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

 

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. Over the course of 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.

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. 

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. 

 

Christmas Letter 2023

 CLICK HERE TO READ MY 2023 CHRISTMAS LETTER

Note - It takes a while to load

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.

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.

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.

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. 

 Dear Mayor and Council

RE: The City of Kamloops Climate Action Plan (KCAP)

In an effort to effect action in combating climate change, there has been an exaggeration generated by proponents of climate action, an exaggeration that has a very serious challenge elevated to a “climate emergency”.  This exaggeration has wrought the public's map of reality with respect to environmental challenges and most egregious, it has taken our collective “eye” off of very real environmental challenges; environmental challenges we can do something about.  The document associated with this policy initiative reads as much as a social engineering initiative as it does an environmental initiative, as is often the case, social initiatives come under the guise of environmental concern. It is a combination of climate “emergency” exaggeration and environmental issues being highjacked for social purposes that has generated a mountain of ineffective environmental policy – as the Kamloops Climate Action Plan largely is.  

I submit that the KCAP will have no positive effect on climate whatsoever. The KCAP was very lean on financial data by which to judge the cost/benefit picture, so I have no idea what the total cost will be. One thing I am certain of, there will be costs. So, there will be costs and no effect on climate whatsoever.

I’m finding the parking in the downtown a deterrent; I find myself going elsewhere to shop. The envisioned reconfiguration to a “10 Minute” neighbourhood should terrify anybody in the present retail space.

There was a suggestion that funds for the plan may come in part from an increase in Development Cost Charges. I was unable to ascertain a total figure for DCCs from the bylaw data on the city’s website. Anything that increases the cost of housing attacks Kamloop's livability. It is important to remember young people purchasing a home, in the main, do so with credit. While interest rate dependent, as a rule of thumb, triple any cost you add to a home to account for the total mortgaged amount paid. Transaction costs on homes are astronomical when contextualized to this reality.

Rebutting the Premise of the KCAP

“Unfortunately, climate change threatens this future, and many of its impacts are already being felt, including increasing extreme summer heat waves and droughts, more frequent and intense wildfires, seasonal flooding, warmer winter temperatures leading to pine beetle infestations, changes to stream flow affecting salmon populations, and stresses to natural ecosystems and agriculture. Climate scientists predict that these impacts will only intensify as average global temperatures continue to rise.”

This Excerpt from the KCAP is the kind of comment that presents an emergency where a challenge exists. Attributing short-term analysis to a long-term problem is always foolhardy, the degree to which people attribute every event as proof positive climate change is real is embarrassing. We had the dust bowls of the 1930s, millions displaced and starved, and there were large forest fires during that decade.  This has been true throughout history.

I share people’s concerns regarding issues like habitat depletion, pollution, and extinction. What is never mentioned, nor entered into the cost-benefit analysis, are the benefits of a warmer climate. Canada has millions of acres of marginal farmland, farmland marginalized by cold climate. Where we can only grow forage crops now, we’ll be able to grow grain. Just a marginal increase in temperature will allow a farmer to transition from Barley to Wheat for example. The Climate issue tends to have people touting fantasy solutions. We will never feed humanity on little local gardens; they can contribute but they’ll never be the solution – the green revolution and all the trappings of modern agriculture is what is needed to feed the world.

“But the worst impacts of climate change are not inevitable. By working together as a community and with all levels of government, we can minimize our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change and increase our resilience to its impacts. This plan is a call to action, and it will require municipal, public, and private collaboration to combat climate change.”

There is nothing in this plan that will impact climate change. The only thing we can be sure of is that there will be disasters befall us, weather and otherwise. So, a call for preparedness makes sense. If we are prepared for weather events we are prepared for war, food shortages, and other negative events.

Framing the Issue

A full-sum discussion on the issue of climate change is outside the scope of this document, however, allow me to make a couple points. Please note the infographic 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 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, 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 Kamloops does will have any effect on climate change. That is true of Canada also. 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.

What to do

They say, if you criticize absent a suggested course of action, you’re just complaining.

