There was no battle

My wife Vicki died of metastatic breast cancer on September 13, 2018.

Vicki didn't lose a battle with cancer, in the same way that a cyclist doesn't lose a battle with a truck.

No amount of "fighting" or "strength" or "bravery" could have changed the outcome. There was no "losing".

She lived, with hope, fear, & resilience until the inevitable end.

There is no one who wanted to live more than Vicki. She ached at the thought of not being at her youngest son's high school graduation next June, not seeing her children marry, not holding her grandchildren. If anything could have changed that, she'd have been the fiercest warrior imaginable.

Allow me to make this simple request: stop using battle metaphors to describe those living with, and dying from, cancer. They place a burden on those suffering. They make disease progression feel like failure.

Stop saying the patient "failed the chemo protocol" - in truth the chemo protocol failed the patient.

Stop telling people that they're strong, they can beat this. If they don't, was it because they were weak?

Stop telling people to keep fighting, when in reality they are facing incredibly difficult choices at the end of their lives about how to balance quality of life versus quantity. Urging them to fight puts pressure on them to continue treatment that is of marginal value in terms of life expectancy, but makes their final days full of appointments, procedures, drugs, and side effects instead of being able to spend time focused on the people they love, and things that bring them joy.

Battle metaphors give the false impression that a person can, through strength of character, affect the course of the disease, & suggest a moral failing on those whose disease gets worse. For the past 13 years, I've watched the most beautiful person I've ever known be consumed by guilt, wondering what she did to cause her cancer, or what mistake she made that caused it to come back after seemingly being cancer free for 9 years. She didn't do anything wrong, it was bad luck. That's all.

One of the greatest human fears is having no control over dire circumstances. For our own psychological protection, we delude ourselves into thinking we have power where we do not. You can't push back a hurricane. No individual can "beat" cancer simply by fighting hard enough.

What we can do, collectively, is work towards a better understanding of the process of cancer, learn about causes, incrementally develop better prevention & treatment strategies, and maybe, one day, find ways to save more lives. That's the fight that we all must join, with funding & resolve.

The Myth of "Beating Cancer"

The American Cancer Society ad that runs constantly on CNN makes me cringe.

"I used to have cancer. I beat it"

It's disrespectful to those at Stage IV, and those who have died.

Saying a person "beat" cancer implies that cancer can be overcome by personal effort, and conversely, it implies that those with incurable disease, or those who died, didn't try hard enough.

Treating cancer is like playing a game of solitaire: some games can be won, some never can be won, and some games that could have been won are lost because of decisions made along the way.

The thing is, sometimes you are faced with a decision on which card to play, and you have no information to guide you. You guess. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and you'll never know if making a different decision would have affected the ultimate outcome.

Like Solitaire, in cancer you play the cards you're dealt. It's mostly luck, and a bit of skill, but sometimes winning is just not possible. No one can beat a hand that can't be won.

So let's stop talking about winners and losers, people who beat cancer and people who lose their battles. It's a delusion, a self protection mechanism, to deal with the terror of a deadly disease that is, for the most part, beyond our control.

In truth, some are lucky, and some are not. Changing those odds does not depend on the willpower or effort or attitude of an individual patient. The only way those odds will change, for everyone, is through a commitment to research and universally available, cutting edge care.

What is net neutrality, and why should you care?

Imagine you're going to try that great new restaurant on Elm Street tonight. You hop in your car and drive there, and have a great meal. Although the restaurant is new, business is booming. They're already talking about expanding, adding more jobs.

That's net neutrality.

Let's take net neutrality away:

You get in your car to go to the restaurant. As you turn onto Main Street heading towards Elm, you come to a gate. The man at the gate stops you.

"Sorry sir, you're not permitted to drive on Main Street."
"Why not?"
"Main Street is not included in your monthly driving package."
"Well, how much is it for me to add Main Street?"
"We don't sell just Main Street access. You have to buy the Downtown Bundle for $39.95/month."
"How am I supposed to get to Elm Street?"
"You'll have to go around by the lake."
"But that will take three times as long!"
"Yeah, that's why most people buy the Downtown Bundle."
"Can I take the highway?"
"Which driving package provider to you have?"
"MeGo"
"Oh, sorry. Highway access is restricted to people who use Vroom."

