Maybe it's because I'm a small town kid and have seen what good comes when a community comes together. Maybe it's because I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy and always look for the best in people. Maybe it's because I try to inject some positive energy into everyone's lives. But I've been absolutely perplexed about some of the things I've seen in Calgary recently.
When I was first thinking about writing this blog, the first thing that came to mind was that I was getting tired of all the negativity out there. Then there was a bit of anger. And now it's curiousity. And that curiousity surrounds one particular topic: where is all of the community spirit?
I know I've beaten around the bush on this topic before, in particular when it comes to bike lanes in this city. I don't want to call it NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard). Because I don't think that's always the case. I think it stems specifically from people not understanding how something can benefit their community, mainly because they're wrapped up in how it will benefit (or hinder) them personally.
Let's take bike lanes. Many of those opposed to the lanes think about them in terms of "it's going to affect my drive home." They look for the days when there's no one on the lanes and they complain about how no one uses them. They will see people on them on certain days but turn the other cheek. They also fail to realize that this is an option that others could potentially use. Weirdly enough, if you're a driver, you should be cheering on those using the lanes. Why? Because it will mean fewer people driving. That'll have spin-off consequences, like less congestion, and maybe even cheaper parking (because fewer people needing spots means decreased demand which should, in theory, mean lower prices).
Let's take "green fields". How many stories have we heard about a community being built with a green space that is there only as a place-holder for a new school? That community gets used to the green space or park, then the school board starts prepping for the school and everyone's all up in arms over how the school will affect them negatively. When was the last time that a school was built just to become a blight on a community? In a province that has a well-reported shortage of schools, you'd think communities would be chomping at the bit to get a school, so that their kids don't have to be bussed all over hell's half-acre just to get to class. And for those who think it'll have a negative impact on housing prices: what? You don't think families moving to the area won't be willing to pay a pretty penny to live right across the street from a school?
Let's take CalgaryNEXT. The arguments are just beginning on this one. I did a little research on this a few years ago, and then-Mayor Ralph Klein had a heck of a time convincing the people of Victoria Park that their area was perfect for an arena. There were rumblings at one point that the Saddledome would be built out near Airdrie if the community wouldn't back down. Eventually, it was powered through and people seemed pretty happy (at the time anyways) about the end result. It was sold as a community gathering place, for the Flames, the Olympics, concerts and more. I know times have changed, NHL salaries are much different, the public opinion on professional sports has shifted, etc. But you can't use the argument that "I'll never use it" because there are thousands of people who would, for a myriad of purposes.
Let's look at the most-recent controversy. The southwest BRT (bus rapid transit) proposal going down 14th Street. Some residents say they haven't been consulted properly. They packed into an open house on Tuesday and it reportedly turned ugly. Ugly enough that Mayor Naheed Nenshi decided to cancel remaining open houses. He says there was some pushing and shoving, some verbal exchanges and even an alleged threat. Some residents have valid concerns and arguments, I won't question that. Yet, it's the loud and, dare I say, belligerent few who are ruining it for the rest.
And that's the problem with all arguments in politics lately. The loud voices are drowning out the reasonable majority. If you're against something, the "other side" is going to lump you in with the vocal minority. If you're a fiscal conservative, you must be a full-blown conservative. If you're socially progressive, you must be a full-blown liberal. That's what it's actually like out there now. So if you're part of the reasonable middle on any topic, you end up getting upset at both sides. We now have this inability to rationally debate and discuss what could be making our communities better. It's become extremely adversarial. "You're either with us or against us." Even the slightest hint that you might be questioning something lumps you in with the rest of the dissenters. We all need to grow thicker skin and not be so afraid to offend the opposition, but also not be afraid of being offended.
By no means am I advocating or dissenting against any of the above projects, because I actually see the pros and cons to all of them. All I'd like to see happen is that everyone takes a deep breath to make sure they understand and respect the "other side" of the debate. We need to be civil in these discussions. We need to be fully educated on the projects and the options available. We need to be able to see the GOOD and BAD in order to make the best decision possible for our communities.
But most of all, we need to get back some sense of community spirit. Build back up that "can do" attitude instead of hunting for the reasons why not to do something. It's the only way we'll build the "world class city" so many claim they want.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
What does the future have in store for "traditional media" and journalism?
That's the big question as the last couple of years have really been tough on the industry. It's particularly been difficult over the last few weeks, as PostMedia has merged newsrooms in a handful of markets, including Calgary, where the Sun and Herald are essentially one and the same now. It led to a lot of layoffs of some extremely talented people who did some great things for Calgary and for Alberta.
This has led to a number of conversations ranging from the "eventual demise of print" to "how many stories will go untold" to "will the same thing happen to TV and radio."
I don't want to re-open those discussions and I don't pretend to know all the answers. Make no mistake, I have my ideas and inklings on what could be on the horizon. Maybe one day I'll share them all. But I wanted to blog about just how much change I've seen in my fairly short career.
It's actually quite amazing to think how much has changed since I started in radio. I marked my 10th year in the industry last July (July 15th, 2005) and my 5th year during this second stint in Calgary (August 3rd, 2010, although I did spend 14 months here in 2007-2008).
So to take you back to 2005 in Lloydminster, we have a pretty basic website. There was no "news" component to it. You couldn't listen live to the station. It was essentially a place for us to blog and post biographies. I don't even think I had the capability of posting stuff on my own.
My first stop in Medicine Hat in 2006-2007 was pretty much the same. I think we played around on MySpace and a little Facebook at that point but it was still really basic. For news, we'd update it once a day by emailing the stories to someone upstairs (newsroom was downstairs).
In Calgary in 2007-2008, it was a little more involved. We still weren't pushing anything on social networks (or we were just starting) and the web was starting to become a more regular thing. But it wasn't really a major part of the day-to-day operations.
It wasn't until my next stop in Medicine Hat from 2008-2010 that I noticed a monumental shift. We were actually considered to be "cutting edge" in the 'Hat, as we were pumping stories out on the web as fast as we were putting them on-air. We were pushing those stories onto Facebook and Twitter by 2009. The web was quickly becoming the place to go for news.
Then I came back to Calgary in 2010. I remember helping launch new Twitter and Facebook accounts in early-2011. By 2012, the website and those two mediums had almost eclipsed the on-air side when it comes to "what's important" for a newsroom.
This has led to a few challenges, to say the least. As mentioned in a previous post, spelling and grammar of the written word suddenly became important again. For a radio guy, I've only ever really known it as "if I can say it, that's all that matters." Now punctuation matters. You need to make sure past, present and future tenses are consistent through a story (I'm still bad for that). And then there's the more-obvious challenges, like trying to focus on what actually makes the station money (radio) versus where many people are going to get their news (online) and how you strike that balance to make sure you're making everyone happy.
The most interesting part of this is when I look at where I am in my career now. I've had this discussion with a few friends, as we've debated what's next for our industry. We've actually been witness and been a part of that shift from on-air only to on-air & online. We understand the importance of the platform we have with the traditional media outlets, in terms of making voices heard and providing a place for discussion you can read, see or hear. We also understand that the online portion can supplement that discussion, or act as a completely different arm of that discussion. I went to a conference in 2014 where some young broadcast students admitted to not having cable. How do these wanna-be TV stars expect to understand the on-air portion when they don't even watch the evening news? On the flipside, there are those in the industry who think the web is an inconvenience and they shouldn't have to bother with it. In what world does it make sense to completely write-off a possible generation of readers/listeners/viewers, only because you don't want to deal with the big, bad internet?
