Saturday, January 11, 2025

Why are so many bent on a reformation of Western society? Nihilism and apathy are the enemy.

 

We are often counselled to “be positive”, I try, BUT, when one sees stupid it is incumbent upon one to speak up. I quake while observing the anti-west nihilistic, presentism, cancel culture folks tearing down the very society that has provided them with the best standard of living in human history. The past 75 years have seen the largest increase in human living standards in history, in the West and the entire globe. It reminds me of a limerick imparted to me by a mentor when I was about 8 years old – Jean Jean built a machine, Joe Joe made it go, Art Art blew a fart and the whole damn thing came apart. It seems there has been a willingness to apathetically let Art flatulate while Western civilization burns – an epic blue bomb, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, a foul mushroom is forming over Mother Earth. The reformation that is being imposed on Western civilization is taking us away from prosperity and freedom, to, potentially at least, reduced living standards and tyranny.


This is in no way to say the 75 years have been perfect. This is no way to say that we are absent from environmental challenges. This is in no way to say that all people have benefited proportionately. This is in no way to say we’ve gotten closer to world peace. This is to say that the combination of a free market, democracy and a vibrant civil society has created the best society overall. All the challenges we are facing, in the main, stem from government capture -  corporatism and special interests on steroids have moved governance away from the greater good. It would be a disaster to allow the Western economic model to disintegrate only to be replaced with authoritarianism and centralized government – something we’ve seen too much of late. What is required is tweaking rather than total reformation of the system.

Ranger tells me he’s about five years out on the world peace thing, so I’m turning my attention to showing people the magic of the market when left unfettered by regulations unrelated to human health, regulations that posit societal well-being ostensibly while having as their motivation supply management.  The unfettered pursuit by the individual, while exercising themself as an autonomous agent, in pursuit of their best life, is the dream of a true liberal – hard to find a true liberal anymore.

Controllers, those who want to centralize power, degrade societal functioning to generate a state of dependence among the citizens. Emancipators support people to a place of self-reliance.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Bill of Rights are the foundational documents that should be serving the model of the emancipators. Sadly, these documents are being ignored in many instances or undermined in other ways. There are many ways we can effect transcendence through economic policy and ways to support people to self-reliance. The challenge is that the people who need to be supported to independence have no effective lobby, save the one that seeks to give them subsistence at the expense of the opportunity to be a viable actor in society.

What does have an effective lobby are the various industrial complexes, military, medical, educational, media, technology etc.., their capacity to effectively control government is stifling the rise of the economically challenged and the middle class, it is in fact, degrading living standards. It is also stifling creative destruction, disruption and other elements that give vitality to the economy. Worse perhaps is the damage to the environment – think planned obsolescence, that has a refrigerator last five years instead of 30 like they used to - in the main a product of collusion between manufacturing groups. The market is the solution to the distribution of goods and services, the solution to preserving the market and its democratizing effect is smart regulation rather than regulation that is effectively supply management. We want vitality in the economy, to achieve it, we need easy entry to the market, broader access to capital, the reduction of barriers to entry, a cultural shift starting with the education system to elevate the entrepreneurial spirit and a rebirth of the can-do spirit.

Technology – Promise and Peril

There are other challenges facing us in the future, the biggest I think is the new technologies. The new technologies are having the effect of highly concentrating participation in the market and the workplace generally. By way of example, Elon Musk, predicts that in the next 25 years, the majority of the menial tasks in society and many of the more sophisticated will be performed by robots leaving a girth of human capital with very little to do. This, in combination with other technologies like AI, is requiring us, perhaps, to somehow change the paradigm of society and the paradigm of our existence. It may be the case that we reconceive how we receive income. Elon Musk posits that technology will provide goods so effectively that more than a mere minimum income people will simply ask for what they want. If this transpires, it leaves humanity purely in the intellectual space and their physicality being directed toward recreation.

The side effect of these technological eventualities is the concentration of power and influence. Further, there is a large movement in the technological space to get out of the grips of government to in fact become governments themselves in some cases. As these various technological streams converge the power of very few concentrates and the power of the citizen diminishes. There can be benevolence in those with concentrated power and concentrated power can be nimble and very effective. Unfortunately, benevolence is never guaranteed and at times the benevolent descend into malevolence.

Technology has been transformative in my life, I'm writing this letter by talking into a microphone on my computer rather than typing, I have the entire world's knowledge at my fingertips through AI, I can know anything anytime anywhere. So, I'm optimistic that technology has the capacity to better our lives but that is strongly tempered by the dark that lives in the hearts of some people. The Enlightenment was a movement of freedom and emancipation, it spawned The United States and the unprecedented growth in democracy lifting the yoke of tyranny off of millions of people. The spirit of emancipation that was exhibited by Abraham Lincoln is hardly being paid attention to, in some quarters it's mocked. A disrespect for the tenants of emancipation and freedom, in tandem with the confluence of these very powerful technologies has embedded in it the potential for the kind of tyranny never witnessed in human history.

This type of tyranny has already begun to rise its ugly head, there are countries, and they are numerous, who aspired to control every element of every citizen's life. They do this now in some countries with AI-driven surveillance and complete control of the citizenry's use of money through the mandatory use of electronic funds. When you do something, the state doesn't like, they shut off your money it's that simple that's tyranny of a kind we've never seen before. When you combine this absolute control of the citizenry, with a utilitarian non spiritually grounded governance, where the sanctity of life is diminished or perhaps forgotten altogether a rather terrifying prospect looms on the horizon.

I want my grandchildren to enjoy what my father and his contemporaries fought so long and hard for and gave so much for, and resulting in the post-war period being the most prosperous and free in human history. Thomas Jefferson and John Philpot Curran, both believed that "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance, which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." I share their view, so I spend many sleepless nights working on the problem of these powerful technologies being turned into the tools of tyranny.

There are few things that I'm sure of, but one thing I am sure of is, if you disempower individuals and you consolidate power, tyranny is always around the corner. So, job one to protect ourselves against the eventuality of tyranny is to work in every way possible to maintain and enhance the power of the individual and to retard the merger of the state and industrial complexes. The merger of state and industrial complexes in combination with the consolidation of power inherent in these modern technologies is a threat to us all and it must be challenged. It serves to remember that the collapse of a governance system is a series of cascading failures, and it happens quickly, you go to bed, you drift off to sleep, and the rattle of hobnail boots wakes you, that's how fast it can happen. So look lively. 