You decide to go the long way, and finally get to the restaurant. It's great. But it's not very busy. It's too much of a hassle to get to.

A month later, you're at a dinner party. You see some old friends.

"Hey, have you guys tried the new place on Elm Street? The food is amazing."
"Well, we wanted to go, but I heard it closed down."
"Really? What happened?"
"Apparently the big corporate chain restaurant on Main Street was losing business to the new place, so they made a deal with the road company and had Elm Street closed down completely. Nobody could get to the new place, and even though their food was way better than anywhere else, they just couldn't stay in business."
"Oh man, that sucks."

That's what could lie ahead without net neutrality. Want Netflix? That'll cost extra. Want Facebook? You have to pay for a bundle that includes Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and MySpace. (MySpace? Is that even still a thing? Doesn't matter, you have to pay for it anyway.) Want to use gMail? You can't. You have to use your ISP's email system. Got a great idea for a startup? Good luck, because in addition to building a great service, you're also going to have to negotiate a deal with your ISP, and all of the already established big players you might compete with will have way more bargaining power than you.

Fortunately, in Canada we still value net neutrality. But so much of our internet traffic originates in or passes through the US, it is inevitable that we'll feel the effects of their decision here too.

Let's hope wiser heads prevail, and net neutrality rules are reinstated, before the internet as we know it is wrecked.

Hundreds gather to pay tribute to Yosif Al-Hasnawi

A heart-wrenching evening tonight, as hundreds filled Hamilton City Hall to pay tribute to Yosif Al-Hasnawi, a 19 year old who was murdered in Hamilton last weekend when he tried to help an elderly man who was being accosted by two young thugs.

There were moving tributes from members of his faith community, local politicians, the president of Brock University, and Yosif's family. I gave a short speech about the scholarship that is being set up in his name. Here's the text of my remarks:

I never had the privilege to meet Yosif. But like many of you, when I heard the news of his bravery, and his senseless death, I was angry and saddened. I wanted a way to channel my anger and grief into something positive. I wanted to find a way to show my respect for a compassionate young man, but also to find a way to say to Yosif’s family, and to the world, that this senseless violence is not who we are as citizens of Hamilton, and as citizens of Canada. I wanted to ensure that Yosif’s loved ones knew that for our community, Yosif was one of us, that he mattered, and that he will be remembered.

 As you know, Yosif was a first year student at Brock University. He was studying medical sciences, and dreamed one day of becoming a doctor. That dream was stolen from him, and his lifetime of helping others was stolen from all of us. We have established a scholarship fund at Brock University in Yosif’s memory. We hope this scholarship will help future students pursue their dreams in a way that Yosif was denied. The scholarship recipients will carry a little piece of Yosif’s spirit with them throughout their education, and on to their own careers helping others.
In just 3 days, we have raised well over $5,000 for the scholarship. We’ve had interest from across the country, and we expect many more donations to come in over the weeks & months ahead. If we can raise a total of $25,000 or more, we will be able to create a permanent, annual scholarship, so that Yosif’s dream can live on through future students year after year.
There are pledge forms at the table. You can also donate online. Details can be found at yosif.ca, HamiltonHero.ca, or brocku.ca/donate. All amounts are welcome, no matter how small. Donations over $20 will receive a charitable receipt for tax purposes. If you do pick up a pledge form, please take two, and take one to work with you on Monday and ask your employer if they would also be willing to make a donation.
We understand that money can be tight this time of year, and that many of you are generously donating to assist Yosif’s family with expenses so they can take his body to Iraq for burial. The scholarship fund will remain open, and donations are welcome at any time, so even if you can’t make a donation right now, please consider doing so in the future.
And whether you are able to donate or not, each of us can honour Yosif’s memory in our actions each and every day. When you see an injustice on your street, in your community, in your country, or around the world, don’t turn away. Step up, step in, and do what you can to make things right. If we each take inspiration from Yosif’s courage and take a little part of Yosif’s character forward in our hearts, he will have already made the world a better place.
As-Salaam-Alaikum

A scholarship fund to honour Yosif Al-Hasnawi

On Saturday, December 2, Yosif Al-Hasnawi had just stepped outside his mosque in Hamilton when he noticed an older man being harassed by two younger men on the sidewalk. He stepped in to help the older man, and was shot by one of the assailants. He later died in hospital.

