Did you know "idle no more" means you're actually gonna do something?

Another piece of Idle No More nonsense showed up on my Facebook feed. Or is it? This seems entirely backwards from the stated goals of Idle No More.

The offending propaganda was a photo with the caption "Since 1978, over 14 billion dollars have been taken out of our traditional territory. Yet my family still goes without running water." (A quote from Melina Laboucan Massimo, Lubicon Lake Cree.)

So... isn't it about time you got a job, or something?

Just for kicks, your correspondent googled Lubicon Lake. One of the humorous tidbits I found is that the Lubicon Cree claim they never signed a treaty and therefore... what, exactly? But never mind that for now. More to the point, if you never signed a treaty, why are you protesting for the implementation of the treaties? And if you're displeased with your living conditions, why on earth would you want a more literal application of the treaties? Oh wait, they want to return to "the spirit" of the treaties. Of course the purpose of the treaties was to facilitate integration of the indigenous populations and become gradually obsolete by the attrition of those meeting the requirements of the treaties. So now they're freaking out because "the white man is trying to assimilate them" while at the same time freaking out that they're "second-class citizens" and don't have the wealth and opportunities of said white man. (It should be noted also that the Chinese, who were subjected to significantly nastier terms than the indigenous people AND were consistently paid less, are thriving, and you don't hear them bitching.)

This brings us back to defining what exactly the Aboriginals want, which is difficult since they have no clue themselves. They want the spirit of the treaties but not any of the results intended by the treaties; they want more money while preventing any kind of development near them; they want to be more equal without letting go of the privileges they enjoy over everyone else; they mostly have no clue what is in their own treaty, let alone everyone else's; and most of all they don't want to have to do anything about it. Except shout and create badly-spelled Facebook pages.

So back to the Lubicon Cree. Lubicon Lake is about 110 km east of Peace River by road. It's also 278 km west of Fort McMurray as the crow flies, but there is no through road, so driving to Fort McMurray for a job takes 731 km (most people will drive three times as much to get to Fort Mac, mind you), around a giant irregular U of roads running through High Level, Peace River, Slave Lake, and Fort McMurray itself. All along and around that U, resource industries are thriving, and so are the people who work in the resource industries. Inside the U, on the map, are shaded areas marked as various indigenous preserves, and nothing else. Inside the U is exactly what the Aboriginals are demanding: plenty of undeveloped land to enjoy their "traditional lifestyle." Except of course, they want nothing to do with their traditional lifestyle. They want to live in houses, buy clothes and food from the store, watch TV, access healthcare, and bungle education. Of course all this costs money. Currency. Specie. Something you can only obtain by producing an economic surplus and trading it to the outside world. That is not part of the Aboriginal plan, Idle No More or not. Instead they're funded almost entirely by the Government of Canada, plus resource royalties. Received wisdom tells us that Aboriginals are poor because evil white people parked them on worthless land. This is patently false, but since they neither use the land nor let others use it, it hardly matters that the land in question is extremely rich. (And before I forget, I should also mention that claims by the Lubicon that Fort Mac messes up their water is passing odd considering that Fort Mac is hundreds of kilometers downstream on the Peace / Wabasca drainage system. But that's all right: cause-and-effect thinking is another White Man evil.) We also know that they're poor and miserable because the Government of Canada is shafting them. Notwithstanding the fact that they receive vastly more benefits from said government than the rest of us, including prescription drugs, dental, vision, free post-secondary tuition, housing, all their local infrastructure, and pretty much all the jobs in their communities. Even contractors are generally contracted to the government, or more rarely to resource industries.

Now you may wonder exactly why the Government of Canada has to pay for all the infrastructure for them, when it doesn't for the rest of us. Because you see, Aboriginal communities generally do not levy property taxes. It would be pointless anyway since in theory no one may own land in said communities, and in practice all the money in the community is funnelled through the local government anyway, so the amount of money on hand would not increase by levying property taxes. So with no property taxes, infrastructure spending is impossible, except as provided by donations from the Government of Canada. Humorously, the Aboriginals generally demand "self-government". This is prima facie absurd since they have no revenue-raising ability whatsoever and therefore can never be a government. It's also absurd in that the services whose failure has been most public in recent years were those administered by the local governments under the myth of "self-government", for example, water systems, which are often locally administered since it's not too difficult, and are very inadequate in many communities. And, for added surrealism, when the effects of their bad administration of these "self-government" systems become costly, they blame... the Government of Canada. So "self-government" essentially means that the Government of Canada is responsible for the costs and consequences, but the crooked local administration makes the decisions. Badly.

Ultimately, what has always been missing from Aboriginal reasoning is the understanding that wealth does not come from government as a hand-out (by any other name): rather it is the synergy between producers that creates wealth AND government. Though I suppose that when you have neither producers nor synergies, government hand-outs look like manna from the heavens.

Your correspondent suddenly forgot what else I was going to say, but it doesn't matter anyway. The problem remains and will remain the same: the Aboriginals want to live like middle class Canadians, call it their "traditional lifestyle", get more money from the Government of Canada, do whatever they want with it, call themselves "a sovereign nation", and have no economic development anywhere near them. The fact that this is blatantly impossible is obvious when you actually state it in plain language, but dressed up in propaganda and shouted melodramatically to people who have none of the socio-economic data, it does make a good tear-jerker.

"Idle no more" but still just as ignorant

"Smart goals" are supposed to be Specific, Measurable, Realistic, and tied to a Timeline. Native protests are generally none of the above, so your correspondent normally pays no attention to them. However, thanks to years of aggressive Oliver Twist-esque branding and the advent of Facebook, Natives can now rally literally dozens of slacktivists to their cause. One of my now-former Facebook friends (an educated blonde of Dutch descent with not a drop of Native blood, mind you) has been enthusing over this "Idle No More" affair for some time, and last week, being on vacation in Ottawa, offered to "take our messages to Stephen Harper" as she would be joining the Idle No More dog-and-pony show on Parliament Hill.

At first I thought it was merely grandiose on her part. Protesters on Parliament Hill rarely get to speak with Stephen Harper, and incoherently obstreperous crowds are hardly the medium for rational political messages. If I had something to say to Stephen Harper, I'd email him, and his aides would filter me out. Or more to the point, I'd get in touch with some of my New Democrat brethren in the Shadow Cabinet, and that would be much more likely to get things done. But I digress. At first, as I said, I thought it rather arrogant of her to think of herself as a special conduit to the Prime Minister's ear. Later I realised something much more humorous and so very apt in this context: Parliament is in recess since 14 December and won't be back until 28 January. A protest at Parliament Hill on 21 December will reach no one but the janitor. (And your correspondent can't help wondering how many of the protesters left their vehicles idling so they would be warm and comfy after the protest.)

After I purged the uncritical blonde, another Facebook friend of your correspondent's, who had participated in a similar protest in Edmonton, objected to my Facebook status mentioning the purge. "Why don't you refute something instead of pouting," quoth he. Reflexive deprecation of the outgroup: always a useful fall-back position when out of arguments. Yet the reader may ask, indeed, why I don't refute something.

The answer is simple: I can't refute an argument where none has been given. So, I tried to find something in the Idle No More drivel that might be argumentitious enough to be argued against. Their website contains nothing but lamentably unoriginal purple prose, some of it misleadingly presented under the tempting heading of "action plan". I recalled from somewhere, however, that someone had made a reference to "protesting against Bill C-34." A lead! Quick, to the Batcave!

The Batcave as it were, or the Order Paper, reveals that there is no such thing as Bill C-34. It received royal assent on 23 March and is now an Act, and not a very interesting one at that. It was merely a budgetary appropriation. Protesting a bill nine months after royal assent seems woefully apt for this crowd, but even so a doubt came upon me, and it occurred to me to check Bills C-34 from previous sessions. And lo, the Tsawwassen First Nations Final Agreement Act started life as Bill C-34, back in 2008. The Tsawwassen Act replaced the Tsawwassens' treaty with a new form of intergovernmental cooperation which, whatever it is, is NOT a treaty. This seemed like an excellent idea, particularly in view of the memorable quote in Canadian Geographic from one of the beneficiaries, lamenting that "this removes the Federal Government's responsibility for us. Who's going to be responsible for us now?" Hmmmmm... May I suggest... yourself? Try that on for a change.

Unlike the budget appropriation, this seemed somewhat related to some of the purple prose, about consultations and treaties and whatnot. Of course the Tsawwassen Act was negotiated with and agreed to by the Tsawwassen, and is possibly the smartest thing ever accomplished in First Nations negotiations, so this would be the last Act that one ought to protest under the heading "lack of consultation" (four years too late, at that), but if the Natives can produce one thing in abundance, it's revised history. The vibe, sadly, was hopelessly right. Though one can't entirely rule out the possibility that they're complaining about the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act or the Act to amend the Museums Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts or even, who knows, the 2012 budget appropriation. Possibly even all of the above, jointly, severally, morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably, and reliably.

In all likelihood, we'll never know. The whole thing will blow over like a puff, puff, pass of smoke. And it's good exercise for them to do some walking and stair-climbing. What's sad, though, is that next time they get together in this fashion, it will be the same thing again: no goals, whether specific, measurable, realistic or otherwise. And more generally, the eternal failure to engage in the first three steps of problem-solving: identify the problem, identify the cause of the problem, propose solutions. They may be all revved up, for now, but they're still nowhere near getting in gear.

Told you so!

"News" in the weekly paper: the new Town Council is starting to come to the realisation that they have to either raise taxes or cut services. Just like I said before the election. Keeping election promises even when not elected: I'm that good. In fact, I can even tell you what the Council is most certainly not gonna admit: we don't just need to raise taxes, we need to more than double them to keep on top of the infrastructure reserve, PLUS we need a one-time take to fund the current replacement needs. All the 100% increase would do is fund the things that are recent and won't need replacing for some time.