Environmental Actions

Reducing the impact on the environment is always a good thing, so seeking efficiencies in transportation and housing makes sense. The plan recognizes this as an important part of the way forward. We can pursue that goal absent seeking to restructure our society, that is to say, we can do business as we do now and effect better use of resources.

The Fraser Basin Watershed is a gift to be treasured. A constructive thing that Kamloops can do is reduce the city’s downstream effect on the watershed. I’ve observed several instances where our “storm drainage” system spills directly into the North and South Thompson Rivers, this is a detrimental event, particularly for Salmon. We can take measures to direct runoff in a manner that prevents debris from road surfaces from finding its way into the river. We could put building code requirements that segregate gray water from black water, better allowing us to manage waste flow, perhaps directing gray water to irrigation – a practice used in other jurisdictions. We can encourage the use of composting toilets; if properly done, human waste becomes an asset rather than a liability.

We could have and should, transform our water system from pumping water from the river to using the abundance of high-elevation water near the city, thus, saving money and energy in the delivery of water – freeing up grid space for charging electric cars perhaps.

We could and should encourage the creative use of low-carbon, local materials in building processes. I had given some thought to this challenge; I prepared a discussion paper in 2013 that I submitted to the City of Kamloops and the Regional district – neither saw fit to reply.  Click Here to View  I should note that the building system is well established, it was substantiated as good and safe by the government of Manitoba so First Nations people could build homes from scrub timber.

 

There are thousands of piles like the one above in our region slated to be burnt, just wasted, I could likely build 2 or more houses out of this pile alone, inexpensive and enviro-friendly. Cooperation from authorities is required to pursue this type of solution for environmental and low-cost housing challenges.

I submit that the forest fire challenge we’ve been experiencing and our very expensive response to it is in large measure a manageable problem. I submit that successive provincial governments have failed to manage the forest aggressively enough, so once again the municipalities are forced to. I have noticed around the city that some initiative has been taken in interface areas, others are still in need of attention.

We need to expend more effort on developing wildlife corridors. Our city has an abundance of wildlife, we need to manage the wildlife. They often come into conflict with human activities. They often cross thoroughfares to access water, for example, with undesirable results. Simple actions like putting watering facilities to permit the deer to drink without going to the river; this simple act would have saved a dozen or so deer/car encounters on Westside Road that I am aware of.

Kamloops has large tracts of land left unattended that are a source of pestilence. Noxious weeds are growing in population. While efforts have been made in this regard, greater effort is required to avoid the city contributing to negative externalities. 

Kamloops is blessed with an abundance of park space; the challenge is to access it, one nearly always needs to get in a car. What is deficient in the city is urban green space. Go to any 7-Eleven in the city and buy a Coffee and a muffin, then look for a place to sit and eat, you’ll be frustrated.

There are many opportunities for our city to contribute to, and make a difference to the environment, we should focus our efforts on what we can do to effect positive impacts.

Preparedness

Preparedness tends to be a bit of an abstraction or a hypothetical, so people tend to turn a blind eye to it. No level of government in the country is investing at a sufficient level. As with most issues, like homelessness, when higher levels of government neglect the problem municipal governments are forced to deal with it.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, our circumstances have never been as perilous since the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are several viable scenarios that could lead to war. Tensions are very high.  A disruption to the life of Kamloops citizens is as likely to come from a political misjudgment as a climate issue.

As we learned with something as normal as the Fraser River flooding, food and the basics of life can run out very quickly. Credit to retailers for making the adjustments necessary to the supply chain to get food to us from the east, had that corridor been blocked for some reason our lives would have become very difficult. If we allow our minds to go to WW2-type experiences where European cities experienced famine, we might begin to think about substantive means to ensure food security. While local producers are a critical element of the food security picture, they would likely be unable to fill the gap in a scenario of extended disturbance to the food supply.

One method that may be cost-effective is to have the Railroads leave railcars intended for the port of Vancouver loaded with eatable crops, lentils for example at a designated siding to be cycled out to ensure the food’s viability. The constant rotation of eatable crops would require some management. It may be a fee could be paid to hold them here for a time. It may mean the city purchases and sells the eatable crops; in bulk – one car in one car out. This would ensure a large enough volume of food stored in our city to feed people for an extended period of time at a fairly low cost. A “winter’s” supply perhaps. The rail transport of LNG may be a viable option in the future, the same arrangement may apply. One can contextualize the value of this strategy to Germany’s present circumstances.

