Dear Justin

Stand.earth, formerly Forest Ethics, has this message for Justin Trudeau. You can help spread the message by clicking here.

Guest Post: A Response To Flying Blind

Yesterday's post dealt with the announcement that a degree of self-regulation is to be conferred on the airline industry by the Trudeau government. Given the fraught history of self-regulation in this country, it is alarming news. BM, a frequent commentator, offered an analysis of the situation as well as an interesting perspective on what is driving that change. I am taking the liberty of featuring his insights as a guest post:

Well, it would certainly argue against flying Air Canada to San Fran, where the existing pilots seem to be having a tough job as it is. That second incident where the pilot ignored 6 request/orders to go around and couldn't see the flashing red light either was a doozy. The short interview I heard with the pilot, equipped with a plummy British accent, was revealing. Radio trouble. Oh yes? With at least three radios available, according to other pilots in various pilots' online forums. Not mentioned - blindness to flashing red lights from the control tower.

In a proper quality assurance system, amply documented and thus verifiable to process under an outside audit, where procedures are detailed to a very fine degree, letting the industry "run" itself is just fine. Electricity and Gas meters are inspected under this regime in Canada - I was involved in setting such a system up. In the 1990s, not now. It does require that company executives be part of the system as well, and part of the audit. Everyone has procedures they must know inside out, no excuses. There are avenues for considering improvements, and documentation of everyone's training and ability to follow the system. In other words, some shop foreman in a lousy mood cannot come in one morning and change what everyone does, just because HE/SHE feels like it, or there is a recorded miscompliance report which anyone can make without fear of retribution. Keeps 'em all sane.

When it comes to meatcutting or piloting, you are dealing with situations that are not boringly standard, like instrument testing. Turnover of personnel is highly likely in the meat business, and low wages with perhaps poor English skills only exacerbate problems with written procedures. Oversight is necessary. And pilots, well they all believe they know what's best and which SOPs they can disregard. You just have to go to the TSB's website and read accident analyses to see that.

The driving force for self-regulation in industry is no doubt driven by the same Public Service pointy-heads who cannot see the difference between an ordered industrial process and situations where the humans require continual oversight. The politicians are merely attracted by the promise of saving money given them by their public service advisers, so I cannot blame either Liberals or Conservatives myself. Politicians sometimes have trouble tieing their own shoelaces, let alone understanding anything complicated. And the average person hasn't a clue about the difference between quality inspection and quality assurance, the latter being the self-regulation system, the first where outsiders check every bit. You don't need to inspect every single widget if the process is under control. That's the way cars are made these days, with the possible exception of FCA.

Lack of commonsense is the problem. One process is not the same as another and may not be amenable to auditable self-regulation.

Flying Blind

Many will recall that during the Harper era, our country moved toward greater self-regulation in various industries, often with disastrous results. From tainted meat to railway disasters, the lesson is clear: leaving safety up to the corporate sector, whose prime directive is to maximize profit for their shareholders, is a dangerous gamble with the health and lives of Canadians.

Now the neoliberal Trudeau government is taking a page out of the Harper agenda, a move that will put those who fly at greater risk.

Transport Canada is planning to stop evaluating pilots who perform checks on their counterparts at the country’s largest airlines and will instead give the responsibility to the operators, a change critics say erodes oversight and public safety.

The current practice of having Transport Canada evaluate those pilots who evaluate other pilots in the airline industry will stop as of April 1 for airlines with planes that fly more than 50 passengers. This, as reported today, is a drastic departure from accepted practices in other countries, which stipulates that pilots be evaluated twice a year.

Greg McConnell, chairman of the pilots association, said the changes are pushing Canada’s aviation safety system onto the industry itself.

“I think it’s very, very important that people understand we are getting closer to self-regulation all the time.” he said in an interview. “It’s just more cutting, more dismantling of the safety net.”

The safety compromise inherent in this decision is not going unnoticed:

New Democrat MP Robert Aubin, the committee’s other vice-chair, said the decision was “curious” because Transport Canada said it was doing more oversight, not less.

“I have concerns if the pilots who evaluate their pilots are not evaluated by Transport Canada. We have to have the same standards,” he said in an interview. “We have to increase the resources at Transport Canada to make sure we can do that job.”

For the Star article carrying this story, no Liberals were available for comment, hardly a surprise given the shameful nature of their decision here.

The fear of progressive taxation that the current government has shown seems to working its way through the system. It cannot be a comforting thought for those planning their next trip by air.

Not A Dirty Word

In his column the other day, Rick Salutin wrote a stout defence of taxes, making it very clear that for him and many others, the word and the concept are hardly obscenities.

Public programs need to be adequately funded and expanded, the opposite of the American mentality:

Take tax reform. To U.S. Republicans, it means one thing: cuts. It’s their ultimate “reason for existing” (Financial Times). They staggered into the light this week to say (again) that Americans should keep their hard-earned money to pay their medical and university bills. Ha ha ha. There’s no way tax cuts will cover most such costs, though you might be able to repave your carport. What would help? More taxes. That could fund national “free” health care or tuition. But it would mean bigger government, levying higher taxes.

Here in Canada, the need for an expansion, not a contraction, of government intervention in people's lives is becoming increasingly obvious. Salutin cites the sad situation of dismissed Sears workers who are facing loss of severance and reduced pensions as a result of the chain's bankruptcy. This dire situation is mirrored in larger society by the growth of precarious work and the fact that company pensions are fast becoming relics of an earlier era. Echoing a sentiment recently expressed by his colleague, Thomas Walkom, he offers this:

The obvious solution is the health-care model: public programs like CPP not to supplement private pensions but to replace and amplify them — i.e., bigger government.