It's funny. I mean, it would be funny on its face, but what's really funny is that I'm moving to Winnipeg in two months, while everyone else can stay here with their crumbling infrastructure, no jobs, no economy, and the Council they elected themselves, of eight people who don't know the first thing about economics and social policy and are committed to keeping on exactly the way things have always been done. I mean, when the two most successful talking points in the campaign are "I've lived here all my life" and "I agree with the others", you're pretty much thoroughly fucked, as a group.

Thanks for voting me off your sordid little fantasy island of denial and ignorantism, Hay River. You're such a low level, it's not even bragging to say I'm much better than this.

Why do things right when you can do them "our way"?

Every winter, and also the rest of the year, Hay River has a pervasive problem of driving way too slow, in areas of higher speed limits, and way too fast, in areas of lower speed limits. The practice of crawling along the section of Mackenzie Highway where the speed limit is 60 km/h is generally touted as a "safety" measure, and the villagers, being obdurately ignorant of physics and determined not to learn anything different from what they've always done, maintain that this somehow bears a relationship to reality.

Reality, of course, is that what's relevant to driving safety is not driving slowly, but driving to conditions; and second, that the cause of most problems is not speed, but acceleration. And since your correspondent has a degree in physics, I can actually prove it. I just can't write proper notation in HTML, so this will look ugly.

Consider the following.

F = ma
= d(mv) / dt
= dp / dt

and when it comes to driving, the relevant force is the friction between your tires and the road, so

f_s = μ_s ∙ Ƞ
= μ_s ∙ m ∙ g

If this isn't completely obvious to you, you shouldn't be arguing with me about driving already. Let's drop the s for HTML aesthetic reasons and obviously:

dp / dt ≤ mgμ

Since μ is the only variable on the right, μ is the constraint on the rate of change of momentum a vehicle can achieve, which is to say that as μ decreases, so does the maximum rate of change of momentum. Which is completely self-evident if you know physics, or if you know how to drive. Speed features nowhere in this equation.

Now since the maximum rate of change of momentum is lower, it takes more times to accelerate. On this note, if you know physics, you're aware that "acceleration" means a change in velocity, which includes speeding up, slowing down, or changing direction. Again, if this is news to you, you shouldn't have been arguing with me in the first place. So as μ decreases, acceleration takes more time. But time is irrelevant in preventing collisions; what matters is distance, and specifically, the ability to stop the vehicle before it can cover the distance to impact.

d = vt + at² / 2

and

t = v / a

so

d = 3v² / 2a

and

d(min) = 3v² / 2μg

or

v(max) = √[2μg ∙ d(min) / 3]

That is to say, you can maintain an almost arbitrary speed safely, as long as you have a long enough distance to any potential catastrophe, and you don't try to apply a force in excess of the static friction force between your tires and the road.

The problem with bad drivers who crawl along in unfavourable weather is thus two-fold. One, by setting some randomly-variable, unpredictable speed, they make it impossible for other drivers to maintain a safe following distance. Obviously following distance has to increase in slippery conditions; by slowing down below the speed limit, you decrease everybody else's following distance. You douche. And two, the crawly drivers are the same ones who hit the brakes spastically whenever they get scared, thus exceeding their static friction force and making ice, which creates yet another hazard for the people who can drive. Again, you douche. If you were paying any attention, you'd notice that loss of control occurs far more frequently in parking lots and at low-speed intersections in town than on the highway. Why? Because of incompetent drivers who stand on the brakes when they want to change their momentum.

Ironically, the RCMP are a good source of hazardous misinformation on this topic, via the propaganda line that "the speed limit is for ideal conditions." There isn't the least truth to that at all. The speed limit depends on the amount of pedestrian traffic that interacts with vehicle traffic on a particular section of road, which is why playground zones have the lowest speed limit and highways have the highest speed limit, regardless of the physical shape of the road. And because both roads and cars are designed by engineers, who know the laws of physics and are most of the time not morons (certainly not as much so as the average driver, anyway), the speed limit is invariably far lower than what a passenger vehicle can physically sustain, even in seriously adverse conditions. The limiting factor is not the road or the weather, but the driver's skill. So when you get into an "accident" (there's no such thing as a car "accident", but let's pretend), it's not the road or the weather, it's you. Unless it was entirely the other driver's fault, which is extremely rare.


Getting back to the local argument for crawling instead of thinking, some luminary on Facebook argued that "if you hit a patch of ice at a steady speed you're gonna spin out regardless" and this would matter more at high speed than low. Obviously this is false. If you were to "hit a patch of ice" without acceleration, you'd just carry on right through with your momentum regardless of whether your tires maintain friction or not. The only way you can spin is if you apply a torque to your car, that is, an acceleration. There is physically no way you can lose control of your momentum except while trying to change it.

Second, very few "patches of ice" are so slick that your tires can't stick to them – as long as you don't try to accelerate beyond the μ of the ice.

And third, there is no such thing as "hitting a patch of ice." Ice on roads forms due to meteorological conditions that are nowhere near localised enough to create "patches" of ice. Either there is ice on the roads, or there isn't. It's not a leopard print. Where there are significant local variations in ice conditions, they're caused by humans, either inept drivers or inept snow plow operators. But where that's the case, it's your responsibility as the driver to anticipate the conditions, by looking far enough ahead and by having a clue how traffic affects ice. If you don't know this, driving slowly won't help you one bit.

Let's now look again at the equation we derived.

v(max) = √[2μg ∙ d(min) / 3]

Again, as μ decreases, d(min) has to increase. But d(min) is limited by how far you can see. There are essentially four factors here: the amount of light, the opacity of the atmosphere, any obstacles, and where you're looking. If it's dark, you can't see as far, d(min) decreases, you have to slow down. Or, as a lot of cowboys here like to do, but some extra-bright lights on your truck so you can speed in the dark. If the atmosphere is less than clear due to water, smoke, dust or whatever else can float in the air, you can't see as far into it, d(min) decreases, you have to slow down. If the roads bends and you can't see around the corner, d(min) decreases, you have to slow down. You can't control any of these things. You can, however, and you should, control where you look. And this is another problem of bad drivers: they're looking directly in front of the hood, or even closer, instead of up ahead to see what's coming. So they give themselves a very short stopping distance, and therefore they need a large μ or a low speed. Which is exactly why they crawl and hit their brakes hard. But that's not the fault of the road or the weather or the speed limit: it's their fault for not paying attention.

One last option is to increase μ by changing tires. But if you're gonna do that, don't waste your money on "winter" tires, they make next to no difference. Get studded tires. Studded tires have little spikes that dig into the ground, so that the question is no longer so much friction as the shearing force that the ground surface can sustain before it gives way and the studs translate. And that's a pretty considerable amount of force. It's very difficult to skid on ice with studded tires.

So the moral of all this is, in slippery conditions, look way ahead, increase following distance, and change momentum slowly. And get studded tires, not "winter" tires. It's considerably safer than slowing down. Oh yeah, and ignore the RCMP's propaganda. They're not paid to know the laws of physics.

Science: it works, bitches.

Revenge of the middle child

Following the election, many people have told your correspondent "don't take it personally." Take it personally? Why would I take it personally, when I never made it personal in the first place? It's not about me. But being somewhat saddened nonetheless, your correspondent thought "of course it's not about me; it's never about me: I'm a middle child."

Immediately your correspondent was hit with a blinding flash of the obvious: society's going down the drain because there are too few middle children.

Consider the following. Your correspondent despises individualism and the idea that anything is about "you" in any way. Your job? Not about you: it's about getting work done. Politics? Definitely not about you: it's about moving money hither and yon without doing work. Your kids? Least of all about you. Your friends? Please. It's always about them, isn't it? Your relationship with God, supposing you have any? It's supposed to be about fearing the Lord and loving your neighbour, not yourself.

It's not about you. It's not ever about you. Society, despite bizarre messages to the contrary all over Facebook, does not seriously give a damn about you. You'd know this if you were a middle child.

It's not just a cliche. If you're the first child, everything you do is new and wonderful, and your parents are fascinated. If you're the last child, everything you do is the last time your parents will live it, and it's pricelessly nostalgic. Anywhere else in the family, you're only doing what's been done already. That's why it's never about you. Which is why the middle child is more naturally adapted to the fact that society doesn't give a damn than the end-point children, let alone the dreaded only-child.

Now consider this: if the average family has 4.1 or more children, there are more middle children than end-point children in society, therefore more than half of all people are naturally inclined to think it's not all about them. But as the birth rate falls, so does the percentage of middle children in society. Measuring it is somewhat complicated. The fertility rate of 1.7 is obviously not a good approximation of the number of middle children. A different metric, available from the 2006 census, tabulates the number of children living at home in four categories: none, one, two, or more than two; thusly:

All families	8,896,840
Families without children	3,420,850
One child	2,429,695
Two children	2,132,830
Three or more children	913,465
Total children	9,733,770

Ok. So the number of end-point children is one per one-child family, plus two per more-than-one-child family = 1 x 2,429,695 + 2 x (2,132,830 + 913,465) = 8,522,285 and therefore there are 9,733,770 - 8,522,285 = 1,211,485 children living at home as of 2006 who were for sure neither the eldest nor the youngest in their families; but some of them had siblings who already moved out, and some had siblings who weren't born yet. Therefore we know that at least 12% of children are middle children.

I wonder if I could lobby Statistics Canada to include birth order in the 2016 long form. (You know what else is weird? Female lone-parent households had the most average kids at home of any family structure. What's the moral here?)

Anyway, your correspondent is suddenly convinced that the breakdown of society has everything to do with the gradual disappearance of the middle child. So you see, fellow middle children, we do matter. Booya!

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye!

Your correspondent did not get elected. In fact, your correspondent got fewer votes than the guy who withdrew.

