14 billion for infrastructure renewal. Premier Wynne hosted the Council of the Federation meeting last July and there was unanimous agreement for “continuing the conversation” about infrastructure – which really means they want access to that fund. Ontario, with a third of Canada’s population might reasonably expect about five or six billion dollars of that commitment – enough to make a really good start on adding public transit. And, as if on cue, the federal government has just announced over half a billion dollars for the Scarborough subway extension.
Aside from the auto companies Mr. Harper hasn’t shown much interest in helping Canada’s industrial heartland move forward. In fact, there hasn’t been a PM in recent memory with so much interest in selling off the nation’s natural resources and so little interest in protecting home-grown manufacturing and services. Ontario was once the mighty province that led the nation in economic prosperity, yet today it has slipped to the status of a ‘have-not’ province. It would be such a shame if the province ended up becoming another rust belt jurisdiction like Michigan or Ohio, and Toronto another bankrupt city like Detroit.
 Ray Rivers, born in Ontario earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario and a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers is active in his community; has run for municipal and provincial office and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 September 22, 2013
By James Burchill.
BURLINGTON, ON. Apple’s new iPhone with fingerprint security is raising privacy questions and giving many people reason to balk at buying the latest from the gadget giant. The question isn’t whether or not the idea will work, it’s a question of whether or not trading biometric data as sensitive as fingerprints, and the privacy implications that could have, for some convenience is really a good deal. As usual, it’s all about perception and preference rather than one-size-fits-all reality.
 The iPhone 5S will let you use a fingerprint as an ID; what happens to that fingerprint should you lose that phone? The Touch ID on the iPhone 5S: The idea behind the new iPhone’s fingerprint security system is pretty simple. Fingerprints, known to be unique to the individual, are now easily scanned and stored, and can easily be compared to a known base metric for verification. Other biometric options include retina scans, which are very expensive, facial recognition, which is still largely in its infancy, and DNA, which is difficult to do on-the-fly.
Fingerprints have been the most common go-to for consumer-grade biometric identification, but Apple is the first to add it as an option for a common gadget rather than a device meant to be used in secure situations and businesses.
The Touch ID for the iPhone 5S, which is now on the market, uses a fingerprint scan to replace a personal identification number (PIN) for the phone’s security features and can be accessed (limited to a “is the person verified?” Q&A) by apps on the phone to replace similar security measures they might have.
The iPhone will use the scanned fingerprint, but not the fingerprint itself as verification. If that doesn’t make sense, it’s due to the complex nature of how physical attributes like a fingerprint are digitally converted and stored. The fingerprint itself is not stored, per se, but a digital version of it is. That digital version is not as simplistic as a scan or photo of the physical fingerprint, but is instead a series of plot points (or a metric) that describes the fingerprint’s defining characteristics. Those who work with fingerprinting will understand this. The rest of us need more explanation.
How Digital Fingerprinting Works: Try to remember back to your school days in a Geometry class. Remember how the Fibonacci sequence (Editor’s note: Sure James I remember that.) could be made to make swirls by simply plotting the numbers (1, 2, 3, 5, 8…) in a series of defined points on a chart? Imagine an equation that described a fingerprint using a similar number sequence.
 Fingerprint: a unique identifier. Do you want it out there for anyone to grab and use. That would give a whole new dimension to identity theft. Apple’s iPhone5S can use a fingerprint as ID. Is this a smart move? Burchill wonders. A fingerprint is basically a bunch of swirls with defined beginning and ending points for the individual lines making up the swirl. So to store it digitally, all that is required is to know the beginning, apex, and end point of the swirls that make the print unique and you have a stored version of it. One that takes up very little data space, but that can be easily re-drawn at any time.
This same idea is how most graphics are plotted on a computer screen, in fact, and is also what makes up a lot of the other things we now consider common in digital graphs, photography, and more.
Why It’s a Privacy Concern: For privacy advocates, what Apple has introduced is a device that can scan a fingerprint and store it, even if it has been encrypted, on a device that is known to be easily hacked. Further, the physical storage of the fingerprint information is on the phone itself and therefore accessible by blunt means.
Other devices that use fingerprint data for security, such as laptops from most of the major makers, have been found to have similar security issues. The difference here is that smart phones are more often stolen and compromised than any other device and with HTC reportedly planning a similar fingerprint ID system; this could become a serious problem.
 James Burchill creates communities and helps businesses convert conversations into cash. He’s also an author, speaker, trainer and creator of the Social Fusion Network™ an evolutionary free b2b networking group with chapters across southern Ontario. He blogs at JamesBurchill.com and can be found at the SocialFusionNetwork.com or behind the wheel of his recently acquired SMART car.
 September 20, 2013
By Ray Rivers.
BURLINGTON, ON. They are romantic little fishing villages dotting the coastline of this Island province, the last to join Canada. The quaint, brightly painted houses and boat shacks are all well maintained and clean. It is as if the clock had been turned back a half century or more – except for the quiet. An eerie silence pervades, almost like being in an episode of the Twilight Zone. Perhaps it just seems that way because the sea is empty. There are no boats in the harbours; nobody selling their catch-of-the-day on the docks; no seagulls dodging and diving for discarded fish guts; and nobody fishing off an island that was founded on the cod fish.
 The cod almost jumped out of the water and into the boats. It was a phenomenal resource that sustained a province – until the bureaucrats got the numbers wrong. The almighty cod fish which attracted settlers and fishers from all around the world; which led to the discovery of Newfoundland; and that provided the income and livelihood for its inhabitants… is gone. The cod fishery collapsed in the late 1980‘s, though it took the federal government until 1992 to actually declare a total moratorium. Thirty thousand workers lost their jobs overnight and now Newfoundlanders are allowed only a three-week window to catch a few lonely cod for their own tables.
The expert government scientists really blew this one. They over-estimated the cod stock, underestimated the impact of the fishing vacuum cleaners, called factory trawlers, and then nodded politely as their masters applied political pressure to keep the fishery open, long after it should have been closed. Now, over two decades later the stock has still not recovered. Locals do express hope for the cod, some optimism, unlike they do for the wild Atlantic salmon which is truly gone forever.
Thank God we have agriculture. But now we have more expert scientists guiding our policy makers, as they support Monsanto and other companies creating the new and exciting genetically modified organisms (GMO). It was only1994, less than two decades ago, when the first commercially available GMO food, a tomato, was approved by the US FDA. Yet today there are 25 GMO plants being grown around the world, and almost all of the corn and soybeans (90%) grown in the US are GMO. Canada is not far behind this trend.
Some of the genetic material spliced into these foods simply allows the plants to defend themselves against pesticides like Monsanto’s Round-up, which does such a deadly job of cleaning up the weeds. Some GMOs have altered biological processes, such as the tomato, which now ripens slower than nature had intended – keeping it fresher-looking on the grocer’s shelf. And the latest GMO being developed claims to enhance the nutritional value of food (golden rice), thus offering the promise of feeding the masses being born into hunger in the less developed nations of the world.
 The remaining category of GMO foods actually contain pesticides within their DNA, such as bt corn and bt potatoes . Every time we eat these foods we intake the same pesticide DNA that kills or wards off predatory insects, fungal diseases, etc. Now the agriculture and health agencies and their scientists tell us that these products are safe. But I worry that, like the fisheries experts, they are missing something and haven’t grasped the bigger picture – and that we should be moving slower and more cautiously. GMOs have been critically labelled ‘franken foods’ by the organic industry because their process of gene splicing is unlike anything which occurs in nature.
I confess, I used to be an organic producer and I managed an organic certification agency here in Ontario – so that is my bias. Like others, committed to organic foods, I am concerned about how much testing has gone into these GMO products, given how soon after development we move these foods into production, the market place and our stomachs. What if we discover a problem in due course, will we have enough non-GMO seeds to change back? I am annoyed that there is no labeling where we purchase food, informing us whether we are getting GMO, thus purposely blocking us from exercising our rights to choice as consumers. And I do worry about the cumulative effect of eating foods with poison in their genetic make-up.
