A Sunday reflection

“Get along,” “I decided to love everybody,” and St. John 13:34.

My posts don’t really hide my political views.  Some like this, some most likely do not.  Readers should know that I never intend to offend anyone personally, and I apologize sincerely if I have. 

My political views and religious affiliations are a paradox to many, even to myself at times.  My views on the economy, the welfare state, and questions of civil rights can easily be called liberal or even socialist, in both the most pure and also derisive applications of those terms.  Yet, I also belong to a branch of Christianity that has many beliefs that could both honestly and derisively be called conservative.  Is this a conflict?  No, not really.  I am affiliated with a social democratic political party simply because I feel it is the only such organization with a genuine interest in addressing the serious issues of economic inequality, poverty, and equal application of the rule of law.  I am not at all sacrificing my deeply held religious beliefs in doing so.  I do not aspire to higher elected office; I just want to do what I can to make those in power realize that we need fairer economic policies and programs that will help those who need it the most.  A few years ago, I stopped following the socially-constructed convention of our time that has both religion and politics on the same spectrum.  I get really upset when I hear of a church being referred to as liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing.  God is none of those things.  The Bible is the Bible.  Some of God’s followers simply have different interpretations of what it says or different levels of adherence to what it says.  I worship where I worship because I happen to believe that this particular place does a good job at staying faithful to the word of God.  I do not believe faith is constructed by people, but how it is practiced is.

I really just wish that people of all religions and political affiliations could just get along.  “Get along” is nearly a trademarked phrase in my family.  Growing up, I continually heard my father say “now get along” whenever my sister and I had a disagreement.  In January of this year my grandmother died.  Her final words to her five children (my father being the oldest of them) included her prayer that they would all “get along.”  My father, his three sisters, and one brother are all very different people in many ways, but they all agree it is possible to respect and value people with different views or lifestyles.  It is important for everyone to recognize and respect the fact that not everyone believes the same thing or lives the same lifestyle.  One does not have to be in complete agreement or endorse beliefs and behaviours they disagree with in order to be respectful.  I have friends, relatives, and colleagues of all faiths, groups within faiths, no faith, and lifestyle.  I don’t agree with everything they do in life, what they believe in, or what they don’t believe in.  However, there are far more things about them individually and collectively that I appreciate tremendously.  The same applies to politics.  This may seem surprising, but I actually have friends and colleagues who are Conservatives and really like Stephen Harper.  Their political activity is such a small part of them as individuals though.  All of them have been wonderfully faithful friends and supportive colleagues.  None of them demand complete conformity to their views, and I certainly don’t expect it from them.  The world would be an incredibly boring place if everyone had the exact same beliefs about everything.  The instruction is simple; get along.

That plain two-word instruction that I have heard throughout my life has deeper roots.  About a year ago, I was visiting with a friend one day.  This individual is a particularly thoughtful person.  I always feel encouraged and positive after a conversation with him.  He was discussing past issues in his own life and said “I decided to love everybody.”  I have never forgotten the look on his face as he said that and the conviction he said it with.  Again, it is a simple instruction.  For Christians, the instruction comes simply again, as said by Jesus in the gospel according to St. John, Chapter 13, verse 34.  “A new commandment I give to you that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you are also to love one another.”  This is basically Jesus saying “get along” or “I decided to love everybody.”  We cannot afford to be divisive in our society or among ourselves as Christians, whatever other faith we practice, do not practice, or whatever, if any political activity we engage in.  Getting along and loving everybody is what brings real results.

Nixon's other Water Gate

Yesterday I wrote about the sad demise of publicly-owned electricity in Ontario and what Ontario Hydro was, and what it could have still been.  In 1959, two great publicly owned power utilities, Ontario Hydro and the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY), officially opened the St. Lawrence Project.  The power dam, spanning the St. Lawrence River from Cornwall Ontario to Massena New York is better known now as the Robert Moses-Robert L. Saunders dam, named after the respective (and respected) former Chairmen of PASNY and Ontario Hydro.  Every cost associated with the project was shared equally by the two agencies.  Each provided expertise and labour to the other.  The international boundary became rather blurry in that particular locality as a result.  The project was a testament of what international cooperation and public agencies can do.  The project was a tremendous boon to solving the electricity shortages that existed in Ontario and New York at the time.  It also helped meet Cold War defense requirements.  The US Air Force contracted with PASNY for the St. Lawrence project to supply all of the power it required at Plattsburgh Air Force Base, which was a key Strategic Air Command installation located about 50 miles away from the power project.