And that's where we get to the crossroads of this industry. I talked about this a bit on my last post. But how do you successfully integrate online into your already-established platform? And how do you make sure that already-established platform stays relevant in an ever-increasing online world? Will the readers/viewers/listeners be okay with the growing pains or will they turn to other avenues (if they haven't already) to get their information? And if the already-established local platform does die off, will the online be close behind (because where do you think many of those "sites with some local news" actually get their local news from?)
Having seen as much change as I have in the last few years, I can only imagine what more is on the way. I wish I could predict even a fraction of it, just so that I knew what we were getting ourselves into.
That's the big question as the last couple of years have really been tough on the industry. It's particularly been difficult over the last few weeks, as PostMedia has merged newsrooms in a handful of markets, including Calgary, where the Sun and Herald are essentially one and the same now. It led to a lot of layoffs of some extremely talented people who did some great things for Calgary and for Alberta.
This has led to a number of conversations ranging from the "eventual demise of print" to "how many stories will go untold" to "will the same thing happen to TV and radio."
I don't want to re-open those discussions and I don't pretend to know all the answers. Make no mistake, I have my ideas and inklings on what could be on the horizon. Maybe one day I'll share them all. But I wanted to blog about just how much change I've seen in my fairly short career.
It's actually quite amazing to think how much has changed since I started in radio. I marked my 10th year in the industry last July (July 15th, 2005) and my 5th year during this second stint in Calgary (August 3rd, 2010, although I did spend 14 months here in 2007-2008).
So to take you back to 2005 in Lloydminster, we have a pretty basic website. There was no "news" component to it. You couldn't listen live to the station. It was essentially a place for us to blog and post biographies. I don't even think I had the capability of posting stuff on my own.
My first stop in Medicine Hat in 2006-2007 was pretty much the same. I think we played around on MySpace and a little Facebook at that point but it was still really basic. For news, we'd update it once a day by emailing the stories to someone upstairs (newsroom was downstairs).
In Calgary in 2007-2008, it was a little more involved. We still weren't pushing anything on social networks (or we were just starting) and the web was starting to become a more regular thing. But it wasn't really a major part of the day-to-day operations.
It wasn't until my next stop in Medicine Hat from 2008-2010 that I noticed a monumental shift. We were actually considered to be "cutting edge" in the 'Hat, as we were pumping stories out on the web as fast as we were putting them on-air. We were pushing those stories onto Facebook and Twitter by 2009. The web was quickly becoming the place to go for news.
Then I came back to Calgary in 2010. I remember helping launch new Twitter and Facebook accounts in early-2011. By 2012, the website and those two mediums had almost eclipsed the on-air side when it comes to "what's important" for a newsroom.
This has led to a few challenges, to say the least. As mentioned in a previous post, spelling and grammar of the written word suddenly became important again. For a radio guy, I've only ever really known it as "if I can say it, that's all that matters." Now punctuation matters. You need to make sure past, present and future tenses are consistent through a story (I'm still bad for that). And then there's the more-obvious challenges, like trying to focus on what actually makes the station money (radio) versus where many people are going to get their news (online) and how you strike that balance to make sure you're making everyone happy.
The most interesting part of this is when I look at where I am in my career now. I've had this discussion with a few friends, as we've debated what's next for our industry. We've actually been witness and been a part of that shift from on-air only to on-air & online. We understand the importance of the platform we have with the traditional media outlets, in terms of making voices heard and providing a place for discussion you can read, see or hear. We also understand that the online portion can supplement that discussion, or act as a completely different arm of that discussion. I went to a conference in 2014 where some young broadcast students admitted to not having cable. How do these wanna-be TV stars expect to understand the on-air portion when they don't even watch the evening news? On the flipside, there are those in the industry who think the web is an inconvenience and they shouldn't have to bother with it. In what world does it make sense to completely write-off a possible generation of readers/listeners/viewers, only because you don't want to deal with the big, bad internet?
And that's where we get to the crossroads of this industry. I talked about this a bit on my last post. But how do you successfully integrate online into your already-established platform? And how do you make sure that already-established platform stays relevant in an ever-increasing online world? Will the readers/viewers/listeners be okay with the growing pains or will they turn to other avenues (if they haven't already) to get their information? And if the already-established local platform does die off, will the online be close behind (because where do you think many of those "sites with some local news" actually get their local news from?)
Having seen as much change as I have in the last few years, I can only imagine what more is on the way. I wish I could predict even a fraction of it, just so that I knew what we were getting ourselves into.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
What's Next For TV News?
If you're a fan of your local TV news in Southern Alberta, you've probably noticed a few changes lately. A few close friends as well as acquaintances have recently decided to leave the industry and head to "greener pastures." The reasons have been varied but the bottom line seems to be relatively the same: the future is really uncertain.
None of them question the importance of locally-produced TV news, or journalism for that matter. But the medium in which it is produced and how it is carried is coming under heavy questioning, much like it has been for newspapers over the last few years. Everyone knows that change is on the horizon. They just don't know what that change looks like.
An old friend posted on Facebook recently about HOW local TV news is going to survive, especially in a world where more and more people are trading in their cable boxes in favour of services like Netflix, Shomi, Crave TV and others. Could local news outlets find a way to get their product on those services? Would you watch your local news, at your own leisure, if it were available on Netflix (for example)? Should it be an hour-long program? Half-hour? Or maybe you have a specific "channel" on these services, where you can just watch the stories that appeal to you, like you can do online?
This has been an interesting challenge for all media outlets (radio, TV and print) in recent years. I'm not sure if anyone has found that "happy medium" where they're meeting the expectations of both the traditional media and the new media, especially in the last few years as newsrooms have gotten smaller with layoffs. Either too much attention is being paid to the online side, or not enough.
What print has been battling and what TV is starting to face is the fact that the online side is immediate. No one (consumers) seems willing to wait for the paper to come out the next day, or for the supper-hour newscast on TV. So these outlets are pushing resources towards getting it online, whether it be through live-streaming news conferences or simply getting full stories up as soon as possible. Radio is facing this issue to a lesser-degree, because the expectation (at least when it comes to news-based stations) always has been and always will be that we'll have it on the radio right now (or in a couple minutes).
The result is that you're getting more news quickly, whether it be on a website, through Facebook, Twitter or any other social medium. This can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. How so, you ask? In the "traditional media" sense, when you had a big story, you promoted it, and your ratings would dictate whether it was a well-received story or not. In the online world (and in particular when it comes to those heavily-entrenched in that world), you're ultimately judged on how many retweets, likes, shares, impressions, click-throughs and views you get. Which is all well-and-good, but I've already seen it where a story which should be viewed as important to the population gets a couple of likes and a few views, yet a story with absolutely zero impact on the world (think cute kitten videos) gets hundreds of likes and thousands of views. By no means am I saying that journalism should be graded on this, but we do head down a slippery slope where some people will believe that it's those likes and views that are too important to avoid when you're talking about bottom lines. We're living in a world where "going viral" is more important than the actual story that is being told.
You also can't discount the fact that many people want their news delivered to them in a certain way. Politics is a great example of this. Don't agree with your perception of the "bias" of a certain outlet? Just find an outlet that more closely aligns with your views. It doesn't even have to be a traditional news organization. I've been shocked by how many friends are posting "stories" delivered by non-traditional media outlets, who haven't done their research and are missing some key facts to the story, or have their own bias. Yet those same friends say they hate the bias of what they like to call "the mainstream media." Traditional media isn't just facing off against one another, but they're also battling every blogger, commentator and guy/gal with an internet connection and an opinion, for their share of eyes and ears. The one thing I wonder about is trust. Do people trust traditional media anymore? If they don't, when was that trust broken? Who was to blame for that monumental shift in opinion? What would it take to earn that trust back? Or do some outlets want that trust back? I'll use the example of a centrist organization, where "tough questions" are asked of everyone. You'll have those on one side claiming the outlet is "obviously rooting for the other guys", yet those on the other side are ALSO saying that the outlet is "obviously rooting for the other guys." I've seen it. It's almost better for an outlet to be hated equally by everyone, as weird as that sounds.