Yosif was the oldest of 5 siblings. He was a first year student at Brock University, studying Medical Sciences. He dreamed of becoming a doctor one day.

Yosif was also a talented athlete, accomplished in boxing and basketball.

The community has lost a fine young man, senselessly killed while trying to help someone he had never met. We've lost someone who wanted to make a career of helping others.

To honour Yosif's memory, a scholarship in his name has been established at Brock University. Please consider donating to the scholarship fund to help keep Yosif's memory, and the ideals that guided his life, alive.

Donations over $20 will receive a charitable tax receipt.

To donate to the scholarship fund:

Donate online at www.brocku.ca/donate 

In the box "Please select the designation of your gift" choose "Other", then in the box "If you selected Other, please specify the designation of this gift."   type "Yosif Al-Hasnawi Memorial Fund"

By phone at 905-688-5550 ext. 4190.   

Cheques payable to “Brock University” with “In memory of Yosif Al-Hasnawi" in the reference line can be mailed to:

Development and Alumni Relations
Brock University
1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way
St.Catharines, ON 
L2S 3A1

Looking Back on 50 Years of Music (Reminiscing, or the Rantings of an Old Man?)

A lifelong friend, who happens to be a very talented professional musician, posted on Facebook his list of 10 albums from our teenage years that made a lasting impression on him, and invited his friends to do the same. I did, as did many others.

Reading all these fantastic lists has made me nostalgic. Heart of the Sunrise from Yes - Fragile is playing in my living room right now, and I expect that over the next few days, every album in my list, and lots in other people's lists, will be heard coming out of my speakers, my headphones, or my car. But its also got me thinking about the role of music in culture, when we were teenagers, and now. For us, music was a passion, a big part of your identity, and it defined your tribe. There were metalheads, new wave kids, punks, goths, etc. You could tell just by looking at someone what kind of music they liked. Your group of friends probably all liked the same types of music. When you met someone new, one of the first questions you'd ask is "What kind of music do you like?"

Today, however, that seems lost. While I really struggled to get my list down to 11 (I couldn't manage just 10), in 30 years I can't see today's teens having the same trouble. I have 2 teens, and one who is 20. In my house, they've all been exposed to music. They all play multiple instruments, and all 3 won the music award at their grade 8 graduations. But I bet they'd be hard pressed to come up with 10 albums from 10 different artists that really mattered to them. They might be able to list 10 they like, but the passion wouldn't be there. I don't know for sure what's changed. There's much more competition for time, with video games, the internet, the 500 channel universe and Netflix. Record shops are all but gone. Music buying, when it does happen, rarely involves a trip out of the house. Radio seems to be a medium that only those over 30 listen to. Streaming, YouTube & downloading have made every song instantly available, but less valued. Even the technical process of listening to music has changed: my friends & I would debate the specs of the latest Technics receiver vs the new Pioneer. My kids will listen to music through the speakers on their iPhones. It sounds terrible, and they don't care.

But the music itself has changed too. Maybe, as my kids will tell me, I'm just old, and I don't get it. But I have a lot of trouble picking out the Bowie or Zeppelin of today. Which of today's artists will still be listened to 30 years from now? And I don't know which is cause and which is effect. Is music disposable because people don't care? Or do people not care because music is disposible?

While the current state of music, the music business, and the role of music in culture makes me sad, I can't help feeling eternally grateful that I grew up in a golden age of music. For those of us now in our 40s, 50s & 60s, we experienced something magical. From the grandeur of Emmerson, Lake & Palmer to the social rebellion of the Sex Pistols, the style of New Wave to the angst of grunge, the songwriting brilliance of Lennon & McCartney to the instrumental virtuosity of prog rock. We were there, through the dumb luck of being born at the right time, and I can't help but smile at my good fortune.

I have to go now. I need to turn over the LP.

