Special Updates

A Bully’s Finger on the Trigger

Two major issues faced the world in 1951 when Winston Churchill was trying to win back the keys to No.10 Downing Street after his surprise ejection from the prime minister’s residence in 1945.

There was a war in Korea with North Korea attempting to conquer the South; and there was concern that the U.S., with General Douglas MacArthur in command of an American-dominated United Nations military force, might be tempted to use nuclear weapons to win a war it was patently losing. Britain had already assigned 100,000 soldiers, sailors and air force personnel to the United Nations force. (Canada sent 26,000.)

The Labour Party’s campaign raised the spectre of the Korean conflict escalating to a nuclear ending. Figuring the voters would still be anti-war and therefore anti-Churchill, one of Labour’s campaign slogan was: “Whose finger do you want on the trigger?” The voters apprehensively decided that if the nation was again going to war, they would rather have the old warhorse Churchill “on the trigger” than the Labour Party’s Clement Atlee – whom Churchill once described as “a sheep in sheep’s clothing.” Winston and the Conservatives were re-elected with a narrow majority.

Earlier in April 1951, U.S. President Harry Truman had removed General MacArthur from his command of the Korean War force on the grounds of “insubordination and unwillingness to conduct a limited war.” It was believed the move would silence those who thought MacArthur might dip into the U.S. nuclear arsenal if push came to shove with North Korea’s great ally China.

President Truman, having authorized the use of atomic bombs in WW2 to end a war with Japan, obviously wanted no part of a repeat performance that could start a war with China. But concern remained.

The Korean War continued until 1953 when North and South agreed to an uneasy cease fire, but not to a war-ending truce. South and North Korea are still officially at war. And, the United Nations and the United States still promised the South protection from North Korean invasion.

The current President of the U.S., Donald Trump, openly advances the nuclear threat if North Korea doesn’t stop threatening the South, Japan, U.S. territories and the rest of the world with its newly-acquired nuclear weaponry. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the President has said, “will be met with fire, fury and frankly power which this world has never seen before.”

So here we are decades after my troubled “traditionalist” generation (1946-64) produced the “baby boomers” who grew up fighting for civil rights. The boomers vigorously opposed the North/South Viet Nam war which had replaced the North/South Korean stalemate of 1953, and daily read of, or listened to, cold war threats and counter threats as the great nuclear arms race between Russia and the U.S. chilled the world.

It was a time when duck and cover was not an earthquake drill. Movies like Threads and The Day After – depicting life after a nuclear war – played to somber, silent audiences and Dr. Strangelove left the world laughing – albeit nervously.

When Generation X took over (1965-1980) things hadn’t changed much. The United States was deeply involved in the embarrassing Watergate scandal which led to the pitiful resignation of President Richard Nixon. GenXers had stepped up the pursuit of prosperity and affluence and so-called sexual freedom was replacing morality. Fathers and mothers joined the work force to increase their earning power and a new generation of latch-key children was born. It has been said of GenX that “their perceptions were shaped by growing up having to take care of themselves early and watching their politicians lie and their parents get laid off. (They) came of age when the U.S. was losing its status as the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world.” And wars and rumours of wars continued.

Then came the Millennials, or the Boomer Echoes, or whatever the fancy phrase is for this generation of movers and shakers. They must be shaking their heads if they have read any history at all, and they must be wondering how civilization could have come so far in the past 80 years to have made such little progress running what should be a wonderful world.

The year is 2017, edging quickly to 2018. The once most powerful and richest nation in the world is being pushed off centre stage by homegrown follies. It is again being challenged by small, nuclear-wielding North Korea. A vaudevillian clown, but dangerous president, plays the lead role with unvarnished, arrogant, boastful, shameful, attitudes towards women, people of different races, the sick and less fortunate.His back-up chorus is a duly-elected government lacking the courage, or the conscience, to truly make their country great again; a government that stands silently by ineffectually wondering how best to remove a bully’s finger from the nuclear trigger.

Maybe the rapidly-emerging, next generation, the “robotic generation” can provide the answers that continue to elude their inventors. Hopefully, before the man who now holds the trigger pulls it.

“Undue Influence” – Who Used It, Who Bowed To It?

I listened carefully. Took copious notes as part of my effort to stay awake during the tedious, repetitious, NDP attempts to justify billing already harried taxpayers for their next election campaign expenses. I was comfortably ensconced watching and listening to TV at “home.”

Speaker after NDP speaker emphasized their new government had only goodwill in its heart when it proposed taxpayers pay $30 million plus to listen to a brand new manifesto of yet-to-be-fulfilled election doctrine.