Thursday, July 25, 2024

Nuclear V Hydroelectric Power

 


Where Fear-Based Thinking Has Taken Us – The irrational destruction of millions of hectares of the most important habitat in Canada.

One issue that brings resolution to the challenge of fear of carbon driving decision-making is how governments promote reservoir Hydroelectric power generation as “green”. The mere fact that it produces electricity with a low carbon footprint gives it a get-out-of-jail-free card on massive environmental damage. Williston Lake, Lake Koocanusa, Arrow Lakes Reservoir, Kinbasket Reservoir, Revelstoke Lake, Nechako Reservoir, Seton Lake, and Carpenter Lake collectively have flooded 295,000 hectares – land that was key wintering habitat, rivers that were once salmon rivers, vast areas with other potential in industrial pursuits.  Had we chosen Nuclear Power instead, the same amount of power generation would have had about a 2000-hectare footprint and a fraction of the environmental damage.

This is in no way a bid to reclaim this land, nor really to condemn the choice to build Dams, this is a call to stop letting fear rule the roost and start letting reason and science drive decision-making.  It was fear rather than reason that drove the damming of rivers, building thousands of miles of right of way for transmission lines and the resulting depletion of habitat and reduction in other income opportunities. This folly rages on, British Columbia built the Site C dam and Quebec is planning more hydro development. Hydroelectric power, while short of being carbon neutral, is a low carbon source of energy – it is devastating to the environment generally, people flock to it out of the fear of carbon and the fear of a possible accident from the safest form of energy we have.

 Let’s take a look at Williston Lake and the WAC Benett Dam.


Williston Lake and WAC Benett Dam have a reported capacity of 15 GW. As a result of the dam, we lost 129 thousand hectares of wildlife habitat, and river bottoms typically are critical wintering habitat. The reservoir emits 252 KG per MWh the dam is responsible for approximately 2 million tonnes total per year. The approximate dollar value of the timber destroyed by flooding and the timber value that the reservoir precludes from producing is roughly $8 Billion. All other industrial values precluded, such as tourism, mining etc. are outside the writer’s capacity to quantify, they are sure to be substantive. All the acreage lost to transmission lines and the way transmission lines mar the landscape are an additional price we pay. 

Nuclear and Hydro have nearly the same safety profile.

It is clearly indicated by the data that Nuclear is as safe as Hydroelectric and is much less damaging to the environment. So how have we ended up ruining thousands of hectares of land for no good reason? I submit that the answer is irrational fear.

We should be rational in the choices we make, Nuclear is safe, and effective and we are leaders in the technology – we should use more of it. We should be exporting LNG and displacing coal use in Asia and Europe. We should stop letting social engineering hijack the critical task of protecting the environment.

 

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Carbon Policy – The only thing we have to fear is fear itself

 

Carbon Policy – The only thing we have to fear is fear itself


 

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

The preservation and enhancement of our environment is the most critical issue of our time. The entire breadth of humanity’s existence rests on our ability to steward the earth’s resources properly. This task of attending to the environment is so important we must prevent it from being hijacked for other purposes.

There are terrifying cultural underpinnings within segments of the environmental movement that subordinate the sanctity of human life to perceived climate concerns. These segments are advocating policy that puts the bottom billion at risk, perhaps more. These environmental movement segments are gaining traction due to their propagandizing of apocalyptic predictions. The “negativity bias” in the public’s consumption of data is growing irrational hypotheses to epic proportions and taking us in a calamitous direction.

The discourse related to climate change is fear-based. The goal is to create a culture of fear now, to prevent a perceived danger in years to come. Assuming every assertion being made by climate alarmists were true, the magnitude of the challenge was exactly as they are reporting, causing widespread fear would be a bad thing. The fact is there is little evidence to support the magnitude of their claims as being accurate. Climate activists have wrought the public's map of reality and have offered virtue-signalling instead of effective environmental policy. The hyper-attention to Carbon Reduction has distracted us from other environmental challenges that need our attention. From the Canadian perspective, nothing we do in Canada will alter the course of climate change, that’s a fact, there is plenty we can do to harden our environment against all possible challenges to it in the future.

The entire climate issue is really quibbling over the degree and nuanced variation across a multitude of variables. This effects two realities, nobody knows for sure, and it is an issue that makes the perfect opportunity to raise nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.  The problem is that irrational policy response is harming the environment and the economy in Canada for no reason.

 CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Framing The Issue

Whereas Canada only emits 1.5% of global emissions, and the goal is reducing global emissions, then Canada must project the solution to the world because perfection in Canada will have no effect on the challenge.

Canadian emissions represent 1.5 % of total global emissions or 708,000,000 Tonnes per year (2022 Stats Canada). There are 367,000,000 Square Hectares of Boreal Forest (Environment Canada). Forests very in their capacity as carbon sinks – Canada forests very, World Resources Institute suggests 3 tonnes per hectare Elephantiacs suggest 6.4 tonnes per hectare. The writer, in the interest of being conservative, chooses 3 tonnes per hectare. This means that our forest sequesters 1,101,000,000 tonnes per year. The result is net carbon sequestration of 393,000,000 tonnes per year.  People will quibble depending which side of the argument they are on, the point is true, they may be able to quibble to the degree.

Please note the infographics below. If Canada eliminated all emissions, we’d have no effect on CO2 emissions and no real impact on climate change since the non-OECD nation’s gains in emissions would negate our reduction in emissions. So rather than directing funds toward something that no domestic effort can impact, we should direct resources to preparedness, hardening our environment and adaptation.

These graphs indicate that non-OECD countries will be growing their carbon footprint. Please note the thin green line, that is renewables. People tout them as the solution, but they are in fact predicted to have very little impact on emissions.

I think any rational person can look at these facts and deduce that nothing Canada does domestically will have any effect on climate change. There is only one solution to carbon emissions, an emission-free $50 / barrel of oil equivalent. I should note also that these estimates are very optimistic given even Canada seems unable to meet climate targets. Assuming for a moment that curtailing carbon emissions is critically important, then if Canada wants to be a part of the global solution, Canada needs to project technologies outside its borders.

Why would we rather build dams that destroy millions of acres of important wildlife habitats, when modern nuclear power is safe and effective? Why has Germany shut down the nuclear plants and been a "leader" in climate policy only to send Russia $1 billion per day for natural gas? Why has Canada failed to respond to the coming energy crisis in Europe by getting LNG up and running? Why have we implemented a Carbon Tax that slows the economy, effects inflation, is extremely regressive and fails to meet its objective in a meaningful way. Governance in Canada has taken an irrational turn and unless we change it, we'll be leaving hell behind us for our grandchildren.