The mystery is why anyone ever thought private companies were the way to cover huge costs like health or pensions. It’s costly and patchwork; public programs make far more sense. They’re stabler, better funded and include some democratic oversight.

The rub in all of this is that such transformation requires something far too many have become allergic to: increased taxation.

Public programs, however, mean you need revenues to fund them. And presto, you’re back to taxes...to run national programs, taxes must be accumulated, not just endlessly cut.

It’s a simple picture and it’s amazing how Finance Minister Bill Morneau managed not to paint it with his summer tax “reform” rollout: get more tax revenues from the rich, who can afford it, to fund big programs; and give cuts to those who’ll spend to stimulate the economy, generating more revenues.

Salutin ends his piece by a personal testament to the need for properly-funded programs:

In recent weeks I’ve had (public sector) fire trucks at the house twice — for a fallen branch on power lines, then two false CO alarms in two days. They came swiftly, cheerily and competently, unlike my private gas provider, who effectively said, from wherever on the globe, that they didn’t give a flying leap.

I will close with a letter from today's Star that echoes Salutin's sentiments:

The big government era isn’t over. It may just be getting started, Salutin, Oct. 27

For the love of our aging and long-lived demographic, Rick Salutin has nailed it. We need to reframe the tax conversation. I don’t know where we’ve lost our way about this as a country or even as a society, but I remain confused when people say such things as, “but taxes will increase,” like a venomous accusation, rather than recognizing what it means to enjoy things such as clean drinking water and not having to build in a $50,000 rainy-day fund just in case we slip and break our hip (in the middle of the forest, no less, with no one to sue).

It scares me to think that if Canada had tried to socialize health care in this day and age, society is at a point where we would have said no and cried out for “lower taxes, not my money” instead.

If all we ever hear about is scandals and corruption, it’s little wonder why no one trusts government to handle the public purse anymore. I say keep at it, let’s talk about the privileges our society gets to enjoy for the value of its tax money and how much we’re going to need it in the decades to come.

Jennifer Ng, Richmond Hill

Time To Put Away Childish Things

For a nation that calls itself the greatest country on earth, the United States has a lot of growing up to do. That is the trenchant opinion offered by Heather Mallick in today's Star, one that is likely to earn her more than her usual quotient of hate mail from the usual suspects.

Mallick's evidence is both telling and vastly amusing:

The U.S. is — how can I put this tactfully? — childish, with all the charm and menace that entails. American adults dress like kids in baseball caps, sneakers and comfy pants, but add a semi-automatic rifle to the outfit and it’s... troubling.

As well, their eating habits and table practices cry out for correction:

Their cuisine is childish too, with huge servings of fried food loaded with high-fructose corn syrup and trans fat. Even their implements are primitive. “Consider the plastic drinking straw. Why do we suck so much?” the Washington Post asked this week of citizens unable to drink from the rim of a glass.

The reason must lie in the “shared psyche” of Americans, but what could it be, the Post wondered. “Laziness? Clumsiness? Germaphobia?” Infantilism went unmentioned. The drinking straw is the adult equivalent of a sippy cup.

Even their fantasies are jejeune and conceal some unpleasant truths:

And why the Disney fetish? “Americans long for a closed society in which everything can be bought, where labourers are either hidden away or dressed up as non-humans so as not to be disconcerting. This place is called Disney World,” was the journalist Adam Gopnik’s explanation. But he is an adult.

According to Mallick, American travel also shares in this puerile quality:

The cruise industry offers daycare for grown-ups, crass all-you-can-eat vacations with all the adventure of a car seat. Have you ever been on an island and seen American tourists flood at you off a ship? It’s not the mercilessness of the crowd that scares you, it’s the smiling.

Consider as well the culturally imperialistic but infantile institution known as the American film industry:

U.S. movies are aimed at childish audiences. They are quite literally cartoons — such movie franchises are worth gold — or computer-animation with renderings of extraordinary violence that never seem real, part of the reason the Sandy Hook child slaughter had no effect on U.S. gun laws. American culture is literal, with a poor grasp of irony and complication. It would be taboo to show photos of the dead victims but not taboo to have let them be shot.

Mallick has much more to say on this topic, and she expresses gratitude that despite our proximity to the southern lumbering giant, we as Canadians seem to be far more adult in our daily endeavours. However, that is something none of us can take too much comfort in, given that Americans still wield more might than any other nation on earth.

Picture a toddler armed with a Kalashnikov, and I think you get the troubling picture.

Corporate Greed and Political Collusion

If you haven't already done so, be sure to check out Owen's post on the Sears Canada bankruptcy. In it, he cite's Linda McQuaig's article in today's Star that deals with our wholly inadequate bankruptcy laws that leave many workers, in this case those losing their jobs with the 65-yeear-old department store chain, holding an almost empty bag.

Last night's report from Global National demonstrates both the human tragedy behind the bankruptcy, and the fact that unlike countries such as Britain and the U.S., Canada offers little protection for those who should qualify for both severance pay and pensions. And despite the usual platitudinous lamentations from the political class, it is obvious that the federal government is not interested in changing our regulations in order to protect the truly vulnerable.




Corporate bankruptcy is not a new Canadian phenomenon. Despite that, it seems that our neoliberal masters are intent only on protecting the corporate sector, not the citizens of this country.

You can read about the private members' bills seeking to address the situation here. However, bear in mind that such bills are almost always doomed to failure.

A Glimmer Of Integrity

Although the denunciations of Donald Trump from members of the GOP are welcome, the fact that they come from Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, two U.S. senators not seeking re-election, mutes the impact of their words. Unqualified integrity, in my view, would be shown if those seeking re-election were to speak out as forthrightly.