Am I surprised? No. Am I depressed? Even less. I had to make a decision in September whether to run for Council or leave town, and I really wasn't sure I wanted to commit to three more years here. Since I had no money to get moving, running for Council didn't really delay me, and allowed me to confirm what's been obvious for a long time: this town has no use for me.

Consider the following: I haven't had a real job here since 2007 (and I took most of my former employers to Labour and won and I don't regret it for a moment, but the odds of ever getting a job here are grim); I haven't had a real relationship here, ever; the people I've called "friends" either didn't know me when I needed them, or are little more than acquaitances (I've been to exactly SIX people's houses in the 8.5 years I've lived here); there was no one to call when I was assaulted at work in 2008, or when I went to testify at the guy's trial, or when I went home from the vote count last night; there are no arts, music, dance, theater or sports at a challenging level to get involved in; the churches are horribly uninspiring; all the once-beautiful natural places are being ruined by drunks, ATVs and the Town's inept management of green spaces; and adding insult to injury, Canada Post consistently loses my Economist.

So, I needed to leave. I guess I just needed to exhaust all options for staying here. But three years on Council was probably one of the worst choices I could have made, and it's just as well the voters rejected that option. Now I just need to save some money, make a plan, and away I go. Probably as soon as there is a warm spell after tax refunds.

Then I get up the first morning after the lost election, and there is new grass sprouting in my garden. Life stops for nothing. Neither do I. So long, Hay River, and thanks for all the fish!

I should have done this from the beginning

I made me an election poster from my Squawk cartoon, thusly:

Just kidding. I'm not actually using this as a campaign too. But I'm inclined to think that might have been more effective than all this fancy writing.

One last sleepless night

Election is tomorrow. Latest poll results:

The confidence interval being 18%, and there being only 4% points (about 40 votes) between Candow, Gibb, Willows and myself, the battle for the last spot is far from over. But really, with this kind of confidence interval, it could still be anybody.

Whichever way it goes, I'll be glad it's over. Campaigning sucks. Vote for me!

The worst Prime Minister in 25 years

The reader may recall that before the municipal campaign started, I had a falling-out with my Conservative "friends" over their discourteous and mindless handling of political discourse. I had been working on a response, but then the campaign happened and I didn't have time for it anymore. So before my duty phone rings again, I figured I would put that post together at last.

The issue being "debated", or not, is one Conservative's claim that Stephen Harper is "the best Prime Minister in the last 25 years." Completely unsupported by fact, of course, but chanted loudly and often so as to prove one's point by... pure empty-headedness? Who knows.

Now one might first ask the question: what metrics can we use to evaluate a Prime Minister's performance? Number of protesters jailed? Popularity? Balance of payments? All these are hard to track down and unreliable, and I didn't have much time to spend on it, so I picked a few easy ones for a start, and then never went any further. So my measures of a Prime Minister's worth ended up as follows:

- cost of top boondoggle
- number of times Parliament prorogued
- number of times held in contempt of Parliament
- name of Government of Canada (ok, so that's not actually a "metric")
- change in net financial position over the entire term

The contenders are: Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Martin and Harper. And the results are:

(Click on it for a larger version.) So. Harper.

- most expensive boondoggle, by a factor of 1000
- most times proroging Parliament, by a factor of 3.7
- only Prime Minister ever found in contempt of Parliament
- only Prime Minister to rename the government after himself
- only Prime Minister in 25 years to have worsened instead of improved Canada's net financial position

A diagram from the federal Financial Statements, with the PMs labelled by me:

Now you might try to argue that it's because of The Recession, but it's not. Yes, tax receipts fell some, and EI costs rose some. But if you go through the federal Financial Statements looking for the lost money, it's actually under "other". So we, the taxpayers, have no idea where it went, but we do know one thing: it wasn't for social programs.

So, this is why I don't talk to my Conservative "friends" anymore. Because they're either deliberately misinformed or grossly irresponsible, yes. Because they mindlessly repeat an untenable position instead of having a civilized discussion, of course. Also, like I said, because of their political apathy and reflexive deprecation of the outgroup. But mostly, because the guy who maintained this position (with no supporting argument whatsoever, remember) is either a complete bonehead or doing it to aggravate me. Because guys are dumb enough to think that aggravating me is a good way to hit on me, or that being disrespectful and ignorant is a sign of friendship, or whatever. In any case, if my Conservative "friends" won't show me the courtesy of having a real conversation, then I don't have to have any conversation with them at all.

In theory I can respect a difference of opinion, but in reality, some people have pretty stupid opinions.

The problem with the economy

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of economy:

1) I make something, I eat it.
2) I make something, I sell it, I buy something, I eat it.

These are the only two ways to have an economy. But in Hay River, and in the Northwest Territories as a whole, we have a strange unholy system that works like this: the Government of Canada gives the Government of the Northwest Territories money; the Government of the Northwest Territories pays contractors and employees; the contractors and employees buy something and eat it.

There are three major problems with this system.

1) Very little money trickles out to people who do not work directly for the GNWT. This includes employees of contractors. Look at any construction company in Hay River that does lots of GNWT contracts: the owners have big houses; the company owns tons of vehicles that ride up and down the streets all day; the employees own no cars, houses, or even decent boots.

1b) Corollary to #1: the GNWT has to give some of its money directly to the people it does not choose to employ. For nothing.

2) Since the GNWT's costs are not matched to any realistic revenue stream, they're completely out of control. But that's for my chats with the Minister of Finance. (Hi Mike!)

3) Most importantly for my electoral campaign, we don't sell anything. We can't sell anything because we don't make anything. We just eat an endless stream of federal money which apparently, is not as endless as we once thought.

The solution is: make something. Something that can be made here, by the people the GNWT chooses not to hire, and then sold to people not here so we can have money to buy things. That is to say, we need manufacturing.

Ok. Manufacture what?

Brad Mapes is going to make wood pellets. That's good. But it's not differentiated, and it doesn't ship very far, so mostly, he's going to be selling them to us. And the money is gonna go to Brad Mapes, not to us. (I support his project. I just don't think it's enough.)

Then, Avalon. Avalon is gonna process rare earths. Awesome!!!! You know why? Because there is massive demand for rare earths. Just last week I had a Japanese man in my cab, who was here from Japan to see about the rare earths. We can definitely sell rare earths. But there is still one problem with Avalon: we don't own it. Therefore the Avalon employees will get some money, but the not-from-here directors (and shareholders, if they're lucky) of Avalon will get way more out of it than we will.

As for Tamerlane, it's a resource extraction venture. Primary sector is good. Very good, actually, though again it will benefit its own shareholders more than us. But there is still less money in primary than in secondary industries.

No, what we need is a labour-intensive light manufacturing concern that is owned co-operatively by its collectively-bargaining employees. Why? Because by cutting out the owner, you cut out the need to pay for the owner's lifestyle. Take a drive around town, look at the business owners' houses, then look at their employees' houses. If you can find any that are owned by the employees and not by yet another business owner. Owners are a very high cost to a business. So let's get rid of the owners, own the place ourselves, and then the money that would pay for the owners' lifestyle can be shared among the employees instead.

Still, manufacture what?

Well, it has to be differentiated, obviously. "Differentiated" essentially means that people will pay more money for A's product than B's product, for some reason. Gasoline is not differentiated: people go to the cheapest gas station, because all the gas is the same. Whereas beer is differentiated: people will pay extra to get a certain beer. Clothing is also differentiated. Many more things are differentiated, but beer and clothing are the two I've hit upon in my brainstorming.

In any case, it's worth remembering that the GNWT has been spending money on promoting the Northwest Territories "brand", and we can take advantage of that, as long as we can make a differentiated product. Because then it's not just beer, or clothes, or widgets, it's beer, clothes and widgets made in the Northwest Territories and therefore somehow worth paying more for.

You don't think so? Visit Museums of Canada. It's an online joint endeavour of the gift shops of museums across Canada. You'll notice they have several textile items with designs by various Native artists, selling for a pile of money. So if we produced a line of good-quality clothing, designed by various local artists with a "northern" aesthetic, and well made here in the Northwest Territories, we could sell it. The same was true in Australia when I was there: they were making all kinds of clothes with Australian themes and art on them and a label that would say "proudly made in Australia", and it cost an arm and a leg, and people bought it. Because clothing is differentiated, so we can do that. (Now I'm not saying put "Hay River" on a T-shirt. That's never gonna make us any money. I'm talking something that looks different - and that does not have "Hay River" written on it.)

Then there is the boot issue. Go see Steger Mukluks and Moccasins. They're in Ely, Minnesota, making boots. Making, allegedly, "the warmest winter boots in the world." You know how I found out? Because some of my neighbours in the Highrise have been buying their boots from Steger, and so they got a flyer, which got misplaced in the mail, and ended up in my hands. Why in the world are we in the Northwest Territories buying our boots from Ely, Minnesota? Why are we not making boots and selling them to the world? We should make even warmer winter boots, with a distinctly Inuit aesthetic. Like using seal skin in some styles instead of moosehide. And then say "WE make the warmest mukluks in the world and ours are designed by Native and Inuit artists here in the Northwest Territories." There you go: differentiated boots.

And then, beer. I don't drink beer myself, but I know that either Labatt or Molson is unionized. Maybe even both. Which means that beer has high enough margins to support union wages. Score!!!! Set up a micro-brewery, make tasty beer, put something like northern lights and a moose on the packaging and tell them it's made from the water of Great Slave Lake. Voila: differentiated beer. Plus it would be a step towards becoming "more self-sufficient", since we could drink our own beer. And by the way, potatoes grow pretty well here, which means we could also make vodka.

Now of course people have two counter-arguments:

1) Has there been a feasibility study?
2) You can't get people to work there.

No, there has not been a feasibility study. I'm just generating ideas. If these don't work (and there's no reason they shouldn't), we'll generate more ideas. But we MUST make something we can sell. If we can't, we're doomed. So you better hope something is deemed "feasible".