Where is Canada?

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

The Effects of the Carbon Tax

The carbon tax is bad policy. It is regressive, it slows the economy, and it contributes to inflation, worst, however, it has little effect on carbon emissions. The degree to which lower-income people are affected by artificially inflated oil prices is disproportionate to people in higher income brackets and most programs to mitigate this are ineffective. The damage to the economy is twofold; firstly, for every $10 added to a barrel of oil equivalent BOE there is an approximately .2 to .3 % downward pressure on Gross Domestic Product GDP, secondly, carbon tax effects inflation at a rate of .5 to 1 % annually – the cumulative effect of the two is significant. Most importantly, carbon tax as a price signal to curb consumption has little or no impact – there can only be consumer response to a negative marginal rate for substitution if there is a substitute, there is no substitute.

Any negative effect on the economy is always amplified on lower-income people and the marginalized. It is estimated by the Fraser Institute that due to increased carbon prices GDP will decrease by 1.8% causing a loss of 185,000 jobs, real household income will decline by 1% and the budget deficit will grow by $22 Billion. By 2030 the writer estimates the added cost of carbon will effect a 1 to 2% annual increase in inflation. The people hurt most by inflation are fixed-income people, seniors, people with disabilities etc.. The government’s Healthy Environment and Healthy Economy (HEHE)’s downsides are reported to be offset by the Climate Action Incentive Payment (CAIP). Effectively the government claims that the carbon tax paid out will be returned dollar for dollar with some benefit to lower-income people. CAIP fails, however, to compensate for the loss of opportunity or the fact more people will be forced to dependence. Further, it has been reported by the Parliamentary Budget Office that the public is failing to be reimbursed for the carbon tax paid.

Drivers of global inflation. Oil price shocks were the main drivers of variation in global inflation with a contribution of over 38 percent, followed by global demand shocks with a contribution of about 28 percent over the past five decades, and much smaller contributions of global supply shocks and interest rate shocks. Impulse responses also suggest a more significant role for oil prices and global demand shocks. For instance, following a positive oil price shock of around 10 percent, global inflation increases by 0.35 percentage point within a year, and 0.55 percentage point within three years.”  

 

“In addition, oil price and global demand shocks were the main drivers of movements in global inflation around every global recession since 1970 (1975, 1982, 1991, 2009, and 2020).”

 World Bank Brief Global Inflation

The Marginal Rate of Substitution (MRS) is a fundamental concept in microeconomics, particularly in the analysis of consumer behaviour. It measures the rate at which a consumer is willing to substitute one good for another while maintaining the same level of utility (satisfaction). The advocates for carbon tax assert that the tax effects a price signal that moves the consumer of energy away from fossil fuels to other less damaging energy sources. The challenge is that there is no viable substitution, the consumer has no options. Nor are there likely to be more options soon. Please note the graph below from the US Energy Information Administration, the thin green line represents the predicted uptake of “green” options.  Given this reality, the carbon tax will deter discretionary fossil fuel use, once discretionary use is curtailed, however, demand hardens and the response to the price signal fades.

Please note the graphs below. Note the price volatility of fossil fuels and note the steady demand.

In British Columbia, the Carbon Tax was implemented in 2008 and the data is unclear as to whether it has had a positive impact. There are reports of a 5% - 15% reduction in carbon emissions. The challenge is finding a means of attributing this modest reduction in emissions to the tax. BC is a retirement mecca; we have many people coming here to retire and a large cohort of our local citizens retiring – this population uses less energy. This is just one example of an influencing factor putting downward pressure on fossil fuel use. There is also the growing intellectual economy and the relative waning of the industrial economy.

Assuming that reducing carbon emissions is important, we should use policies that work. We should seek a policy that has as few negative externalities as possible. Before we sacrifice our energy sector, we should be sure that we are doing so for global results, rather than hoping that setting a good example will convince the non–OECD countries to sacrifice their newfound prosperity.

The other distressing effect of a carbon tax is that it provides yet another channel for the government to tax and spend – or tax and influence. In Canada, the government takes about half of people’s money in taxes and fees and then gives a little back if we do what they want. This would be less distressing if there were actual study given on the pros and cons of a given course of action, it is rare to find cost-benefit analysis done by the government on decisions they make – if there is a study it is hard for the public to find and use – opacity is the hallmark of our competitive political process.

Cap & Trade

A properly designed Cap and Trade program is GDP neutral, and inflation neutral, provides opportunity for new entrants to the marketplace and puts competitive pressure on reducing the cost of sequestering carbon.  

Cap and Trade, rather than taking money out of the economy into government coffers, simply moves one bit of GDP from one party to another. By way of example, if an oilsands company exceeds their cap, they post the number of tonnes they need to be sequestered on an exchange.  There are many people who want the “business” so they bid for the work, perhaps a company in BC plants trees or has some other means of sequestering carbon – perhaps they can sequester carbon for $50 / tonne or less, so they get the “business” rather than the person that charges $100 / tonne. The market mechanism accelerates sequestration and reduces the cost per tonne of carbon emission reduction.

The carbon tax is in effect a fine applied by the government and it is an arbitrary number of $175 per tonne by 2030. Whether or not that $175 / has any effect is ambiguous at best and the negative externalities render mute any benefit that may occur. In contrast, a tonne of carbon sequestered is unambiguous, and the cost of sequestering that carbon is an exchange between two actors in the economy with a near-neutral effect on the overall GDP picture.

Where Fear-Based Thinking Has Taken Us – The irrational destruction of millions of hectares of the most important habitat in Canada.

One issue that brings resolution to the challenge of fear of carbon driving decision-making is the way in which governments promote reservoir Hydroelectric power generation as “green”. The mere fact that it produces electricity with a low carbon footprint gives it a get-out-of-jail-free card on massive environmental damage. Williston Lake, Lake Koocanusa, Arrow Lakes Reservoir, Kinbasket Reservoir, Revelstoke Lake, Nechako Reservoir, Seton Lake, and Carpenter Lake collectively have flooded 295,000 hectares – land that was key wintering habitat, rivers that were once salmon rivers, vast areas with other potential in industrial pursuits.  Had we chosen Nuclear Power instead, the same amount of power generation would have had about a 2000-hectare footprint and a fraction of the environmental damage.