Well-rehearsed, as party discipline dictates, they stolidly repeated the main reason for the decision to ban or severely curb the use of “big money” to fund future election campaigns. The $30 million plus from taxpayers described by Premier John Horgan as “modest in the grand scheme of things,” would end “undue influence” by large donors on future government decisions.

I noted the repeated theme that banning big money donations, especially from large corporations, would “end” undue influence. I waited for names, times, places, proof of wronging doing by the companies so engaged. I waited for the names of government officials – elected or in the public service – on whom “undue influence” had been exerted and in what form. I listened carefully, but without reward.

There were assumptions: A corporation donating heavily to a governing political party before or after winning a multi-million dollar contract must, ergo, be guilty of exerting undue influence; and someone in the former Liberal government must have been equally guilty of being influenced. The assumption is easy to believe, but assumptions – based on what we like to think happened not what actually did happen – are examples of malice at its worst.

So, if the government that sat in opposition for a decade or more insists on peddling its “undue influence” theme to support its planned raid on taxpayer’s savings, could it please provide substantiating facts in “who, what, where, when and why” format. In fairness, it could at the same time provide us with similar answers as to which New Democrats responded to the “unfair influence” of heavy donors to the NDP. Then we’ll know where the weak spots are on both sides of aisle.

For an entertaining read of miscellaneous truths, half-truths and unlimited vanities from the Legislature, do a search of “political scandals in BC.” It’s a fairly long list compared with other provinces but that’s because we have provincial media that loves to hype the inconsequential. There are “conflict of interest” items ranging from heavy duty to, in retrospect, laughably clumsy efforts to make a quick dollar by ignoring rules – and two or three involving bad decisions. Some covered up cost overruns on major projects but only one was a major scandal with proven “undue influence.”

There was the fast ferry fiasco of the 1990s NDP era that saw a fleet of fast ferries built at enormous cost and sold at fire sale prices before they ever went into operation in BC; the Coquihalla Highway Social Credit cover-up of $200 million-plus in cost overruns – making the final cost more than double the original estimates and all racked up in the haste to get the highway opened in time for Expo 86 in Vancouver. Bitter criticism of the project didn’t fade until 2008 when Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government lifted the toll on the highway. It had generated $845 million in revenues.

And the big one, the only one, with a clear exposure of “undue influence,” abuse of privilege, bribes, accusations leading first to judicial inquiry, then a trial and the jailing for five years of W.A.C. Bennett’s Social Credit Minister of Forests Robert Sommers. He was the first ever cabinet minister in the British Commonwealth to be jailed for accepting a bribe.

It all started in February 1955 when “Bull of the Woods” Liberal MLA Gordon Gibson sent the Legislature into frenzied disarray with his booming accusation that “money talks” in the forest industry. In the chaos, Speaker Thomas Irwin ordered the House adjourned. The following day Gibson was ordered to withdraw his charges. He refused. Mr. Justice Arthur Lord was assigned to investigate and reported he found no basis for Gibson’s charges.

Sommers launched libel suits, but the unwavering Gibson continued his attacks in the House until, in 1956, after 300 days of stonewalling by Attorney General Robert Bonner, Sommers was finally dropped from cabinet. Gibson kept prodding. The RCMP investigated and in November 1957, reported it had discovered “definite indications of wrongdoing.” Sommers was arrested and after an 80-day trial found guilty of accepting bribes. He served 28 months of his five-year sentence, then spent his final years in Qualicum where he died aged 89 in 2000, still claiming he was innocent.

There are lessons here for Premier Horgan. He needs to remember while being premier can feed your vanity it can also starve your self-respect and the respect of others. And it’s the latter that will win the next election not assumptions without factual foundations and taxpayer funding without just cause.

(The “feed your vanity starve your self-respect” thought was originally expressed by Matthew Parris writing about politicians in general in The Times in 1994.)

How Was Your Year?

We never celebrated Thanksgiving when I was a child in England. We did celebrate Keats’ “season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, close bosom friend of the maturing sun; Conspiring with him how to load and bless with fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run.” But we called it Harvest Festival, as native Brits – and most of Europe – had called the Harvest Moon (Google it) time of year since crops were first harvested and thanks given.

Not that we had any vines running around thatch eves in the town of Nuneaton where I grew up on a street of faceless row-houses whose front doors opened directly onto the sidewalk. No vines, no thatch, not even a postage stamp front “garden”. An industrial town – but less than a 15 minute brisk walk from grim streets to rural countryside and only a few minutes more to my grandfather’s small farm near Weddington village where “harvest” meant hard work and “thanksgiving” was sincere when it was over.