And second, yes, people will work there, if you stop treating them like dirt. Of all the employers here who can't find unskilled people to work, not one is unionized. I've worked for a few of them and they treat people like dirt. Plus, private sector wages are miserable, which is why everyone wants to work for the GNWT. (Contrary to popular belief, only 6% of the workforce is in resource extraction.) But if you have collective bargaining and no owner, you pay people decently and treat them decently, yes, they will want to work there. People want to work. Owners just make it impossible.

That being said, because Hay River people don't get along very well (if you don't think so, you must be one of my fellow candidates), if I had a business I'd put in a break-out room. Then when someone has had words with a coworker or a supervisor, or they're frustrated and about to throw tools, or they screwed up and their ego hurts, instead of walking off the job or saying something inappropriate and having to be dismissed, they can go to the break-out room and sit there for a while to cool down. Or whatever - scream, punch things, I don't care. As long as they come back out and go back to their duties, instead of walking off the job. I think that would significantly improve employee retention in Hay River.

And if it's not profitable on its own, then let's get the GNWT to subsidize it. As I was telling Miltenberger, the GNWT currently subsidizes fur trapping and fishing. Those are the territory's early exports, which are no longer profitable, but we keep them afloat with GNWT money because it's "traditional". So I'm not saying don't give them any money, but start subsidizing the future, not just the past. Subsidize manufacturing. At this point Kevin Wallington interjected that we have "enough subsidies" and we should focus on being "self-sufficient" using "agriculture and music." And this is why I'm so glad he's not running again: because seriously, how about some reality here? Agriculture and music are some of the most heavily subsidized industries in Canada, nor will "music" ever make us "self-sufficient." As for agriculture, supposing even we could grow all the food we want (which we can't, because people will always want exotic things like bananas if they can get them), we'd still have nothing to sell in exchange for our clothes, cars, and yes Kevin, those ATVs that are allegedly "part of our culture." You know what pays for those ATVs? Subsidies. In fact, Kevin's father runs the chicken barn, and egg production is bought by CEMA, and CEMA is quite heavily subsidized. It's good to check your numbers before you open your mouth, you know. But back to my point, everything here is subsidized, so let's start subsidizing something that has a future.

Cows and the municipal election

Because no election coverage is complete without two cows. And because the stress is giving your correspondent insomnia.

CASSIDY, Andrew
You have two cows. On your farm. You drink their milk, harness them to your plough, make them thresh the grain, and heat your house with cow chips. You're ready for peak oil.

LEFEBVRE, Brian
You don't have two cows, but you're going to find enough efficiencies in your neighbours' herds to free up plenty of cows.

---

CANDOW, Roger
You have two cows. The number of cows has increased by 80% over 2008. Why have the taxpayers been made to pay for so many extra cows?

COAKWELL, Jason
You have two cows. Three more and you'll have a hockey team.

DOHEY, Keith
You're 23, born and raised in Hay River. Why are we talking about cows?

GIBB, Beverly
You have two cows. You share lengthy personal stories with them. Cows are good listeners.

JAMESON, Kandis
You have two cows. One runs for DEA, one runs for Council. Yay, teamwork!

JUNGKIND, Donna Lee
You have two cows. They totally agree with Brad's cows.

LATOUR, Ken
You have two cows. You feed one and not the other. The one you feed lives, the other dies. You retire from cattle farming.

LESTER, Sandra
You have two cows. They're picketing the new firehall to demand the return of plebiscites.

MAHER, Michael John
You have two cows, but they're out of town.

MAPES, Bradley Lloyd
You have two cows. You trade them for books to teach under-privileged children to read.

MARIE, Elise
You have two cows. You share them with all your socialist brethren around the world. ¡Viva la revolución!

McKAY, Vince
You have two cows and that doesn't leave you any time for campaigning.

McPHERSON, James W.
You have two cows. They work closely with our MLAs' cows.

ST. JOHN, Michael
Vous avez deux vaches. Et cinq enfants. Keep calm and carry on.

WILLOWS, Brian K.
You have two cows. You keep one on each side to maintain balance.

Elect Princess Toadstool!

The Squawk election issue is out, and on the front page there is a composite cartoon of all the candidates as Super Mario creatures, which I haven't had time to scan, but I appear in it as this:

See? Princess Toadstool. On the one hand it's cool because I always picked Princess Toadstool in... whatever antediluvian version of Super Mario allowed you to pick Princess Toadstool as your character. It was still on NES. That's how old I am. (I'm the same age as Bagehot, actually. I thought we could get coffee together, but I like Schumpeter better.) Also, the cartoonist totally captured the enduring disaster that is my bangs. Because I just refuse to pay somebody to cut my bangs.

More importantly, it's cool because I'm standing aside from the fighting with a magic wand and SIX power stars. Nobody else got any power stars. And that's pretty much how I've managed my campaign, more or less. I'm not here to get personal, I just bring you the awesome magical power of socialism. Short of putting a sickle in my left hand, it couldn't get much more apt.

Meanwhile, inside the Squawk, I and five other candidates had print ads. Mine has a photo of me and my dog (who has way more face recognition than me and is a proven winner) and some actual sentences. All this time I've been looking at everybody's signs, ads and flyers that inevitably consist of three more or less coherent words (except the two candidates who chose to write lengthy personal histories - seriously peeps: it's NOT about you!). Thanks to Squawk's editors, these ads at least had three words each of the same type, not a mix of nouns and adjectives like some of the lawn signs. Yes, candidates, I am judging you on your ability to tell a noun from an adjective. I'm nice like that. But to give the reader an idea, the choices include "visionary, energetic, committed"; "honest, practical, approachable" and "strong leader, proven results". Some people made little poems: "committed to community, dedicated to progress". One could even be called a slogan: "your common sense choice for a better community". (I'd have hyphenated "common-sense". I'm judging you on your hyphens, too.)

Mine, in contrast, has actual verbs in it. It says: "I'm a socialist, meaning I believe in social justice and workers' rights. I believe we need to create a realistic industrial economy rather than a pass-through for GNWT money. We need to export something to fund our imports, and improve social conditions and cohesion as a community."

See? Verbs! That's why I couldn't think of what to do, in a nutshell. I didn't think the three-word approach was useful, nor that voters would read full sentences. And that's why I ended up advertising in Squawk. Because their readers are much more likely to read full sentences than The Hub's. (I don't even read full sentences in The Hub, I just skim them. They take way too long to say so little.) In fact, I'm betting that those voters who care about ideas mostly read Squawk, whereas those who don't mostly do not read Squawk. I could be wrong.

So there you have it. Elect Princess Toadstool, get power of six stars. Booya!

The one The Hub chose not to print

Years in Hay River
8.46

Why should residents vote for you?
We need councillors who can resolve the routine business of Council in a timely and informed manner, but also who each bring a unique passion and ideas that are new, specific, creative, yet grounded in socio-economic reality. We don't need eight people if they're all going to say the same thing or nothing at all. I am the only candidate with a socialist and labour outlook and ideas that are specifically designed to improve the outlook of unskilled workers and the less privileged.

What are the most pressing issues (three) facing Hay River?
1.       Deterioration of social conditions as evidenced in particular by the high homicide rate.
2.       Dysfunctional economy where wealth creation is not a priority and growth is expected to come from outside intervention rather than inside initiative.
3.       Lack of a capital reserve and of a realistic plan to create a capital reserve.

What would be your two main goals if you were elected?
1.       To get the administrative issues dealt with quickly so councillors have time to work on their big ideas.
2.       To get the Council to feel responsible for the well-being of citizens, including safety, personal and economic growth, and pro-social behaviour; as opposed to the current attitude that unsafe and anti-social behaviour is not our problem.

Campaign woes

I run into my crack-dealing former neighbour, a great admirer of my political writing.

Me: Yo! Are you gonna vote for me?

Crack dealer: Er... what?

Me: Vote for me?

Dealer: Oh, right, yeah yeah yeah for sure.

Me: Thanks!

Dealer: Wait... what?

Me: Vote for me.

Dealer: Oh, yeah.

Me: Thanks.

Dealer: Wait... What's your name again?

Me: Elise Marie.

Dealer: Oh, right. Wait... what day?

Me: Next Monday. October 15. Monday.

Dealer: Right, right.

Me: Thanks!

Dealer: Er... What?

Sigh... Well, if he's straight enough to vote, maybe he'll vote for me. And if note, maybe he'll vote for me inadvertently.

I'm pretty sure the worst part of politics is trying to get elected.

Real media

That's what political commentary looks like in free countries. I'm actually pretty mild-mannered.

Parcours VITA

A parcours VITA, also known in English as fitness trail or parcourse, is a walking trail that is equipped with fitness stations. They were developed in Switzerland in 1968 by Erwin Weckemann with support from an insurance company, VITA, hence the name. See Zurich parcoursvita, if you speak French, Italian or German. Even if you don't, you can see diagrams of the exercises here.

Anyway they're all over Europe. There was one in my hometown and one running past the summer camp where my siblings and I spent very awesome summers. Why am I on about that? Because I say Hay River needs a parcourse. They're fun, they're healthy, they allow you to exercise in the outdoors without ruining anything and for free, and they attract a broader demographic than skateboard parks.

Review, schmeview

One voter deemed it of vital importance that the candidates read the Organizational and Operational Review report. I hadn't read it because I think it's the SAO's job to administrate and the Council's job to lead. I was busy looking for vision and ideas. But since the voters insist, I went and read said report, which is available here if anyone else hasn't read it yet.

Ok.

Seriously?

It's not irrelevant or a waste of time to read it, but it's really not worth the fuss that's being made about it. It's an administrative document that will be of some use to the SAO and contains very little that needs to be made much of by the Council or the people. Nonetheless, now that I've read it, I might as well have an opinion about it.