 Once, I ran out of soybean seeds for some garden-variety edamame I was planting. Rushed, I inquired about organic seeds at my local farmers’ supply store. But the only kind they had were ‘Round-up Ready’ by Monsanto. These seeds came with a contract I needed to sign confirming that, though I bought and grew them, they were Monsanto property into perpetuity. I just shook my head and contacted an organic grower to help me out.
 There was nothing modified about this natural resource. All we had to do was responsibly preserve and wisely harvest. We failed to do that. I know our agricultural scientists are well-educated and have our best interests at heart when they tell us they believe that GMOs are safe – and time may well prove them to be right. But then I think back to those meetings with the well-respected federal fisheries biologists, when we used to finalize and allocate fishing quotas. They were convinced that the northern cod stock was strong and growing, and that despite all the fishing pressure it was facing, would never collapse.
 Ray Rivers was born in Ontario; earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario and earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers is active in his community; has run for municipal and provincial office and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 September 13, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. Over a decade ago, Newfoundland and Quebec, the most Catholic provinces in Canada, moved to a single public education system and eliminated separate school funding, leaving only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Ontario in the dark ages.
The UN human rights commission has weighed-in, as well, determining that Ontario is discriminating against other religions and demanding either an end to separate school funding or that the province publicly fund all other religious schools. We may recall from the election of 2007 how Ontario voters overwhelmingly rejected the full-funding option advanced by Tory leader John Tory.
It’s true that there are constitutional guaranties for separate schools in Canada, a legacy of provincial deal-making in the days leading to the formation of the nation. But the provinces have absolute authority over education and Ontario could reduce its sprawling systems of education, 73 in total, with the stroke of pen, as Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland have done. There are 29 English Catholic, 8 French Catholic, one Protestant, (Penetanguishene) 31 English public and 4 French public school boards that operate in Ontario, more than twice as many as would be needed for a secular-only public school system.
The Manitoba Act creating that province in 1870, included a provision for a separate school system. Manitoba’s history is intensely complicated but this issue, became one of the biggest in the province’s history and one which nearly tore the new nation apart. However, Manitoba persisted in its efforts to eliminate funding for separate schools and two years after Manitoba the North-West Territories essentially followed suit. More people in Quebec (over 80%) identify as Catholic than in any other province, yet the province also decided to abandon public funding for the Catholic education system and received constitutional authority to proceed in in the late 1990’s.
 Solid Catholic classrooms were once a part of Newfoundland educational system. That province is now totally integrated. I have been visiting the Rock this week. It’s earliest residents included the Beothuk aboriginal people (now extinct), and the Vikings. Newfoundland was accidentally discovered by a Portuguese fisherman, landing some twenty years ahead of Columbus. The Rock was later re-discovered and its modern history started with John Cabot and English and French settlers before being invaded by Irish immigrants seeking relief from their potato famine and English oppression. By 1840 Irish Catholics made up half the population of the Island, but it was closer to the turn of that century that formal education was initiated with the Anglicans, Methodists and Catholics each running their own religious schools.
As Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, the protestant schools evolved into a secular public school system but under terms of joining the confederation, Catholic schools had also been given funding. It took a half-century and two referenda for Liberal Premier Brian Tobin to eliminate funding for all but the secular public system. So only the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario still fund Catholic schools.
 Dalton McGuinty’s government transformed Ontario’s education system from one of the worst to the very best in Canada over his time in office, but was somehow uninterested in further cutting costs by reducing duplication among school boards. Even as he charged the Drummond Commission to explore ways of reducing duplication and eliminating the deficit, he and they left the secular public schooling option on the table.
After health, education is the largest expenditure for the provincial government, so it is perhaps unsurprising that Drummond’s report can be found mostly on a shelf gathering dust. Now Dalton has left the room leaving a new Ontario premier to chart a new course, including doing something serious about the province’s expenditures and deficit. And what could be easier than eliminating this remaining anachronistic vestige of post colonial rule, amalgamating the various school boards and shutting down those redundant to the educational needs of the province?
When I lived in rural Ottawa, years ago, I used to watch four half-empty buses from four different school boards parade one after each other, and wonder. I haven’t seen the math on this, don’t have the numbers, but moving to a single school system should be a win-win for the people of Ontario just as it has been for Newfoundland, and Quebec. And speaking of Quebec, the irony of it all is that funding for separate schools was only ever put in the constitution because of the insistence of Quebec. And that province has now eliminated it’s own separate school system.
 Ray Rivers was born in Ontario; earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario and earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. He completed his first historical novel The End of September in 2012. Rivers is active in his community. He has run for municipal and provincial government offices and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 September 12, 2013
By James Burchill
BURLINGTON, ON. Many in the tech industry believe that the next generation of smart devices will be “wearable.” Remember watches? Ya, those things that are going out of style may be making a comeback when your iPhone and Android becomes wrist wear.
 Is that a Dick Tracy wrist watch? What do you mean – you don’t know who Dick Tracy was – where have you been? There are several designs in the works and Sony has already released a beta test on a wearable smart phone that works very much like your current phone in downsized form. This, of course, will change as these become more prolific and new ideas and the ergonomics of the devices are studied. Expect wrist flicking and hand flexing to replace finger gestures, for example.
Techies are seeing a future in which we are the device – in other words, apps and software, are made for the user, not the device. Whether we have a smart watch, a phone, in-car computers, or a desktop in or all of the above, the apps will work the same throughout with perhaps some differences because one device may be capable of more than another.
A good example of how this works is Google’s Gmail.
Gmail works differently on your desktop than it does on your smart phone, for example. Imagine that across half a dozen or more devices. Some will be “hands free” devices (such as the car), which will have interaction through voice commands and hand waving or eye gestures (all things being worked on right now). Others will be hand-intense, like your smart phone, while still others will be a mix of the two.
A technological future in which devices automatically detect who is using them and load the apps (from the cloud, of course) based on that knowledge is not far off. Imagine checking the time on your watch and being notified that you have a new email. Instead of bringing it up there, you turn to the television and say “pause and show me email.” It complies by pausing the show you’re watching and bringing up your email screen. You see it’s important and you’ll need to reply, so instead of using the TV, you pick up your tablet and bring up the email app and finger in a response. Once you do so, you close the email app and the TV asks if you want to resume your show.
This future isn’t so far-fetched and is fast becoming the present.
 Is this what’s on the horizon? This means app developers are beginning to (finally) think in terms of “screens” and “users” instead of “pop-ups” and “square boxes.” Recently, Phil Libin, CEO of Evernote, said that the transition from mobile to wearables is a far bigger deal than was the change from computer-centric apps to mobile devices. If you think about it, your notebook and your cell phone have a lot more in common than would a cell phone and a watch or Google Glass, simply because the “screen” is very, very different.
In short, the screen and how you interact with it is changing radically. With heads up and similar options, the old “open a box, then open another one” thing doesn’t work anymore. Things have to be both more fluid and less intrusive. And again, people who use these wearable devices are not likely to have it as their only device and they’ll expect apps to work on all of their mobile machines (at the very least).
 Things are about to get even more interesting.
James Burchill creates communities and helps businesses convert conversations into cash. He’s also an author, speaker, trainer and creator of the Social Fusion Network™ an evolutionary free b2b networking group with chapters across southern Ontario. He blogs at JamesBurchill.com and can be found at the SocialFusionNetwork.com or behind the wheel of his recently acquired SMART car.
 September 6, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. Pierre Trudeau was the father of multiculturalism, and in 1971 Canada became the first nation in the world to adopt that policy. Coming off the October 1970 FLQ crisis, Trudeau needed something to bridge the two solitudes, which Canada had become, and which made fertile ground for the separatists to argue for independence. Inclusion of Canadians regardless of their origins, respect for their cultural heritage and the richness that comes with diverse cultural backgrounds helped change the focus of minority rights in Canada and Quebec.