The other challenge is already being felt by newspapers. Despite the fact they have done a great job in going online, the struggles with how to get people to pay for that product are apparent. Back in the day (I hate using that saying), you paid a buck or two to get the paper, and multiply that by a few hundred thousand, and you were able to pay for the resources it took to put the product together. But with fewer people buying an actual newspaper, they need to find ways to replace that income. They tried paywalls and that hasn't worked to the extent it was hoped, as people have found ways to get around the paywalls. Add in other online sources taking (aka stealing) that content and making it available to the public for free and the challenge is getting even harder. You can try to increase the amount of advertising inside, but with fewer eyes looking at it, the reach is declining, so advertisers are more hesitant to foot the bill. TV (and radio for that matter) is facing that same dilemma but still have a few eyes on their products. But even that's seeming to slow down.
Revenues are down, budgets are impacted, and you're starting to see the trickle down with fewer bodies trying to produce the same amount of on-air/on-paper/online content. The chances for "exclusives" or "in-depth" coverage become fewer and fewer because the reporters still there are just trying to make sure there's enough stories in the mix to fill what's needed. The idea of a "beat" (like health, education, crime, etc) is essentially gone, because there's not enough people around to break it down that far. The domino effect is quite apparent when you look at it.
What does this mean for the old TV newscast? Do you drop it down to 30-minutes from 60-minutes to meet the "content" challenges? Do you find a way to make newscasts available for consumers on "TV-on-demand" services so that they can watch that 30-minutes or 60-minutes at 6pm or 9pm or the next day? Do you get away from the morning, noon, evening and late-night casts? Do you change that structure at all? Do you focus solely on the stories themselves and getting them online as quickly as possible, with no real "schedule"? What kinds of stories are you going to push? For example, will local sports make a comeback, as that's has essentially been chopped out of local 6pm newscasts?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I don't know if anyone does. But it's definitely worth the discussion, as I believe TV news is and should continue to be an important part of our world.
None of them question the importance of locally-produced TV news, or journalism for that matter. But the medium in which it is produced and how it is carried is coming under heavy questioning, much like it has been for newspapers over the last few years. Everyone knows that change is on the horizon. They just don't know what that change looks like.
An old friend posted on Facebook recently about HOW local TV news is going to survive, especially in a world where more and more people are trading in their cable boxes in favour of services like Netflix, Shomi, Crave TV and others. Could local news outlets find a way to get their product on those services? Would you watch your local news, at your own leisure, if it were available on Netflix (for example)? Should it be an hour-long program? Half-hour? Or maybe you have a specific "channel" on these services, where you can just watch the stories that appeal to you, like you can do online?
This has been an interesting challenge for all media outlets (radio, TV and print) in recent years. I'm not sure if anyone has found that "happy medium" where they're meeting the expectations of both the traditional media and the new media, especially in the last few years as newsrooms have gotten smaller with layoffs. Either too much attention is being paid to the online side, or not enough.
What print has been battling and what TV is starting to face is the fact that the online side is immediate. No one (consumers) seems willing to wait for the paper to come out the next day, or for the supper-hour newscast on TV. So these outlets are pushing resources towards getting it online, whether it be through live-streaming news conferences or simply getting full stories up as soon as possible. Radio is facing this issue to a lesser-degree, because the expectation (at least when it comes to news-based stations) always has been and always will be that we'll have it on the radio right now (or in a couple minutes).
The result is that you're getting more news quickly, whether it be on a website, through Facebook, Twitter or any other social medium. This can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. How so, you ask? In the "traditional media" sense, when you had a big story, you promoted it, and your ratings would dictate whether it was a well-received story or not. In the online world (and in particular when it comes to those heavily-entrenched in that world), you're ultimately judged on how many retweets, likes, shares, impressions, click-throughs and views you get. Which is all well-and-good, but I've already seen it where a story which should be viewed as important to the population gets a couple of likes and a few views, yet a story with absolutely zero impact on the world (think cute kitten videos) gets hundreds of likes and thousands of views. By no means am I saying that journalism should be graded on this, but we do head down a slippery slope where some people will believe that it's those likes and views that are too important to avoid when you're talking about bottom lines. We're living in a world where "going viral" is more important than the actual story that is being told.
You also can't discount the fact that many people want their news delivered to them in a certain way. Politics is a great example of this. Don't agree with your perception of the "bias" of a certain outlet? Just find an outlet that more closely aligns with your views. It doesn't even have to be a traditional news organization. I've been shocked by how many friends are posting "stories" delivered by non-traditional media outlets, who haven't done their research and are missing some key facts to the story, or have their own bias. Yet those same friends say they hate the bias of what they like to call "the mainstream media." Traditional media isn't just facing off against one another, but they're also battling every blogger, commentator and guy/gal with an internet connection and an opinion, for their share of eyes and ears. The one thing I wonder about is trust. Do people trust traditional media anymore? If they don't, when was that trust broken? Who was to blame for that monumental shift in opinion? What would it take to earn that trust back? Or do some outlets want that trust back? I'll use the example of a centrist organization, where "tough questions" are asked of everyone. You'll have those on one side claiming the outlet is "obviously rooting for the other guys", yet those on the other side are ALSO saying that the outlet is "obviously rooting for the other guys." I've seen it. It's almost better for an outlet to be hated equally by everyone, as weird as that sounds.
The other challenge is already being felt by newspapers. Despite the fact they have done a great job in going online, the struggles with how to get people to pay for that product are apparent. Back in the day (I hate using that saying), you paid a buck or two to get the paper, and multiply that by a few hundred thousand, and you were able to pay for the resources it took to put the product together. But with fewer people buying an actual newspaper, they need to find ways to replace that income. They tried paywalls and that hasn't worked to the extent it was hoped, as people have found ways to get around the paywalls. Add in other online sources taking (aka stealing) that content and making it available to the public for free and the challenge is getting even harder. You can try to increase the amount of advertising inside, but with fewer eyes looking at it, the reach is declining, so advertisers are more hesitant to foot the bill. TV (and radio for that matter) is facing that same dilemma but still have a few eyes on their products. But even that's seeming to slow down.
Revenues are down, budgets are impacted, and you're starting to see the trickle down with fewer bodies trying to produce the same amount of on-air/on-paper/online content. The chances for "exclusives" or "in-depth" coverage become fewer and fewer because the reporters still there are just trying to make sure there's enough stories in the mix to fill what's needed. The idea of a "beat" (like health, education, crime, etc) is essentially gone, because there's not enough people around to break it down that far. The domino effect is quite apparent when you look at it.
What does this mean for the old TV newscast? Do you drop it down to 30-minutes from 60-minutes to meet the "content" challenges? Do you find a way to make newscasts available for consumers on "TV-on-demand" services so that they can watch that 30-minutes or 60-minutes at 6pm or 9pm or the next day? Do you get away from the morning, noon, evening and late-night casts? Do you change that structure at all? Do you focus solely on the stories themselves and getting them online as quickly as possible, with no real "schedule"? What kinds of stories are you going to push? For example, will local sports make a comeback, as that's has essentially been chopped out of local 6pm newscasts?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I don't know if anyone does. But it's definitely worth the discussion, as I believe TV news is and should continue to be an important part of our world.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
What if the right has already united?