Let me share a quote that amused me.

In 2009, Town Council adopted an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) which included: 1) the strategic plan; 2) the community energy plan; 3) the capital investment plan; and 4) the human resources plan. During the interview process, all members of Council and senior administration indicated that the plan was developed to obtain funding from the Federal Gas Tax program. The document contained several strategic goals and priorities for the Town of Hay River. All of the internal stakeholders interviewed by the consultants indicated that the document is not used by Council or administration and does not set the strategic agenda for The Town or Council’s relationship with the SAO. In essence, The Town does not appear to be following a strategic agenda and corporate and business planning is inherently operational or tactical at best. This reflects reactive as opposed to proactive planning.

From the consultant’s perspective, Council’s most significant responsibility is to establish a vision and strategic agenda for the community and the town as an organization. All other business and operational plans and budgets should logically flow from and support a well-defined strategic plan and agenda that identifies and resources a limited number of strategic priorities. Operational priorities should logically flow out of the identification and attainment of strategic priorities.

To some extent, I'm amused because I think I said just that. I mean, about Council working on the vision and not the administrative details, and about being essentially reactive. But I'm more amused because that's the first I heard of the ICSP since I participated in some consultation of some sort about it in 2009, at which time I thought the process was not only flawed but fairly delusional and highly unlikely to produce any useful outcomes. You see, I'm not randomly negative – I'm actually right about being negative. (I'm right 97% of the time. True story.)

They also had this cute little diagram:

I like it. You know what I like about it? Actually, I love graphs. But see the part about "social"? That's why you need to elect me. Because which of the other candidates had anything to say about the social aspect? "Social" strategy here seems to boil down to two things: more entertainment for young people, and drug-resistance campaigns of dubious efficacy. We need to have both a broader and deeper view and be considerably more energetic, and above all, as I've been saying, Council needs to start feeling responsible.

And that, in a nutshell, is everything I read in the Organizational and Operational Review report that's really worth the Council's undivided attention and warrants three questions in the forums. Funny though, there were three questions about the review, and only one question about social strategy (Rebecca Bruser on mental health and addictions).

Since I'm at it, though, I'll give you my opinion of all the recommendations, thusly:

Recommendation	My opinion
That The Town undertake a comprehensive review of all of its policies and bylaws to ensure they are up-to-date, accurate and in compliance with Territorial legislation.	Absolutely. I didn't need this report to tell me that.
That the size of Town Council be reduced from eight members plus a mayor to six members plus a mayor.	No. Too many quit or have nothing to say.
That the Mayor be designated as a full voting member of Council as provided in the Cities, Towns and Villages Act.	No. It would make sense in principle, but I don't trust the mayors we've been electing.
That a new and comprehensive Council orientation process be developed prior to the next municipal election.	Hard to say having not seen the existing one, but that's a job for the administration, not the Council.
That Council commit to updating and following a strategic sustainability plan to guide operations of The Town.	Yes.
That Council adopt a performance management system predicated on the Human Resource Plan contained in the existing ICSP whereby the SAO’s performance is linked to Council’s strategic agenda, and that performance management be implemented for the organization as a whole.	That seems self-evident if we had a strategic agenda.
That the Executive Assistant position be tasked to serve all members of Council and the SAO, and that this position continue to serve as Council recording secretary.	Sounds like a good place to save money.
That Council should hold two regular Council meetings per month instead of one Committee of the Whole meeting and one regular Council meeting per month, and that a Committee of the Whole session be incorporated into the regular Council meeting agendas if and as required.	Yes. Again, did we really need a report to tell us this?
That The Town investigate reconfiguring Council chambers such that the Mayor and SAO are seated at Council table with the other members of Council to improve inter-council communication during meetings.	Might as well, since it won't cost money.
That The Town should adopt a new standard report format for reports to Council. The report should contain recommendations followed by discussion of relevant considerations, justification for the recommended action, alternatives, financial considerations and link to Town strategic initiatives or priorities.	Sure, but again that's the administration's responsibility.
That the SAO with support of the senior management team implement a defined agenda review process to review all reports being submitted for consideration by Council to ensure the completeness, accuracy and timeliness of information.	Same.
That The Town undertake a comprehensive review of the current committee structure.	Sounds like a good idea, which the consultants got from the outgoing Council, so we didn't need this report for that.
That The Town develop a comprehensive communication and citizen engagement strategy for stakeholders – for both internal and external stakeholders.	Yes. But again, we didn't need a report to tell us that.
That The Town conduct a biennial citizen satisfaction survey to gather specific feedback from Town residents on satisfaction with Town programs, services and facilities.	Yes, but again, fairly obvious.
That The Town accept job groupings based on the job evaluation process carried out for this project by Western Management Consultants.	Don't care, that's the administration's job.
That The Town develop a business case to determine the feasibility of assuming operational control of the NWT Centennial Library.	Same.
That Council consider the observations and position of the Trade and Tourism Advisory Committee relative to the need for a Special Events/Tourism Coordinator position for The Town.	No. Having read the job description, I think that's completely going in the wrong direction.
That The Town’s organization structure be realigned under a services model with four service areas/departments and that each service area be led by a Director.	Again, don't care, that's administrative.
That human resources (HR) be centralized in one Town department.	Same.
That The Town undertake a core services review to determine if The Town is providing the right services at the right levels with the right resources.	No. The consultant estimated $65,000 - $90,000 for this job. No way we need to spend that kind of money to find this out.

So there you have it. I really don't think it warrants much discussion, and I could have spent this time getting good ideas from The Economist. But I did it for you, voter. See? I listened and did what you told me. I'm a natural for this job. Vote for me!

The candidates' forum, part III

These are the answers I would have given had the questions been addressed to me, or the ones I should have given if I had thought faster under pressure.


Question A1: There are many strong personalities running for council. How are you going to build a less fractured council?

I've worked with far bigger jerks than anyone who's running for this election. I don't take jerks personally and I'm not intimidated by them, and I'm a good actress. I can act like I love them no matter what I actually think of them. I'll make it work.

Some friends suggested that I might end up being the douchebag on Council. See, my friends feel free to speak their mind to me! So I can't be that bad. The reality is that I firmly believe that feelings should never get in the way of right action, and I do practice what I preach. I don't worry about my own feelings, and I don't think feelings have any place in a professional, let alone political setting. What I care about is getting work done. From time to time this involves having to tell somebody that they're wrong or that it's not about them. If that hurts their pride, I'm ok with it. Let's just get things done, and let your loved ones worry about your feelings.


Question A2 (Father Don): There hasn't been enough good faith with the Youth Centre, which serves more than 200 at-risk teens. Other Youth Centres across Canada receive considerable support from their municipalities. Discuss.

The Youth Centre needs to stay where it is, it's a good fit for the location. The zoning problem can be easily solved by rezoning the lot. We also need to give them moral support and what financial support we can afford, and we need to work jointly with them and other community groups to create a community vision for our youth and pursue it together.


Question A3: What are the three greatest opportunities and three greatest challenges facing this council?

Opportunities:

1. The strong administration team and good relations that were built up by the previous Council put us in a good position to get things done now, whereas previous Councils were hampered by dissent. We should make use of that momentum and continue to build on it.
2. The three projects: Avalon, Tamerlane, Aurora. These will create the kind of industrial jobs that we need.
3. Our natural environment, which can be developed so we can admire it without destroying it. It needs to be protected with bylaws, blinds for people to observe wildlife without disturbing it, trails and pathways maintained and not ruined by ATVs, and forest management. This is our greatest tourism draw and the greatest benefit Hay River has for its citizens – we cannot get this anywhere else.

Challenges:

1. Deteriorating social conditions, as evidenced by the high homicide rate and widespread anti-social behaviour: littering, vandalism, B&Es, theft, shouting obscenities in the streets, tipping mailboxes, reckless driving, inconsiderate use of ATVs, abusive labour practices, and many more. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. I suggest watching movies like Gridiron Gang and To Sir with Love to see what I'm on about.
2. Dysfunctional economy. I'll have to write a post about this alone but briefly, our economy is dominated by the GNWT and other governments, which creates a huge imbalance between public and private sector employees. We also have almost no wealth-creation, that is, no manufacturing. Our businesses are focused on retail, service, tourism. Only tourism brings in outside dollars, but it isn't a source of quality jobs, and with our limited attractions and the high cost of getting here, it cannot be counted on to provide for all of us. We need some differentiated light manufacturing.
3. The non-existent infrastructure reserve. No matter what anyone says, money will not appear from nowhere to replace our infrastructure, so we're going to have to find a way to pay for it. I doubt any measure can be implemented that will not be unpopular – which is exactly why we don't have an infrastructure reserve. Again, my solution is to start wealth-creating initiatives so that our people have more money, so they can afford more tax without crushing them. Everything works together.

Question A4 (Tom Lakusta): In the past every candidate talked about "team-building" but we still got autocratic decision making. So seriously, what are you gonna do about it?

I'm very autocratic myself, I hate to see time wasted in hemming and hawing. If people don't make up their mind I make it up for them. Luckily we have some candidates who are also decision-makers, so I don't think it will come down to one person doing all the talking (as was often the case in the outgoing Council).


Question A5 (myself on behalf of a citizen): Taxes in the corridor: are they going down, and when?

There are several complaints about the variety of tax and water rates. Some of them have been reviewed recently, some are being reviewed. In principle I support uniform rates for both because we're a community and we should act as one, not as a bunch of interest groups each pulling to pay less of everything. However there is also a logical argument to be made for lower taxes for the corridor. In this case I prefer the ethical over the logical argument. Regardless of which one we follow, the one thing that does not make sense is for the Council to let itself be intimidated in setting the rates. The only tax rate anyone likes is 0%, but governments need taxes to live.


Question A6: Regarding the IT contract, the consultant said that the current service is excellent and is good value, and recommended signing a long-term contract with ArcTech, a local employer. Do you support that recommendation?