There may be merit in approaching local producers like Blackwell Dairies to formulate a plan to expand production in the event of an extended interruption to our food supply. There is a substantive supply of beef in our area, the use and processing of this resource should be considered.

Of course, we need to coordinate with provincial and federal governments – they are seemingly unconcerned. If the Covid response is any indication of how governments would react to a “war” type threat, we’d better take the initiative to take care of ourselves.

In a war-type scenario, we’d have the prospect of the lower mainland’s population needing to be cared for inland. I am unsure where the city is on this issue, it would be a herculean task.

We have had the good fortune in Canada to have been free of war and to live with limited exposure to natural disasters. We did have the great depression and the dirty 80s. The great depression brought on by weather events was a painful chapter; the 80’s less so. If you put your head on the pillow believing that this condition is bound to continue, you are engaged in a failure of leadership.  I’m not suggesting we build a Diefenbunker for us all to jump into, we do need to be prepared.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Neil E. Thomson

Irrational policy

What has been lost in Western politics generally has been lost in Canada, an eye to the greater good. Canadian governance has been captured by special interests. Political bickering has reduced political discourse to a team sport. Ineffective legislation is the norm. 25000 people per year die from preventable medical accidents - I find the number alarming - yet it is never mentioned in the news – likely more people than COVID on an annual basis and for COVID they shut the country down. The challenge we face is the public's map of reality has been warped by the press and the polarized political environment. People need an honest broker to give them objective data so they can make accurate risk assessments. Preventable medical accidents take 66 / 100,000, the drug crisis 19 / 100,000, total deaths by firearms .73 / 100, 000. Why are we frittering away what will likely total 6 billion dollars on ineffective gun legislation? Why would we rather build damns 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? Governance in the West has taken an irrational turn and unless we change it, we'll be leaving hell behind us for our grandchildren.

OPEN LETTER TO THE CBC's CEO

Neil E. Thomson

865 Alview Crescent

Kamloops, BC

V2B 6C5

nthomson20@gmail.com

 

Catherine Tait

President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada

205 Wellington Street West

Toronto, Ontario

M5V 3G7

 

There are many people who think the CBC has run its course as a useful institution. I am of the mind that the CBC has a useful place in our country as an objective source of information. Now, more than ever in history, we need to build a national narrative that builds societal harmony, that recognizes the values of our nation as expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and draws from history in a manner that gives Canadians an accurate map of reality.

The reality is that our national narrative is being fragmented, by the political process distorting the population's map of reality due to competing rhetoric, the advent and uptake of social media, subversive actors within Canada and various subversive non – Canadian actors (state actors like Russia, China and other actors like foreign special interest groups). Given this reality, we need a vetted, non-partisan data stream to the public.

Liberal Bias

The CBC has always been left-leaning; the bias has been evident to me since I’ve become aware of political discourse. The challenge I am having now as a long-time listener and friend of the CBC is that your organization has become overtly supportive of the Liberal Government. You have become a cheerleader for government policy, and you permit programming that, in my opinion, is more than just bias, but distorts the map of reality of the Canadian Public.

I could dedicate time to giving you examples, I think it suffices to say, I perceive there to be a liberal bias in CBC’s reporting of the news and many others do as well – you have a problem. This is at a time when the politicization of issues is tearing us apart. We need now, more than ever, to have an objective assessment of government performance to counter the spin the political process generates. We need an organization that brokers in the truth, truthfully.

As the CBC is conducting itself now, it is sowing the seeds of its own demise. It is speaking to a very narrow slice of the population – rather than harmonizing the national narrative, it is contributing to division.

I have over the years enjoyed the CBC’s journalism, respected the commentary, and felt an appreciation for the relative superiority of CBC reporting and Canadian journalism generally. I listen extensively to CBC radio, our local morning show, Spark with Nora Young, Day Six, Quirks & Quarks Host with Bob McDonald and many more and find this programming informative and interesting.  It would be a shame to lose this programming, by allowing a perception of bias to diminish Canadian Public’s faith in the CBC to the point there is no one there to defend you.  