This could become one of the big storylines of 2016 in Alberta politics. As the province faces what appears to be continuing uncertainty with low oil prices, many questions are going to be asked about what's next. All parties will be facing a myriad of questions about how they could best grapple with the economy. Because we all know that within a few years, voters will likely look back on 2015-2016 to decide who's best to run this province.
It's hard to believe that we're already on the election trail but that's what this year could look like. The parties will likely be trying to stake their claim on what victory looks like, because this is what voters will remember in three years. And being in opposition, the political right will be doing everything it can to sway voters on the fence to come back to their side. But the question becomes: can they?
You see, there's an interesting debate happening in Alberta's political world right now. It's about "uniting the right." They are, of course, speaking about the Wildrose and the Progressive Conservatives, who at one point in time were united. But due to a change at the top (the post-Klein era), those sitting on the far right (the big-C conservatives) decided to create their own party (the Wildrose). They would argue that the PC's had fallen from "just right of centre" to "just left of centre." And maybe that's why some people weren't really surprised that when Jim Prentice (former Harper government MP and high-profile cabinet minister) took the PC leadership, some of the Wildrose faithful (including the leader) talked about getting back together with the party they were originally with, because they felt Prentice would play the perfect peace-maker.
Of course, the script didn't quite play out like that. You all don't need a history lesson. But there is one side of the "unite the right" debate that hasn't been made abundantly clear yet.
You see, for years, the PC Party was "just right of centre." The whole idea of being a Progressive Conservative (which if you actually look at the name is quite the paradox: can you really be progressive and conservative at the same time?) was that they were socially progressive and fiscally conservative. In other words, they believed in good social policy but would make sure the chequebook was in order at the same time. And Albertans seemed to like that. They did keep them in power for 40+ years after all. It is a tightrope act though. You can't focus too much on the social policy or the chequebook gets out of whack. If you focus too much on the chequebook, you'll be throwing too much of the social policy out the door.
And so begins the challenge for the "unite the right" movement. What if the right is already united, under the banner of the Wildrose? The perception is still out there that they are further right than what remains of the PC's. So will the Wildrose be willing to wiggle over to the left a little bit to be more politically popular, in particular in the urban areas, where social issues are obviously still a very big point of contention? Would the Wildrose be willing to operate in the same part of the political spectrum once occupied by the PC Party? On the flipside, will the PC Party be willing to move a little more to the right to join the Wildrose? Even beyond that, would the Wildrose be willing to saddle up next to the party they called thieves and liars, helping dismantle the dynasty? While those two parties may agree on a few fiscal platforms, you have to wonder about the social policies.
Which begs the question: is the right already united? And if it is, should the real debate be whether or not the "centre" needs to be united.
Now, in Alberta, the centre is a bit skewed because it's not technically in the centre but it's where the PC regime lived. But can that party be revived after what's happened in the past few years? What kind of leader would be needed to bring back the confidence of the people? Can that leader shake the skeletons left behind by the last few years worth of controversy? Or does there need to be a movement where maybe another party joins them, like the Alberta Party? Or will the average voter just say "once a PC, always a PC"?
I was also quite interested in a recent story I was reading about Alberta being "more progressive" than some may have thought. What I was fascinated by was the question of whether voters considered themselves to be progressive. Not to sound too flippant, but what does that even mean? Progressive in social policy? Progressive in fiscal policy? Progressive as in an NDP supporter? Liberal supporter? A PC supporter? It's a pretty broad-based question if you ask me. And then there's the implication that voting conservative in any way is supposedly wrong. Even if it's in the PC-sense, where the taxpayer just wants their money to be spent prudently.
The interesting thing in all of this is that if the "unite the right" movement is successful, does this take us even closer to American-style politics, where you have a definitive left-wing party and a definitive right-wing party? And if that does, is that really what Albertans want? They never really seemed hot and bothered by the PC's until the last couple of administrations. So what if a party was able to promise a move back to the "good ol' days"?
As a life-long Albertan, I take offense to the idea that Albertans were nothing but hillbillies before the NDP was voted in. This was the place to live. People moved and stayed here. We got "the best of the best" just as so many people had asked for. So the question that pops into my head (yes, another one) is this: what was wrong with Alberta before?
Just to be clear, this isn't an endorsement for the PC's or any other party for that matter. But somewhere along the line, this train has fallen off the tracks. We've never seen political discourse like we're seeing now. The fear-mongering, vitriol and flat-out hatred is something I never thought I'd ever see. No matter what happens between now and the next election, we can only hope that cooler heads prevail, and someone comes forward with a solutions-based way of thinking. That's what it felt like we were for quite some time. If things got tough, we rolled up our sleeves and figured out how to fix it. We didn't govern based on who would vote for us and we didn't oppose for the sake of opposing.
And until someone remembers that, I don't know if it will really matter if the left, right or centre needs to be "united."
Just to be clear, this isn't an endorsement for the PC's or any other party for that matter. But somewhere along the line, this train has fallen off the tracks. We've never seen political discourse like we're seeing now. The fear-mongering, vitriol and flat-out hatred is something I never thought I'd ever see. No matter what happens between now and the next election, we can only hope that cooler heads prevail, and someone comes forward with a solutions-based way of thinking. That's what it felt like we were for quite some time. If things got tough, we rolled up our sleeves and figured out how to fix it. We didn't govern based on who would vote for us and we didn't oppose for the sake of opposing.
And until someone remembers that, I don't know if it will really matter if the left, right or centre needs to be "united."
Sunday, January 3, 2016
The Ultimate Trump Card
Did you know there are 12 people vying to become the Republican presidential candidate?
That might actually come as a surprise to some people, depending on how plugged into American politics you might be. If you're a casual news observer, you probably had no idea.
I'd like to think of myself as pretty plugged in. But, truth be told, even I had lost track of where we were in the grand scheme of things as we head towards the next US election. We're not even in the full election campaign stateside yet, but it feels like it's gone completely off the rails already.
We have been bombarded with what feels like nothing of substance so far when it comes to the presidential races, in particular around the GOP. And maybe it's because I'm in Canada and we're just simply innocent bystanders watching this all develop from the outside. But one man has dominated all of the headlines for that particular party. And it doesn't matter if you like Donald Trump or not, this isn't good for democracy.
An educated electorate is what we're supposed to be aiming towards. Each of the twelve candidates should be able to get their messages out there. Yet we hardly know who those candidates are, let alone what they stand for. The Republicans could have some of the best candidates available in this election, but no one would ever know. Because day, after day, after day, we're inundated with stories about "The Donald". What kind of controversial thing did he say today? Could it be crazier than it was yesterday? Where is he appearing tonight?
And you (the electorate) are eating it up with a giant spoon. Trump continues to poll better and better. And don't sit there and pretend like you're not lapping it up. Just look at what web traffic is like for stories involving him. More people are reading those stories than they are reading about what Ben Carson is saying. Or Mike Huckabee. Or Marco Rubio.
How many of the Republican candidates are getting one-on-one "exclusive" interviews with the major news outlets? How many news clips are you seeing about each of them? And how many are getting guest host gigs on Saturday Night Live? Ted Cruz? Chris Christie? Jeb Bush? Didn't think so.
I despise the fact that I have to talk about this on this blog. But this is a very real issue here that we need to start talking about. When did it become so important to be a celebrity when running for political office? And since when did that mean more to the coverage you got, versus actually having substantial policies. This is the exact issue that continues to stymie the oilsands (for example). Why is it more important that they have the support of the celebrities like Neil Young or Robert Redford than the support of scientists and the people who actually live and work there? This is a VERY real issue. And it's going to continue to cloud the American election as well.
I guarantee some people haven't even heard these names before. If only they had been on a TV show or two before they entered the political spectrum, maybe they would have stood a chance.