This is in no way a bid to reclaim this land, nor really to condemn the choice to build Dams, this is a call to stop letting fear rule the roost and start letting reason and science drive decision-making.  It was fear rather than reason that drove the damming of rivers, building thousands of miles of right of way for transmission lines and the resulting depletion of habitat and reduction in other income opportunities. This folly rages on, British Columbia built the Site C dam and Quebec is planning more hydro development. Hydroelectric power, while short of being carbon neutral, is a low carbon source of energy – it is devastating to the environment generally, people flock to it out of the fear of carbon and the fear of a possible accident from the safest form of energy we have.

 Let’s take a look at Williston Lake and the WAC Benett Dam.


Williston Lake and WAC Benett Dam have a reported capacity of 15 GW. As a result of the dam, we lost 129 thousand hectares of wildlife habitat, and river bottoms typically are critical wintering habitat. The reservoir emits 252 KG per MWh the dam is responsible for approximately 2 million tonnes total per year. The approximate dollar value of the timber destroyed by flooding and the timber value that the reservoir precludes from producing to date is approximately $8 Billion. All other industrial values precluded, tourism, mining etc. are outside the writer’s capacity to quantify, they are sure to be substantive. All the acreage lost to transmission lines and the way transmission lines mar the landscape are an additional price we pay. 

Nuclear and Hydro have nearly the same safety profile.

It is clearly indicated by the data that Nuclear is as safe as Hydroelectric and is much less damaging to the environment. So how have we ended up ruining thousands of hectares of land for no good reason? I submit that the answer is irrational fear.

Fear of carbon emissions has us doing nonsensical things. How many hectares of salmon reds could we have built for the 30 billion dollars we dedicated to electric battery manufacturing when batteries would have been constructed with or without government funding. Contemplate the accumulated value of every level of government’s action related to carbon reduction, why have we spent that money or committed to spending more – when nothing we do in Canada will change the trajectory in carbon emissions. We’d have been better off attending to pressing environmental issues like habitat maintenance and enhancement, like protecting our waterways from contamination, like managing our forests so they are resilient and resistant to fire. Why, when we know we are less than 1.5% of the world problem, have we failed to contribute to the world solution? The fear of carbon is irrational, on what amounts to speculation, we have declared carbon emissions the enemy. Do carbon emissions affect climate YES, it is the degree that is unclear. If you assume carbon emissions are the problem, they are inevitable, so prepare for them by attending to the environment and prepare for them by contemplating and pursuing a global solution.

We should be rational in the choices we make, Nuclear is safe, and effective and we are leaders in the technology – we should use more of it. We should be exporting LNG and displacing coal use in Asia and Europe. We should stop letting social engineering hijack the critical task of protecting the environment.

 

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE





Monday, April 8, 2024

Crownland Use - Reform - attitude adjustment, planning and tenure allotment, interface with First Nations



Crownland Use reform

Opportunity Abounds

Opportunity abounds we need only to pursue it. The present state of crownland use in British Columbia has as its biggest hallmark, waste.  Crownland management has regressed to “the war of the woods era”.  Government action has become arbitrary. Please, read what is offered here, it is a way forward.



Land Use in British Columbia

 CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Purpose

The writer, having been born in British Columbia in 1958, and having spent his life working on or in relation to the land in every major industry in the interior of British Columbia, is eager to see Crownland be managed for the greater good. My purpose here is to draw on my experience in land use and land management, comment on various factors affecting the effective use of Crownland and offer suggestions on the same. 

Situation Analysis / Introduction

Land use in British Columbia can be characterized as “underperforming”. The relative state of land use to, approximately, the mid-seventies to late nineties, has degraded. Throughout history there has been undulation in land use/management performance, at no point, however, has the management of crown land been optimal. The optimization of economic, social, and environmental elements of land use has eluded us.

Any given area of land is best managed holistically. With a management horizon that is commensurate with the resource's specific requirements, primary site recreation land for 20 to 50 years, agricultural crops for 1 to 5 years, soil for 100 years, forest interests for 40 to 100 years, geophysical alterations (mining) 50 to 100 years. The means by which the government now manages tenure precludes accessing a management regime that optimizes outcomes over time; we “permit” people to go take things, rather than, providing tenures that encourage the long and productive use of the land. For several reasons, the government has been reluctant to provide tenure regimes that see to the land resource in its entirety or to optimize the use of any single resource.

The result of the present land use realities in BC is, that lands are undermanaged or unmanaged, vast tracts of lands lay latent, the outcomes of forest and other resource management is suboptimal to destructive, dominant actors on the land are negatively affecting other users and the greater good is failing to be served. We need to find a better means of accessing the latent wealth that resides in our province’s crownland and harmonize the access to that wealth with the environment and the interests of British Columbians. We need a global plan. A plan that extends beyond and supersedes the damaging effects of the four-year election cycle. A plan that sets the long-term objectives for land use. A plan that puts a regulatory framework in place that is simple, streamlined, predictable, decisive and attends to the multitude of interests related to the use of crownland. A plan that puts the highest and best use of Crownland over the appropriate management horizon.

The crownland management regime now tends to be heavily “captured” the result being land management with the interests of major industries satisfied at the cost of overall optimization. Most tenure reviews I’ve examined tend to go to the established land users for input, while it seems obvious this would be the case, it further exacerbates negative elements of land use in the province. Tenure and land management regime design needs to begin with a futuring exercise that determines the potentiality of all land uses and then, off the foundation of clear knowledge of the benefit of each potential use, a plan is developed, and tenure is issued that suits each respective use. What we have now has evolved into being leaving in place historical baggage, it is time to take what’s evolved into being and bring knowledge and intention to creating an optimal regime.

The LRUP / LRMP process facilitated participation by anyone with an interest in any given LRUP area, they could walk into the process and be heard. All users and interests were at the table or could be. In the instance of the LRUP I attended in relation to the operation of a wilderness fishing lodge, the local First Nation was a regular participant – because of that process, other interfaces with the First Nation took place, I purchased hay from them for example. If there was an issue related to another user in your operating area, the LRUP process provided the contact required, most often concerns were addressed between the two parties absent any need for arbitration. Further, as people sat at the table they gained insight into other’s interests, a process that tended to moderate variations in perspectives.

