Canadian Student Service Grant Program and It's Failures

RE: The now ill-fated CSSG program:

1. The PM blew it by - at the very least - not loudly and publicly recusing himself from the WE decision before any contract was awarded. Politics 101 would suggest it was dumb that he didn't. Minister of Finance tooo.

2. I am part of a small non-profit that tries to help some inner city high school kids, primarily through improving their access to sports and athletics. We have no staff; just volunteer our time. The idea of getting a student "from the hood" to help plan and coordinate further outreach initiatives, including database development was very appealing. That they would be able to receive some income to recognize their work made it practical for them and us. Our group did post a job to the CSSG site. Then the whole program got whacked. Regardless of the issues with WE, the idea made a lot of sense. Now it's potential and benefits have been drowned in the deadly sea of politics. Sad.

To the Minister of Heritage re; The National CBC News

Dear Mr. Minister

While I regularly access several online and print news sources, I want to believe that the CBC - specifically

The National- should be my main source of topical, trusted, real news. This important nightly broadcast to the entire nation could be more contentful, more analytical, more relevant, more helpful and become a world-leading News Purveyor that will make Canadians and your Government very proud. How? Make it more strategic and more watchable. 

1. First by making some watcher-friendly "technical" changes to the the broadcast. I recently made a few specific suggestions to senior executives at the National dealing with such matters as screen and logo display, the use of teasers, the At Issue Panel, COVID coverage and even re-branding the show to The CBC World News. I was favoured by a prompt return phone call and meaningful discussion. So through you, a compliment to The National staff. 

2. Then, there's the Elephant... the overwhelming amount of time taken by advertising during the one hour nightly broadcast. This is a function of the current mandate of CBC (News) and the fiscal policies of the Government/your Ministry. I ask, not naively, that you make whatever financial investment is required to allow The National to deliver its products - Real News and Best in the World Issue Analysis - ad free. *

Fourteen +/-  minutes of each hour's reporting and analysis potential are now stolen by advertising; this is an abomination.** I I believe our national news broadcast is one of the heaviest ad - infested broadcast News shows in North America. Canadians need and deserve more. The News is The Thing. The CBC is The News. Free the National! 

Why?

Removal of the requirement to sell and broadcast so many ads would mean....

• 25% more time to report and provide in-depth analysis of current affairs important to Canadians.
• Less need to play and replay redundant teasers of upcoming items resulting in...
• Another 3 or 4% more reporting and in-depth analysis time which means...
• More informed "clients" and  improved viewership. People will be more engaged, thus less likely to channel surf 
• Improved Branding for the CBC, the Government and improved (Inter) national acclaim

Having the precious minutes gained could also open up broader social opportunities. Let's consider, for example:

• More crucial, consistent expert advice on living with Covid and other topical challenges 
• A strategic focus on the country's non profit and charitable organizations which are so crucial to this country. CBC could use some of the free time to  "report on" charity and non profit successes as news and educational items. It would provide exposure to socially important groups without sucking up their ad dollars. Seeing the investment in free time as leveraging investment in the NGO world would be a pretty justifiable rationale. For smaller NGOs, their brand recognition would be established and for larger ones, extended. This in turn would encourage future donations...yet another level of leverage. 

Anyway...that's it Mr. Minister. Let's Free The National, improve its content, improve its watchability, it's loyalty and support amongst Canadians. Let's make The National Great(er)! 

Thanks in advance for taking the time to consider these ideas (and pitch!). I look forward to your thoughts and trust they will come from your most creative self.

Brian Caldwell 705 444 6268

73 Niagara St Collingwood On L9Y3X4

*Given all the pandemic money that your Government is spending to help Canadians, surely maximizing the amount, quality and conveyance of true and accurate data and expert advice to Canadians everywhere should be part of the pandemic effort. 

**That there seems to be no governing policy regarding the type or quality or strategic purpose to the ads is a concomitant problem/opportunity. Enough of the Pizza delivery ads etc. They detract from the gravitas of the broadcast and make customer loyalty far less likely.
 

 If there must be some ads (albeit far fewer) accept and promote only those with useful, educational information on themes of relevance to Canadians. See earlier comments regarding NGOs.

CBC National TV News

Jerry Dias wrote a piece recently for my local paper. His thesis was that the big internet companies have an advantage in attracting advertising; that is unfair because they use (steal/borrow/expropriate content often created by others; and, there are very negative consequences for our traditional (print) news organizations as a result. I agree.