Multiculturalism is fundamentally a liberal philosophy – the right of individuals to freely express themselves and pursue their conceptions of the good life. The Liberal Party subscribes to it, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that Justin Trudeau immediately rejected Marois’ proposed charter. But conservatives also subscribe to this philosophy, particularly the more libertarian wing, though they are conflicted by their desire for control. For that and other reasons the PM is mostly staying out of the discussion at this time – but he’ll have to find his tongue if, and when, the Charter sees the light of day.
 The night Rene Levesque lost the first referendum in Quebec. The province would try a second time to leave the country in 1995. The NDP are socialists and have little time for religion or religious symbols, although Mulcair appears to be siding with Trudeau – but then he used to be a Liberal. The Parti Québécois (PQ) is also a socialist party and favours secularism. They still remember the Duplessis years and how the Church helped to oppress Quebecers – je me souviens. And, of course, the PQ prefer any policy which would enable them to reach their end-goal of independence.
Quebec has always been opposed to multiculturalism. Half a century after it became national policy, Quebec’s minority government is proposing a ‘Charter of Quebec Values’, a racist, at least in the broadest sense of the word, attempt at shutting multiculturalism down. Much like the French Language Charter, Bill 101, introduced in 1977 by René Lévesque, the proposed charter Pauline Marois is proposing discriminates against those who are different – those who threaten the notion of a distinct society in the nation of Quebec.
It is just another brick in the wall for the separatists – a wall to further divide Quebec from the rest of Canada. Former premier Jacques Parizeau blamed the ethnic minority in Quebec for the narrow defeat of his 1995 referendum on sovereignty. Premier Marois claims her goal is to unite Quebecers, a euphemism for stripping them of their individuality and re-engineering Quebec to deal with Parizeau’s complaint.
Pierre Trudeau discovered multiculturalism in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963). And Ms. Marois has a commission of her own, The Bouchard-Taylor Report on Cultural and Religious Accommodation. If we thought multiculturalism was a complex topic, Taylor and Bouchard promote an even more complicated hybrid called ‘interculturalism‘.
A nation with diverse cultures is not one that rallies predictably for a common cause, such as Quebec sovereignty. So Premier Marois wants to instill Quebecers with a set of common values before the next referendum. If she needed a model, she might have looked to the Japan of the shogun era. For over 200 years the Japanese people were isolated from foreign influences; foreigners were expelled and their religions banned; trade and contact with the outside world was restricted; and a common language and social mores were forced on the people. The results of that unification process were impressive as we saw in the Second World War.
Europe, like Canada, once embraced multiculturalism, so much that chicken tikka masala has replaced fish and chips Chips as England’s most popular dish. However, Europeans, like some folks in Quebec, are concerned about the impending clash they envision with their traditional cultures. France is in the forefront of the fight against religious symbols, though the French government is perhaps more worried about ethnic ghettos, where streets and even suburbs have become enclaves and no-go zones.
Of course that isn’t the case for Quebec which has less ethnic diversity than B.C. or even Ontario. Toronto is now the most ethnically diverse city in the world. Quebecers are a minority within Canada and the downward spiral of discrimination is a human characteristic. So Quebec treats minority groups in the province less kindly than they themselves expect to be treated in Canada. The many freedoms Quebecers enjoy, being a part of Canada, they withhold from the cultural minorities they govern.
 The referendum in 1995 was a battle to keep Quebec in Canada but also to keep Canada a multicultural country. Finally and most importantly, Bill 101 and the emerging Charter of Values are just foundation blocks for the next sovereignty vote. Only a third of Quebecers have ever wanted to create a separate nation out of the province. But they recently elected a minority separatist government with that unwavering agenda as an end goal. Marois may appear to be pandering to a handful of intolerant voters with her charter, preying on their worst emotions. But she is just setting the stage for the bigger battle to come. She needs to deal with Parizeau’s complaint – even if that makes her look like a racist.
 Ray Rivers was born in Ontario; earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario and earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. He completed his first historical novel The End of September in 2012. Rivers is active in his community. He has run for municipal and provincial government offices and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 Jeremy Hayman, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) will be writing a regular column for the Burlington Gazette. ND is a professional medical designation earned following an undergraduate pre-medical degree and four years of post-graduate medical training at a fully accredited (CNME) naturopathic medical college. All licensed Naturopathic Doctors practicing in Ontario have been fully regulated under the Drugless Practitioners Act.Upon completion of regulatory board examinations, Naturopathic Doctors, as primary health care providers, are required to maintain their competency by meeting continuing education requirements as well upholding naturopathic medical association standings.
In comparison to a Medical Doctor designation (MD), a Naturopathic Medical designation (ND) is comprised of an equivalency in term of basic science education hours. Where an MD focuses more time on pharmaceutical medicine, NDs also study pharmacology and its drugs, however extensive training in natural medicine (such as botanical, Oriental, nutritional, physical, and homeopathic medicine as well as lifestyle, counseling and herb-drug interactions) is adjunctively studied as well. In Ontario, a naturopathic doctors is considered a primary care physicians. NDs cannot prescribe pharmaceutical medications in Ontario as MDs are able to, and are only covered under extended health plans and not OHIP billing, however they are able to employ conventional laboratory testing and diagnostic imaging as necessary.
September 5, 2013
By Dr. Jeremy Hayman
BURLINGTON, ON. September 5, 2013 When it comes to understanding the meaning of the popular phrase “too much of a good thing”, we all too often overdo our ideal balance by taking this idiom to the extreme. It’s common practice to believe that if something is healthy, then more is better. We have all experienced, in one way or another, too much of something we believe is “good” often times turns out not to be as “good” or as pleasant as we first thought.
 There are limits – or at least there should be some limits we observe. How many of you have ever basked under the healthful vitamin D filled sunrays on a warm summer day only to regretfully suffer the agonizing (and burning) result of “too much of a good thing”? Ok, so we agree, in our own unique and sometimes retrospective way, too much of a “good thing” may in fact result in the complete opposite of what we originally thought. This consideration has forced us to accommodate moderation into our daily lives, correct?
Well, not always in reality, but the true meaning and moral does allow us to consider the wise choice that everything in life should be experienced in balance. Although, when it comes to natural health and contributions to natural health, I sometimes, beg to differ. When it comes to balance and happiness within our children’s mental health, I beg to differ without question.
The mental health status of children constitutes a need for balance, however the more happiness, balance and support toward a child’s mental health, argument cannot be justified that too much of a good thing is ultimately “too much”. Mental health of children is of utmost value, and the more support that can be provided naturally, the better. So let’s talk mental health within our most impressionable population, and let’s learn what it takes to naturally keep the mental health of our children balanced.
According to Health Canada, one in five Canadians will experience some type of mental illness over the course of their lifetime, many of whom will never fully recover. The other four will have a friend, family member, or colleague who will experience a mental health issue. Children, within this statistic, are sadly, not excluded. So what is sound mental health as it pertains to our children and how can the balance toward such a “good thing” be realized? Mental health in children refers to the mental state of how one thinks about, feels, associates, and responds to the world within and around him/her. Depression, anxiety, general stress, attention deficit, autism, panic, and bi polar are mental health states but to name a few. Achieving consistent happiness, positive adaptation, awareness and balanced thought and feeling is what exemplifies mental health to its ultimate degree. When mind and body become occupied and clouded with an ongoing interference of thoughts and feeling, mental health state begins to decline. Once it acclimatizes to this state of mal-adaptation, psychiatric “disorder” may inevitably ensue. Continued psychiatric distress does nothing more than lend itself to a continued spiraling of ill-health, physically, mentally and otherwise.
 Interestingly enough, many children affected are being diagnosed simply as an illness due to genetics, “chemical imbalance”, or “predisposition” (which by the way isn’t necessarily an accurate preceding diagnosis at all). It is, however, becoming more and more striking, yet accepted, that mental health issues can also arise from psychosocial stress, unhealthy diets and food production, environmental and toxin influences, as well as from the use (and overuse) of pharmacological medications. Although the contributing source which underlies how a child feels mentally and emotionally may not always be undeniably determined, we do know that focusing on the basics will help make a child feel better.