If the SAO recommends something else, I would listen to the SAO. He's smart and we're paying him good money to give us his opinion. Andrew Cassidy was quoted in the paper as worrying that an in-house employee would be more expensive because s/he would be unionized, and that's exactly why I support in principle using Town employees over contractors, not only for the IT contract but for much of the labour. We should not use companies with lower standards of labour relations and occupational health and safety than the Town employees enjoy.


Question A7 (Sandra Lester): (I didn't quite get the details but it was about hiring local contractors rather than out-of-town.)

I think we should always pick the contractor that will do the best job for what we can afford to pay. If that means "local" contractors are at a disadvantage, they need to pull up their socks and match the quality of other proponents. Second, we need to consider how much local labour is employed and under what conditions, rather than local ownership. The Arcan situation is a good example: Arcan was preferred for the firehall for being "local". Much of the unskilled work is local residents, hired at various rates rather than a collectively-agreed rate; but many if not most of the skilled workers and subcontractors are from the south. Safety and labour practices are often questionable, planning looks sketchy, and I haven't looked at their product in detail but quality is usually no better than safety. Had we brought in a top-notch company like PCL or Clark Builders, they would hire the same people with better conditions and do a better-quality job faster, which ultimately benefits the community more. Hiring "local" contractors puts money in the pockets of people who already have it; my concern is getting the money distributed to more people with smaller bank accounts.


Question A8: If there is a majority on the two ballot questions, what happens?

I will vote against it on October 15. If it then goes to a vote in Council, I will vote for it if more than 87.5% of the vote was in favour; otherwise I will consider myself to represent the portion of the voters who are against it.


Question A9 (Jane Groenewegen): When there is a mandatory reassessment, why doesn't the mill rate go down? That was just a $600,000 cash grab. And why don't we use a zero-based approach to the budget?

I think if the Council didn't get so much resistance on putting taxes up, it wouldn't have taken this back-door approach. Again, no one likes taxes, but how else do we propose to pay for our amenities? So I don't think the increase in tax take was wrong, but I think the Council should have put up the mill rate when they needed it and taken the flak for it.


Question A10: (Sandra Lester) The Wright Crescent sewer was supposed to be replaced in 2007 and that never got done. Why? Why isn't the capital plan followed?

I'm with Cassidy on this one. A capital plan is only good if there is money behind it. If we want to have a plan and stick to it, we need a plan to fund it, too. Until we have that, we will always be on the back foot when it comes to infrastructure maintenance and upgrades.


Question A11: (myself, speaking for myself) You keep telling us the administration knows best, so why don't we listen to the Bylaw Officer and his proposal of the ATV Bylaw?

Obviously I'm for the ATV Bylaw, though not exactly the draft presented by the Bylaw Officer. We need to identify an ATV area, same as we did the Off-Leash areas. Should they have a corridor? I'd have to see proposals as to where that corridor would be. I'm inclined to make them use the roads, in that it will force them to obey traffic laws including registration and licensing – or else put their machine on a truck and haul it out to their riding area. Again, I'd have to hear proposals for snow machines, as they can't use the roads.


Question A12: Comment on the organizational review.

I did not read the organizational review report as that is not one of my areas of high concern. I think the SAO will do a fine job of managing it and I don't need to look over his shoulder. My priority is to think of solutions to the macroscopic problems, not the small ones.


Question A13: (Wayne Keefe) What are you gonna do if there's a jerk on Council?

Live with it. The only place I don't have to put up with jerks is my own house.


Question A14: The recommendations from the 2005 organizational review weren't followed. Are you gonna do something about this one?

See question A12. I believe in the SAO.


Question A15: (Tom Lakusta) What kind of things are you gonna promote to make Hay River an even better place to live?

Foster pro-social behaviour in all members of our community. In practice this will mean introducing community standards of behaviour (Edmonton has a "Community Standards" bylaw instead of a noise bylaw – I think that's a great idea), giving people cognitive-behavioural tools that they're currently lacking, vigorously encouraging people to see themselves as part of a whole rather than self-seeking individuals, setting people challenges, and other methods. Improved communication will be essential to this, including installing billboards and organizing rallies. "Relay for Life" is incredibly successful in doing exactly this – now let's have a "Relay for Hay River."


Question A16: (myself, speaking for myself) As a follow-up to my previous question, I don't know what part of the public you were listening to, but there was lots of support for the ATV bylaw. So how are you gonna make sure you actually hear from ALL the public and not just those who want a bylaw kiboshed?

I like doing surveys; not the kind where people write out comments but ones with metrics such as Likert scales. I think it's the most reliable way to measure public opinion. In addition when we talk about "engaging the public", in practice it's mostly limited to the speaker's demographic. Luckily I have many friends among the poor and otherwise disenfranchised, and I plan to ask for their opinion as well. We can also use more rigorous methods of selecting people from various demographics to create a more representative sample when asking questions.


Question A17: Exactly what method would you use to improve communications?

As I said, billboards, rallies, surveys. We also need a venue for people to make speeches. Some of the other candidates (Cassidy, at least) have mentioned "town hall" type meetings. That's better than no town-hall meetings, but it won't draw out the disenfranchised, which is exactly why they're "disenfranchised". We need to seek them out and bring them into the conversation.


Question A18: The kids at the skateboard park use foul language.

Tell me about it. Reducing coarse language is part of my vision for pro-social behaviour. I propose to challenge everyone to a "community cuss jar". Everyone will have a cuss jar at home and turn it in on a regular basis. The proceeds will be used for a community barbecue or similar event. There might be prizes for the richest cuss jar or the greatest improvement in cussing in a household. Likewise we will find challenges for other anti-social behaviours.


Question A19: (Jane Groenewegen) The Council spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prevent people having outdoor pellet stoves. Will you try not to limit people's options in controlling their cost of living?

I'm glad I didn't get that question, I think Cassidy answered it best.


Question A20: (myself for a citizen) I'm surprised no one has said this yet: what about the flooding? You know, what are you gonna do about the fact that the river floods in the spring?

As I said before, I think flood control needs to be done by flood control engineers. However, any flood control system is only good to a certain limit, and some, like in New Orleans, fail before their expected breaking point. A failed flood control system is more catastrophic than no flood control at all, and it's expensive, so it's only a good investment in places where land is scarce. This is not the case here, so I think we'd be better off arranging our affairs so that we're not bothered by flooding, rather than trying to stop the flooding. Nonetheless, I would consider bringing in an engineer with experience in flood control, or attempting my giant-wall-of-ice idea. I would consider other ideas as they come up, but so far I haven't really heard any that I believe in.


Question A21: (Father Don) What about all those NTCL barges in the river? Don't they affect the flow of ice?

Considering where the barges are and where the flood damage has happened in the past, I don't think the barges were the cause of the problem.


Question A22: (Sandra Lester) Why is my water bill higher in the corridor than in town? Do you support a uniform water rate?

Yes, I do, until someone shows me compelling reasons against.


Question A23: (Wayne Keefe) Lots of talk about long-term vision. Do you have something stunning or semi-interesting to say? Rather than just tearing trees down along the river?

I do. I think we need to establish light manufacturing in differentiated products, for example micro-brewing, clothing, and winter boots. The cost of shipping is not the deterrent to manufacturing here; the main factor in locating industries is the cost of labour. However, a differentiated product can be marked up, thanks to our "northern" branding which the GNWT has worked on promoting. Beer in particular supports union wages in the south. Also by making this concern widely or cooperatively held and professionally managed, we would eliminate the need to pay for the owner's lifestyle, leaving more money to put into wages. It would be important to structure the ownership so that no individual, family or interest group can strong-arm its way into control of the concerns. This would provide manufacturing jobs for less-skilled workers, which is exactly what we need, as well as something we can export, thus creating an inflow of cash instead of an outflow as in the case of government jobs. If need be we should get subsidies from the GNWT. Many industries are subsidised anyways, for example agriculture and aerospace. The GNWT subsidizes fur traders and fisheries, which are our past; there is no reason it shouldn't subsidize our future.


Question A24: (Kandis Jameson) How will you hold councillors accountable for their attendance and portfolio work?

I don't know about the other seven, but I always show up to work. This is a job, and I intend to do it well.


Question A25: (myself, speaking for myself) The Minister of Finance was here last week asking for suggestions for his upcoming budget. Given that the GNWT spends 17 times as much per person as the Town of Hay River, what would you tell the Minister to do with his budget in order to improve our quality of life?

What I told the Minister was that if we'd spend our economic development money better (e.g. by creating manufacturing), we wouldn't need so many social programs; also if we had better labour laws and we enforced them, again, people would have their own money and not need so much support.

I also told the Minister what I think of power subsidies. Any energy subsidy is a slippery slope. It encourages people to waste energy; the government has no control over energy costs and no way to fund this program; and you can't get rid of it without a public outcry. Many governments in the Global South are regretting putting in place energy subsidies. Let's not go that way.


Question B1: (Jocelyn Grant for the Youth Centre) How are you gonna increase efficiency in supporting youth?

Other than my lame answer about the Youth Centre, I think we should organize the various voluntary and leisure organizations, youth or otherwise, so that all information is available centrally. This would allow potential volunteers to be matched with volunteering opportunities, as well as bring more participants to programs. I have already been working on making a master schedule of all regularly-scheduled activities in Hay River, and the idea of a website for coordinating volunteers has been floated with the Recreation department. We just need to implement.

We should also create synergy in fundraising. There seems to be a marked slowdown in both volunteering and fundraising so that many organizations are cancelling or delaying programs; on the other hand the Relay for Life consistently attracts large numbers of volunteers and dollars. If the community organizations worked together as an umbrella group, they could rival the Relay for Life in attracting dollars that would stay in our community. The main difficulty I foresee is in distributing the cash among the groups without bickering.