Excerpt from my recent book – On Canadian Governance

Solidifying Canadian Culture – what to do

The events of the past few years, primarily the Covid-19 response, but also, the disaster response in British Columbia and the events related to Ukraine have brought serious societal fissures and governance deficiencies into resolution. The propensity for every challenge that faces us to be distorted by political discourse and then the extreme division it is causing has become alarming. There are many causal factors at play. The most damaging one is the fragmentation of our nation’s narrative, the cleaving of social perspective between “progressives” and “anti-capitalism” movements versus the “establishment”. This internal competition for hearts and minds is played upon by external players whose interests are served by exacerbating social division.

Canada is an exemplary country. We educate our people. We have a compassionate social perspective, and we enjoy a standard of living that puts us at the pinnacle of human existence. The social strife that has emerged threatens both the egg and the goose. There are movements afoot that are keen to throw away the various systems and institutions that provided us with all we have. I observe governments, businesses, professionals, and members of the public conducting themselves in contempt of the foundational elements of our society, treating fundamentals like the rule of law, hard-won civil liberties as hurdles to get over, rather than attending to both the spirit and the letter of the law. When foundational elements of our society, the very principles our country is founded on, are seen to be manipulated or ineffective a crack opens for further division fueled by “revolutionary” and competing narratives.

What is missing is an overarching narrative, one that is held by us all. I have posted Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on various social media platforms and encountered people afraid to affirm its validity openly and strongly, yet they will in confidence - I hope this concerns you. In my youth attending our public education system, there were many many instances when teachers would contrast our free society with that of the Soviet Union. George Orwell’s book Animal Farm was read aloud to me by my teacher in grade 6 and we talked about the evils of unchecked and centralized state power. We would encounter a clear and common narrative that our way of life, our governance modes, and our market system are the best. There are two things Canadians need to know, that they are presently the most prosperous people in human history and how that happened – unless priority is given to ensuring that Canadians do know, our society will unravel. All we’ve built here will implode under the weight of a people with maps of reality distorted by political spin and the voices of dissidents foreign and domestic.

The first step in the process then is agreeing on a narrative that serves to stabilize and support our country and our values and secondly, propagandizing that narrative. One symbolic gesture to start the process would be to have every member of parliament stand at attention in front of the parliament buildings while the first 15 sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms scroll by on big screens with Old Canada playing and the entire undertaking being streamed to every media channel in the country. The process would close with the Governor-General giving a short speech extending to Canadians permission to preserve and protect the values expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with vigour and pride. Our people and the enemies of freedom need to see that we stand together and for something.

Having agreed on the theme of the overarching narrative, the government could actively promote the narrative through various initiatives – more intensive Canadian Studies in schools. Furthermore, the government could actively market the narrative via various media forums. Further, the subversion of western values is hardly contained within our borders – it is far-reaching. We need a collective effort on the part of the CBC in concert with like-minded entities like the BBC, ABC and others to tell the story of our prosperity – a truth demonstrated by merely listing the most prosperous peoples in the world – the G20 to start – who have gained their prosperity through the combination of civil rights, a market economy and robust social support.

Unless we fill the void the absent narrative leaves, others will fill it with their own interests in mind; the assent of authoritarianism will continue unabated. Shakespeare taught us that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, however, unless the pen is used pervasively and persuasively apathy will leave no other option than the sword. The world is standing on a precipice. Rarely has our way of life been more challenged – the “dark clouds of authoritarianism” are looming – action is required now.

Climate Change

We need objective assessment and honest reporting on climate policy in Canada. There has been real damage done to our economy in the name of climate change – with a policy that is detached from reality. I can demonstrate on several fronts that our economy has been damaged frivolously. When I listen to the CBC, I hear an unquestioning stream of “support” for climate policy and the overall climate agenda and very little questioning.

Our present basket of climate legislation in Canada has failed to move us away from fossil fuel use or toward responsible use of fossil fuels, has pointlessly damaged our energy sector and has left us unable to respond to Europe’s energy needs, thereby financing Russia’s war in Ukraine. This is a calamitous outcome that is presently being left unaddressed by any branch of government.