When a mental predisposition or illness in a child is typically diagnosed, there is a tendency not to turn to creative solutions for support, but rather to quickly medicate our children. Medication does have its place, however, from a natural and primary care perspective, what should be done is to address a child’s environment, parental stress, nutrition, lifestyle, and an overall comprehensive evaluating view of a child’s life. As stated, medication does have its place (pending individual circumstances, no doubt), however by simply medicating our children as first line treatment, in all circumstances, what’s being done is simply disempowering children, inducing a biochemical imbalance in the brain (not altering or fixing one) and simply guiding children into believing that coping and self-regulating cannot be accomplished without drugs. If all aspects of a child’s life is addressed, medication may still be required, but potentially at a later date, a lower dose, for a shorter time, and may in fact create a better result, given all other supporting aspects have been addressed.
So how exactly do we treat a mental illness in a child? First and foremost, a professional medical assessment needs to be performed in order to determine where along the “spectrum” a child’s mental state rests. Many diagnostics are determined using a firm array of clinical signs and symptoms, depending of course on the mental state in question. With anxiety for example, a child’s anxiety and worry state would need to be associated with at least three of seven symptoms (sleep disturbance, easy fatigue, and being “on edge” for example). And more importantly to note, just because a child “displays possible symptoms”, doesn’t automatically conclude a mental illness is at hand, however, it also does it mean that there is not. A whole picture approach would need to be considered, as many symptoms of mental health illness can very well be generalized symptoms in and amongst themselves. Yet, a single symptom can also be a key clue that an initial mental illness may be at play. So rather than diagnosing or treating a mental illness based on a limited clinical picture, a comprehensive and total life picture of the child, as a person, needs to be considered and sought out (as addressing a person and not just an illness, is truly what medicine and its management should be all about).
 Vast approaches to mental health can be employed, however utilizing a comprehensive medical approach, encompassing natural sound and evidenced based medicine, combined with primary care practice often works best. Once a mental status has been determined, natural support in the way of botanical medicine, correction of nutritional deficiencies and a therapeutic approach to diet, stress, and environment, in conjunction with primary health care can be successfully accomplished. Realizing and diagnosing a mental illness in a child at any age is not something that sits well with anyone. The good news is that it doesn’t have to be a life sentence of unhappiness, instability or illness either. The evidence is there, that natural medicine works, and by incorporating the essentials in terms of what makes our children better, success with mental illness can be realized.
Functioning of a child to the degree which satisfies society’s expectations alone is not the element to success. Fundamentally supporting a child’s mental health issue(s) at its root IS the only management tool to propel mental and emotional stability from a life of uncertainty to that of making “too much of a good thing” worth living.
Dr Jeremy Hayman is an Ontario and Board licensed Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, practicing at Back On Track Chiropractic and Wellness Centre in Burlington Ontario where he maintains a General Family Practice with special interest in Psychiatric as well as Pediatric health. Dr Hayman can be contacted at drjeremynd@gmail.com
 September 5, 2013
By Gordana Liddell
BURLINGTON, ON. Where should I go? Good Question. Actually, while this is one of the most common travel inquiries I get, it’s a terrible question. It’s far too general and can’t possibly be answered until you answer some questions yourself:
Let’s use the W5 approach, shall we?
 The world is your stage – what part of that stage do you want to walk on? WHO are you? Are you the type of traveller that wants to go to a popular destination; one that is deemed to be the most current and hip – where you are most likely to spot celebrities who go to the most fashionable spots in order to be spotted? Or do you want to travel to a place a little more out of the ordinary? Do you enjoy telling people where you have been in order to get the reaction…”where”? Would you prefer to see a destination in its genuine form or would you prefer to hit the parties and the crowds? You get my drift, I’m sure.
Your budget is also a tremendous factor in determining exactly where you will be able to go. Are you a prince? Or are you a pauper? The amount you wish to spend will not only help to determine your destination, it can also limit how you get there as well as the time of year you can afford to go. But there is usually a solution for everyone, as long as the limits are reasonable and the minds are open. Everyone should be able to get a way – your budget will help to define your parameters.
WHAT do you want to do when you get there? Lie down and not get up for a week, apart from getting yourself a fresh drink? Do you prefer to be active and, oh I don’t know…climb a mountain, or go horseback riding, or climb a mountain on horseback? Are you interested in history and architecture? Or is an endless coastline just about all you need to study?
WHERE do you see this all taking place? Before you choose the country you need to choose the setting. Beach? City? Ranch? Countryside? A combination of the above? There are many destinations that are blessed with more than one attribute. Would you like to focus on your favourite or do you like a little variety?
 Nature travel is always interesting and can be quite adventuresome as well. Is it expensive? WHEN do you plan to go? If you have decided that you wish to go on a beach vacation in the South of India and you have time off work in the beginning of July…I would advise you that it is monsoon season and it may dampen your experience. Time of year is very often a factor with regards to destination. It is also a huge factor in the price of tickets; these go hand in hand. Understandably so, higher fares are often directly related to the more “desirable” time of year.
WHY are you traveling? Because it’s awesome! Still, there are many reasons that people plan to take that plane/train/bus/boat/car out-of-town. Business, family vacation, girls’ getaway, some much-needed r&r, a-soul-searching-just-like-in-the-movies-journey, etc. ( I would never advise that last one to pack her bags and head to Vegas. ) Determine your motives and you are another step closer to nailing down that perfect location.
If you can answer at least some of the above questions I’m sure I can help you figure out some good options as to where you should go on your next trip.
 Venice has always been a favourite – do you go direct or as part of a tour? There are truly endless possibilities for travel in the world; there is always someplace we have not been and a unique way for us to experience it. Ask a million people who have gone to New York City and you will get a million different variations of how they experienced it. This is part of what makes traveling so wonderful and why we can never be “finished”.
There are countless questions related to travel; questions about the planning, booking, the journey and the destination. Have you got one? I would love to help make your next trip a little simpler, a little more enjoyable and perhaps even a little less stressful. Please send your questions to JustAsk@bgzt.ca and I will be happy to help.
Gordana Liddell is our resident travel writer and Art Centre guru. She is a graduate of the University of Toronto, a travel industry veteran of nearly two decades, freelance writer, and most recently book editor. She is fortunate enough to live right here in Burlington with her family.
 September 4, 2012
By James Burchill.
BURLINGTON, ON. Ever wonder what the most controversial topics on Wikipedia are? The crowd-sourced and edited online encyclopedia is home to a lot of contention. Entries on the site can change in seconds, especially in the more controversial subjects, while others may be horribly written and stay that way for months because it’s not a topic of interest to most editors on the site.
So what are the subjects most likely to be controversial and see the most changes by the most editors? What are the topics that suffer the most revision as points of view clash?
 Controversial? Worth getting more information on? Well, I wasn’t the only one to wonder that. Some students and faculty at the University of Oxford (yes, that Oxford) wondered too. Lead by Taha Yasseri, the team decided to analyze Wikipedia to find out which topics were most controversial based on the intensity of their “editing wars.”
Not as easy as it sounds, though. Wikipedia is home to about 22 million articles in 285 languages with about 77,000 contributors working on it on any given day. Not happy with just the four million English version articles, though, Yasseri and his team decided to break down the controversies by language as well, looking at all 22 million articles to do it.
First, they had to define “controversial” as it applies to Wikipedia. Going by edits alone wouldn’t indicate contention as it could also mean that it’s a “live” subject that is rapidly changing or evolving, such as a current news event (e.g. a current television series or a current legal trial). So they focused on “reverts” instead, which are edits which are made by one person and then undone or removed by another. These are relatively common, though, but “mutual reverts” where an editor restores an earlier edition and then another editor (often the one who made the new changes that got reverted) changes it back to the new version again. These “edit wars” can go on for days in a back-and-forth struggle as editors duke it out over how things on the site are worded.