There was a lavish ceremony at the international boundary line on the dam on June 27 1959 when the project was officially opened.  A monument to freedom was unveiled at the site.  Special chairs upholstered in red leather were even made for the two leaders presiding at the ceremony-- Queen Elizabeth II of Canada and U.S. Vice President Richard M. Nixon.  The chairs are now on display at the visitor centre on the Canadian side of the dam in Cornwall.  Yesterday afternoon, while I was making extensive photocopies of old Ontario Hydro annual reports, I happened to find an excellent colour photo in the 1959 report of The Queen and Mr. Nixon at the opening ceremony with James Duncan, the Chairman of Ontario Hydro.  The photo to me represents the idealism of benefitting the public good that prevailed throughout the 1950's and 1960's, an idealism that even was quite prominent among Conservatives and the private sector.  The photo is also entertaining.  The young, dignified, and articulate Queen with the Vice President, who always seemed to look (and we later found out he really was), insecure and under threat.  Mr. Duncan looks every bit the part of an administrator.  Idealistic and sure of the achievements he has made, but also appearing cautious and wary of letting on the occasion was one for celebration.  In the case of Nixon though, opening a power dam was the first "water gate" he would encounter!

Canada-just as intolerant as the USA.

I've been grading papers this afternoon, and as usual, there are some real prizes.  I have read that the Jesuits established the mission at St. Marie among the Hurons in 1939 (it was 1639).  Canada also apparently has a President.  One was President Mackenzie King, the other was President Mulroney (remembering Mulroney's economic policies, he stopped short of contracting his job out to his friends President Reagan and President G.H.W. Bush).

The one thing I've read that infuriates me the most though is not an actual error.  It's more of a myth.  I'm so tired of Canadians, and the younger generation especially, defining our country simply on the false argument that we are morally superior and more liberal than Americans.  Yes, the United States has some serious problems when it comes to tolerating people whose race and lifestyle are in the minority.  However, there are places in the United States that are as liberal, and even more liberal on these matters than Canada!  Read up on or visit places like Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, and California and the reality that they are more tolerant will soon become apparent.  Even parts of Texas are known for having a tolerant streak.  We have had issues in this country involving race relations that are very serious and embarrassing.  Polices and practices toward aboriginal people, the internment of the Japanese in World War II, and unofficial segregation for black residents of communities in southern Ontario and Nova Scotia are among the sad realities.  Of course there have also been incidents of discrimination and police brutality towards homosexuals.  One is not obligated to agree with someone else's lifestyle, but we are all obligated to agree that mistreating people because of it is wrong.  There is even a latent amount of parochial religious and linguistic bigotry within Canada along the old and tired divisions of French/English, Catholic/Protestant. 

The main message here is Canadians; you are probably just as intolerant as Americans, you just exhibit it in different ways, and stop defining our country on the simplistic fact that we are not American.  Simply reading a map or highway sign is all you need to figure that much out.  There's a lot of good, and a lot of potential in Canada, let's define our country based on what it is, not what it is incorrectly assumed not to be.

The sad end of Ontario Hydro

I’m a big supporter of publicly owned electrical utilities.  A public system where generation, transmission, distribution, and customer service are all vertically integrated provides the best quality of service at the best price for consumers and business alike.  And now, after 25 years of dying a slow painful death, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is destroying the last of one of the greatest organizations that existed for the public good in that province.  The government intends to sell 60% of Hydro One, which is the transmission and distribution successor to Ontario Hydro, to private investors.  This is only going to lead to more influence for large corporations, and higher rates for residential and small business consumers.  There has never been a case of utility privatization anywhere in North America where this did not happen.

Ironically, Ontario Hydro was first established back in 1906 as a result of intense lobbying from small and large business owners.  Manufacturers in southern Ontario wanted electricity from Niagara Falls to power their factories.  Among them was Adam Beck, a cigar box manufacturer from London who also served as that city’s Mayor, MPP, and was the first Chairman of Ontario Hydro until his death in 1925.  Business saw public power as something that would benefit the economy.  It was even a Conservative government that passed the legislation establishing Ontario Hydro!  Conservatives in the early 20^th century quite clearly had a concept of social responsibility and the public good that does not seem so prominent within their ranks today.