Less than a block from where I was born is The Abbey Church of St. Mary the Virgin, a place of worship since the mid-12th century. History books tell us The Priory of Nuneaton was a ”daughter house of the great Abbey of Fontevraud, near Samur in Western France” built between 1155-59 and thrived until Henry VIII dissolved all such establishments then carved up their land as gifts for friends. Any buildings, including churches and accommodations, were left empty to become a source of home-building material for others and eventually fall derelict.

And derelict St. Mary’s remained for more than 300 years until in the late 1800’s a benefactor named Thomas Botterill primed and launched a fund raising drive to build on the ancient site a new Abbey Church. They named the street on which I was born after him. I was born upstairs in Number 23. Alas, no name plate marks that historic occasion in my life and there is no record that my boy soprano voice once echoed with other choristers through the vaulted re-built ceilings of St. Mary’s.

But echo it did and never more so than during the full Harvest Moon Festival– each year. There was no set day, no holiday, (still isn’t in the UK) no huge turkey dinners, no funny hats, no commercial babble. Just a serious, thankful festival geared to a full moon to celebrate a harvest “safely gathered in”.

That used to be the first hymn we sang as the choir, led by angelic (looking) little boys filed from the vestry, bright faces, cassocks and surplices – all mother-laundered – immaculate. We turned right at the main aisle walking between sheaves of wheat and barley, baskets of apples, pears, potatoes, beets, cabbages, tomatoes, peas and beans and jars of honey and home-made jam, to take our assigned places. The congregation responded full voice to our plea: “Come, ye thankful people, come, raise the song of harvest home…..”

From where I sat in the choir I could look down the length of the church. In the 1930’s every seat was occupied by a congregation sitting patiently through an always (for boy sopranos) long and obtuse sermon, then joining triumphantly in the hymns. The new church had been built to incorporate sections of the ancient walls and columns. An Art Journal of 1888 described a late autumn service: “….as early twilight closed in, lighted candles were fixed here and there on projecting stones and flung such fantastic shadows….that one might have thought the monks and nuns whose coffins had more than once been dislodged during construction were flitting hither and thither…”

Wax candles were long gone, replaced by small electric bulbs but the shadows still seemed to quiver when the congregation lifted robust voice triumph: “We plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the land, but it is fed and watered by God’s almighty hand…..”, The proclamation came from many who actually did work the land or, like me, had relatives who did. They understood a rich harvest depended on their work – with the sunshine and rain, vital to success.

At harvest they were truly thankful.

It’s 80-years now since I fully shared in a true festival a but I can still recite (and sing but not so well) the words and need for thanksgiving. I can still remember and believe in the main lesson – that we reap what we sow. I am made aware of my shortcomings, reminded that in the year past I have again harvested far more compassion and love from friends and sometimes strangers, than I have ever “planted”.

How was your year?

Generous Taxpayers Pay To Retrain Politicians

There’s an old saying that being elected to a democratic parliament is the kind of job all working class parents want for their children – it’s indoors, clean, no heavy lifting, well paid with generous expenses and a dream quality pension after six years of service.

In British Columbia that’s an average four-year term after a first MLA election win plus at least a two-year stint after a second. If they get turfed after their first session in the big house, they do not go home destitute. Taxpayers ease the humiliation of early public defeat with a “career retraining allowance” which is may be better understood as “severance pay” and amounts to 15 months’ pay, based on the MLA’s salary – which is a couple of hundred dollars short of $106,000 a year.

If MLAs make it past the six-year pensionable service requirement, they are also eligible for the 15-month “career retraining allowance” totaling $132,251 – if they remain unemployed for 15 months after they are defeated or resign. Should they find new jobs within the 15 months, the retraining allowance is adjusted down or up depending on what the new job pays.

Jordan Bateman, BC director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has noted in press, TV and radio interviews that if a defeated or retiring politician gets a new job within the 15-month time frame but at a lower salary than the MLA stipend, taxpayers will top it up to the full retraining allowance for 15-months. For example, if a new job pays $90,000, that amount would be topped up to match the “career retraining allowance” of $132,241.

Members of the Legislature are usually quick to point out their gold-plated basic pension is not free; that they have regular payments deducted from their pay cheques.

It’s a true, but flimsy defence. In 1996, the then-NDP government introduced legislation guaranteeing that every dollar put into the pension plan by an MLA would be matched by a dollar from the government (read: taxpayers). In 2007, the first Liberal government in 56 years changed that formula to four taxpayer dollars for every dollar from an MLA. The guaranteed annual cost of living adjustment date was set – significantly or accidentally – April 1. All the MLAs defeated or simply retiring on May 9, the date of the last election, received a rich golden handshake as they left the buildings. And it wasn’t fool’s gold. Or maybe it was!