That definition works well for what the Oxford team wanted to measure. Using that, they were able to analyze Wikipedia and, after separating articles by language, create a “Top 10” list for them. The ten most controversial topics in English are:
1. George W. Bush
2. Anarchism
3. Muhammad
4. List of World Wrestling Entertainment
5. Global Warming
6. Circumcision
7. United States
8. Jesus
9. Race and intelligence
10. Christianity
 At least people are asking questions: still far too many people saying it’s bunk. Some of those are not surprising, of course, but others come out of nowhere. The top entry is a real surprise, since Bush has been out of office for over five years and is now relatively ignored by the news media. The second is a contentious but not often considered political philosophy that most of us might not even know exists. The third makes sense, as does the fifth, but who would have known that the WWE was so controversial?
 Go figure on this one: wrestlers? Indeed, this is a very interesting list. The team says that in every language, topics of religion are nearly always represented in the top five, as are topics like Israel, Adolf Hitler, and God. For the most part, though, these commonalities are overshadowed by the vast differences in what’s controversial in one language versus another. This often involves controversial war topics or native cultural topics, but can also be celebrity topics specific to the region the language is most commonly associated with.
You can read Yasseri et al’s work on Wikipedia measurements here.
 James Burchill creates communities and helps businesses convert conversations into cash. He’s also an author, speaker, trainer and creator of the Social Fusion Network™ an evolutionary free b2b networking group with chapters across southern Ontario. He blogs at JamesBurchill.com and can be found at the SocialFusionNetwork.com or behind the wheel of his recently acquired SMART car.
 August 29, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. Let’s debunk the nonsense about the high cost of renewable energy in Ontario. Gord Miller, Ontario’s Independent Environmental Commissioner, estimated that, for 2010, the total cost for wind and solar was a mere 3% of a household’s total ‘energy used’. Since your household bill includes other charges, such as delivery and debt recovery,that translates into just over one percent.
 There are thousands of small solar panel installations like this across the province – they work very well and in many cases provide revenue for the owners. So, McGuinty’s Green Energy Act is not why your hydro bill keeps climbing and it’s certainly not going to bankrupt the province, as the scare mongers would have you believe. That rising tide of hydro bills has to do with more mundane matters like updating, improving, maintaining and expanding our grid infrastructure; and building new power plants even as electricity demand has been falling.
Yes, there is the half-billion dollars, or so, wasted on the cancelled gas plants – but that pales with what we’ve spent on the nukes. Professor Jose Etcheverry, with the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, sums up Ontario’s nuclear experience as “it always costs much more and takes longer than originally budgeted”. He points out that $1 billion is being shelled out to consultants just to estimate the cost of fixing our newest nuclear plant at Darlington. And like the cancelled gas plants we won’t see a kilowatt of energy out of that money.
Canada was proud to be only the second nation ever when, in 1945, we achieved a self-sustaining chain reaction with a tiny reactor at Chalk River, Ontario. But it was only seven years later, in 1952 when Chalk River became the site of Canada’s first nuclear accident. And there was another one in 1958, and then there have been three more serious Canadian accidents after that. Fortunately there were no direct fatalities from any of these mishaps.
As the professor points out, Ontario’s experiment with nuclear power has been costly. And there is still no plan or budget to deal with the nuclear waste we have been storing on-site in big pools, pools like the ones at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant. Leaking radioactive water from that disabled plant, now the worst nuclear accident in history, is a real environmental concern, which nobody should take lightly as we watch the poisonous plume of seawater approach the shores of North America.
Ontario is a pretty stable seismic location to situate something like a nuclear plant. But it wasn’t the earthquake which caused the crisis in Japan, it was the flooding tidal wave. And if we learned anything this year, it is that we, too, are powerless against floods when nature decides to unleash its furry. Then, there is always the chance that something else will go wrong as it did at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl or at Chalk River. And what about the chance that some terrorist makes her way inside the reactor building?
 Ontario has a number of nuclear energy reactors – they were expensive to build and are very expensive to maintain. We get half of our electricity in this province from nuclear energy and the facilities have been pretty reliable of late. But we know there will be more problems, requiring even more money to be poured into these reactors as they age and decay. And then there are the unknown costs of eventually decommissioning the plants and the contaminated sites they sit on. So the chattering class of pundits, taking shots at renewable energy as being too expensive, are either lying to us or have their heads stuck where the sun doesn’t shine.
Speaking of the sun, I installed a solar panel last year. Imagine how much different our power needs would be if everybody had one of those on their roof. Sure, you need to back-up these renewable sources with gas plants, at least until the engineers can get their act together and develop ways of storing surplus energy – with capacitors or hydrogen gas or something else. And there will always be some bean-counter crying ‘unreliable’ or ‘inefficient’ when she spots below-capacity generation on a cloudy and calm day – but that is the nature of the beast. These systems only work when the conditions permit, but work they do.
Wind turbines and solar panels are as safe as electrical generation gets – something we can never say about a nuclear chain reaction. And the costs of buying, installing, maintaining and de-commissioning renewables are relatively inexpensive. I know there are people who give themselves stress headaches, worrying about a wind turbine, half a kilometer away, producing a whoosh of wind only they can hear. But really they need to get a grip – for example, they should take comfort in knowing a wind mill will never threaten them with the China Syndrome.
 Ray Rivers earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario, taught in New Zealand and earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers is active with ratepayers groups, a food bank, environmental organizations, community journalism and policing. He has run for municipal and provincial government offices and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations.
 April 21, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. Last June, the Russian parliament unanimously passed a law that criminalizes “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors”. Presumably directed at the media, fines can reach as high as a million rubles, about $30,000 (Can) for a violation. It is unclear whether religion, increasing social conservatism, or the perceived need by Russians to reverse their falling birthrate was the stimulus for this bill. It is also unclear how broadly the authorities will interpret the new law.
We need to understand that homosexual relations in Russia have been legal since 1993 and still are. And though we see this new law as objectionable, when it comes to sexual discrimination Russia is in a far different league from the 38 African countries, including Uganda, which criminalize or otherwise repress homosexual activity. And Russia is nothing like Qatar and Iran where, under Iranian law, someone committing a homosexual act may receive 60 lashes or even the death penalty.
 The LBGT community has chosen to be very public in response to the repressive actions of the Russian government. It has taken a long time for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community to finally achieve a broad measure of equality and human rights in places like Canada and the USA. It was only 1967 when a young minister of justice named Pierre Trudeau ‘liberalized’ Canada’s criminal code on homosexuality, saying “the state has no business in the nation’s bedrooms”. Finally passed in 1969, this legislation also decriminalized abortion, and contraception, and further regulated lotteries, gun possession, drinking and driving offenses, harassing phone calls, misleading advertising and cruelty to animals. Passed by a two-thirds majority it was mostly opposed by the Conservatives, Social Credit and a lone Liberal.
In 2005 Paul Martin’s Liberals passed the Civil Marriage Act, making same-sex marriage legal in Canada, the fourth nation in the world and the first outside of Europe to do so. Again, the Conservatives were generally opposed. In fact, one of the early acts of the new Conservative minority government in 2006 was to reconsider (revoke) that legislation, a bill which was rebuffed by the other parties.
So, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, deserves considerable credit for taking on Russia, and Uganda and for bringing his Prime Minister and his political party on-side. He did the right thing, getting onto the curve of social opinion. Canada’s pro activity on this issue has not been unnoticed around the world, and is a much-needed step to restoring our international reputation. And John Baird, the former Tory bulldog has emerged as a respected diplomat for his efforts.
Our advocacy on this issue today is important, as the world community prepares to assemble in Sochi, Russia for the winter olympic games next year. Canada’s role has, no doubt, emboldened similar responses from the US, EU and IOC (Olympic Committee). Russia’s sports minister counters that this is an invented crisis, and he has promised to preserve the rights of all athletes attending the games. So why, then, did the Russians choose this time to pass such regressive, discriminatory, poorly defined and probably unworkable legislation?