One can recognize that there are serious environmental challenges facing us all and still have a healthy debate on approach. The propensity to label people questioning present policy as “climate deniers” or the demonization of people opposed to some initiatives is damaging and must be challenged; the CBC has a role to play here.

 

Covid Reporting

I am an advocate for vaccines.

I am also a champion for human rights and the principles expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Vax Card program in British Columbia was a de facto forced medication program – it was very coercive. I heard very little if any discussion in opposition to the program from the CBC. There is a massive body of law, including related to section 7 challenges, that demands that all medical treatment be voluntary, or that medical treatment can be refused. The Charter Rights breaches and infringements that occurred as a result of Covid policies need to be examined and published.  

One of the issues that has been present throughout the pandemic has been the question of medical freedom, the right to the domain over mind and body. The right to medical choice is enshrined in our legal system. Normally, our right to medical choice is governed by Section 7 of the Charter – The right to life, liberty, and security of person. The spirit of Section 7, heavily distilled is as follows, one can do as they please absent harm to others. The only means by which this state of liberty can be interrupted is by the application of fundamental law. The pandemic response was wrought with infringements and breaches of this right and others – none of which have been covered by the CBC in a meaningful way. There is no compelling evidence I can find when contextualizing the pandemic response to the fair balance test, that justified the response that was undertaken in many cases.

It is critical that there is post-Covid policy assessment by objective third parties, the CBC has a role to play here also. To date, I’ve heard nothing comprehensive come from the CBC on the subject. I have been reading other sources that indicate that the Covid policy was a catastrophic failure – effectively stating that the Covid policy caused more harm than good.

As one who consumes a lot of news from the CBC, I want to see an objective assessment of the Covid response.

Convoy Reporting

What compelled me to write this letter is the completely inadequate way the “Truckers’ Convoy” was covered. The new word of choice from the left was used liberally, “populists”, code now for non-intellectuals, racists and ult-right were directed toward the Truckers. CBC programs reporting offering “retrospective analysis” of the convoy featured Donald Trump early in the program – intentionally, I believe, to associate the Truckers with Trump-style politics. What I witnessed in the coverage was very close to pro-government propaganda, rather than, reporting that brokered in complete ideas. None of the nuances associated with the issues being raised there were given coverage, the CBC sensationalized news in a manner that makes CNN and Fox news look unadulterated.

Gun Control Reporting

I hear in great deal pro-gun control reporting in the form of detailed reporting on “mass’ shootings in the US. In one instance 3 people were shot in the US, while this event is a upsetting event, the extensive reporting on these events tends to distort public perception in relation to Canadian gun ownership. There is no justification for the recent gun control initiatives on the part of the federal government. Please see below an open Letter to Justine Trudeau. The public’s perception of risk associated with Canadian firearm ownership is distorted and it needs to be corrected. The present efforts on the part of the government are a complete waste of resources.

The Honourable Justin Trudeau

Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada

K1A 0A6

justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

 

Dear Sir,

RE: Firearm Legislation

I can demonstrate clearly that there is no justification for the most recent government gun control initiatives. When the issue is contextualized to societal risks generally, a person legally owning a firearm of any kind fails to make muster as a justification for a governmental intrusion on the right to own a firearm. There is a fulsome body of law in relation to property rights and the expropriation of same. There is also a long-standing cultural and (British / Canadian) legal tradition dating back 400 years in support of citizen ownership of firearms. Further, and more importantly, Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is excited in relation to this matter, both under the rubric of liberty generally and security of person. Further again, Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is excited, as these government actions unjustifiably discriminate against an unenumerated class of people.  Please, let me reason with you, please consider the following.

Excerpt from my recent book – On Canadian Governance

A useful concept to use to consider in relation to gun control is called the “Availability Heuristic Salient” (AHS). In instances where the AHS affects public opinion, the ease of imagining an example or the vividness and emotional impact of that example becomes more credible than the actual statistical probability. Because an example is easily brought to mind or mentally "available", the single example is considered representative of the whole, rather than as just a single example in a range of data. Salient events tend to distort the judgement of risk.