The new NDP government lost the May election in terms of popular vote and the number of seats won, but was boosted from second to first when three woe-begotten Greens joined up to make the NDP winners. No cash was involved in the transfer of votes; just “future considerations”, providing the Greens behaved appropriately and the NDP treated them with inclusive respect on matters of NDP importance.

The first partnership test is now before the Legislature in the form of legislation designed to banish corporate or big union election donations to political parties of their choice and sharply curtail maximum individual donations.

All three parties agreed something had to be done and they seemed to agree that a first step would be to implement a program of public and political party input organized by the chief electoral officer. The NDP, at the moment of truth, decided differently and introduced legislation which would confine debate to the Legislature leading to a decision made without participation from taxpayers who will pay the multi-million public funding of political party election campaigns when it becomes law.

While awaiting passage of the bill, Liberals and NDP will continue to solicit and accept ever larger donations from friends – because it isn’t yet illegal to do so. The two major players seem to be agreeing it is morally wrong to raise funds this way – but only if there is a law saying so. No law, no moral issues? That is not inspiring philosophy.

Andrew Weaver doesn’t belong to the big money group. Never has. He has expressed concern over the Liberal apparatus for raising funds and the NDP failure to call for the public input he had hoped for before presenting a new, extremely expensive mechanism for funding political parties from the public purse.

The question remains as to how strong his principles will be as the bill is debated and which way his vote will go if it gets to final reading without amendment. Will he vote for taxpayer funding which he “did not bring to” the discussion table? Will he demand public hearings and input before he grants the NDP passage? Will principle prevail?

Or will he punch the power button he so obviously enjoys holding and command the NDP to “fade to black?”

Stay tuned, we live in interesting times.

For all the details on taxpayers’ generosity check:
http://members.leg.bc.ca/mla-remuneration/employment-benefits.htm

Will The Greens Accept The Cash They Didn’t Ask For?

I’m a little unsure about the “ban big money from election campaigns” legislation introduced by the governing New Democrats. It comes with a nervous back-ground whisper from Andrew Weaver’s Greens. At first shout it seems clear enough, but it echoes down the corridors of power without clarity.

It seems the government, with the nervous “we didn’t ask for it” support of the Greens, is not really intending to ban big money from election campaigns. Rather, it has designated one super donor to replace the many. That donor will be “the people,” although Premier John Horgan and his Green acolytes didn’t actually say “the people” at the great unveiling of the plan to eliminate big money campaign donations. They prefer the word “government” in the hope that “the people” fail to appreciate that their tax dollars are funding parties they may not support.

When the election donation guidelines become law, businesses, trade unions and individuals will lose their name-dropping rights at $50 a plate dinners with their local MLA or $525 a plate nibbles with Premier Horgan.

Recently departed Liberal Premier Christy Clark’s camp followers were happy to provide similar “audience opportunities” starting at $1,000 a plate. When she vacated the premier’s office she left the provincial treasury with unprecedented budget surpluses and the Liberal Party, her party, with enough in the bank to finance a future election campaign.

But, no more dinners with political stars; no more hefty campaign cheques from big business; no more “undue influence” from corporations or trade unions, Canadian or foreign. The government, said Premier Horgan, will pick up the slack. What he meant was “the people,” rich and poor, will pick up the slack to make sure those in power, and those seeking a place in the political sun, are adequately financed to hit the hustings with promises they may never keep.

The estimated cost over the first four years is $11 million, plus another $20 million in what is being called “a second subsidy” of an annual grant based on the number of votes received by a political party in the most recent election. The subsidy is scheduled to start in 2018 at $2.50 a vote decreasing to $1.57 per vote in 2022 when the subsidy “will be reviewed.” Premier Horgan described the costs as “modest in the grand scheme of things.”

Where does Mr. Weaver stand on “no more big money in elections unless it comes from taxpayers” legislation? To be kind, he appears to be balancing uncomfortably on a razor’s edge. He is in favour of election financing reform. However, he did not expect it to be introduced until after a review by a panel chaired by chief electoral office Keith Archer as promised by the NDP leader during the last election campaign.

Weaver was undoubtedly pleased when Premier Horgan took sole responsibility for putting the cart before the horse by breaking his promise of full review before introducing legislation. Media reported Premier Horgan as saying he simply had a change of mind on timing, “in no way suggesting Mr. Weaver and his colleagues had any undue influence.”

Interesting language, as was a Vaughn Palmer (Vancouver Sun) quote from Weaver. When asked earlier in the day for his thoughts on taxpayers picking up electioneering costs, Weaver said: “We did not push for the subsidy … we did not bring that to the table.” Palmer suggested listeners could only assume the sudden injection of taxpayer dollars was entirely the work of Horgan and the NDP.”