 Russian athletes make their views on gay relationships really clear. Indeed Baird has displayed a progressive social characteristic that many complain is often so absent among conservatives and conservative policy. But we should remember that it was the capable Conservative justice minister Kim Campbell who liberalized and, thus, ended the abortion debate in this country. It was Brian Mulroney who led the attack on South Africa’s apartheid policies, in the face of American and British opposition. And Mulroney, despite his close relationship with US president Reagan, stood up against US aggression in Nicaragua, recalling another Canadian PM’s ethical positions on Vietnam and Cuba.
Russia’s new law may put an end to re-runs of ‘Will and Grace’ on Russian TV. The new censors there will have their hands full, cutting the ‘art’ which happens to ‘imitate life’ from the global media for Russian viewers. But it won’t stop the progress of civil and human rights everywhere. LGBT rights in Canada are among the most advanced in the world, and the debate here is over. It has been a long road and there is no going back. In the words of a former prime minister, “ what’s done in private between (consenting) adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code”.
 Ray Rivers was born in Ontario; earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario. He taught in New Zealand and earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers left the federal government to consult for private sector and government clients. He completed his first historical novel The End of September in 2012; a story about what might have happened had Quebecers voted for sovereignty association in the 1980 referendum. Rivers is active with ratepayers groups, a food bank, environmental organizations, community journalism and policing. He has run for municipal and provincial government offices and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 By Pepper Parr
August 15, 2013.
BURLINGTON, ON. Two people had a chat one evening. It came about when one of the two telephoned the other. One of the two was as far right on the political spectrum as Attila the Hun while the other was on the left side of the political spectrum – sort of where Tommy Douglas stood.
The lefty didn’t have a clue as to why the right-winger wanted to meet – and knew even less when the meeting was over.
Sometime after that a woman of a certain age was having a friendly drink in an Elizabeth Street establishment and happened upon a man who was quite well into his cups and informed the woman of a certain age that the Conservatives in this city were going to put up a slate of candidates that would fix things at city hall.
 Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward. Unbeatable? Some Tory’s seem to think so. The well-informed individual did admit that there would be problems with Ward 2 where Marianne Meed Ward could probably not be beaten but he was confident that the Tories were in for life in Ward 6 where they believed Blair Lancaster could not be beaten.
 Miss Photo Op – never misses a camera opportunity – but then so do most of the other Council members. Councillor Blair Lancaster in the center with Burlington Olympians in red. Ms Lancaster husband is on the far left. The lady of a certain age asked why, given the dis-satisfaction expressed by many of the north Burlington residents, they felt the Beauty Queen could not be beaten? “She was Miss Canada in 1970 you know” was the response. That tiara may have something to do with Lancaster’s 2010 win – but, truth be told she won by 125 votes against a candidate who didn’t live in the ward. If Phil Buck, who shouldn’t have been in the race to begin with, were not on the ballot Mark Carr would be the council member for Ward 6. Carr by the way will not run in 2014.
So where is this Tory sweep going to come from?
Is there a Tory in Ward 1 that can beat Craven?
Can anyone beat Taylor in Ward 3?
There is a very credible candidate in the wings who will run in ward 4 – don’t expect Dennison to run again.
 Is Paul Sharman safe in Ward 5? Is he a Tory – and if he is, do the Tory’s want him? They didn’t want Brian Heagle provincially.
Is the Mayor vulnerable? Is there anyone on the horizon that could come in out of the cold and beat Rick Goldring? It certainly isn’t going to be Carol D’Amelio. Philip Papadopoulos might find he has money he doesn’t need and mount yet another mayoralty campaign.
Perhaps the man in his cups, who has served as President of Burlington Conservative riding associations in the past, was engaged in wishful thinking. Or is there really a cabal out there wanting to fix city hall?
 By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. August 9, 2013. She only held onto two of the five former Liberal ridings in the Aug 1st by-elections, but I’d have to say Kathleen Wynn was the big winner. By-elections often go the other way for a governing party, especially after a ten year stretch in office. And given the smell around the cancelled gas plants and a couple of other legacy issues, she did better than I expected. The NDP’s Andrea Howarth picked up a couple of seats, no doubt reflective of her party having constructively worked with the minority Liberals to deliver a better budget this year.
 There are many who believe the Conservative win in Etobicoke was a personal win for Doug Holyday and not a win for the party. And the big loser was Tim Hudak. Yes, Doug Holyday took Etobicoke-Lakeshore in a no-surprise victory for the popular former mayor, but Holyday won despite, rather than because of, Hudak. The knives are coming out among the Conservative faithful, tired of Hudak and his Tea Party political platform. After eight years of Mike Harris Ontario residents are not going to buy that extremist right-wing snake oil again. And electors don’t have much time for obstructionist and uncooperative leaders, as US Republicans will likely find out in congressional races next year.
A few weeks ago I did an article on legalizing marijuana; that subject is in the news – again. I had criticized the policies of further criminalizing (2006) and requiring mandatory sentences (2012). And I provided a link to a YouTube clip showing our PM gob-smacked, unable to coherently explain his reincarnation of this failed policy. Then Justin Trudeau promised, only a few days ago, to legalize ‘the weed’, confirming a policy endorsed by his party last year, if his third-placed Liberals could form the next government.
Besides Harper there are others who disagree with legalization. The NDP’s Mr Mulcair, is only promising decriminalization, if he makes PM, though I’ll bet some of his younger caucus members would go further. And the Toronto Star columnist Rosie Dimanno argues that legalizing cannabis would be a stupid idea, in an article full of inconsistencies, thus giving the word dope a whole new meaning. OK, maybe it’s just reefer madness, and she does make a good point about the Mexican model of decriminalizing small quantities of all recreational drugs.
Presumably Harper’s drug policy is about public safety. But how safe are we in other ways? What about the floods that hit Alberta and Toronto – and the hurt that, after all this time, is still ongoing in High River? What about the railway disaster at Lac-Mégantic when we realize that this could have happened to any number of other railway towns? And what about the two sleeping children, discovered asphyxiated by an exotic African snake, kept illegally above a pet shop in New Brunswick? With all we have learned about the dangers of introducing exotic species, why did our federal government allow someone to bring this snake into the country?
A one year minimum mandatory sentence for possessing six marijuana plants seems a severe punishment, hardly fitting that insignificant crime. Yet, what should be the punishment for a reckless federal minister who made the fateful decision to allow the MMA railway to run with a single operator, knowing full well that the train would have to be unattended at night, while he slept? Talk about a teflon-coated government.
And finally, there is the threat of global climate change. It’s true that the PM can’t stop the progress of climate change – it has been developing for far too long and Canada is not a huge emitter of global greenhouse gases (GHG) anyway. But we are vulnerable because of our geography, and we need to plan how to deal with the next big event.
It is incumbent on our political leaders to do more than hide from reality, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. Stephen Harper needs to put his ideology behind him and have an honest conversation with Canadians about our future climate challenges, and what he is doing to help us adapt to them. And, further, he needs to take steps to restore Canada’s one-time leadership on this issue by promoting global GHG reduction initiatives and embracing home-grown local action – the way the government he replaced was, at least, trying to do.
Ontario has shown national leadership by significantly reducing its greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that enough voters were attracted to the provincial Liberals on August 1st, and an electoral wipe-out was avoided. This could be a winning issue for Mr. Harper as well. It’s better late than never.
Editors note: We think our columnist may be stretching a bit here. He is one opinion – there are others.
 Ray Rivers was born in Ontario; earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario. He taught in New Zealand and earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers left the federal government to consult for private sector and government clients. He completed his first historical novel The End of September in 2012; a story about what might have happened had Quebecers voted for sovereignty association in the 1980 referendum. Rivers is active with ratepayers groups, a food bank, environmental organizations, community journalism and policing. He has run for municipal and provincial government offices and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. August 1st, 2013. The Council of the Federation, created in 2003, is a venue for the 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada – to discus and resolve on federal-provincial and other inter-jurisdictional matters. Last week Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynn hosted the regular summer get-together at Niagara-on-the-Lake.