Should Hamilton's Integrity Commissioner Also Provide Legal Advice to Council?

The latest in the never-ending controversy surrounding Hamilton's LRT project centres around a legal opinion sought & received by Council from lawyer George Rust-D'Eye. Council and/or the City apparently asked Mr. Rust-D'Eye for an opinion regarding a possible motion to hold a referendum on the LRT project. Council presumably wanted to know if such a motion were permissible, and if so what legal effect such a referendum might have. Exactly what Council asked, and what opinion was given, is unknown, as Council has kept this information confidential pursuant to solicitor client privilege. (This suggests that Council and/or the City is the client, otherwise they could not assert the privilege.)

Mr. Rust-D'Eye is a recognized expert on municipal law in Ontario. He maintains a successful private practice in Toronto. He is also Hamilton's Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar.

As pointed out by Howard Elliott in an editorial in today's Hamilton Spectator, Mr. Rust-D'Eye was not acting in his role as Integrity Commissioner when he provided this opinion. Rather, he was hired and paid by Hamilton Council as a lawyer to research a point of law and provide an opinion. He's a private lawyer, and this was a business transaction. Mr. Rust-D'Eye reaps a personal financial benefit from being hired to do legal work for Council, and he presumably hopes that he will be hired for more such work in the future. Therein lies the difficulty.

Under Hamilton's Integrity Commissioner By-Law, the Integrity Commissioner has the power to conduct an inquiry into the actions of City Councillors, and determine whether or not there has been an infraction of the City's "Code of Conduct or other procedures, rules or policies governing the member’s ethical behaviour". The By-Law gives the Integrity Commissioner the power to decide whether a complaint is "frivolous and vexatious", and if he decides it is, the complainant's $100 fee will not be refunded. If the Integrity Commissioner finds that there has been a breach of the rules by a Councillor, he has the power to impose a penalty - a reprimand and/or a suspension of the Councillor's pay for up to 90 days.

In other municipalities, penalties are imposed by Council, upon the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner (see, for example, subsection 160(5) of the City of Toronto Act). In Hamilton, however, the power to impose penalties has been delegated to the Integrity Commissioner (subsection 20(1) of the By-Law). This is an important distinction, as it places the Integrity Commissioner in a quasi-judicial role. The Integrity Commissioner has the power to investigate, compel evidence,  make decisions and impose penalties.

Given the quasi-judicial role of the Integrity Commissioner, it is, in my view, problematic that he accepts business from Council beyond his role as Integrity Commissioner. Having a separate business relationship with Council when he is also charged with impartially reviewing their conduct creates a possible conflict of interest or perception of bias.

By way of analogy: Say you had a dispute with your car dealership. You and the dealer agree to put your dispute before an independent third party to decide who is right. The dealer suggests that the dealership's lawyer act as the third party. Would you agree to that? Or would you fear that you might not be treated fairly given the lawyer's business relationship with the dealership?

Or imagine that a bar in a small town is frequently charged with serving alcohol to people underage. Because it is a small town, they always end up before the same judge. One day, the bar owners approach that judge and offer to pay her to do some legal work for them. Should the judge do it? Or should she decline, on the grounds that entering into a business arrangement with someone who is frequently in her court would undermine the perception of her impartiality?

Have Mr. Rust-D'Eye's dual roles as Integrity Commissioner & private lawyer for Council in fact affected the integrity of his work in either role? I don't know, and I do not have any evidence that it has. But the fact that the question can be raised, given the potential conflict of interest which arises, suggests to me that it would be better if the City did not have any outside business relationship with its Integrity Commissioner.

Hackerspace Autonomous Model Sailboat Racing

TL;DR Do you want to race autonomous model sailboats against other hackerspaces?