Could not pushing for the subsidy and not bringing it to the table mean Weaver’s Greens are against taxpayer funding and will vote against the bill unless it is amended to remove the subsidy sections? I wouldn’t bet on it. The Green’s share of subsidy money, based on last May’s vote totals, would be $831,000. For a financially poor, albeit politically ambitious party, that’s a tough gift horse to walk away from.

I don’t think he will. Like the experienced politician he’s rapidly becoming, he’ll take the money, forgetting that the people who provide it have long memories. They will remember that when it came to priorities, the NDP – Alliance placed its own financial needs ahead of their pledge of a $10-a-day child care plan.

Je me souviens – I Remember!

“Je me souviens” – I Remember – is a powerful Quebec message among the many bland and ultra-bland mottos adorning other territorial and provincial coats of arms in Canada – although opinions can be sharply divided on what it is Quebeckers should “remember.”

Many claim the motto, solidly carved into the walls of Quebec’s National Assembly building, is an eternal reminder of the day England defeated the French on the Plain of Abraham. That was on September 13, 1759, the day England’s General James Wolfe died during the 15-minute battle and France’s Lieutenant-General Louis-Joseph Marquis of Montcalm succumbed on September 14 to the wounds received the day before.

It is significant that in the National Assembly chamber displaying bronze statues of historic giants from Quebec’s past, Montcalm and Wolfe stand side by side, honoured and remembered.

Others insist the never-to-be-forgotten memory reaches back to England’s ill-conceived and brutally executed Acadian clearances.

The Acadians were established settlers of French origin. In rough geographic terms, Acadia was a section of the French colonial empire stretching from Maine through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and parts of eastern Quebec. Their language and culture were French; they refused to swear allegiance to an English king; and, they fought with the French and native-born tribal warriors in what history calls the French and Indian War.

It was savage. The French paid their Indians a bonus for English scalps. The English “cleared” Acadians by killing many; burning their homes, farms, villages; and, transporting survivors as far south as Louisiana where today’s Cajuns keep Acadian culture alive.

The English won the French-Indian War, only to be themselves “evicted” from North America when they lost the colonial war of rebellion (1755-83).

Could that be what Je me souviens commemorates? Or could it be that those historic troubles had been long forgotten until 1978 when Premier Rene Levesque removed La Belle Province from Quebec motor vehicle license plates and replaced it with Je me souviens to annually reiterate his belief that he and his province had been betrayed by then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and other provincial premiers in the decision to repatriate Canada’s constitution?

A vengeful memory, still held by some, but not by the granddaughter of architect Eugene-Etienne Tache who designed Quebec’s National Assembly building and personally selected the motto. Helene Paquet, writing in 1978 when the first “Je me souviens” license plates were stirring controversy, claimed grandfather Tache had taken a line from a poem and its meaning only became clear by reading the second line: “I remember that born under the lily, I grow under the rose.” The lily and the rose represented France and England.

Unfortunately for Helene, her grandfather had left no specific hints as to what he had in mind for future Quebeckers to remember, but friends and knowledgeable historians were sure they knew. One, Thomas Chapais, a cabinet minister and historian, said in 1895 while participating in the unveiling of a new National Assembly bronze: “The province of Quebec has a motto that it is proud of and that it likes to engrave on the pediment (front) of its monuments and palaces. This motto has but three words: Je me souviens, but these three words, in their laconism (simplicity), are worth the most eloquent speech. Yes, we remember. We remember the past and its lessons, the past and its misfortunes, the past and its victories.”

Historian Gaston Deschenes insists the message of the motto has always been “remarkably simple … it simply invited Quebeckers of all origins to remember their history. Those who wanted to give it a revengeful meaning … did not know it had been inscribed on the façade of the Parliament Building under the feet of Montcalm and Wolfe.” Or, like Premier Levesque, chose to ignore the advice.

It all makes British Columbia’s “Splendor sine occasu” (splendour without diminishment) or as some prefer “beauty without end” – a motto lacking in inspiration. “Without diminishment” could be challenged, but we’re happy enough with the scenery.

(For voluminous detail in Encyclopedie Amerique Francaise, Google “Gaston Deschenes” and the Quebec motto “Je me souviens” or go to Wikipedia. I am indebted to both.)

British Columbia – The Newcomers

I’m not sure whether the first white immigrants to arrive in what we now call Canada were having fun when they designed a proud coat of arms or coined neat mottos to confirm their arbitrary new ownership of already occupied land, or whether overcome with royal recognition vanity, they didn’t pay attention to details.