There were some modest accomplishments. The Premiers unanimously called on the federal government to conduct an inquiry into the mysteriously missing and/or dead aboriginal women (over 500), following up on a similar request from the National Aboriginal Organization. And for some reason, the premiers’ call was immediately rejected by the federal government.
Progress was made on energy issues, as all but two leaders signed onto an evolving national energy strategy led by Alberta’s Premier Alison Redford. Only B.C., concerned about the proposed Northern Gateway project and Quebec, in the process of suing Nfld over the Muskrat Falls power project stayed away from signing.
Overwhelming consensus came as the leaders jointly condemned the proposed ‘Canada Jobs Grant’. I have been critical of the federal government in the past, and it is because they keep doing things like this. Education and training is primarily provincial jurisdiction, so the fed’s role has traditionally been to top-up provincial programs, acknowledging that local needs are best met by provincial programs. Quebec, in particular, is very sensitive to the feds interfering. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/at-summit-canadas-premiers-take-on-a-crowded-agenda/article13412119/#dashboard/follows/.
Regardless, the feds talked with some private sector organizations and then created, what the provinces call, an unworkable ‘one-size-fits-all’ program. And talk about wasting our money, the federal government spent $95,000 per ad for all those ads you had to sit through during the playoffs this year, announcing a program that doesn’t exist, is still a concept and may never see the light of day. And, insult-to-injury, they hadn’t even bothered to consult with the provinces, who are expected to pay for a third of the program. Oh, and the reason for that is because they plan to slash their training contributions to the provinces.
The Council of the Federation’s first big success was in negotiating with Paul Martin to get the Canada Health Accord. Martin had earlier slashed federal payments to provinces, in order to slay the Mulroney-era deficits and the Council needed something more sustainable. And they got the 2004 Canada Health Accord, with guaranteed increases in federal funding until 2014.
That was then and this is now. In total contrast, last year, the ruling Conservatives tabled their plan for health care funding for the decade post 2014. There was no negotiation, just an offer, fait accomplis – take it or else… The Council of Canadians lobby on social issues, particularly health, and had arrived en-mass to rally the Council to press on for a better deal. But the feds weren’t open to discussion – the door was closed.
The premiers also discussed the Senate. There are so many inherent problems with the Senate but reform to a triple-E body, as the PM has asked the Supreme Court to consider, would not make it any better. Would an elected senator best represent the interests of his/her province – better than the provincial government? What if they were at odds? Is this a recipe for a constitutional crisis, pitting one level of government (fed senate) against a provincial government from which the senator was elected? There is already confusion over the sometimes competing roles of the Commons and appointed Senate – imagine if senators were also elected?
It was a missed opportunity for a provincial/territorial ask. Abolish the Senate, don’t reform it. And give due recognition to the Council of the Federation as a consultative body when developing public policy. What could be more vital to this nation’s future than inter-jurisdictional cooperation and what better body to do that than the Council? Imagine if they met more often. I mean even separatist Pauline Marois was happy to participate, discuss and resolve with her fellow Premiers.
How much government do we really need anyway, and does more government mean better government? If I put that question to Steven Harper, I think we’d all know his answer. So, why not do it – why not make government smaller? Put the $100 million we would save by abolishing the Senate into provincial health care programs instead.
The Council of the Federation exists. It offers vital political tension for the confederation. And it could be a useful political ally to a federal government that wants to represent all of Canada and wants to make Canada work better. Indeed the Council would be a better chamber for that ‘sober second thought’ than the dusty, corrupt, old Senate ever has been.
 Ray Rivers was born in Ontario; earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario. He taught in New Zealand and earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers left the federal government to consult for private sector and government clients. He completed his first historical novel The End of September in 2012; a story about what might have happened had Quebecers voted for sovereignty association in the 1980 referendum. Rivers is active with ratepayers groups, a food bank, environmental organizations, community journalism and policing. He has run for municipal and provincial government offices and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 28, 2013. Comments are an integral part of a newspaper on a website. The ability for anyone to write their opinion right alongside a news item they like or dislike and have that comment stay with the story is a tool that makes public discourse that much more robust.
However, there are some rules. You do not HAVE to tell the public who you are. You can use a “pen” name” but why you would not have the courage of your convictions and be prepared to tell people who you are is beyond me.
 Passionate it was – it was also honest and open dialogue about a major city issue. When a comment comes to us we have to approve each and every one. We test the email address the comment was sent to us from; a significant number fail. People make up an email address and send their message knowing that we can never get back to them.
We do capture their IP (Internet Protocol) address and in the hands of an authority the sender of the message can be traced.
At the Gazette we want to see honest, committed, passionate dialogue between people whose views may differ. We want to see new ideas and viewpoints that would not get expression in traditional media.
We have no problem with a tight, tart comment – call them “zingers” if you wish; they add colour to the public debate. We do however have a responsibility to ensure that the dialogue is fair and honest.
We test the email address a comment comes from; if the address proves to be invalid the comment does not get posted.
On occasion we have posted a comment from an email address that was not valid and added an editorial note advising that we could not verify the sender but felt the comment was worth making part of the public discourse.
 Citizens gather for budget discussions. This meeting involved a number of city firemen who were attentively listened to by Councillor Craven, on the right in the blue shirt. We have had comments from members of the clergy, the legal profession and senior staff members at various levels of government, who, because of the jobs are not authorized to comment. We will publish their comments if we feel they are a legitimate part of the debate.
We have regular contributors to the comments section, many who make very legitimate comment and several who are very good at catching our mistakes – all are valued and welcome.
Those who want to make a comment they know not to be true; those who want to disrupt and deliberately hurt a private citizen – they are not welcome.
Those who want to be able to hold civil servants and elected officials to account – let us hear from you frequently.
 By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. July 15, 2013. It was a perfect storm. No, I’m not talking about the spectacular rain events that knocked out the great cities of Calgary and Toronto. I am talking about what hit the poor people of the small Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic. We can’t blame global climate change for this disaster – the responsibility lies a lot closer to home.
Rail World Inc. is one of those ‘take-over’ holding companies run by a modern-day tycoon, CEO Edward Burkhard. This rail road entrepreneur also specializes in buying up and privatizing public railroads from ideologically driven governments; running them into the ground, then selling back again for a profit. I’ve personally ridden on the rail systems where Burkhardt’s hands were busy, ruining rail transport in the UK and New Zealand. The formula is simple – sell snake oil, cut the bottom line, and keep cutting until the system is so bad that public outcry forces the governments to buy the rails back.
 Federal regulation let this accident happen. So one of his companies, in this case the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic, used the cheapest rail cars – single hulled and easily punctured – for flammable light crude (Bakken oil). The locomotives, hauling the cars, were so poorly maintained they regularly had engine fires, including on the night of this tragedy Then, the company figured it could save a few more dollars by reducing its operators to one. There would be no backup operator to take over the controls as the train ran from North Dakota to New Brunswick.
So there was nobody at the controls when/if the engineer went to the can, made a bite of lunch, caught a nap, or maybe had a personal incident, like a heart attack? And how could one person have properly set the handbrakes for an overnight stop when the procedure normally required two operators? In the evening the engineer had to leave the train for a good night’s sleep, unlocked, unattended and with the engine running so the air brakes would hold the train.
Lac-Mégantic, with less than six thousand residents, is a part of the glue that brought Canada together into Confederation – ‘a mari usque ad mare’. The town was built as a key juncture linking the Atlantic provinces and the rest of the country by steel rail. So it was such sad irony that the Canadian government was complicit, negligent and ultimately responsible for nearly destroying Lac-Mégantic so many years later. An environmental disaster, a burned-out downtown and as many as 50 people dead. How long will it be before separatist-minded Quebecers demand the federal government relinquish jurisdiction over rail safety to the Province?