Does anyone actually know what these candidates stand for? Jim Gilmore? Rick Santorum?
Just do a Google search on some of these names. I did that for Carly Fiorina. The top result in news: "Fiorina on Rose Bowl tweet: "It was tongue-in-cheek, for heaven's sakes!"
For John Kasich: "Kasich's TV ad debut: "Never Give Up!"
For Trump: "Donald Trump: Hilary Clinton, Obama "created ISIS.""
So enlightening on all fronts. (note: sarcasm)
The real question I have in all of this is: is this what the American electorate wants out of this race? Or is this what the electorate deserves? I honestly don't know.
I think back to the race for the federal Liberals in Canada. Believe it or not, there were six people in the running for that. But the only name that EVER made headlines was Justin Trudeau. I'd be shocked if many people knew more than one other name (they were Joyce Murray, Martha Hall Findlay, Martin Cauchon, Deborah Coyne and Karen McCrimmon). I remember seeing Hall Findlay in Calgary at one point during the race and I was really impressed with what she brought to the table. Yet all anyone could or wanted to talk about on both sides of the political debate was Trudeau.
And that's the thing. This goes beyond the "left-wing" vs. "right-wing" debate. That's not what this is about. This is about the electorate's apparent ignorance towards getting as much information as possible to make informed decisions. I was chatting with a friend recently about this conundrum. You could have the most important story of the year, and it will get you five web page views. You could have a "mean nothing" story and it will get you 5,000. Guess which kind of story is going to be pushed more down the line? And that's what feels like is happening here. What's going to get you better ratings (for example): an exclusive with Trump, where who knows what he's going to say, or an exclusive with Rand Paul, where the majority of the discussion will likely be based on policy?
I'm not saying Trump doesn't deserve to be brought in as the GOP presidential candidate or to become president. That's for you (the voter) to decide. What I am saying is that I've been floored by how much more publicity he's received compared with the other 11 candidates, yet no one seems willing to talk about it. There's a very real possibility that he will be the GOP candidate. Is this cycle going to continue as he faces whoever is running for the Democrats? Or will we actually get to start talking about real issues and policy by then?
Maybe the next president should be whoever does the best job of guest hosting SNL. That'll get you all watching.
That might actually come as a surprise to some people, depending on how plugged into American politics you might be. If you're a casual news observer, you probably had no idea.
I'd like to think of myself as pretty plugged in. But, truth be told, even I had lost track of where we were in the grand scheme of things as we head towards the next US election. We're not even in the full election campaign stateside yet, but it feels like it's gone completely off the rails already.
We have been bombarded with what feels like nothing of substance so far when it comes to the presidential races, in particular around the GOP. And maybe it's because I'm in Canada and we're just simply innocent bystanders watching this all develop from the outside. But one man has dominated all of the headlines for that particular party. And it doesn't matter if you like Donald Trump or not, this isn't good for democracy.
An educated electorate is what we're supposed to be aiming towards. Each of the twelve candidates should be able to get their messages out there. Yet we hardly know who those candidates are, let alone what they stand for. The Republicans could have some of the best candidates available in this election, but no one would ever know. Because day, after day, after day, we're inundated with stories about "The Donald". What kind of controversial thing did he say today? Could it be crazier than it was yesterday? Where is he appearing tonight?
And you (the electorate) are eating it up with a giant spoon. Trump continues to poll better and better. And don't sit there and pretend like you're not lapping it up. Just look at what web traffic is like for stories involving him. More people are reading those stories than they are reading about what Ben Carson is saying. Or Mike Huckabee. Or Marco Rubio.
How many of the Republican candidates are getting one-on-one "exclusive" interviews with the major news outlets? How many news clips are you seeing about each of them? And how many are getting guest host gigs on Saturday Night Live? Ted Cruz? Chris Christie? Jeb Bush? Didn't think so.
I despise the fact that I have to talk about this on this blog. But this is a very real issue here that we need to start talking about. When did it become so important to be a celebrity when running for political office? And since when did that mean more to the coverage you got, versus actually having substantial policies. This is the exact issue that continues to stymie the oilsands (for example). Why is it more important that they have the support of the celebrities like Neil Young or Robert Redford than the support of scientists and the people who actually live and work there? This is a VERY real issue. And it's going to continue to cloud the American election as well.
I guarantee some people haven't even heard these names before. If only they had been on a TV show or two before they entered the political spectrum, maybe they would have stood a chance.
Does anyone actually know what these candidates stand for? Jim Gilmore? Rick Santorum?
Just do a Google search on some of these names. I did that for Carly Fiorina. The top result in news: "Fiorina on Rose Bowl tweet: "It was tongue-in-cheek, for heaven's sakes!"
For John Kasich: "Kasich's TV ad debut: "Never Give Up!"
For Trump: "Donald Trump: Hilary Clinton, Obama "created ISIS.""
So enlightening on all fronts. (note: sarcasm)
The real question I have in all of this is: is this what the American electorate wants out of this race? Or is this what the electorate deserves? I honestly don't know.
I think back to the race for the federal Liberals in Canada. Believe it or not, there were six people in the running for that. But the only name that EVER made headlines was Justin Trudeau. I'd be shocked if many people knew more than one other name (they were Joyce Murray, Martha Hall Findlay, Martin Cauchon, Deborah Coyne and Karen McCrimmon). I remember seeing Hall Findlay in Calgary at one point during the race and I was really impressed with what she brought to the table. Yet all anyone could or wanted to talk about on both sides of the political debate was Trudeau.
And that's the thing. This goes beyond the "left-wing" vs. "right-wing" debate. That's not what this is about. This is about the electorate's apparent ignorance towards getting as much information as possible to make informed decisions. I was chatting with a friend recently about this conundrum. You could have the most important story of the year, and it will get you five web page views. You could have a "mean nothing" story and it will get you 5,000. Guess which kind of story is going to be pushed more down the line? And that's what feels like is happening here. What's going to get you better ratings (for example): an exclusive with Trump, where who knows what he's going to say, or an exclusive with Rand Paul, where the majority of the discussion will likely be based on policy?
I'm not saying Trump doesn't deserve to be brought in as the GOP presidential candidate or to become president. That's for you (the voter) to decide. What I am saying is that I've been floored by how much more publicity he's received compared with the other 11 candidates, yet no one seems willing to talk about it. There's a very real possibility that he will be the GOP candidate. Is this cycle going to continue as he faces whoever is running for the Democrats? Or will we actually get to start talking about real issues and policy by then?
Maybe the next president should be whoever does the best job of guest hosting SNL. That'll get you all watching.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
What A Gong-Show...
I feel bad for Albertans. I really do. I've spent the past few weeks trying to make sense of this Bill 6 debate in my head and in different forums (including in-person conversations and online). I'm still struggling to come up with answers. The only thing I can really conclude is that I feel bad for Albertans.
The rest of this country is watching and it kind of feels like they're laughing at us. Not because of who's in power. Not because of who's in opposition. Not because of the farmers or the ranchers or the farm workers themselves. But they're laughing because of how this has become an absolute trainwreck by all accounts. And maybe they should be laughing.
This should have been a debate and discussion about how to make farms safer. This should have been a debate and discussion about how we could get farm workers feeling safer. This should have been about standing behind an industry that has been the bread-and-butter of this province for generations and letting it continue to flourish, even if it means under a few new rules to modernize the thinking, especially when it comes to corporate farms. Yet it's turned into nothing more than vitriol, name-calling and even a few threats against politicians. You have one side of the equation essentially saying that Alberta farms are nothing more than death traps, and that farmers and ranchers don't want to change that. You have the other side of the equation essentially saying that there's nothing wrong and this is just a heavy-handed government trying to upset a group of people who didn't vote for them in the first place.