Ontario Hydro (known colloquially throughout rural Ontario as just “The Hydro”) grew exponentially over the decades.  The top priority was always to provide “power at cost,” as quoted by Sir Adam Beck to the “people of Ontario.”  Notice the emphasis on the “people,” not the big corporations.  By the mid 20^th Century, The Hydro had taken control of almost all of the generation capacity in the province.  The first phase of the giant Sir Adam Beck generating station opened at Queenston in the early 1920’s.  After World War Two, demand would skyrocket even further.  The size of the Beck station was more than doubled in the 1950’s, four new stations were built on the Ottawa River, the St. Lawrence project was jointly developed with New York State, and stations were also added in the James Bay watershed.  The Hydro operated with minimal to no debt.  The agency made technological innovations in line maintenance.  It employed thousands of people and helped develop a workforce of skilled tradespeople for the province.  It also established the careers of countless professionals especially in engineering and economics.

Ontario Hydro’s financial problems started in the 1960’s through an endeavour it embarked upon with good intentions, nuclear power.  After the success of the small stations it jointly operated with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in the Ottawa Valley and at Douglas Point, it started building its own facilities.  Pickering, Bruce A and B, and then Darlington.  The cost overruns of nuclear, along with the controversies surrounding that form of power, hurt The Hydro’s image.  Coal burning power plants, and financial fracases caused by oil generation in the 1970’s didn’t help the financial or environmental image either.  Rural landowners objected to new transmission lines.  In 1973, Premier William Davis sparked a scandal when he gave the architecture contract for the new Ontario Hydro office building in Toronto (700 University Ave., or simply “downtown” to Hydro employees) to one of his friends.  That led to a Royal Commission and near loss at the polls for Davis. 

By the 1990’s, Ontario Hydro was a favourite target for anyone who opposed public ownership of utilities.  It was not unusual to actually hear derisive comments made towards Hydro employees or their families that were completely rooted in resentment or misinformation.  The provincial government realized changes were necessary at Hydro, and I believe that is something most people agreed on.  How they initiated that change and how it unfolded up to today is the unfortunate part.  Bob the Fake New Democrat Rae was Premier of Ontario in the early 1990’s.  His solution for Hydro proved he really wasn’t much of a socialist.  He appointed Maurice Strong as Hydro Chairman.  Strong had a controversial legacy.  His career began at Power Corporation in Montreal, owned by the influential and equally controversial Desmarais family.  Strong was appointed by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau as the first CEO of Petro-Canada.  Ironically, Strong also claimed to be a staunch environmentalist.  He later worked for the United Nations and was the influence behind the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.  Maurice Strong is more of a corporatist Liberal in the tradition of C.D. Howe, Robert Winters, and John Manley than he is a social democrat.

Strong weakened Ontario Hydro.  He basically prepared the agency for privatization.  The old system of regions and areas was dismantled.  Customer service counters at Hydro offices were shut, making the agency less publicly accessible and accountable in the community.  Generation, transmission, distribution, and customer service all became companies within the company so they could readily be sold off piece by piece if desired by the government.  This move was branded to the public as “The New Ontario Hydro.”  To supporters of public power and employees of The Hydro, it was nauseating.

Bob the Fake was turfed out of office in the 1995 election.  Conservative Mike Harris, and his hard-right Common Sense Revolution replaced him.  Harris completed the task Bob Rae had started at Ontario Hydro.  In 1999, the agency ceased to exist.  Generation became Ontario Power Generation, transmission and lines became Hydro One, system operation became the Independent Electricity System Operator, customer service became On Source, there were plans to get into the telephone business so  Hydro One Telecom was created, and even branch once responsible for much of Hydro’s finances and pensions became the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation.  This was all done to enable the free market obsessed Harris’ electricity deregulation and privatization plan.  Most of these entities have remained in public hands, although On Source and Hydro Telecom were sold to other utility companies.  Near the end of his tenure as Premier, Harris set the process in motion to privatize Hydro One.  It backfired.  The deregulated system was causing rates to skyrocket.  Customers were angry.  Harris’ successor, the more moderate Ernie Eves, canned the plan. 