One of the most basic roles of government is to ensure public safety. It does this through regulation. Yet the tanker cars, called DOT111, have long been determined unsuitable for hazardous liquids – and what is flammable oil if not hazardous. The risk of an accident has risen sharply since far more oil than ever is being shipped by rail. Unsafe tank cars and lots more of them…. duh? Finally, the federal regulator, in an unusual and thoughtless move, provided approval and authority for the company to run the train with only a single operator and no back-up personnel.
This was the worst rail accident in Canadian history and the worst disaster Quebec has ever seen. It was a perfect storm, an accident waiting to happen, and yet also perfectly avoidable. But isn’t that what happens when a federal government has taken its eyes off the ball – when it is more concerned about just moving cheap oil than about public safety?
Editors note: Since penning this piece the following has taken place:
Transportation safety officials have told Ottawa to rewrite train safety rules in the wake of the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic, Que., suggesting that Canada’s current regulations are too vague and open to interpretation by railway workers that can lead to disaster.
In a pair of letters sent to Transport Canada, the federal body that oversees the rail industry, the Transportation Safety Board said more detailed rules must be created to govern the number of brakes that must be set when parking freight trains, and whether those trains can be left unattended when carrying dangerous cargo.
 Ray Rivers was born and raised in Ontario and earned a degree in economics at the University of Ontario. He taught at a university in New Zealand for a period of time and then earned a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. After leaving the federal government he consulted for private sector and government clients. Rivers completed his first historical novel The End of September in 2012. This story about what might have happened had Quebecers voted for sovereignty association in that first referendum in 1980 is set in Ottawa and Montreal.
He has been active in his community including ratepayers groups, a food bank, environmental organizations, community journalism, policing and community associations and service clubs, churches, boy scouts, and community theatre. He has been active politically, running for municipal and provincial government offices as well as heading executive positions with the Liberal Party and riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. July 18, 2013. It’s was a good day for the Ottawa printing houses. They were busy churning out new letterheads, business cards and other stationery. The shredder trucks would have been seen, parked outside government offices so that each outgoing minister’s staff could destroy any incriminating evidence of their boss’s tenure, along with all that old letterhead. And of course this was a field day for the pundits looking for a deeper meaning in it all.
Prime Ministers have always kept a fairly tight rein over their cabinet ministers for good reason. There is a danger that liberated, free-wheeling cabinet members might easily go off-message, do their own thing or even go rogue and contradict the PM.
Does the public think that the Ministers have all the good ideas? In normal times much government policy originates with the public service. The minister is not irrelevant in this process, just not as significant as we’d expect from the title and ceremony.
During my time at Environment Canada, I had the privilege of drafting briefing material and speeches for my minister, Jean Charest. He would personalize a speech but always stuck to the script I’d prepared. A Minister’s speech is automatically policy, so I always made sure neither my Minister nor the PM would be blind-sided. Brian Mulroney had adopted Pierre Trudeau’s practice of leaning on Cabinet committees and using the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office to co-ordinate policy – so everyone was kept in the loop and the policy was mainly what the PM wanted. After all, the PM chooses his ministers.
Stephen Harper has taken control to new heights, even managing various ministries’ press releases and speeches. So shuffle or no shuffle – it amounts to not much more than a hill of beans. Policy will change only when the PM wants it to change.
Sometimes a PM will bring in a new minister as a way of signaling changes, but make no mistake, it is still the PM making the policy. I am not criticizing the PM for his focus on control – I think he is doing what he needs to do in our system of government, managing to ensure a consistent message and tone.
This Cabinet shuffle by the majority Conservative government saw eight new people added to the Cabinet, a few dropped, but the old guard is still firmly in place doing their old jobs at the key posts. Flaherty will continue to articulate economic policy from his boss, Harper the economist. Baird will continue with his party’s unbalanced foreign policy and Joe Oliver will keep on pushing the tar sands. Expect the same old from the same old.
Given my passion for the environment, I was really pleased to see Peter Kent gone. A good journalist in his day, he looked uncomfortable and almost pathetic as the ‘yes-man’ for Harper’s non-environment policy.
The PM claims he is making a ‘generational change’ with this Cabinet, lowering the average age a full 4 years from 55 to 51. That’s a generational change? And, there are now more female cabinet ministers, which can’t be a bad thing for a party well-known for its boys in blue suits.
It is customary for a government to shuffle a cabinet at the mid-point of its term, and Harper has certainly done that. Just don’t expect this to mean anything will change in the way Stephen Harper runs the country.
The only upside I see in the shuffle is that the Ottawa printing industry had a couple of good days.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat after which he decided to write and has become a political animator. Rivers was a Liberal candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He is also currently the VP policy for the Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale Federal Liberal Electoral District
 BY Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 18, 2013. Our MP, Mile Wallace, was in an environment that suits his personality. Flipping burgers and talking to people for Mike Wallace is a very good one-on-one politician. He listens, he usually has a smile for you and his sense of humour prevails.
So there he was on the lakeside lawn of the Waterfront Hotel, flipping burgers and doing his political thing. Later in the day they let him have a microphone to answer questions from his audience – it was a sold out crowd.
 There is usually a smile on Mike Wallace’s face. He enjoys life and has a good time. This summer it is his intention to run in a marathon in every province. During the Q&A Wallace expressed some dissatisfaction with the fact that the current government was not being lauded for the great job that was being done and that instead people were quibbling about minor issues. When asked to comment on what these issues were, he felt that a disproportionate amount of time was being spent on the Senator Duffy matter and not enough time on the big issues both within Canada and internationally.
When I was going over the copy from a correspondent who covered the event for us I had to call and be sure that those words came from Wallace for I was stunned. He did not appear to have any sense as to the gravity of the Duffy matter that had the Prime Minister’s Chief of staff writing a personal cheque to Senator Duffy so that he could repay expenses he claimed and was not entitled to.
Prior to the public learning where the money came from Mike Duffy was on television telling audiences that he and his wife had decided to do the right thing.
Bruce Anderson, a highly;y regarded political analyst said on a CBC program that “issue is far from over, even if it’s not as prominent right now as the shuffle and even if people aren’t paying as much attention to it right now because it’s summertime. I think that the documents that emerged make it even more difficult to believe that the Prime Minister knew nothing about this, make it easier to come to the conclusion that he seems to have something that he wants to hide. It looks as though they are hanging Nigel Wright (Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff) out to dry, that he’s the only person who dreamt this idea up, the only person who ever really knew about it, the only person who didn’t understand that it was wrong, which doesn’t really square with the fact that there were a few days where people called him honourable for doing this and said that he was going to stay and he had the full confidence of the Prime Minister. So I think the police investigation and the opposition research that’s going on mean that this issue is going to come back with a vengeance in the fall.”
Peter Mansbridge, CBC’s senior television anchor then asked Andrew Coyne, columnist with the National Post what he thought. “The payment of $90,000 dollars to a sitting legislator, for whatever purpose,” said Coyne, “ would appear on the face of it to run you at least into jeopardy of several different illegal acts. We know, if these statements made by his lawyers are true, we know that at least three people in the Prime Minister’s Office, plus Irving Gerstein, the head of the fundraising arm, (for the Conservative Party) knew about these potentially illegal acts and apparently did nothing or, certainly in the Prime Minister’s story, didn’t tell the Prime Minister of this. That’s extraordinary. Even if he didn’t know about it, and that’s certainly still possible, but it suggests nevertheless that a tone and an expectation and a set of values were established in the Prime Minister’s Office where you just kind of look the other way at this kind of thing. That’s deeply troubling.”
 Mike Wallace, Burlington MP, takes a closer look at art work at the Burlington Art centre. But for Mike Wallace on a lovely sunny weekday afternoon this was “quibbling about minor issues” when what he wanted people to do was laud the government “for the great job that was being done”.
There are people in Burlington who understand the gravity of what was done when Senator Duffy was given $90,000 and perhaps at some point one of those people will stand up and speak some sense to the MP. In the fullness of time and when the RCMP completes their criminal investigation, the public will learn the truth. Will it make any difference in Burlington?
|
|