It's become petty. Potshots are being taken. Some are disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Others are trolling just because they can troll. And that's fueling the rage even more. I can't help but feel we're only one bad word away from an all-out brawl. You know who's to blame for this? Everyone. I don't care about political stripe at this point. We're lacking some serious leadership here, top to bottom.
Premier Rachel Notley and her party called it a miscommunication. While the original intention may have been honorable, the NDP's execution misfired. How can you tell? You've upset farmers, who have shown up from all corners of the province to rally, not necessarily against the bill, but hoping for some sort of consultation. And many farmers don't take a trip to the city lightly. There's a new sheriff in town and farmers and ranchers didn't really get to meet 'em before the "consultation" continued. And even after the admittance that mistakes were made, perception of "ramming through the legislation" continued. One of the ministers was quoted as saying "we think the amendments we'll be announcing shortly will help alleviate some concerns", to which a reporter asked "you mean the ones announced yesterday?" One could deduce that either the minister wasn't plugged in to the discussion in Edmonton, or the minister wasn't on top of the portfolio. Both are bad situations from a communications standpoint. Farmers always have their complaints, but usually it's about the weather, or the grasshoppers, or the price of their product. But it's always more of a "shrug and move on" than anything. This actually prompted them to get off the farm, en masse. This was an opportunity to prove you were something different from previous governments, who were accused of not involving the right people in the process, which was ultimately a factor in their demise. And yet that opportunity to say "we're different from them" seems to have been lost on you.
Opposition leader Brian Jean and his party also need to bear some of the responsibility. Sure, he's penned a nice sentiment for people to cool it. But even some supposed Wildrose supporters (to which I even question their loyalty) are calling for him to step down because he's "gone soft." Then you have the revelation that he was supportive of a bill like this in the past, and it throws even more questions into the air. Has the Wildrose moved past the old thoughts that they opposed just for the sake of opposing? I've read some of the allegations being tossed around by the party's faithful when it comes to the future of the family farm, how far the legislation will go, etc. Whether or not the party endorses those thoughts is irrelevant, because we all know perception is reality. And those not aligned with the Wildrose now think you're the ones fanning the misinformation flames. That information, right or wrong, has led to a massive and sometimes ugly movement that needs more than just a Facebook post and some handshakes.
Even the PC's, Liberals and Alberta Party deserve some blame. As much as they tried to have their voices heard, they were drowned out. I got the sense that many people were looking for some sort of calm voice of reason. But from one side, we had the talk about "unite the right" take over in a heartbeat, while on the other side, we had a party leader say he didn't like how the communication went, then in the next breath was trying to speak at an anti-Bill 6 rally about how the bill was actually a good thing. Can't blame a guy for trying, I suppose. Not exactly the best plan of action though.
And then there are those who have been really vocal about this debate. You're passionate and I'll give you that. But you have a weird way of showing it sometimes. Some of you have gone so far as to hide behind "freedom of speech" when it comes to your hate and threats. It's despicable. Really. Alberta is better than this. Or maybe Alberta isn't. Maybe this province is being exposed a bit. And that's what I fear going forward. Bill 6, as we know it, is a done deal. It's been passed and there's really no going back on it. But now we're up for an even bigger discussion about farmers' rights and other issues. Premier Notley has said that could take anywhere from 6-18 months. Can you imagine more of this disgusting commentary over the next year or so? Both sides will dig in their heels. Both sides will argue until they're blue in the face. But what will it really accomplish, if neither side is really willing to hear the other one out?
We can only hope that civility will reign supreme again in this wonderful province that we call home. We can only hope that when it does come time for a discussion on working conditions and other issues, that we're going to have a FULL discussion about it. Both sides need to understand this isn't going to be an easy discussion. It's not as simple as some make it out to be, but it's not as convoluted as others claim either. Both sides need to be articulate, take the emotion out of it, and be open to the idea that there are two sides to this debate. I don't believe anyone is (or should be) coming at this with an adversarial tone. We all want safe farms and ranches. We all want great places to keep raising our families and to contribute to society as a whole. We all want to see another part of our economy shine, especially when others struggle. I don't think anyone will argue those points.
But what they will argue, is whether the other side is willing to come to the table with ears wide open, ready to soak up all the information that can help us get to that point. Or will they show more interest in fighting and online battles than in creating good policy that makes all Albertans proud?
The rest of this country is watching and it kind of feels like they're laughing at us. Not because of who's in power. Not because of who's in opposition. Not because of the farmers or the ranchers or the farm workers themselves. But they're laughing because of how this has become an absolute trainwreck by all accounts. And maybe they should be laughing.
This should have been a debate and discussion about how to make farms safer. This should have been a debate and discussion about how we could get farm workers feeling safer. This should have been about standing behind an industry that has been the bread-and-butter of this province for generations and letting it continue to flourish, even if it means under a few new rules to modernize the thinking, especially when it comes to corporate farms. Yet it's turned into nothing more than vitriol, name-calling and even a few threats against politicians. You have one side of the equation essentially saying that Alberta farms are nothing more than death traps, and that farmers and ranchers don't want to change that. You have the other side of the equation essentially saying that there's nothing wrong and this is just a heavy-handed government trying to upset a group of people who didn't vote for them in the first place.
It's become petty. Potshots are being taken. Some are disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Others are trolling just because they can troll. And that's fueling the rage even more. I can't help but feel we're only one bad word away from an all-out brawl. You know who's to blame for this? Everyone. I don't care about political stripe at this point. We're lacking some serious leadership here, top to bottom.
Premier Rachel Notley and her party called it a miscommunication. While the original intention may have been honorable, the NDP's execution misfired. How can you tell? You've upset farmers, who have shown up from all corners of the province to rally, not necessarily against the bill, but hoping for some sort of consultation. And many farmers don't take a trip to the city lightly. There's a new sheriff in town and farmers and ranchers didn't really get to meet 'em before the "consultation" continued. And even after the admittance that mistakes were made, perception of "ramming through the legislation" continued. One of the ministers was quoted as saying "we think the amendments we'll be announcing shortly will help alleviate some concerns", to which a reporter asked "you mean the ones announced yesterday?" One could deduce that either the minister wasn't plugged in to the discussion in Edmonton, or the minister wasn't on top of the portfolio. Both are bad situations from a communications standpoint. Farmers always have their complaints, but usually it's about the weather, or the grasshoppers, or the price of their product. But it's always more of a "shrug and move on" than anything. This actually prompted them to get off the farm, en masse. This was an opportunity to prove you were something different from previous governments, who were accused of not involving the right people in the process, which was ultimately a factor in their demise. And yet that opportunity to say "we're different from them" seems to have been lost on you.
Opposition leader Brian Jean and his party also need to bear some of the responsibility. Sure, he's penned a nice sentiment for people to cool it. But even some supposed Wildrose supporters (to which I even question their loyalty) are calling for him to step down because he's "gone soft." Then you have the revelation that he was supportive of a bill like this in the past, and it throws even more questions into the air. Has the Wildrose moved past the old thoughts that they opposed just for the sake of opposing? I've read some of the allegations being tossed around by the party's faithful when it comes to the future of the family farm, how far the legislation will go, etc. Whether or not the party endorses those thoughts is irrelevant, because we all know perception is reality. And those not aligned with the Wildrose now think you're the ones fanning the misinformation flames. That information, right or wrong, has led to a massive and sometimes ugly movement that needs more than just a Facebook post and some handshakes.