There are issues where Availability Heuristic Salient drives policy that is detached from mathematical reality and this distorts public perception and the political process, one such policy area is gun control. People who are unfamiliar with firearms are intimidated by them. They hear about mass shootings on television, they see movies with guns going off. They have repeated exposure to the most extreme outcome of firearm use and the pro-gun control lobby uses the high level of saliency to support, what is truly an irrational position.

The government of Canada spent approximately 2.7 billion dollars on a long gun registry. Then, in 2012 the long gun registry was scrapped with no significant effect on public safety – 2.7 billion dollars wasted. The government of Canada at the time of writing, is embarking on the banning of certain classes of firearms and implementing a freeze on handguns. The ban on certain classes of firearms involves a “buyback” program – the total cost of which ranges from 2.6 to 6.7 billion dollars according to a Fraser Institute article written July 30, 2021.

According to Statistics Canada “In 2020, police reported a total of 743 homicide victims in Canada or a rate of 1.95 per 100,000 population. For 277 of these victims, a firearm was used to commit the homicide (for a rate of 0.73 homicides per 100,000 population). “Overall, one in four (25%) female victims of firearm-related violent crime were victimized by a current or former spouse or another intimate partner.”

 

Deaths (Risk) / 100,000
Cause of Death	Rate / 100,000
Female IPD (Intimate Partner Deaths)	0.046
Female Deaths by Firearms	0.180
Firearm Deaths Excluding Suicide	0.180
Total Deaths by Firearms	0.730
Motor Vehicle Fatalities	4.600
50-Years or Older Male – Aspirin	10.400
Suicide	10.600
Opioid- and Stimulant-related Harms	19.500
Medically Preventable Accidents	66.000
Tree Falling (Occupational Risk in the United States)	357.000

 

In Canada, 277 people per year are killed in gun-related incidents (one would be too many) yet we are spending as much as $8 billion on gun control and nothing on a medical records system when in Canada 25,000 people die each year from preventable medical accidents. In the context of rational thought, medical accidents should be our priority.

Here are a few points to illustrate how politicization distorts response to real-world problems. There is no factual support that the Canadian public will be safer because of the billions spent on gun control, yet the government is doing it anyway. The legally restricted guns and their some 2,000,000 owners represent no threat to the safety of the public. The portion of Canadians that are gun owners, regardless of what kind of firearm they own represent no threat to public safety. Yet the government is bent on confiscating private property and intruding on gun owners' most fundamental rights. This issue has been political in the extreme for generations – liberals supporting gun control, conservatives against gun control. Gun control policy is most strongly supported by the urban female voter, and gun control as a wedge issue excites the respective party bases. The fact is, gun ownership is a non-issue, no one needs to spend time on it.

To further illustrate how costly this phenomenon is, let's take a moment to think about what might be done with the funds that are being wasted due to the public’s map of reality being distorted – $8 billion would provide $100,000 to 80,000 Autism kids, a Japanese company in India built the equivalent of a Vancouver to Hope rapid transit line for approximately $8 billion, we could provide 16,000 $500,000 forgivable business start-up loans, we could start a bond return augmentation program to incent innovation in key industries like environmentally friendly products and services, we could put $2 Million toward 4000 first nation water systems … you’re getting the picture. I've used gun control as an example above, but there are many other examples to draw from, a fact that amplifies the damage being done.

A Case for Self Defence

Why, in Section 7 Declaration of Rights of 1688, was self-defence recognized as valid (then directed to protestants, in contemporary Canada it would apply to all). And then again, why, in 1892 was self-defence considered a valid reason to lawfully carry a handgun and in 2023 self-defence has fallen by the wayside. Whether one is threatened by a rabid animal or a homicidal person, the threat is there in the moment, and the 10-minute response time of the police is unhelpful. The fact is, the police are unable to protect against these sorts of threats, and citizens are left to fend for themselves. This is an unacceptable circumstance, the right to life and security of a person must be attended to by the state, if the state is unable to attend to the section seven rights of citizens, it must permit citizens to attend to them on their own accord and by their own good judgement. This is especially true in remote locations such as farms etc.