The writer submits that since the end of the various planning tables in the province, the LRUP, and the LRMP structure, what land management that has taken place has become arbitrary. The writer has been made aware of several instances where roads are closed absent proper consultation with other user groups. The writer was made aware of logging taking place in the Likely area that negatively affected a tourism operator and the operator had a difficult time seeking recourse; his experience sounded eerily reminiscent of the 1970s when Shelly Lake Lodge’s operating area was logged absent any consideration to the tourism operation effectively ending their business. 

While the LRUP and LRMP processes were cumbersome largely due to the reality that ministry staff were mandated to bring the table to full consensus – as a result, the processes tend to become drawn out. With a few modifications, the planning tables could work effectively – staff would need to be mandated to seek agreement or arbitrate disagreement. Absent a free and unfettered process that brings parties together in relation to a given piece of crownland, animosity grows, discord grows, and we regress into the 1980 War of the Woods mindset.

The situation that has emerged in relation to wildfires where provincial officials find themselves in conflict with land users needs attention. Proper process would help alleviate many of these conflicts through prior association – any given land use area would have the provincial wildfire personnel at the table with the result being wildfire contingencies would be put in place through consultation rather than edict.

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

First Nations’ Role in Land Use

Whereas First Nations progress is reliant on the balance of British Columbians' goodwill, anything the government does to attend to its obligations to First Nations should be absolutely necessary and should avoid fomenting discord.

Whereas our government’s history with the First Nation’s peoples is marred by tragedy causing a reduced living circumstance for First Nations people relative to the rest of the population, every effort should be made to effect benefit toward the First Nation peoples to effect parity of living standards with the general population.

Whereas, the oversight of land management needs to be done objectively, no single interest group can be permitted access to arbitration of disputes, and the final authority in any land use decision must be an objective arbiter appointed by the government or a political actuary.

Whereas, accessing applications to use Crownland for industrial or other uses must be consistent, processes related to reviewing applications for land use need to be the same across the province, rather than ad hoc processes as indicated by government literature.

The writer has witnessed a negative reaction to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People by a large segment of the population general and then again toward the proposed introduction of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Has this initiative furthered the interests of First Nations peoples? Over the course of the past 50 years, the writer has observed a growing recognition of the wrongdoings toward the First Nations peoples and a greater degree of empathy toward their cause. This is a fragile development. One needs to take care to ensure that the public’s desire to better the lot of the First Nations peoples is maintained and enhanced – these recent initiatives in of themselves and the way they were forwarded may have been detrimental to the cause of improving the First Nation peoples relative standing in our province.

The regime that has emerged out of Canadian legislation and related jurisprudence has moved us to a humane place. Our legal framework has generated a circumstance that is similar to the UNDRIP and yet in no way forfeited our traditional paramountcy environment. In a circumstance wrought by emotion, it may have been better to let sleeping dogs lie and gently moved forward in our own way.

One begins a discussion related to the First Nation people and land use in British Columbia recognizing that their history here has been extremely difficult, that their present circumstance has their living standards below the norm and that there needs to be a concerted effort to bring them to par. As the First Nation population affected by provincial concerns is less than 4% of the provincial population, there is plenty of room to extend more opportunities directly to the First Nation peoples. The First Nation peoples also require a generally vibrant economy so the other 96% of us can support their transition to par. Our futures are inextricably linked, they are effectively one future.

In the document published in 2019, Modernized Land Use Planning: A Guide to Effective Stakeholder Engagement Review, the following is offered as direction to ministry staff.

3.3 Clarify Roles and Responsibilities

While provincial and Indigenous governments may have different mandates, responsibilities, and interests, they can play complementary roles in planning-related stakeholder engagement. Come to agreement at an early stage as to how the responsibilities related to planning, conducting, tracking and reporting out on the engagement process will be shared.

One important item that should be resolved at the outset is whether engagement will be led by both the Province and partner First Nation with shared accountabilities, or if engagement will be provincially led with co-participation as determined by the partner First Nation. The provincial-led model may be better suited where processes include multiple First Nations, but this should be discussed and agreed upon by all planning partners.

One recognizes that every First Nation is entitled to self-government and that there will be variations between First Nation governance structures. There should be resistance to provincial staff and First Nations developing site-specific processes. That is to say, the process can be consistent even though the participants differ. The LRUP planning structure provided a forum where if there was an application to use a piece of land, everyone at the table had an opportunity to communicate their interests as they related to the proposal. In a forum such as this, where a First Nation is at the table, they are free to negotiate for their interests.

Inherent in an open forum facilitated by the province is the attendance to requirements related to a distinctions-based approach. Every first nation will bring their idiosyncrasies to the planning table. The participants’ interests can change within a consistent process.

From the writer's perspective, two concerns arise out of a First Nation taking an “administrative” position on the use of crownland. There are international conventions to thwart corruption that would preclude a company from being able to “reward” or financially involve a First Nation who holds executive decision-making capacity on the part of the government. If the final decision on land use lies with the government, then First Nations are unimpaired in their interface with an applicant, by way of example, perhaps an international mining company. Decisions need to fall to a final authority, at some point in the process, there must be a government entity that says yes or no. At no point in any process should there be a circumstance where the final authority is unclear or is unobjective?

Throughout Canadian jurisprudence related to First Nations peoples, the courts have consistently indicated that the federal government and or provincial governments hold final authority in accord with their respective jurisdictions.

The constitutional recognition afforded by the provision [section 35], therefore, gives a measure of control over government conduct and a strong check on legislative power. While it does not promise immunity from government regulation in a society that, in the twentieth century is increasingly more complex, interdependent and sophisticated and where exhaustible resources need protection and management, it does hold the Crown to a substantive promise. The government is required to bear the burden of justifying an(y) legislation which has some negative effect on any aboriginal right protected under section 35(1). 10

Sparrow, supra, at 410

To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show: (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate; (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group: Sparrow.

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 Para 77

These are two examples where the courts indicate that final authority lies with the Federal and Provincial governments; there are many more. Retaining final authority in land use management is critical to ensure that interband relations can be managed and decision-making can be timely.  Further, it is the Canadian courts where disputes will be resolved. 

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Suggested Land Management Process

Participation in anything as profound as crownland management demands that one can enter the process due to an interest in a given Land Use Area (LUA). If it is perceived that any entity with an interest effects excessively broad participation, then elected representatives to a board are required – direct participation or elected participation – to do otherwise is undemocratic.