Even the PC's, Liberals and Alberta Party deserve some blame. As much as they tried to have their voices heard, they were drowned out. I got the sense that many people were looking for some sort of calm voice of reason. But from one side, we had the talk about "unite the right" take over in a heartbeat, while on the other side, we had a party leader say he didn't like how the communication went, then in the next breath was trying to speak at an anti-Bill 6 rally about how the bill was actually a good thing. Can't blame a guy for trying, I suppose. Not exactly the best plan of action though.
And then there are those who have been really vocal about this debate. You're passionate and I'll give you that. But you have a weird way of showing it sometimes. Some of you have gone so far as to hide behind "freedom of speech" when it comes to your hate and threats. It's despicable. Really. Alberta is better than this. Or maybe Alberta isn't. Maybe this province is being exposed a bit. And that's what I fear going forward. Bill 6, as we know it, is a done deal. It's been passed and there's really no going back on it. But now we're up for an even bigger discussion about farmers' rights and other issues. Premier Notley has said that could take anywhere from 6-18 months. Can you imagine more of this disgusting commentary over the next year or so? Both sides will dig in their heels. Both sides will argue until they're blue in the face. But what will it really accomplish, if neither side is really willing to hear the other one out?
We can only hope that civility will reign supreme again in this wonderful province that we call home. We can only hope that when it does come time for a discussion on working conditions and other issues, that we're going to have a FULL discussion about it. Both sides need to understand this isn't going to be an easy discussion. It's not as simple as some make it out to be, but it's not as convoluted as others claim either. Both sides need to be articulate, take the emotion out of it, and be open to the idea that there are two sides to this debate. I don't believe anyone is (or should be) coming at this with an adversarial tone. We all want safe farms and ranches. We all want great places to keep raising our families and to contribute to society as a whole. We all want to see another part of our economy shine, especially when others struggle. I don't think anyone will argue those points.
But what they will argue, is whether the other side is willing to come to the table with ears wide open, ready to soak up all the information that can help us get to that point. Or will they show more interest in fighting and online battles than in creating good policy that makes all Albertans proud?
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Confessions of a Farm Boy
Anyone who knows me, knows I'm a farm kid. Born and raised on the family farm north of Lethbridge, just outside the Village of Carmangay, it was a pretty modest upbringing. We didn't have any animals (other than a few cats and the odd dog) but I spent more than a few hours in the tractor.
Truth be told, I had it pretty easy in terms of the amount of work I actually did. My dad did the best he could to make sure I had the cushy jobs, like running swathers and combines, instead of doing the busier jobs like running truck. I handled pre-seeding work for a couple of years, but he took control of the actual seeding (might have had something to do with a fertilizing accident I had early on, where I may have over-fertilized a field or two). I ran a lot of errands, a lot of driving, became pretty good with a wrench. I also learned a lot about the value of working hard, earning and saving money, and having (and sometimes changing) plans.
Naturally, I have more than a few questions about what the province has in mind with its Bill 6. It's being dubbed the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act. While some have called for Alberta to "get with the times" for a while now, there's also a pretty vocal group out there wanting to quash this thing before it even takes off.
Let me be the first to say, I'm all for farmers, their families and their workers to have some sort of protection. One of my uncles lost his life in a farming accident. I remember his funeral well, mainly because my sisters and I watched over his young son during the service. Even to this day, I've never been 100% sure what kinds of programs and protection is out there for farmers and their workers, other than life insurance. It's not like they're covered or pay into workers compensation or anything like that.
The thing is though, I don't know if the family farm would want to be under those kinds of programs. It's not your typical work environment where you're working a typical 8-hour day. You're not sitting behind a desk, 9-5. There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm hoping that the government, as it goes through the consultations and drawing up of what will likely be some eye-opening legislation, realizes that.
Sometimes a calf is going to be born in the middle of the night, or maybe you need to put in that extra time to finish combining that field. Does that mean the farmer or his hired hand gets to take a day off in lieu of that overtime?
Sometimes you're not working with the newest of equipment. I worked in and on tractors, combines and other things that probably could have gone in a scrap heap years before I was born (I'm pretty sure my dad wanted a few of those contraptions to spontaneously combust once in a while). But we fixed them all up and hobbled them along year-after-year. Under the new legislation, will that equipment be deemed unfit to use? And if it is, will that leave some farmers without equipment to use, and the prospects of closing down shop because they can't afford the newest and shiniest things?
Two recent incidents on farms in Alberta also have me wondering what would happen with similar cases in the future.
One involves three sisters who died in a tragic accident on a farm near Withrow last month. It was at a family farm and had many people wondering how or why something like that could happen. Under the new legislation, would you see the province step in to investigate? Would we see a fatality inquiry of sorts, to determine if anything could be done to prevent similar deaths? And would it be fair to make public the circumstances behind their deaths, potentially putting their upbringing and the parents' parenting abilities under the microscope (and not for a second am I questioning them in this case, but these are the tough questions that would need to be asked in the future if we go down this road).
The other incident involved a ten-year-old boy, who died running a forklift at a Hutterite colony near Killam last week. Hutterite colonies are unique in their own way, as they're family farms to an extent, but also big enough to be considered a commercial operation. Again, would Occupational Health and Safety walk onto the colony in a similar situation to determine who was at fault? The question would likely be asked: why was a ten-year-old boy running a forklift? Would the legislation allow for penalties to be levied against the colony? Could they potentially be shutdown if certain rules and regulations aren't adhered to?
I would also be curious to know how the province would plan to police such legislation. Would additional inspectors be hired to visit all farms (commercial, colony and family)? What would they deem as acceptable work conditions? Would you need to wear a hard hat every time you worked on machinery? Would you need to be a certain age to do that work? What kind of work would you be allowed to do? (For an example on this one: I was paid to cut the grass with both push-mowers and garden tractors, aka equipment. That would make me a paid employee, subject to the same rules and regulations, I would assume, as someone who is paid to do other farm work.)
One other sidenote in all of this is the complexity of each farm. No two farms are exactly alike. Everyone's using different equipment. Everyone has different crops in the ground. They have different kinds of animals, with different numbers. They also have different workforces (some have several hired hands, some have one, some are totally self-sufficient with family members only). What about family or other friends who stop in each fall to help with harvest, and do the work for free? Would they need to fill out paperwork in order just to run truck for a couple Saturdays in September?
I realize I've asked a lot of questions (and some are hypothetical) and given very few answers. But that's the interesting thing in the province's announcement is that they don't even have a ton of answers. So I'm hesitant to throw the province under the bus when we don't have the legislation in front of us. But I do hope there's an understanding that this isn't going to be something that's easily fixed with a blanket bill that promises to make everyone safer.
Many farmers and their families choose to do what they do because of the lifestyle. They don't have to adhere to the usual "rules of the world." They work at their own pace, setting their own hours and their own rules. The good farmers and ranchers have good hired hands, who work to make it a safe environment together. They don't need government intervention to make it work.
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be held to high standards and I'm not saying safety shouldn't be taken into consideration. But I do believe there should be an understanding that there's a difference between commercial operations where the top consideration is making money, and a family operation, where the primary focus is to make and create a living for you and your family. Does anyone really think a family would put their loved ones (including children) at risk, just to make an extra buck?
Yes, mistakes do happen though. You never thought about what would happen if a high-velocity chain snapped off and smashed into a back window of a truck you're driving (happened). You never thought about what would happen if you climbed onto the top of the combine and stepped on some ice, slipping and falling a few metres down onto the rocker-bar (happened to someone I know who shall remain anonymous). You never thought about trying to sneak between a pickup truck and the grain truck, in hopes of getting the combine auger over top of the grain truck, only to realize you've hit the pickup with your combine pickup (guilty as charged). Mistakes happen. It's an assumed possibility when you take the job. Are we running the risk of creating more red tape for an industry that, for the most part, wasn't looking for protection in the first place?