But that (and a growing nightly frustration) got me thinking of news organizations...why -  particularly during the pandemic when the public is starving for good, deep information on so many matters  - does the CBC - the broadcaster and news generator that we own - kill us with advertising on The National News broadcast?  Ad time limits severely reporting and analysis potential.The government is spending billions on helping Canadians. Free up The National from advertising every night and use the time to inform. The ad breaks are so pervasive I am prone to give up on The National. And that's pretty sad. It is a vital, far reaching, publicly owned vehicle that can touch so many Canadians. Tell us more about the country and the world we are dying to understand. Forget selling products. Sell some ideas and knowledge. Please.

No Meat Diets Will Not Solve Environmental problems

A piece in my semi-local newspaper (yes I still get one delivered!) posited: "If we all did it (i.e. switch to a plant based diet), it could save us" and even if we "just befriend them" (cows are her main focus), we're part of the problem."  That argument is naive.

The negative environmental impacts associated with meat are caused not by the act of eating it, but by the animals themselves...think cows, yes, but all ruminants. I get the simplistic idea of a demand-supply solution but this is a much more complicated scientific, social and economic issue. 

If we all stopped eating cows what would happen to the estimated 1-1.5 billion cows that are alive today? Do we just kill them and make the species endangered if not extinct? The naturalists wouldn't much like that!. And, I doubt that Hindu folks would tolerate a world cull as cows are held to be sacred by many.  If we don't kill them all - and more particularly all the bulls -  then surely they'll have even more cows over time...unless we sterilize them all or let them all have abortions. And if cow families are still around, do we continue to feed and care for them? And if we do,won't there will still be the land use, water and methane gas producing belching and pooping problems? 

Canada has about 12 million cows. Brazil and India are of order, 200 million each! And if we were to go 100% plant based, what about the 22 billion chickens, and the 2 billion pigs and the 1+ billion sheep that share our world? We surely can't adopt them all, and they'd still graze the land, eat, drink, be merry...burping and pooping and emitting tons of methane all the while.

There are many other initiatives being tried that we don't seem to read about. Only the loudest lobby seems to get the ink. There are several different experiments  aimed at decreasing the amount of methane the ruminant actually produces and many others which attempt to harvest the methane and put it to good uses. 

Eating less meat sounds like a good idea, but it won't "SAVE us".

"Baaa (Moo or Oink) Humbug" to the exaggeration proffered by the Stop Meat Eaters Movement. It is full of methane.

Jarvis Collegiate: The School, the Building, the Legends

There was an article in my newspaper the other day that posited there has been spotty and inconsistent development around the Jarvis and Wellesley intersection in Toronto and that more should be done city-wide to respect, protect and showcase old iconic homes like the Massey mansion. I agree.

Notwithstanding some uncoordinated and appealing buildings in the area, there is one structure at the intersection that is very special, viz. the Jarvis Collegiate Institute building on the south east corner. Jarvis the school is over 210 years old. It is the second oldest high school in Ontario and the oldest in Toronto. The current building was built in 1924 and exudes the elegance of Gothic Revival architecture. It has seen two major renovations/additions since then but the beautiful facade and halls of the building have been maintained. The impressive front stairs from Jarvis Street lead into a grand, welcoming foyer. The famous George Reid historical murals in the auditorium have survived and are to be treasured. The walls still speak of the thousands who have studied within them over nearly a century. The school and the building are sources of great pride for former and present students and staff. They should be celebrated by everyone. We should not allow the building to be tarnished by criticisms of other area developments. JCI will continue to anchor that corner proudly and share its personality with the City. It will keep on keeping on eh. Stop and look at it next time you're in the area. It's OK to stare. 

Testing in shools

A fine writer (Mr. Rick Salutin) recently wrote about several issues facing teachers, students and school administrators. Among them was the regular debate about whether standardized testing in our schools was a good thing or a bad thing.

The conclusion of his December 7th article regarding standardized testing posited that: "What you've truly learned (as a student faced with an exam) counts zero..." I disagree. 

My colleagues and I grew up facing regular standardized testing, departmental FINAL exams at the end of high school and annual exams in University. This encouraged/demanded full and thoughtful review of the year's material - no one really knew what would be on the exam. Material review deepened fact retention and thinking about the subject. In some cases, the "forced" study led to a eureka moment when I finally came to understand something in the material that I had not really fathomed during the course. Writing exams taught us how to prepare and study for a big event, meet deadlines and deal with the related pressure. Good traits as one goes out in the real world. How else is one to learn how to prepare for the test of a job interview, how to research, write and deliver a speech, make a sales pitch, craft a policy proposal to government? Life is a series of exams; some are harder than others and some have more significance...but  you can't avoid them. Learning how to synthesize and evaluate the information that may be needed to pass them and actually delivering it is a very valuable skill. Get used to doing it early and often is what I suggest. Even if you fail the odd one; learning to deal with that is another great talent. You may even turn out to be a successful entrepreneur! 