It was all a little confusing from the get-go when Italian-Venetian navigator-explorer Giovanni Cabot (Zuan Chabotto – Venetian) was quickly anglicized to John Cabot by English King Henry VII, and in 1497 sailed from Bristol in search of beyond-horizon lands to add to those discovered by Columbus – another Italian – who had “discovered America” five years earlier.

Cabot’s ship Matthew was small. Little was known about its actual size until 1950 when a letter written in 1497 by a Bristol merchant was discovered stating that when Matthew sailed, she was “one ship of 50 ‘toneles’” (tonnes), with enough food for seven or eight months for 20 men.

Maritime historians confirm there were “about” 20 on board, including a Genoese barber who, traditionally, was also the ship’s surgeon, plus two Bristol merchants and a crew of already well-known Bristol-based sailors.

Henry VII, delighted with Cabot’s discoveries, pronounced it “New Found Launde” and 140 years later in 1637, King Charles I granted Newfoundland a coat of arms. Among its adornments stand “two aboriginal men in war-like clothing representing original inhabitants” supporting the shield. It would be nice to believe the two first citizens were included as early recognition of their ancestral rights, but I fear that was not the original intent – or today’s.

Along with the coat of arms came the inevitable motto designed as a clarion call for a colony, province, country or community to chant when in need of strength in adversity. (In today’s Canada, only Yukon and Northwest Territories have declined Latin mottos to go with their coat of arms.)

Newfoundland, didn’t officially hitch itself to Canada’s rising star until 1949 when a narrowly won referendum a year earlier voted to seek membership in the nation it had been watching grow for more than 300 years.

It brought its 1637 charter with it when it joined Canada along with its evangelical motto Quaerite primum regnum dei – “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God” – which to this day must remain a mystery advisory to investors seeking investment opportunities.

As a final note on Newfoundland-Labrador’s ancient coat of arms, it is noted an Elk is high stepping atop a four-paneled shield. Every comment I’ve been able to find refers to the Elk with polite notations that there are no Elk in Newfoundland – but lots of Caribou.

Designers in England in 1637 can be forgiven for not knowing the difference and Newfoundland–Labrador residents can be praised for leaving their Elk where it’s always been and naming the Newfoundland pony its “heritage animal,” with Caribou a second choice.

They were not the first easterners to get royal recognition via coats and arms and a motto. That prize goes to neighbouring Nova Scotia with a name leaving no doubt as to its New Scotland foundations. It was granted its coat of arms in 1625 by King Charles I. Nova Scotians welcomed the honour, considering the magnanimous gesture a Royal favour. But history tells us Nova Scotia’s joy for the once royal blessing faded over the years, possibly because its benefactor, King Charles I, was beheaded in January 1649 after being charged with treason by Parliament.

With Oliver Cromwell in charge in England, it was not a good time for colonies to boast of friendship with an executed King.

In 1867 the colony of Nova Scotia joined with New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec to create a new country called Canada and Nova Scotia was given what one critic described as a new but “undistinguished new arms.” There were protests. On its 300th anniversary, the original royal charter was restored with its motto Munit haec et altera vincit – “One defends and the other conquers” intact. Debate on the meaning continues, but there is a favourite interpretation.

Across the top of the shield bearing the cross of St. Andrew two hands are clasped. One hand is bare, the other wears a mailed glove. Supporters say this means one hand is at the ready to fight for individual and provincial rights, the other is ready to do manual work to keep the province prosperous.

As a proud British Columbian, the ancestry of my older Canadian brothers back east leaves me humbled.

It is true that Drake was around our part of the world in the late 1500s and once labelled all Pacific Coast land north of Mexico New Albion – Albion being a second name for England. But Drake was a sailor, explorer and Crown-authorized pirate, not a settler.

It would be another 200 years before Captain Cook took another British look around. A decade or so later one of his former officers, Captain George Vancouver,followed Cook into Vancouver Island waters to negotiate and sign with Spain’s Bodega y Quadra the Nootka Treaty of 1790 to end Spanish dominance in the Pacific Northwest and open the gates for English settlers.

Three years later on a west coast rock, another great explorer painted: “Alexander Mackenzie from Canada, by land, the 22nd of July, one thousand, seven hundred and ninety three.” He and his intrepid band had crossed the country on foot and by canoe.

Hard on his heels came Hudson Bay traders in what is now northern BC and then, in 1843, the first white settlers arrived in Fort Victoria, close to 250 years after Nova Scotia got its royal coat of arms.