Self-defence is a valid reason to have a firearm, defending one’s life is a right and defending the life of another is a moral obligation. This value is expressed in the United Nations doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, while directed at state scale instances, the moral obligation to protect remains valid at the individual level.

Rather than making people, women, into victims that must wait for help, we should be empowering them to defend themselves and others, as they do in so many countries around the world. With correct training, a civilian can be as effective and safe in the use of a firearm as a police officer. Had we taken this attitude and taught the women victims of the Polytechnique shooting how to care for themselves it is likely some, if not all, would be with us today. England, with very strict gun control laws, had a higher rate of gun crime through a period of IRA violence than the US – when people decide to do something illegal and a firearm is their chosen means to execute, they find guns - there will always be a man with a gun.

The attitude that accompanies the insistence that state actors are the only people qualified to attend to this most personal challenge, is part of the devolution of the individual’s standing in Canada. There is a greater insistence by the government to force people to depend on officialdom rather than to be self-reliant. This is a dangerous trend because, in matters related to self-defence the state is unable to effectively respond to certain types of threats that befall an individual - no matter how committed a police officer is, they can only drive a car so fast, and most acts of violence occur in an instant.

The Government’s Insistence on “Disarming” People is a Trigger – A case for returning to the status quo.

Many people are concerned by the government’s insistence on “disarming” people, particularly in the face of there being no data to support the government’s actions. The imposition of the gun registry and its subsequent removal in 2012 indicated no marked impact on public safety in having it or not having it.  The recent spat of gun violence in Toronto for example has been the product of illegal guns in the hands of criminals. The legal gun community is almost entirely absent in the illegal use of firearms.

” Indeed, there are more than two million PAL holders in Canada; each one has been vetted by the RCMP and is checked nightly for any violation through the “continuous eligibility screening” program. Firearm owners are also exceptionally law-abiding. PAL holders are less likely to commit murder than other Canadians. Between 2000 and 2020, the number of PAL holders accused of homicide varied from 6 to 21, averaging 12 accused per year out of approximately 2 million PAL holders. The number of PAL holders increased from 1,979,054 to 2,206,755 over this same time period, so the annual rate over 20 years was 0.63 accused per 100,000 PAL holders.”

Fraser Institute November 25, 2022

This reality is triggering a negative reaction, a fearful reaction in some cases, in this otherwise exceptionally law-abiding group many are perceiving an injustice.

Conclusion

We are at a critical juncture in Canada, a confluence of factors has emerged: post-Covid realities, the fragmentation of our national narrative and societal fissures that have emerged from these events, the “real” two solitudes in Canada - rural and urban are diverging rapidly and, finally, the events in Ukraine are driving the imperative to vigorously prepare for national defence. The gun control initiatives of the present government are serving to amplify division generally.  Furthermore, the gun control initiatives are attacking and alienating the very law-abiding citizens who possess the fortitude and predilection to come to arms should it be required. The funds that will be consumed by this effort should proceed would be better directed at any number of initiatives – this type of expenditure on what one can only deduct to be political pandering is irresponsible.

There are no grounds by which the government can assert that it is fair, sound and reasonably necessary to confiscate private property in the form of firearms from law-abiding citizens. These people are exemplary citizens, vetted for criminality and with a longstanding track record of responsible firearm ownership. Whether these individuals have a 3 or 30-shot clip, an automatic weapon or a single shot or a handgun, their presence is benign; this fact is clearly demonstrated by the data. The legal gun owners of Canada are being discriminated against due to the politicization of the issue distorting the map of reality of the body general. The data is clear that the risk associated with gun ownership as has been the status quo post-2012 warrants no further government intervention when you contextualize the very limited risk of legal gun ownership with the full breadth of human endeavour.

Please reconsider your actions in this regard.

Kind Regards,

Neil E. Thomson

We do need another perspective on this issue, objective assessment is important here also.

Conclusion

These are some of the issues that I think CBC can make a retrospective assessment of, and contribute in a meaningful way to correcting some of the distortions in public perception that the political process has generated.

Sincerely,

 

Neil E. Thomson