As you may have heard, think|haus has had a bumpy road lately. Membership has dropped, the space is underused and in need of general cleanup/fixup, etc. We were on the verge of closing, but have decided to give one last shot at revitalizing the space. One of the things people have suggested/requested was to have some group projects to help rebuild a sense of community. To that end, I'd like to seek feedback/expressions of interest from the various hackerspaces in Ontario for the following idea:

WHAT:

An autonomous model sailboat race. In September, think|haus would sponsor a race on Hamilton Harbour. Each hackerspace would enter a boat. If your space is extremely enthusiastic, maybe enter more than one. The rules would be simple: boats no more than 2m in length, must be powered by the wind only. 3 buoys would be placed in the Harbour setting out a triangular course. Teams would be provided the GPS co-ordinates of the 3 buoys. Boats must make it around the course without any remote control - telemetry & video links would be permitted, but no control links. Attacking other boats would not be permitted (though that may be an idea for another side competition - robot wars, boat edition).

think|haus would provide a chase boat to go out & retrieve any model sailboat that got into trouble. We'd also host a BBQ party afterwards.

WHY:

Well, I like sailing, and it's my idea, so there's that. But also, the project has roles for the electronics types, the software types, and the mechanical types who would have to all work together on a common fun project. It would likely involve laser cutting, 3D printing, woodworking, sewing, microcontroller programming, and maybe vacuum forming, fiberglass work, etc. so there would be lots of opportunity to get everyone involved regardless of skill level. It can be as simple or as complicated as you want - stick a dowel with sail made from a plastic bag  in a big hunk of foam, or meticulously model a rigid wing carbon fiber hydrofoiling catamaran - it depends on what your team wants to do.

The main reason why, though, is to have fun working on a project together over the summer, learn new things, and have a good day outdoors followed by food & beverage. Maybe this could be SoonCon 2016?

So: interested? Ideas? Suggestions? Please let me know what you think.

Dave Harvey

think|haus

PS. I've tried to hit most of the southern Ontario hackerspaces that I know of & have contact info for, but if there's anyone else or another list you can think of, please feel free to forward this info.

Federal Government Betrays Tainted Blood Victims

This is appalling.

In 1999, the Federal government provided compensation to people who were infected with hepatitis C through the blood system, but, despite vigorous opposition, initially restricted it to those infected between 1986 and 1990. After years of litigation & lobbying, during which time many people suffered & died, in 2007 compensation was finally extended to those infected before 1986 and after 1990 as well. Separate funds were set up for the two groups.

At the time the funds were set up, we were required to estimate the number of people in each group, and how sick they were, in order to determine the amount of money required for each of the funds. Those estimates turned out to be not quite accurate, and as a result the fund established for the 86-90 group has a surplus of about $240 million, and the fund for the pre-86/post-90 group ran out of money a few years ago, and would need about $60 million to pay out valid claims that could not be paid after the fund ran out.

On Monday, the Federal government is going to court to ask that the $240 million surplus in the 86-90 fund be paid back to the government. They refuse, however, to use any of that money to top up the empty pre-86/post-90 fund. People deserving compensation will go without, and the Federal government will pocket $240 million. Shameful, greedy & wrong

For more info, see the Globe and Mail story here.

Let's Put Scalpers Out Of Business

Ticketmaster managed to piss off everybody this morning with the pre-sale for The Tragically Hip tour. Tickets were on scalper sites before the sale even started, including StubHub.

I logged on right at 10am, and was told there were no tickets available. I decided to keep trying. After about 20 minutes & a dozen tries with "no tickets available", I was about to give up. I decided to try one more time, and I got centre floor, 9th row. Something is clearly wrong with the system. Why weren't these seats available the first 12 times I tried?

So it got me thinking: there's a breakdown in the market for tickets. From an economics standpoint, the existence of scalpers suggests that bands are underpricing their shows. If someone is willing to pay $500 for a $90 ticket, why shouldn't the band get that extra $410 instead of some scalper? The scalpers are making a profit but contributing nothing, and from all appearances are cheating the system to do so. 

So, here's my solution: instead of regular ticket sales, hold a type of auction. For example: divide the venue into 3 sections - good, better, best. There could be a minimum price for each section. Have a sign in page where you say how many tickets you want, and the maximum you'd be willing to pay for tickets in each section. The sign in page would be available for a week. At the end of the week, the system would review all requests, and allocate tickets according to the bids. If a band wanted to ensure that a certain number of tickets were available at a certain price to ensure people could afford to go, those could be set aside and allocated by lottery. The entire bid & allocation process could be open & transparent, so people could see how many tickets there are, what the bids were, and how tickets were allocated. This could be done in real time (which might lead to gaming the system) or could be available after allocation for accountability. 