The LRUP / LRMP processes permitted a healthy level of participation by relevant actors on a given LUA. As a fishing lodge operator, I was able to attend to my interests at a LRUP, as a director of the Fishing Resorts Association and High-Country Tourism I was able to attend to the interests of my industry. In these processes, a forum was provided to interface with the government and other stakeholders in a given LUA.

The challenge with the LRMP process was, that staff were instructed to find consensus, and consensus was defined in the broadest of terms.  This reality did facilitate a thorough review of interests, however, the process dragged on. It was effectively process without final authority – it succeeded in some cases (60% of the time), however, even in the case where it succeeded it was cumbersome.

LRUPs and LRMPs should be reinstated with modifications to the process. The process facilitators should inventory the interests, solicit the standing of the “group” and make a decision – an arbitrated decision if need be. In instances where arbitration is necessary effectively, the matter would move to a tribunal. Process timelines must be clearly defined. People entering the process must be able to ascertain the cost and time it will take. Regardless of how the specific project's furtherance is arrived at, there must be certainty in the decision.

Province-wide consistency is important. The writer’s personal experience indicates that applications for using Crownland vary, or perhaps enthusiasm for Crownland use varies. Having applied in the Prince George region receiving a warm welcome, I was surprised that in the Kamloops region, it was difficult to even talk to someone.

 



The advisory group for any given area (LRUP – where project specific interests are likely to be managed) should never be "selected" by government employees, participation should be determined by whether a group, or individual has an interest in the area of concern. An advisory group is in no way equivalent to a LRUP table, and "advisory" is a lot different than having been given a "vote" or "say" in the outcome of a given table.  For the process to be legitimate, all people with an interest in a specific LUA need a means to participate.

“There are different ways planning partners can establish stakeholder advisory groups. Planning partners should explore various options and determine the best approach for each project early in the engagement planning process. For example, planning partners may invite stakeholders to put forward someone to represent their interests in the advisory group. If a stakeholder interest is selecting its own representative, encourage them to choose someone who is a good listener and works well with others. Alternatively, planning partners may develop a process where individuals are evaluated by the project team based on a set of criteria and review of references from those who are familiar with the individual for their experience working with them (see Section 5). The method selected by the planning partners must be clear, transparent, and consistent.”

 

How can land use application process be consistent if it can vary by project, by region and by indigenous participation or by multiple indigenous governance imperatives?  The LRUP / LRMP structure permits full participation and accommodates variations in interests under a single structure.


Crownland Use and Tenure


General

There is one certainty if you generate a circumstance where every acre of crownland is meeting its potential economically while attending to environmental/social imperatives, then the societal benefit will be greater than it is now, so that is where the focus should be in land use policy.  In essence, then, take care of the long-term production interests of the crownland asset and you take care of the people relying on it. 

The prospect of people using Crownland to generate opportunities should be met with enthusiasm, it should be facilitated. Presently, the process of accessing Crownland is difficult to negotiate, even when civil servants are eager to be helpful. This reality leaves massive amounts of opportunity latent.

It is a concern that 95% of our province is crown land; land managed in a manner that is isolated from long-term concerns that one would see in a fee-simple ownership regime.  By contrasting the way, a farmer manages their land and its effects and the manner that provincial crownland tenure in conjunction with extractive management perspective and its effects, one realizes the need to tie today’s land management with tomorrow’s outcomes in a manner similar to fee simple tenure does.

In British Columbia, Canada over actually, we are witnessing the de-ruralization of our society, people are moving away from the land, away from natural systems, away from the Kadence of life that brings into visual relief the true realities of stewardship. This trend is placing rural British Columbia into a state of decline. Further, the voting population which is primarily urban and now out of touch with rural realities, is suppressing effective use of crownland. Effective allocation and use of crownland by the government is an opportunity to revitalize rural British Columbia.

The various tenure formats outside the forest industry seem functional. The challenges arise in the application process and gaining approval in many cases. The government has an opportunity to promote various uses by soliciting participation, by in effect identifying viable locations and preapproving them.

There is a reluctance on the part of the government to develop cottage developments on wilderness and semi-wilderness lakes for example. In Kamloops, if you scribe a 50-mile radius around the city that radius will encompass about 500 hundred lakes. If 20 - 50 of these lakes were dedicated to Cottage or full-time home use, there would be substantive and extended economic benefits to the region. If managed correctly, with little or no negative impact on the environment. Perhaps most importantly, it would place a large number of “stewards” on the land with a vested interest in their surroundings. As a lodge operator, I took an interest in my operating area because my livelihood relied on it, we actively managed the fishery in a manner that the government could not and would not. The area and the fishery are better for it.

Issuing area-based tenure, by way of example, a woodlot, still permits other uses to occur. A hunting guide territory is an area-based tenure that excludes other commercial hunting operations and yet permits logging, mining and First Nation traditional uses. In the cases of the hunting territory and the woodlot, the users have a vested interest in the long-term health of their resource – they want to manage it to provide a constant income over their operating horizon and have a viable asset to sell when they choose to sell.

Area-based tenure are favourable when contrasted with extractive permits, due to the reality that extractive permitting offers no incentive to manage for the long-term. The forest tenure regime in British Columbia is, in the main, extractive and has effected a circumstance where someone cuts down trees, takes the fibre they want, burns the rest and then a year or two later someone comes and plants trees and then leaves. This means our forests are effectively unmanaged, the harvesting is done absent the proper degree of care being provided to fulsome and the most effective use of the resource – the waste is appalling. 




If you are a woodlot owner, fire means your livelihood is gone. Under the volume-based or extractive permitting model, a fire means some public forest is gone. In the first instance, the degree of attention to preventing fire is far greater than in the second instance. This exemplifies the superiority of the area-based tenure regime, attention to all forest management areas gains more intensive attention due to there being a benefit to the tenure owner; there is a tight accountability loop. I have read government documentation that quantifies the benefits of certain forest management practices, and yet, the government fails to do them. We have watched billions of cubic meters of wood destroyed by fire, much of which could have been saved with proper management.

The writer once attended a conference on land use, the Dean of Forestry from UBC, formerly a citizen of the United Kingdom, offered the statement “British Columbia could produce the same volume of timber on 25% of the land base as we were using at the time”. One may quibble over the degree this is true, there is no debate that it is true. The Chinese government extended long-term tenure, effectively fee simple property rights, to its farms and tripled agricultural production in three years. Perhaps we should take a page from this policy initiative.