Changes of Government...Lets Look at them Differently

The recent Inauguration of the US President and his subsequent speech were pretty interesting events. Apart from parsing his remarks, a couple of things occurred to me.

Trump and his supporters have criticized what they refer to as the political elites. It seems true that  governments do assume - more and more over time -  that they are totally "in charge" of policy and the mechanisms of government. If  government is “by the people” and “for the people” and people are theoretically able to control government and if there are concerns that the current political system really controls itself, why is the inauguration event and swearing in process always referred to as a “Transfer of Power”?  Referring to the turn as a  “Transfer of Leadership and Management” would change perceptions of government and its role in society for the better, in the US and Canada.

If one thought of government organization in business terms,  Citizens are of course the shareholders. Every few years they elect a (new/somewhat new) Board of Directors (MPs) to Lead. The Board appoints officers (Ministers of Cabinet), who appoint Executives (Deputy Ministers etc.) who run Departments (Ministries) and  hire staff (civil servants).  

As a quick thought on Trump's comments if -  as Trump reminded everyone -   Americans want “great schools, safe neighborhoods...and good jobs...(and better infrastructure)” seems to me he could start by paying his taxes to help underwrite the necessary initiatives. And, henceforth only involve himself with hotels and golf courses built in America by Americans. Think of it; a new hotel and resort for every town in America!

Socio-Economics; Gone, Gone, Gone; Gone so Long?

We've killed the notion that there is anything like a  "socio-economic" system.  

Our Social system is in great danger. Income differentials and the fear of being left further behind felt by so many have reached the critical stage. The patient is weak and in life-threatening condition. Why? Because capitalism and globalization have been allowed to rule the roost. I believe in capitalism, but not in the absence of corporate social responsibility. I believe in freer trade, but not without some loyalty to the home and new host countries. That companies can sue countries in which they chose to do business because the country evolves its social, environmental priorities and/or rules of engagement is anathema. I believe that companies should be encouraged and enabled to be efficient and profitable, but not at the expense of worker safety, worker growth and environmental enhancement. I believe in growth, but more specifically growth of society...growth in people's knowledge, experience, understanding, empathy and contribution. I do not believe that growth can or should be measured so predominantly by economic markers like GDP. Some have introduced new measures to try to reflect changes in the quality of life, but they are overwhelmed by the western world's dangerous emphasis on economic growth for the sake of it and the concomitant forsaking of societal growth. Making widgets at the lowest possible cost and giving corporations unfettered ability to do so doesn't make sense to me. We can continue to bow to the false gods of GDP and corporate profits (at our peril), or as William once said, rise up against a sea of troubles and fix things.

I read recently a call to "Civilize Capitalism" and although I can not recall the source, I agree wholeheartedly with the notion. And there is the recent report from Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Mark Pieth flowing from their study of the Panama Papers which calls for an end to the pervasive existence of tax haven jurisdictions. They make the point that in a globalized world...funds will flow to any pockets of secrecy that exist. And they said: "...(we must) show our citizens that Globalization can be tempered and that it can be tamed for the benefit of the vast majority...".

Civilizing capitalism and taming globalization...two great ideas. Let's get at it!

Jeremy Rifkin wrote in his book The End of Work about the three types of capital; market capital (corporate), public capital (governments) and social capital (people, NGOs, charities etc.). He spoke of the need to increase the clout and elevate the profile of civil society making it an equal partner with the marketplace and government. He suggested that the government and civil sectors : "...can exert tremendous political pressure on corporations, forcing some of their gains...into communities".

We certainly need a rebalancing of these three sectors. And there's no avoiding the fact that it's up to US, the world's good people, to do so. We elect the governments that make the rules, we finance the governments to allow them to serve us, our labour and intelligence make the products and food we need and want (or the machines that do), then we buy the products the (world) economy produces and in so doing,  we make choices of which companies and products to support, so, if we don't like the way money and capital are flowing, let's re-direct the river and find better ways to finance the civil organizations that help make society better.

O Canada, The Anthem

There’s been lots of talk over the years and more recently about changing the words in Canada’s National Anthem to make it “more Inclusive” and better reflect our current and complex population.. Gender neutrality is the subject du jour. But, methinks that gender neutrality is but a part of the opportunity. To be truly inclusive, in addition to changing the current reference “in all thy son’s command” to” “in all our command”, let’s go for the gusto and make the all the changes to “Neutralize and Reflect and Represent”. Here’s a few ideas.

Sports Teams, Names, Political Correctness and Kids

There have been several articles recently in my local newspaper regarding these topics. My thoughts follow as you might expect)!