It should also be noted that the Harris deregulation program, and not the green energy policies of the Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberals that have followed are what really enabled wind turbines and fields of solar panels to blight the Ontario countryside.  It was all part of the ideologically motivated plan peppered with the overuse of “competition,” “the free market,” and “liberalization.”  The same argument applies to the arrival of privately-owned natural gas-fuelled generating stations.  The Liberal Green Energy policies, and the controversial gas plants were enabled by the Conservatives.  All that the Liberals did was accelerate the damage such policies cause.

This brings us to the present.  It is clear that Premier Wynne’s government has serious financial issues.  Selling off most of a public asset is their way of addressing the situation.  What they really should be doing is making the most wealthy Ontario residents pay more in income taxes.  The Premier says the revenue from the Hydro One sale will go to transportation infrastructure.  I’m skeptical.  Ms. Wynne was part of a government that 12 years ago introduced a health care insurance premium that was soon discovered to not actually go to the Ministry of Health, but rather the government’s general revenue fund.  The misappropriation of the health premium revenue remains uncorrected.  I also fear that the transportation infrastructure Ms. Wynne is referring to means commuter trains, subways, streetcars,  buses and highways for Toronto and the surrounding region, and not commuter trains, bus services, or highway improvements in smaller urban areas and rural regions of the province.  Ironically, this is not the first time however that Hydro and transportation infrastructure have had a tenuous relationship in Ontario.  In the early days of Ontario Hydro, Sir Adam Beck had a grand vision for a network of electrified commuter railways radiating from Toronto and other southern Ontario cities to serve outlying towns, villages, and townships.  Ontario Hydro even purchased the Hamilton Street Railway, that city’s public transit service.  The Hydro continued to own and operate the HSR for almost the rest of the 20^th Century, long after it abandoned electrified trains for buses.  The plan for a larger Hydro-owned commuter rail system was stopped after a thorough government investigation into the cost and management of the plan in the 1920’s.

Ontario is a peculiar province in that it never seems to have any cultural or institutional ties that give it a great sense of identity.  I’ve lived in all regions of the province, and none of them are very similar.  There isn’t that sense of identity that is found in other Canadian provinces.  Ontario Hydro was one institution that helped put Ontario on the map.  It was a tremendous sense of pride and purpose.  Unfortunately, ideology and mismanagement got in the way and it has all been sacrificed.  What is there to show for it?  What will there be to show for it?  The answer is the unpleasant consequences of deregulation and privatization for the average household consumer and small business owner.  Private electrical utilities often spend much less on system maintenance.  Will this mean more outages because of poor quality infrastructure?  Private utilities also have higher rates.  This is in order to achieve higher profits and not for investment in capital improvements, research and development, or human resources.  Publicly owned utilities do all of these things with their profits.  I have been a Quebec resident for nearly four years and am honestly pleased that I live in a province that has held firm and kept power in public hands.  Hydro Quebec is not a perfect organization, but by being a public entity, it is more obligated to serve the public benefit because each resident of the province is one of its owners.  I suppose a silver lining to Premier Wynne’s Hydro One selloff would be for Hydro Quebec to buy a stake in it!

 

 

 

 

 

The Prayers of the People

I took this title from a section of the liturgy in the Anglican Church of Canada’s Book of Alternative Services.  It seems a fitting description for controversy over public officials praying in public.

When a friend sent me the link to the news story about the Supreme Court denying the right of the Mayor and Council of Saguenay to recite a prayer before council meetings, I was honestly surprised that municipal councils in Quebec were even saying prayers in the first place.  I thought it was one of those things that disappeared with the Quiet Revolution.  The practice isn’t even observed in many Ontario municipalities anymore either.  As a news reporter from 2005 to 2010, I covered meetings of 15 municipal councils across the province.  The Lord’s Prayer/Our Father was only said at the meetings of five of those councils.  The rest observed a moment of silent reflection or had no such moment of spiritual observance at all.  Some of these councils were also composed of a majority of observant Christians.  I completely understand why a prayer would be said at the commencement of a municipal council meeting.  Our rule of law and legal tradition in Canada is derived from the Christian tradition.  Believers in any faith generally want to do what is right according to their beliefs and seek guidance from God to do so.  Saying a prayer is the most common way to do that.  However, we need to ask if that prayer is even being said with conviction.  Or is it just a formality on the meeting agenda?  What good is it to pray if one does not believe or have faith anyway?  I’ve been to council meetings where a prayer was said at the beginning but some of the behaviour that followed did not at all reflect what was said by the council members in the prayer.   Members of council and staff who are religious most likely pray for the well-being of their communities anyway, whether it is as individuals or during church worship.