Management for a given land use should focus on the best outcome for a given land area. This seems an obvious statement, however, it has been my observation that interests other than the well-being of the land and maximal economic benefit for any given industrial footprint are often overridden by other interests. By way of example, in managing a forest, one needs to ensure that every acre of land dedicated to the task is managed to optimize production in a manner that is maximally beneficial to the province. Again, by example, every tree harvested should be harvested at the optimal time in relation to its biology and its highest and best use in relation to the market. Continuity of employment and security of milling assets are a distraction from optimal asset utilization.

Forest Tenure Reform

Sawmills and timber processing facilities will exist in relation to the timber supply regardless of whether sawmills and timber processing facilities hold tenure over a forest or not. It is the coupling of the two operational modalities in conjunction with the siloing of growing, harvesting and marketing timber that is at the crux of mismanagement in the industry as a whole. The process of growing and harvesting timber has no mandatory relation to processing timber into a finished product. It is the job of the government in forging policy to attack the challenge of forest management with the maximum outcome of the committed land base and resource in mind. If the government does this, the security of production assets will be inherent. Asserting that tying timber tenure to production facilities is necessary so secondary producers can have their assets secured is analogous to insisting that Cargill slaughter facilities hold primary production for cattle rearing on a 1/3 of Alberta. What secures assets is a supply of inputs and a market for outputs - timber tenure is in no way an imperative to have fibre supply - the willingness to pay a fair market price at any point in time is. What is key in policy reform is to remove ourselves from the limitations associated with industry actors' perceived and often short-term interests - and focus on maximizing the production of every acre of forest land slated for forest activity. 

 

The joy in fragmenting the timber supply management is a 1000 flowers bloom; it is errant to try to anticipate management outcomes to a specific degree, one needs to realize that more actors mean more innovation. At present there is a monolith called the BC Forest Service that manages the timber supply, by fracturing the management of the forest new best practices will emerge more often and in greater volume - it is the nature of large entities to have a low degree of absorptive capacity.

 

One is compelled to voice strong objection to the policy that would have tenure allocation at the behest of government only and directed toward established participants - we have stagnation now - what we need is to facilitate disruption and dynamism. Disruption, innovation, fast timber growth - dynamism will come from smaller area-based tenure - same tenure area, more wood faster, needs to be the theme of tenure reform. There is no operational correlation between forest farming and secondary production - there is no practical rationale for continuing to attach the two in the policy. Fibre garnered through an open log market and fibre garnered in the present modality is still fibre - the difference is an open log market fed by a large number of area-based tenure holders, will see the timbered land base more intensively managed to grow timber and it will also align timber harvesting and marketing more intricately with demand. 

 

By detaching primary and secondary production there is no compromise made in primary production in the harvesting and marketing of timber to satisfy other interests - the market is the best determinant of when and what to harvest. One can be assured, however, that if policy is directed at maximizing resource value in the context of market imperatives, the well-being of those dependent on the industry will be better addressed - ultimately asset security and job security are a function of a strong industry that is rationalized to the marketplace.

 

If policymakers have the courage to donate a significant portion of the land base to the tenure profile suggested above, say 25 – 50 % of the annual allowable cut, much benefit will be derived. Conventional actors will have a new partner, the independent business operator – the tree farmer. Most important in relation to the suggested tenure, however, is that the management perspective is lengthened along the full forest growth continuum to harvest, there is a steward that is intimately acquainted with a given acreage and the knowledge that can only be garnered by close association with a given stand of timber; will drive a stem-by-stem market execution.   

 

One would think that this would be an agreeable proposition for incumbent timber companies; this proposal allows them to focus on their core capacities – processing lumber and value-added products – and ensures unfettered and fair access to fibre via a free and open market.

 

Salvage Tenure

As a byproduct of the writer’s life, he spends a lot of time in the woods. This takes him by various logging operations throughout the province. By observation, there is a substantive variation in the quality of operation across the province. The present tenure regime permits a lot of waste by leaving discretion in the hands of the forest companies as to what is viable or not – as directed in part by a professional forester. This is fine, provided that, what is left behind is offered to other operators to salvage, rather than being put in slash piles and destroyed by fire.

 

The present tenure process to salvage dead, downed or abandoned timber is very cumbersome. There needs to be a process that allows people to salvage what is left behind in the logging processes and what is wasting in the forest generally. People should be able to apply for a salvage tenure that is generally applicable to Crownland, rather than, going through a “cut block” by “cut block” process that requires time and expense – time and expense that zaps a marginal enterprise of precious margin.

 

A tenure regime of this type would lend itself to firewood sellers, and small milling operations and provide a circumstance where small operators could “mine the tailings”.

 

Conclusion

It is incumbent upon us to foster the prudent use of the province’s largest resource, crownland. Prudent in stewardship, prudent in economic benefit. We are failing to capture the full benefit of this incredible resource. We are wasting opportunities. If we seek to capture the latent opportunities that await us with good management of crownland, we have the financial resources to attend to the punitive liability we carry to the First Nations peoples and bring a general state of prosperity to all. If we stay on the course, we’re on, investment leaves us, prosperity is thwarted and stagnation awaits us. 


 

Tuesday, December 12, 2023

The North Shuswap Wildfires - Was the response a lens on the New World Order



Is it possible that what we witnessed in the North Shuswap this summer were glimpses of what we can expect of the new world order? It felt eerily similar to a time when we were being governed by the World Health Organization rather than our own government. Rule by edict, state paternalism that evolved into gross state authoritarianism, civil rights trampled, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ignored. I hope this paragraph is provocative, it is meant to be. When someone as “Liberal” and as respected as Margaret Atwood describes what she is witnessing in Western society as “creeping totalitarianism”, we need to heed her words.   

Nowhere was state paternalism and its folly better demonstrated than by what happened in the North Shuswap this past summer (2023). The local population of the North Shuswap demonstrated extraordinary courage, extraordinary resourcefulness, fortitude, and effectiveness. Were their efforts lauded, supported, and augmented by the government, no, in fact, the government impeded their efforts, confiscated their property, and obstructed them from defending their own property. This blitz of authoritarianism stemmed from the arrogance of administrators in both the BC Wildfire Service and the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD). It was with absolute dismay that I witnessed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) become the hard edge of bad judgment and disregard for personal liberty. To add insult to injury, mainstream media besmirched the North Shuswap Residents (NSR) as thieves taking equipment and touting the official line, failing to tell the true story of NSRs in a meaningful way.