(i) Team names are not chosen to offend or weaken. They are chosen to celebrate desirable characteristics...like confidence, achievement, strength and the ability to overcome obstacles. They are chosen to inspire players and fans alike. Names are chosen to portray strength and courage...hence we have: Lions and Tiger Cats..but not Pussy Cats; Sharks, but not Minnows.

It behooves the users of the name and the logo to educate, inform the public of the logo’s history and to tell the stories of the strength and positive attributes of the peoples and things they reference and/or depict. Black Hawk was from what I know, a very courageous and proud man Good qualities for anyone on my team. 

(ii) Mascots are something entirely different. They are meant to engage, entertain, attract TV cameras and need not reflect the name or the logo of the team’s brand in any way. Who is Carlton Bear anyway? Is he a slight to Brown(-ish) bears? 

(iii) Re the Equity Summit Group reporting to the TDSB about kids wearing certain team sweaters etc. to school: they cited Chicago Black Hawks, Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians  which are all longstanding team names. People of many if not all colours, ethnicities and orientation have played for and cheered for these teams. Many players have been enshrined in respective Halls of Fame wearing the team logo. People have played for and cheered for these teams and others like them for years. Many players have been enshrined in respective Halls of Fame wearing the team logo. 

Will the Equity Summit Group also forbid kids from visiting those Halls? Or reading old game sheets, or books about the teams, their owners, their players etc.? Will the Equity Police order Google and other search engines to eliminate all references to these teams? Will they then ban all “oater” movies or worse still...order a burning of the sweaters and books and...who knows what else. Will I have to burn my baseball card collection?

(iv) While we're all at it,

why not ban “Maple Leafs”?  What a poor name that is (they look good in the spring, excite themselves during the summer, then, change colours and drop every fall).

Open Up the CPP eh!

Letter to The Editor, published June 6th 2015, Toronto Star

Your May 28 editorial calls Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s proposal “half-hearted” on the basis that there are already financial vehicles in which Canadians can invest for their retirement.

The Star defends its criticism by saying: “Fewer than 6 in 10 Canadians contributed to a RSP and the average was a modest $3,700” and “just 1 in 10 contributed the maximum to their TFSA.” The piece concludes that, “If pension contributions aren’t mandatory, many won’t make them.”

Some Canadians don’t invest (fully) in their retirement because on one hand they lack the confidence in the existing investment providers and products and, on the other, do not feel qualified to manage investments themselves.

The voluntary CPP top-up option is a great idea. It could be a major step in helping Canadians prepare for retirement because the CPP is just one mean investment vehicle.

It is easy to access (the investor is already identified). It invests in stuff that no private fund let alone investor can. It has generated returns that are extremely attractive. It could offer a very competitive fee structure to manage the funds. It could be made available even after retirement until the RIF years begin. It just is a very strong brand.

The “fewer than 6 of 10” Canadians now investing in RSPs would have the confidence to invest more. And those who are not now investing voluntarily would have an easy-to-use and familiar vehicle to access.

The provision would be attractive to self-employed folks too. Helping more than half of Canadians at all ages and stages without any delta cost to the public purse would be good thing I’d guess.

Let’s forget the debate, implement this program and then argue out further incremental changes to the system over time. Brian Caldwell, Collingwood 

Reach Out; Don't Preach Out!

Mr. Kevin Deveaux wrote recently for a CBC podcast about the need for Parliament to become better at reaching out to the public. (http://fw.to/CftGONX). 

Deveaux makes a good point, and he’s certainly not alone. As reported in the Toronto Star (November 24^th) Stephen Lewis recalled the respect that existed in the Ontario Legislature during the William Davis years which he attributed (in part) to the attitude of the Premier. Lewis was quoted as saying: “Vitriolic nastiness in debate does not breed respect…nor does the spectre of …exercising authoritarian control.”  

I served as Director of Research for a Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature on the Highway Transportation of Goods. It sat during a time of minority government (1976/77). The members of the Committee represented 3 parties and became a cohesive unit in search of reason as they reached out to the public, industry groups and other government bodies. It traveled to every corner of Ontario and examined regulatory systems in the US and parts of Europe. As noted in the Final Report, the Committee went to great lengths to ensure that its inquiry would be open and fair and would consider all the views of all who wanted and should be consulted.  The Chairman said in the final report: “…the Members of the Committee approached the task with vigour and a sense of purpose which enabled them to ...report on time and with unanimity…I congratulate them for their ability to work well together…”

There is need for our politicians and governmental systems to reach out and not preach out; my experience suggests that the Multi-party committee philosophy & model can be extremely useful to this end.  We know that people of different political persuasions can work together (and often enjoy doing so). We also know it creates better public policy…and that is what we need…public policy, not policy.