Some Christians feel threatened by other faiths.  I’ve often heard people exclaim that Muslims are out to destroy Christianity in Canada, and efforts to banish prayer in public are an example of that.  Faiths other than Christianity however are not the threat here.  The initial human rights challenge in Saguenay was not launched by a Muslim or a person of any faith at all.  It was launched by a strong atheist and secularist.  It is this element that is most threatening to Christianity or the observance of any other faith.  This movement is zealous in its belief in unbelief.  They have an evangelistic conviction that most churches only wish they could attain.  The Saguenay story is an example of how many Christian individuals and organizations have estimated their adversary incorrectly.  Yes, there are radical Muslims who don’t like Christians, but there are radical elements in any faith.  Extremism, in any form is dangerous and does not usually represent the best of any cause.  Extremist Christians distort and debase the teachings of Christ and the Bible just as much as radical Muslims weaken the Koran.  The militancy of some secularists and atheists also turns their cause into complete anachronism.  Why do they believe so strongly in believing in nothing? 

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2015/04/13/advocacy-group-calls-for-end-to-streaming-in-ontario-high-schools.html

Please, not this again.  While I support equal opportunity, it is completely fair and accurate to say that we all learn at different levels or have different skills and talents that do a great deal to determine our educational and career paths.  20 years after the last failed experiment, a lobbyist is again calling for the "destreaming" of secondary school education in Ontario.

Back in 1993, I was one of the students who experienced the completely de-streamed grade nine curriculum implemented by the government of Bob the Fake New Democrat Rae.  Aside from those with identified significant learning disabilities, all students of all abilities and interests were in the same form, taking the same course, and being exposed to every subject taught at the high school level.  It was completely unfair to the students and teachers alike.  I am not a mathematical person.  I was never good at it and never particularly interested in it.  I was failing the de-streamed course.  My parents and I found out that the course was basically the old  grade nine Advanced level course with a new name stuck on it.  This was a miserable challenge for me.  We also had crammed weeks learning everything else offered.  There was a year-long business and commercial course where we learned typing (and yes, we still had electric typewriters), introductory economics, bookkeeping, and even proper filing techniques.  We spent a semester in a music classroom, and the second semester in visual/fine art.  There was a whirlwind tour of ever technology or "shop."  Welding, machine, electrical, automotive, and woodworking.

It was a completely useless experience.  Not enough time was spent in many of the courses to actually be there long enough to learn anything.  Teachers were rushed, or just not interested.  The fact they were teaching students who were not suited to be there, or whom they didn't want there left any opportunity for education in a state of abeyance.  I am not a mechanical person.  I tried arc welding once and refused to do it again.  I got pretty handy with a bench grinder, smoothing pieces of metal down for others.  The automotive teacher was a hands-off sort who didn't explain much.  You had to already really like tearing apart cars and putting them back together if you were going to enjoy his class.  I've learned more about cars from my Dad, mechanics at garages, or from the Internet in the years since.  As for music, I'm not a singer, and although I enjoy certain forms of visual/fine art, I am not an artist.  De-streamed grade nine was months of mediocrity.  The only classes I really liked and did well in were the History/Civics course, English, and French.

Streaming makes complete sense in secondary school.  A student who wants to become a welder or electrician should not have to study Shakespeare.  Students wanting to become economists or scientists should not have to do water colour paintings or be able to sing a perfect "A" note.

Annie Kidder of People for Education (by the way, she is married to actor Eric Peterson of Corner Gas and Street Legal renown) is quite rightfully concerned about students in the Applied level courses underachieving.  I recall teachers observing similar trends with the old General level courses that preceded it.  Older generations will remember when high school in Ontario was a two-year, four-year, or five-year stream, depending on the abilities, interests, and career intentions of the student.  I am quite positive that similar varying levels of achievement existed within those streams too.  Streaming is not the reason for the underachievement.  There are probably much more significant sociological reasons for this persistent issue.  Those are the ones that really need to be addressed here.  Homogenizing the secondary school curriculum is only going to make things more challenging for students who already struggle, it will deny high achieving students of meaningful challenges, and it will frustrate teachers and principals.  A streamed high school curriculum is the best way of offering fair opportunities to students according to their needs, abilities, and interests.