This system would eliminate most of the issues with the current "mad dash" system, and ensure that more money goes to the artists instead of the scalpers. 

Thoughts?

Some thoughts about how we failed, and what we can learn, from the Ghomeshi trial

For me, the outcome of the Ghomeshi case was disappointing, but not unexpected. In my view, the justice system, in its broadest sense, failed. In analyzing what went wrong, we must look far beyond the courtroom. There were, to be sure, inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses. Some may have been errors, others likely deliberate shading of the truth. Details were omitted. In those circumstances, it is understandable that the judge found he could not rely on their evidence alone to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since there was no other evidence, an acquittal was appropriate.

There is a sad irony in this case: we've made some progress in sexual assault cases. It is no longer proper to question a complainant about what she was wearing, or about her sexual history. We've written into law protections for complainants against the former practice of digging into medical files, psychiatric records, and former relationships. These practices were based on so-called "rape myths": the prejudicial assumptions that a woman's character, sexual history, etc could tell us whether the alleged assault was likely to have occurred. Or, more bluntly, whether she is lying about being assaulted, or was asking for it, or is somehow to blame because of her manner of dress, choice of place or companions. In the Ghomeshi case, however, all of these myths became a part of the unspoken narrative. They could be introduced only because the witnesses had given inconsistent statements to the media, the police, and the court. So many things that would have been inadmissible became admissible, ostensibly for the limited purpose of attacking the witnesses' credibility. But once those rape myth bells have been rung, they can't be unrung. The evidence is in, and any conscious or unconscious bias a judge or jury might have is put into play. Thus the irony: evidence that would not have been admitted, because it's abusive and not probative, became admissible because the complainants did not disclose it, because they feared abuse and did not think it was probative.

I lay some of the blame at the feet of the Crown. To me, it appeared that the witnesses had not been properly prepared for the trial. They did not seem to know what to expect. They should have been told that every interaction they ever had with Ghomeshi could be relevant, that the defense would likely have every email ever sent, every photo, every letter. They should have been provided with those things, been asked to review them, to refresh their memories, so that they could think about the entire context before the high pressure situation of a cross-examination.

At the heart of the broader failure, though, lies this question: why did the witnesses not tell the whole truth? What prejudices do we have as a society that makes a person fear telling the whole truth about abuse within a relationship? Why did they feel that they couldn't tell some parts of the story? Partly to avoid embarrassment. Partly because they worried that those details would make it less likely that they'd be believed about the assaults. But it is unfair to say that those are failings of the women alone. They are failings in all of us. It is the preconceived notions of those of us who have never been in that situation that creates the fear of embarrassment, and the fear of not being believed. If we want justice to work in cases of sexual assault, we must work as a society towards creating an atmosphere where the victims will feel supported, not embarrassed. Where they'll be met with understanding, not derision, when they explain that even after the assault, they went back to their abuser, that they didn't immediately go to the police, or that they wrote friendly, even flirty emails or letters to their abuser after the assaults. Only when we are prepared to listen without judgment, will they be prepared to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The Small World of the Ghomeshi Legal Saga

With the first Ghomeshi trial wrapping up today, I got to thinking what a small world the legal profession can be. Though I'm not involved in any way with the cases against Ghomeshi, at one time or another I've crossed paths with almost every lawyer involved.

I graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1989. My graduating class included Marie Henein, Ghomeshi's criminal defence lawyer, and Janice Rubin, the lawyer hired by the CBC to investigate Ghomeshi's behaviour while at the CBC, and the CBC's response to it. As Marie, Janet and I were preparing for our final exams & looking forward to graduation, across campus Jean Ghomeshi (he went by Jean back then) was gearing up his campaign to become President of the York University student government, the CYFS. He won, and served as President the year after we graduated.