Question B2: (written question read by Bernie Langille for a citizen) Any plans to increase recycling and bring back town clean-up?

Now that I've heard the other candidates' answers and had some time to think about it, I would have to say that for the time being the most likely solution would be to sort out and collect anything that can be recycled somewhere else, and then ship it out. In some cases this is quite lucrative; for example, my neighbour in the Highrise is here collecting scrap metal from all over the South Slave, which he then hauls back to Alberta and cashes in. Many recyclables that are worthless in household quantities become valuable in large amounts; for example paper can be turned into blown insulation for houses. And hauling to Alberta is relatively cheap because too many trucks go back empty. So by collecting our recyclables and hauling them to Alberta in large quantities, we might be able to cover part of the costs of the program.

As for town clean-up, as Vince McKay said, the dump can't handle it now. We need to reduce the amount of stuff being thrown out. On the other hand, in Bolivia they sometimes have a national cleaning day where everyone cleans house and in particular gets rid of standing water (this is to prevent dengue fever). We could create a similar custom here and turn town clean-up from "throw out all your stuff for free" into "let's all get together and clean this town", e.g. pick up garbage, help neighbours who may be facing challenges in maintaining their property, put a fresh coat of paint on the CN bridge, and so on.


Question B3: (written question read by the moderator) Regarding the IT contract, the consultant said that the current service is excellent and is good value, and recommended signing a long-term contract with ArcTech, a local employer. Do you support that recommendation?

See question A6.


Question B4: Define "local". Do you have to own a residence here, or keep the money here?

I would define "local" as what benefits the greatest number, that is, the workers.


Question B5: (Harvey Werner) I shouldn't be able to quash bylaws in court. Do you support reviewing and enforcing our bylaws?

Like I said, I agree. We need to review and rewrite our bylaws so that the ones we have are useful and enforceable, we need to enforce them, we need to stop giving the Bylaw Officer attitude, and we need to stop picking what gets enforced and what doesn't.


Question B6: (Chris Robinson) We're in an economic downturn, yet there is no location for new businesses. How are you going to encourage businesses to move here?

There are locations where businesses could move in, either by adapting existing structures or clearing them and rebuilding. Much of the industrial stretch on the east side of the highway is now empty and needs to be revitalized. We should be putting businesses into these spots rather than opening more land.


Question B7: (Ken Latour) What can we do in this town without looking to the outside for projects to come here?

See question A23.


Question B8: (Tom Lakusta) Not everyone (of the candidates) was here last night. Just sayin'. No one from the Council has ever come to Minor Hockey to thank us for our work. What can the Town do to help community groups?

See question B1.


Question B9: (Linda Carman) What kind of partnerships can the town establish to promote health and well-being. Also rogue ATVs are dangerous and we need that bylaw.

Thank you for backing me on the ATV Bylaw!

I think we can create town traditions that will promote health. For example, in the past it was traditional in parts of Europe to go for a family walk after lunch on Sunday. We could do this and encourage people to draw out their friends and neighbours. We need to challenge people to come together and exercise, like the Chinese do. Workplaces could have tai chi in the morning before or after safety meeting, or at coffee break, or at lunch. If we can create an ATV corridor we could create a bike corridor and challenge people to use it. Again, by making our trails safe for pedestrians, we would increase walking.

I think we should also have a fitness trail. See this post.

As well, as part of my vision to increase pro-social behaviour, we would encourage people to respect their bodies. This would not happen quickly, but it can be done.


Question B10: (Father Don) We have an inter-agency group consisting of 22 organizations that recently came up with a new long-term plan after having met all the goals of our previous long-term plan. Can you give us any help in coordinating this work and the flow of information, and maybe some money?

See question B1.


Question B11: With the success of shows like Ice Pilots and Ice Road Truckers, is there a definitive marketing plan to bring tourists here and see that they stay here?

I'm not quite sure whether he meant for tourists to spend more time in Hay River, or for them to settle here permanently. As to the former, like I said, I think tourism is better than no tourism, but it's not the solution we need. There is only so much that tourists can do here, and for the cost of getting here, it's a hard sell. As to making people move here, again, I don't think that's a good idea. Normally people migrate to where there is economic activity; trying to move people here in the hope that their money will create activity does not make sense.


Question B12: (Rebecca Bruser) What are you going to do for mental health and addictions?

It's all part of my vision for pro-social behaviour. We need to give people cognitive-behavioural tools. We need to give them ways to improve self-control, which will give them a better chance to beat addiction. We also need to teach people to be bored, rather than try to find more ways to keep them entertained. You don't have to be destructive just because you're bored. Creating a greater sense of social responsibility and concern for each other would also improve mental health and resistance to addiction.

Again, by rejuvenating our economy with manufacturing concerns that can employ the less-skilled workers in good-quality jobs, we would reduce poverty, inequality, boredom, depression, hopelessness, and other factors that detract from mental health and make people more vulnerable to addiction.


There. That's all of them. You can send me more on Facebook or by email at one dot green dot mouse at gmail dot com.

The candidates' forum, part II

Last night was part II of the candidates' forum: candidates for council. There are (were) 15 candidates for council, of whom two were away and one quit, which still didn't leave much time for the rest of us to speak. My note-taking on this one was much worse than for the mayors, partly because I was more stressed and sitting at the very end of the table where I couldn't see the speakers (I hear better if I look at the speaker – true story), and partly because they were not as polished and it was much harder to make any sense of their answers than the night before. So this transcript is very poor. Just to avoid being a total douchebag, I'll refrain from adding snide remarks on the other candidates' speeches. My own answers to these and the mayors' questions are here.

And now, the council candidates' forum. The order of speaking and sitting was determined by a random draw.

---

Opening speeches

#1: Mike Maher
Maher was out of town on duty travel but sent his regrets and a note saying this trip will probably benefit Hay River.


#2: Elise Marie
The only speech I have in full! And also, as some noted, the only speech that was exactly within the two-minute time allowed.

Citizens!

Tonight we will hear about infrastructure, taxes, floods and so on. Please ask me about that in questions.

More importantly, in my two minutes I want to talk to you about social issues. We've had three homicides in three months. That puts our homicide rate at four times that of Honduras right now. We should be alarmed. We should be doing something. And I propose to do just that. Why these specific tragedies happened, I don't know, but there are factors that correlate with the crime rate. A depressed economy and rising social inequality. I have ideas for that – ask me later. There are also personal factors: impulsivity, sensation-seeking, low self-control, low empathy and altruism. These are factors I observe daily in our citizens. And these are things we can change. Am I gonna tell you I can fix it? I'm gonna tell you that I can't. Because it isn't about me: it's about US. You, me, those who are part of the problem, and those who think they aren't part of the problem. It doesn't have to be expensive, but it needs a strong buy-in from the community.

We have heard repeatedly from our elected representatives, even as recently as yesterday, things like "we can't tell people what to do", "safety isn't our responsibility", "we don't want to enforce that", "it's not our culture". They're wrong. The mandate of government is to facilitate people living together as communities. We can, and we should, tell people how to live harmoniously, starting with greater respect for themselves, for each other, for property, for the environment, and for the law. If it's our culture to be irresponsible and destructive, then our culture needs to change. We need to hold ourselves, each other, and our community to a higher standard, because a place with four times the homicide rate of Honduras is NOT a great place to live.

If we're going to say that Hay River is a great place to live then let's make it so. Let's make it better. Together.

Citizens, thank you.


#3:Donna Lee Jungkind
Wife, mother, long-time Kingland employee, volunteers, has been on Council a long time ago (under Jack Rowe). (Other personal history which I didn't write down.) Jungkind wants to "move forward" and to have clear, attainable goals.


#4: Ken Latour
The legacy of the previous council is a better administration and better relations with our MLAs. Second, an (alleged) Dene moral tale about being a better person (or something) and that we should look at the character of the people we're about to vote for. And third, he withdrew his candidacy.


#5: Michael St. John
Sophie Call introduced Michael St. John, telling us he deals with people calmly and resolves things constructively. St. John then spoke for himself saying he has five kids, wants this to be a great place for his kids to raise their kids, and that we have to build capacity and find efficiencies.


#6: Vince McKay
McKay is from here, raising his kids here, wants to retire here. He doesn't get intimidated, is firm but fair and willing to listen. He wants to develop a five-year strategic plan and build confidence in the town and Council. He wants to do something for his town and for people to come back here after they've been away to school.


#7: Bev Gibb
Came here in 1987 for two years. Volunteers. (Lengthy work history which I didn't write down.) Why am I running? Because I'm ready and it's my town.


#8: Brian Willows
(Didn't write down personal history.) Experience in operations management, capital planning and budgeting. We should have a five-year strategic plan for infrastructure, energy and human resources. We need to find new revenue streams. He is respectful and open-minded and seeks balance (I didn't write down the rest because I was getting really aggravated that I rehearsed and edited my speech until it fit exactly in the two minutes, and then the moderator let everybody else run on as long as they wanted.)


#9: Jim McPherson
We need to work with our MLAs. Concerned about health facilities especially the loss of acute care beds (that's the term he used though I think they're actually long-term care beds). Lots of businesses going down the tubes: NTCL, Igloo, Northern Metallic.


#10: Keith Dohey
(Has a tendency to mumble which made it that much harder to take notes.) 23 years old, born and raised here. It's a generous community which supports youth. Council needs to work with community organizations. We don't live in Yellowknife or Edmonton and shouldn't try to be like them. Wants Hay River to flourish so his children will want to stay here. Respect, hard work, working with others. "Believe in me for all of us."


#11: Jason Coakwell
(Also mumbles. I didn't write down personal details.) People are invested in communities (at least I think so, my notes say "infested"). Moved here for the summer 19 years ago. Involved in the community etc. Hard work, dedication and team work. Has been on the recreation board, wants to move on to Council because of visions not getting through to execution. "I'll be engaged in the community."