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

A story relayed to me went as follows: the CSRD issued an evacuation order. Three homeowners received the directive; two entrusted their homes to the CSRD's care, while one chose to defend his property. He stayed with a pump from the lake and his boat for an escape and fought the fire – he is fine, his house is fine, and his neighbours’ houses are gone. Whose judgment was sound and whose was not – the results indicate clearly.

It was reported to me that the BC Wildfire Service (BCWFS) decided to evacuate their crews due to a too-high level of risk. BCWFS evacuated their crews, but the locals stayed and were effective in staying the advance of the fire. The locals succeeded in that task, they are fine – who had better judgment, the results indicate clearly.

It was reported to me that a man had a tank in the back of his pickup. He was working in his community putting out spot fires – his truck, his gas, his effort – to be of service to his neighbours. He kept working even though authorities had insisted everyone shelter in place. Presumably, he knew, sheltering in place was stupid and ineffective when there are spot fires that threaten to create large fires and that’s why he RIGHTFULLY defied the order. The 'authorities' confiscated his truck and forced him to walk home, purportedly for his safety. Such decisions, made by inexperienced individuals remotely assessing safety concerns, disregarded his autonomy. Retrospective analysis clearly upholds the judgment of NSR and clearly indicates the poor judgment of government actors.

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

There was some nattering about training, the assertion was that citizens to protect their own property required a course in firefighting. So, this would indicate a 20-something with the life experience of a lab rat and a course was better equipped to fight a fire than the man that had worked in the woods his whole life, donated his own caterpillar to the cause, and began to cut a fireguard. It was reported to me, that the brave, generous citizen that acted was rewarded by being fined. I have used the water device to put out spot fires, and I have made fire guard … these are very basic tasks that you can learn in minutes, no course required – if you can muster up the manual dexterity to urinate, you can manage a Pulaski.

Credentials can be important, the challenge of course the giving of credentials has become an industry, a profit center unto itself. When I was seven years of age, my family had lost our father. My older brother, at 17 years of age, was tasked with putting up the hay. Logistics demanded that the hay be raked while he bailed the hay, and he asked me to help. He showed me how to operate the tractor before, for fun, the raking hay was a new task, he gave me instructions, and I followed them. I was proud to be able to contribute in a meaningful way and I am here to tell the story. I see adults having to take courses to operate a motorcycle or quads and side by sides. I think it would be hard to find a person my age who is absent from the experience of jumping on a machine, figuring out how to use it, and putting it to use. Caution is required of course, but everyone I know my age did and we’re all fine.  One understands the value of training, it can be necessary. One must, however, balance the value of training with stupid false imperatives associated with credentials, credentials that the granting of is a profit center and credentials that are serving as a supply management function under the guise of safety imperatives.  

I have a good deal of respect for people who fight forest fires, the young people on the ground. One understands the imperative to attend to their safety.  One understands the concern of leadership to reduce the risk in a risky endeavour. The challenge is, that there is no reward for risk for the leaders fighting the fire, so they are risk-averse. A person defending their life’s work, a farm, a ranch, a business are willing to fight tooth and nail, they are willing to risk everything, perhaps even their life – no state actor has the right to stand in their way. When one is fighting for their life’s work, they are willing to take risks they would never expect or want the young people who are employed by the government to take.

It is important to note, that people are allowed to risk their lives in defense of themselves and their property – there is a large body of law to support this fact, and obstructing them from doing so excites Section Seven of the Charter.

It is perverse to me that the assertion by members of government and the press that a person defending their life’s work is somehow putting first responders at risk – when a property owner is pursuing an action that involves risk, the decision whether to respond or not should they come under distress lays firmly with the first responder. The actions of the Wildfire Service indicate these judgments were made, they felt it too risky to fight the fire for a time and withdrew, leaving citizens there to defend their properties.

When the government obstructs a citizen from defending their own property, it is taking control of the citizen’s property. This is a de facto act of expropriation. The only time the government is permitted to expropriate property is when there is a clear and pressing public interest. When one’s barn is on fire, the only pressing interest is to put it out; the public interest is inherently satisfied by the owner’s actions, if they have success the fire never spreads.  Government actors are often saying they possess a liability if people defend their property and get harmed – incorrect interpretation of the law. The government has a liability in obstructing (effectively the temporary expropriation of property) and effecting a loss to the landowner. This assertion is made under the rubric of Section 7 law, a law that the BC Emergency Program Act (EPA) is subordinated to.

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

The manner in which the EPA is being administered is effecting several ills, all vividly displayed in the North Shuswap this summer. The act itself is poorly constructed as such its use generates gross overbreadth and permits an obscene degree of authoritarianism. I have been affected personally by the act. I have arrived at roadblocks personed by varying authorities, in every instance when I’ve requested a copy of the order that is authorizing the roadblock none have produced the order. Often it is just a civilian standing there as opposed to a police officer. It seems then anyone can arbitrarily block a road. At every instance in Canada, when one’s liberty is impaired, it must be done so by fundamental law, the only way a citizen can know this is being attended to is by knowing what law is governing them. By extension, one must have the opportunity for legal recourse, in this case injunctive relief. The only means to seek legal recourse is by knowing what law is affecting one.

In reviewing policy related to Covid 19 I have found interesting reading that indicates the use of government edicts that suppress fundamental freedoms are ineffective, or, rendered mute by public behavior. When a mother is informed that a fire is likely to consume her home and endanger her children, her immediate response is to load them into the car and evacuate. There is no requirement to order her to leave providing the government actors delivering the message are credible. When the government gives notice of impending danger, people are grateful and respond – so that is what the government should do. Issue notices of impending danger and recommend the means to respond to that danger. This transforms the government from descending into state paternalism and all its trapping to an entity providing needed data.

When you say to a rancher who has been running their ranch for 30 years and spent his life taking care of himself and his property, there is a fire coming that is likely to consume your ranch, he’ll look over the hill, contemplate the assertion and makeup is mind whether to stay or go – that is his choice to make. There was this very circumstance at Risky Creek some years ago, the ranchers stayed, fought the fire, and prevailed, had they left all would have been lost. They did so in contravention of an evacuation order, had they left by order of the government, and their property destroyed, the government should have been expected to be held libel.

If you read this and have some antidotes to offer or input to offer please do. This has taken the form of a blog post, it is excerpted from a government report I am preparing. Any data you might add may serve to help effect a change in the behaviour of the government and its subordinates.