And as they’ll tell you in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador, we dwellers in Lotus Land are still trying to catch up. They could be right

The Day War Broke Out

For some reason, we were all huddled as close we could to my mother’s new radio, a magical thing purchased a few weeks earlier with money she earned by cleaning wealthier people’s homes. Across an expanse of backyard gardens the single bell of St Mary’s Church rang clear through morning sunshine, a solemn call to Sunday worship.

It was 11 A.M., September 3, 1939

The radio dial glowed,as a cultured BBC announcer intoned with precise diction rarely heard on radio or television today, that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had a message for his people.

A thin, almost querulous, voice said: “I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street. This morning, the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note, stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany. The situation in which no word given by Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel itself safe has become intolerable. And now we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will all play your part. May God bless you all. And may He defend the right, for it is evil things that we shall be fighting against – brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution; and against them I am certain that right will prevail.”

As I have reported on previous occasions, my father – a soldier seriously wounded, but a survivor of the WW1 bloodbath – comforted his wife, son and daughter with his oft-repeated affirmation that “they (German aircraft) will never get this far, they don’t have the range.”

We were assured that deep in the heart of England’s “Midlands” we would be safe. And, as he spoke, the frightening wail of air raid alert sirens invaded the house. We had heard it before at testing times, but this time – with “at war” added – was different, ominous, frightening.

We stepped outside to scan the midday sky, and as my father was repeating “it’s just an alert, I’ve told you they won’t get this far.” The most joyous sound we would hear over the next five years, the “All Clear,” sounded, clear and safe. “See,” father said, as he pulled on his jacket and headed for Abbey Street and the Wheatsheaf for a pint to plan war strategy with other WW1 warriors, “our guns stopped them at the coast.”

He was home for Sunday dinner – the midday meal – of roast beef and Yorkshire pudding at two o’clock during which he delivered a dissertation on how the war would be quickly won if Wheatsheaf strategy was followed, then went to bed for his regulation Sunday afternoon nap.

Obviously, the ruling powers in London didn’t listen, although we began to think maybe they had during the first few months after the declaration of war. It was a few months after the uneasy “phony war” started that warning sirens wailed most nights and surviving to help clean up houses shattered, but not destroyed, became routine. And, “ration cards” had relegated roast beef dinners to memory.

It was during a “just routine’ raid that we, along with our neighbours, lost all the tiles on the roof of our house as they were lifted violently from their decades old nestling places and sent slithering into the street. Cascading roof tiles and shattering glass remain air raid sounds as familiar and frightening as the scream and rattle of a falling bomb.

From September 3, 1939 to May 1945, Victory in Europe Day, it was unwise to ask my father about the flying range of the German Luftwaffe. Even after August 1945 – VJ Day – it remained a hazardous topic. But, he did admit in his post war years that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was no longer any place to hide.

Which is why, with an estimated 60 million killed between Chamberlain’s declaration of war and VJ Day, we need to be reminded what Samuel von Pufendorf wrote in 1673: “More inhumanity to man has been done by man himself than any of nature’s causes.” Or as Robbie Burns wrote so succinctly a hundred years later – “Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.”

With sadness, on September 3, 2017, Burn’s “thousands” must be updated to countless millions while hoping – nervously in recent months – to never again hear a declaration of war and assume we will be safe.

Saved From The Twilight Zone

Items found. While looking for something old, I stumbled across something new. Make that “new for me.” I was searching for background on events 150 years ago leading to the eventual creation of a new country – Canada. It was during a pre-Confederation meeting in London, England, that delegates from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and, what we now know as Ontario and Quebec, decided to name the new country Canada – but it wasn’t the only name under consideration.

Wikipedia (https://wiki.org) doesn’t tell us the names of the delegates who advanced Canada and seems a little uncertain as to whether it was a Nova Scotia or New Brunswick delegate who would claim the honour. It does note “Canada” was unanimously accepted after little discussion, though other names were suggested. “Kanata” was a local First Nations word for a settlement or village and had been easily adopted as Canada by explorers and early British and French settlers in Upper and Lower Canada, and what became the British Province of Canada in 1841.

What intrigued me was the note “other names were suggested” before Canada was chosen unanimously. Wikipedia provides the list for edification, few chuckles, brief consideration, and thankfulness that the authors of Confederation listened to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

So – the names our forefathers rejected: “Anglia” was discarded quickly for sure. “Albionoria,” or “Albion of the North,” sounds silly today but “New Albion” was the name British explorers wrote on their maps when they discovered new lands but didn’t have the time or means to explore them. If Albionoria was a little too fancy, New Albion was a recommended alternative. Both were discarded quickly

“Cabotia,” in honour of John Cabot, the early explorer, disappeared speedily, as did “Colonia” – whatever its root. Then there was the delightful “Efisga” – which sounds like a rude expletive until Wikipedia points out it’s the all-embracing acronym of English, French, Irish, Scottish, German, and Aboriginal. Also on the list were “Ursalia” – “place of bears”; “Vespatia,” “land of the evening star” and “Victorialand.” I wonder if Amor de Cosmos, one of British Columbia’s contributions to the weird political leaders’ club, proposed that one?