#12: Sandra Lester
(Personal history.) Undertakes to fulfill her obligations on Council. We need Council to be strong, united and forward-thinking. (Ok, one snide comment: she's right about that, but in practice she is one of the more divisive former councillors.) She will read the reports and take her portfolio seriously. She promises to listen. Concerns: infrastructure, hospital, flood prevention, we need new initiatives not just old ones. We need to have a ten-year plan and build on it every year and we need to stick to it. It needs to be fluid with room for growth. We need to maintain assets. (At this point, though vastly over time, she went off about the fire hall again which I'm not wasting my time reporting. Go read her Facebook group if you want to hear that old saw again.) No more studies.


#13: Roger Candow
Retired from Northwestel after 35 years. Sits on many boards. Platform of fiscal responsibility. (Historic of Town budgets.) "We can't write money." (Tell it to Lefebvre!) We need to balance the budget and invest responsibly. (And he finished more or less on time.)


#14: Brad Mapes
(Personal history.) Community wellness (then back to talking about himself). Well-travelled and respected in the North, lobbyist, straight-shooter, "give you my honest opinion." Common sense. Spend within our means. Create 250 new jobs.


#15: Kandis Jameson
Jameson was out of town on a trip booked "months ago" but sent Greg Whitlock to read her speech, which is too bad because he digressed, mumbled, and generally didn't deliver it well. Something about teamwork, problem-solving, informed decisions, economic development, replacement of infrastructure, and youth. (Here my notes say "plan from collaboration", I don't know what that's supposed to mean.) Identify resources, accountability, measurable results, inter-agency groups. (Obviously my note-taking was getting really sketchy by then.)

---

Questions

Question 1: Jocelyn Grant for the Youth Centre
How are you gonna increase efficiency in supporting youth?

Marie: I think the Youth Centre is doing a great job for our youth and we need to have a better relationship with it. The one thing I can't promise anyone is money but anything else I can do for you, I will. (What a lame answer. It had nothing specific in it. Dang.)

Mapes: We need a better vision. I can't keep repeating myself. Let's lobby the federal government.

Gibb: I support the Youth Centre whole-heartedly.


Question 2: written question read by Bernie Langille for a citizen
Any plans to increase recycling and bring back town clean-up? (Am I glad I didn't get this one!)

Jungkind: I definitely support recycling but it's very costly. I support town clean-up but again – where's the money?

Candow: We need to be more like Halifax. (Fumble.) We need lots of different recycling: metal, paper, compost.

McKay: Studies have been done on the landfill, it's really packed and needs better management. We have to quit reinventing the wheel. The town clean-up was a strain on the landfill so again it will depend on a better plan for the landfill.


Question 3: written question read by the moderator
Regarding the IT contract, the consultant said that the current service is excellent and is good value, and recommended signing a long-term contract with ArcTech, a local employer. Do you support that recommendation?

Lester: I was the only one (on the 2007-09 Council) who opposed giving that contract to ArcTech. I'd have to see the report before I make a recommendation.

Mapes: I haven't see the report. I questioned that contract when it was awarded. Curtis Broadhead is the nicest guy (plus his nephew is TOTALLY HOT!!! Just sayin') and he only has a month-to-month deal with the town and we're not doing any studies for him so why do we have this study?

Willows: I have seen the report. We can certainly negotiate, that doesn't mean we have to award it to them.


Question 4:
Define "local". Do you have to own a residence here, or keep the money here?

St. John: Those who are involved here, support our organizations and services.

Coakwell: Money that stays in Hay River. But we have to be accountable and not pay more just to be local. (Intelligent reference to the GNWT's policy which I didn't write down.) We need to review the purchasing policy.

McPherson: I'm not sure what the issue is. (My notes say "we have the skills for anything" but I really didn't quite follow what he was saying.)


Question 5: Harvey Werner
I shouldn't be able to quash bylaws in court. Do you support reviewing and enforcing our bylaws?

Dohey: Yeah, we should enforce them.

Marie: I'm a big fan of bylaws. We should definitely review them, throw out the ones that are useless, and rewrite the ones that are useful so they are solid. We need to enforce them, and we need people to believe that bylaws are good for us and that we need to respect them. We need to support our Bylaw Officer and administration. (If anyone doesn't know Harvey, he's the scariest government critic in town and I dreaded having to answer a question from him. This one was actually pretty easy, coming from him.)

Candow: Yes, we should enforce our bylaws.


Question 6: Chris Robinson
We're in an economic downturn, yet there is no location for new businesses. How are you going to encourage businesses to move here?

Mapes: There is space being opened around the new hospital and across the tracks. Not all councillors show up to meetings with Avalon. (That's all I wrote down, I think I considered the rest to be a digression.)

Willows: We definitely need Avalon. (Talk about devolution which I considered off-topic and didn't write down.)

Jungkind: What Brad said about lobbying. We need to always be at every meeting that might bring any opportunity to Hay River. There has been talk of a business development office – I'm not sure about that.


Question 7: Ken Latour
What can we do in this town without looking to the outside for projects to come here?

Lester: I've been making a list. We can revive the fishing industry. Make organic cat food. (Just because I diss her a lot, I'll mention that I agree with that. I once had a business concept for making gourmet dog food from fresh ingredients, same as I feed my dog. I just don't want to own a business.) In-ground greenhouse.

Coakwell: We need economic stability more than development. I'll be engaged in the community. (In my notes it says he went over time but that's all I wrote down.)

Dohey: There is a lack of communication. Before we get new businesses we should consult with the locals and focus on promoting local business.


Question 8: Tom Lakusta
Not everyone (of the candidates) was here last night. Just sayin'. No one from the Council has ever come to Minor Hockey to thank us for our work. What can the Town do to help community groups?

Gibb: We need to invite them to meet with us, thank them, ask them what they need.

McKay: (I didn't get what he was saying.) We need to help.

St. John: As a parent of five children I know how much work it is. We need to thank them.


Question 9: Linda Carman
What kind of partnerships can the town establish to promote health and well-being. Also rogue ATVs are dangerous and we need that bylaw.

McKay: Yes, we need to protect green spaces and have that ATV bylaw, I'm a rider myself and I support the bylaw.

Jungkind: I'm open to whatever is out there.

McPherson: I definitely support the ATV bylaw.

Haha, take that, Cassidy and Lefebvre!


Question 10: Father Don
We have an inter-agency group consisting of 22 organizations that recently came up with a new long-term plan after having met all the goals of our previous long-term plan. Can you give us any help in coordinating this work and the flow of information, and maybe some money?

Willows: I support this but I can't promise any money. Why did we not hear more reported about this? I've never heard of it.

St. John: I support it too, but where are we gonna find the money?

Gibb: There is no money, but I would support establishing a liaison with Council.


Question 11:
With the success of shows like Ice Pilots and Ice Road Truckers, is there a definitive marketing plan to bring tourists here and see that they stay here?

Candow: We definitely have lots of natural attractions, we should promote them.

Lester: 2 Seasons is working on a big development that will bring people here from China.

Coakwell: Tourism is good. (Actually I didn't listen to him because I was getting impatient to have one more question, as I only had two so far.)


Question 12: Rebecca Bruser
What are you going to do for mental health and addictions?

(Rebecca picked three people to answer her questions whereas most people let the moderator pick, thus I didn't get to answer this one either, with the result that the people she picked got four questions and McPherson and I only got two each. So I was disgruntled, plus her three picks had nothing to say so I didn't bother to write it down.)

---

Conclusion

There were no closing remarks for us. The meeting scattered. So now I'm gonna tell you what I think of the candidates after this meeting.

CANDOW, Roger: He's personable, but didn't have much to say that was specific other than fiscal responsibility.

COAKWELL, Jason: I didn't write down what he said in details, but I think he was consistently pretty well informed and not taken in by the concepts of "local" and "growth" like a lot of people are. I'm voting for him.

DOHEY, Keith: While he's spending lots of money on signs and buttons, he didn't have anything specific to say, and during the mingling hour he just sat with a buddy and did not go and talk to people.

GIBB, Beverly: Really lacks specific ideas.

JAMESON, Kandis: Too bad she wasn't here. I think she'll get elected anyway. I disagree with her in social policy but I think she'll be a good councillor. I'm voting for her.

JUNGKIND, Donna Lee: Lacked initiative. Answers like "what Brad said" or "I'm open to anything." Well, ok then, let's just elect Brad, he can listen to suggestions too. No need to elect someone just to agree with the others.

LATOUR, Ken: Would have done a good job had he stayed in.

LESTER, Sandra: Has good ideas sometimes, and really crappy ideas other times, and despite her promise to listen, what you say only makes an impression if that's what she was thinking already. "Doesn't work well with others."

MAHER, Michael John: I'm definitely not voting for him.

MAPES, Bradley Lloyd: Good initiative, particularly the Aurora pellet idea. And the lobbying thing is good. I'm voting for him.

MARIE, Elise: Hell's yes!

McKAY, Vince: Supports the ATV bylaw! I'm voting for him.

McPHERSON, James W.: Lacks specific ideas and a broad support base. I doubt he'll be elected.

ST. JOHN, Michael: I think he'd be good to work with, though he didn't stand out because he speaks quietly and doesn't put himself forward much. And he was at the territorial budget consultation and had intelligent things to say, although I didn't realize it because I didn't know his name at the time. I'm voting for him, but I don't know what his chances are.

WILLOWS, Brian K.: Hmmmmm... He's certainly informed and has opinions. I'm not sure whether he'd work with the others or dominate the conversation, or worse, get into a tug-of-war as to who will dominate the conversation. I think his odds are good, but I don't think I'm voting for him.


In summary, my picks are as follows:

• Coakwell
• Jameson
• Mapes
• Marie
• McKay
• St. John

And now, I must write my own answers to the questions.