I'm proud of my upbringing. Like I said, it taught me everything I know about the value of hard work and dedication. It made me who I am today and I wish more people had and would get that opportunity. To the provincial government, I hope the time is taken to craft this legislation properly, and not rush only to make good on a campaign promise.
I leave you with this:
"I believe a person's greatest possession is their dignity and that no calling bestows this more abundantly than farming.
I believe hard work and honest sweat are the building blocks of a person's character.
I believe that farming, despite its hardships and disappointments, is the most honest and honorable way a person can spend their days on this earth.
I believe farming provides education for life and that no other occupation teaches so much about birth, growth, and maturity in such a variety of ways.
I believe many of the best things in life are free: the splendor of a sunrise; the rapture of wide-open spaces; the exhilarating sight of your land greening each spring.
I believe true happiness comes from watching your crops ripen in the field and your children grow tall in the sun.
I believe my life will be measured ultimately by what I have done for my fellow man.
I believe in farming because it makes all this possible."
Author unknown, "The Farmer's Creed"
Truth be told, I had it pretty easy in terms of the amount of work I actually did. My dad did the best he could to make sure I had the cushy jobs, like running swathers and combines, instead of doing the busier jobs like running truck. I handled pre-seeding work for a couple of years, but he took control of the actual seeding (might have had something to do with a fertilizing accident I had early on, where I may have over-fertilized a field or two). I ran a lot of errands, a lot of driving, became pretty good with a wrench. I also learned a lot about the value of working hard, earning and saving money, and having (and sometimes changing) plans.
Naturally, I have more than a few questions about what the province has in mind with its Bill 6. It's being dubbed the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act. While some have called for Alberta to "get with the times" for a while now, there's also a pretty vocal group out there wanting to quash this thing before it even takes off.
Let me be the first to say, I'm all for farmers, their families and their workers to have some sort of protection. One of my uncles lost his life in a farming accident. I remember his funeral well, mainly because my sisters and I watched over his young son during the service. Even to this day, I've never been 100% sure what kinds of programs and protection is out there for farmers and their workers, other than life insurance. It's not like they're covered or pay into workers compensation or anything like that.
The thing is though, I don't know if the family farm would want to be under those kinds of programs. It's not your typical work environment where you're working a typical 8-hour day. You're not sitting behind a desk, 9-5. There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm hoping that the government, as it goes through the consultations and drawing up of what will likely be some eye-opening legislation, realizes that.
Sometimes a calf is going to be born in the middle of the night, or maybe you need to put in that extra time to finish combining that field. Does that mean the farmer or his hired hand gets to take a day off in lieu of that overtime?
Sometimes you're not working with the newest of equipment. I worked in and on tractors, combines and other things that probably could have gone in a scrap heap years before I was born (I'm pretty sure my dad wanted a few of those contraptions to spontaneously combust once in a while). But we fixed them all up and hobbled them along year-after-year. Under the new legislation, will that equipment be deemed unfit to use? And if it is, will that leave some farmers without equipment to use, and the prospects of closing down shop because they can't afford the newest and shiniest things?
Two recent incidents on farms in Alberta also have me wondering what would happen with similar cases in the future.
One involves three sisters who died in a tragic accident on a farm near Withrow last month. It was at a family farm and had many people wondering how or why something like that could happen. Under the new legislation, would you see the province step in to investigate? Would we see a fatality inquiry of sorts, to determine if anything could be done to prevent similar deaths? And would it be fair to make public the circumstances behind their deaths, potentially putting their upbringing and the parents' parenting abilities under the microscope (and not for a second am I questioning them in this case, but these are the tough questions that would need to be asked in the future if we go down this road).
The other incident involved a ten-year-old boy, who died running a forklift at a Hutterite colony near Killam last week. Hutterite colonies are unique in their own way, as they're family farms to an extent, but also big enough to be considered a commercial operation. Again, would Occupational Health and Safety walk onto the colony in a similar situation to determine who was at fault? The question would likely be asked: why was a ten-year-old boy running a forklift? Would the legislation allow for penalties to be levied against the colony? Could they potentially be shutdown if certain rules and regulations aren't adhered to?
I would also be curious to know how the province would plan to police such legislation. Would additional inspectors be hired to visit all farms (commercial, colony and family)? What would they deem as acceptable work conditions? Would you need to wear a hard hat every time you worked on machinery? Would you need to be a certain age to do that work? What kind of work would you be allowed to do? (For an example on this one: I was paid to cut the grass with both push-mowers and garden tractors, aka equipment. That would make me a paid employee, subject to the same rules and regulations, I would assume, as someone who is paid to do other farm work.)
One other sidenote in all of this is the complexity of each farm. No two farms are exactly alike. Everyone's using different equipment. Everyone has different crops in the ground. They have different kinds of animals, with different numbers. They also have different workforces (some have several hired hands, some have one, some are totally self-sufficient with family members only). What about family or other friends who stop in each fall to help with harvest, and do the work for free? Would they need to fill out paperwork in order just to run truck for a couple Saturdays in September?
I realize I've asked a lot of questions (and some are hypothetical) and given very few answers. But that's the interesting thing in the province's announcement is that they don't even have a ton of answers. So I'm hesitant to throw the province under the bus when we don't have the legislation in front of us. But I do hope there's an understanding that this isn't going to be something that's easily fixed with a blanket bill that promises to make everyone safer.
Many farmers and their families choose to do what they do because of the lifestyle. They don't have to adhere to the usual "rules of the world." They work at their own pace, setting their own hours and their own rules. The good farmers and ranchers have good hired hands, who work to make it a safe environment together. They don't need government intervention to make it work.
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be held to high standards and I'm not saying safety shouldn't be taken into consideration. But I do believe there should be an understanding that there's a difference between commercial operations where the top consideration is making money, and a family operation, where the primary focus is to make and create a living for you and your family. Does anyone really think a family would put their loved ones (including children) at risk, just to make an extra buck?
Yes, mistakes do happen though. You never thought about what would happen if a high-velocity chain snapped off and smashed into a back window of a truck you're driving (happened). You never thought about what would happen if you climbed onto the top of the combine and stepped on some ice, slipping and falling a few metres down onto the rocker-bar (happened to someone I know who shall remain anonymous). You never thought about trying to sneak between a pickup truck and the grain truck, in hopes of getting the combine auger over top of the grain truck, only to realize you've hit the pickup with your combine pickup (guilty as charged). Mistakes happen. It's an assumed possibility when you take the job. Are we running the risk of creating more red tape for an industry that, for the most part, wasn't looking for protection in the first place?
I'm proud of my upbringing. Like I said, it taught me everything I know about the value of hard work and dedication. It made me who I am today and I wish more people had and would get that opportunity. To the provincial government, I hope the time is taken to craft this legislation properly, and not rush only to make good on a campaign promise.
I leave you with this:
"I believe a person's greatest possession is their dignity and that no calling bestows this more abundantly than farming.
I believe hard work and honest sweat are the building blocks of a person's character.
I believe that farming, despite its hardships and disappointments, is the most honest and honorable way a person can spend their days on this earth.
I believe farming provides education for life and that no other occupation teaches so much about birth, growth, and maturity in such a variety of ways.
I believe many of the best things in life are free: the splendor of a sunrise; the rapture of wide-open spaces; the exhilarating sight of your land greening each spring.
I believe true happiness comes from watching your crops ripen in the field and your children grow tall in the sun.
I believe my life will be measured ultimately by what I have done for my fellow man.
I believe in farming because it makes all this possible."
Author unknown, "The Farmer's Creed"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)