I’m skipping “Laurentia,” “Norland,” “Superior” and “Transatlantica” to give a little space to three specials:

“Mesopelagia” – “The land between the seas” was derived from mesopelagic and by dictionary definition “the middle pelagic or twilight zone” that extends from an ocean depth of 200 to 1,000 metres. Think of presenting a “twilight zone” passport at a Homeland Security checkpoint.

“Tupona” – To honour the United Provinces of North America and affirm staunch rivalry with the United States and resistance to sporadic attempts by the USA to absorb the fledgling country.

And last on today’s list: “Hochelaga” – Listed by Wikipedia as an old name for Montreal. When Hochelaga and Tupona drifted back to Ottawa, poet, statesman and fearless debater MP Thomas D’Arcy McGee rose in the House of Commons to “… ask any honourable member of the House how he would feel if he woke some fine morning and found himself, instead of Canadian, a Tuponian or a Hochelegander?” They never again appeared in debate.

We have much to be thankful for. “Oh, Hochelgander, our home and native land” just doesn’t inspire; “Oh, Tupona” is as bad; and “O ,Mesopelagia” can remain where our founding fathers hopefully placed it … forever sealed in a heavy lead box in the twilight zone, at maximum depth.

And, we can thank those old bearded guys who trekked back and forth across mountains, prairies and oceans in maximum discomfort and with great family sacrifice, to give us a strong foundation and the name to go with it.

(A footnote for history fans: D’Arcy McGee was assassinated on April 17,1868 by an Irish Fenian fanatic with opposing ideas on “the Irish question.” He was the first of three prominent political figures to be murdered in Canada. The other two were George Brown, March 2, 1889, and Pierre Laporte, kidnapped October 10, his body found October 17, 1970.)

Are We Canadians or……..?

So, what are we first – Canadians or British Columbians? Not a question to be answered in a hurry – and not easy to answer honestly, even after due and ponderous consideration.

It was Dave Barrett back in the early 1970s who first posed the question to me while sitting in the lobby of some obscure motel in the Interior chatting about nothing in particular and everything in general. “How do you think of yourself? As Canadian first and British Columbian second, or the other way ‘round?”

When I opted for Canadian first he said he did too, but that it was sometimes difficult when talking to Ottawa about things that could be of benefit to Canada, but not so good for British Columbia. His predecessor, W.A.C. Bennett, had run into the same problem once lamenting that BC was a goblet being drained by a ruthless federal government. But, complaining loudly, he never wavered in his loyalty to the greater good.

I’ve been thinking about that old conundrum since new BC Premier John Horgan announced his government would use every tool available to deny Kinder Morgan and Alberta oil access across BC to a Pacific port outlet. The federal government – Canada – has already approved the project, and next door neighbour Alberta and its NDP government are begging for the project’s economic boost in the toughest of times.

But, political brother and sisterhoods notwithstanding, British Columbia’s New Democrats are saying that while they understand the benefits that could accrue elsewhere, the project presents a serious threat to British Columbia’s rugged, but beautiful coast line. They argue that First Nations’ rights have not been fully addressed and increased oil tanker traffic in the relatively confined waters from Vancouver to the open ocean would be a clear and present danger to BC.

Andrew Weaver, leader of the three Green hitchhikers who promised Premier Horgan a road map to power if he would guarantee them a say in key environmental matters, has categorically forecast the result with the boast: “The pipeline will never be built.”

With Weaver’s sword of Damocles (the Green Party’s controlling votes in the Legislature) hanging over his head, Premier Horgan is seemingly being instructed that Green desires will take precedence over national government policy – or else!

When Canada became a country 150 years ago, our First Prime Minister John A. Macdonald told new Dominion of Canada statesmen: “Let us be English or let us be French – and above all else let us be Canadian.” It was advice we all heeded a few years ago when a few Quebec politicians decided they wanted out of Confederation, but the people of Quebec – with rest of Canada pleading with them not to break our country apart – rejected the separatists’ plea. They were Canadians first, Quebecers second.
Premier Horgan has said his aim is to get the best deal for British Columbia. That is an objective to be praised and supported as long he remembers, as should we all, “above all else” to be loyal to the province we call home, but remain Canadians first.