My graduating class

Marie & I both had much longer hair back then

Hired by the CBC to investigate the Ghomeshi sexual harassment & abuse allegations

In the late 1990's, I joined the litigation department at a large Toronto law firm. Most days I would go out to lunch with a number of my partners there, including Neil Rabinovitch. Long after Neil & I had gone off to separate firms, Neil represented Ghomeshi during his dealings with the CBC. Neil also launched Ghomeshi's short-lived $55 million lawsuit against the CBC. That lawsuit never went anywhere, and was dropped with Ghomeshi agreeing to pay $18,000 in legal costs to the CBC.

Around 2003, I joined a smaller litigation firm. We hired a bright young lawyer, Peter Henein (Marie's younger brother). Peter had gone to law school after a brief stint as a stand up comedian. Peter is now a partner at Cassels Brock in Toronto. Peter is sometimes assisted by an associate at the firm, Christopher Horkins, the son of Justice William Horkins, who is presiding over the Ghomeshi trial.

I've since retired from practice. But even sitting here at home, I can usually connect to the legal news in Canada with much less than 6 degrees of separation. Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world by land mass, but in certain professions, like law, it can really seem to be a small town.

Grace in America

As I watched Obama's extraordinary speech yesterday, I was struck with a sense of sadness. Sadness at the senseless violence that once again was the form of expression chosen by an alienated soul, yes, but also a larger sadness. A sadness for what could have been. Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change. He embraced big ideas, and sought positive change for all. He cares about breaking cycles of poverty, and about creating a better life for everyone.

Yet all that hope, and all that change, were blocked at every turn by entrenched interests in Congress, fueled by money and engineered by lobbyists. A hatred of the President, racism barely below the surface, fed a childish tantrum that reflexively opposed everything the President suggested, everything he stood for.

Everyone is saying what a great week this has been for the President. But it's only a great week in the context of what has come before. Yes, the Affordable Care Act survived yet another court challenge. But the very fact that this watered down version of universal health care is the subject of so much opposition is troubling. Saving it is a small victory - introducing truly universal, single payer healthcare would have been worth celebrating. But in today's America, small victories are all that's on offer. Yes, same sex marriage is now legal across the country, but it is far from universally accepted. The vitriol in the Court's dissenting opinions, and from many of the Republican leaders, is baffling. This is an issue that will have no effect on their lives, yet could have profound, positive effects on the lives of others. Their strident opposition to something that costs them nothing can be born of only judgmental hate.

The President's speech was heartfelt. To me, there was a tone of desperation, of resignation, of exhaustion. It was the speech of a man who, free of the burden of re-election aspirations, could speak honestly. A man who has come to realize that despite all his efforts, most of what he wanted to achieve would be left undone. Like many eulogies given following a senseless death, Obama was searching for meaning, for a shred of goodness that might be gleaned from the pain. It was clear, though, that this searching transcended the Pastor's death. His earlier insistence that things had improved was no doubt true. That he felt he had to say it said so much more.

When the President spoke of grace, he intended to celebrate the extraordinary grace shown by the people of Charleston in dealing with the targeted attack on their community. But in doing so, he, perhaps inadvertently, highlighted the absence of grace in so much of modern day America. Few would use "grace" to describe the daily machinations in Washington. Few would use "grace" to describe the goals of the NRA, the defenders of the Confederate flag, the angry selfishness of the Tea Party. Grace, like much of Obama's presidency, represents what can be, what should be, but what still seems out of reach.

When the history of this era is written, will it be seen as a presidency ahead of its time, yet the start of a transformation towards an America that truly represents its ideals of "life, liberty and justice for all"? Or will it be seen as a last grasp at decency, before the moral and economic decay of a once great society accelerated so quickly it became irretrievable?

Sadly, for me, yesterday seemed to be a funeral not only for Reverend Pinckney, but for the hope and the promise Obama once symbolized.

An Open Letter to My Conservative MP

I continue to receive fundraising calls & emails from the Conservative Party. I wanted to write to you to make it clear why I will not donate to the party.

Over the past several years, the policies of the Conservative Party have become increasingly harsh. There seems to be no compassion left in the party. There's a willingness to simply toss aside, or worse condemn, people who live in poverty, or people who have made mistakes. A "with us or against us" mentality has taken hold, with no room for compromise or forgiveness, and no interest in understanding the lives of those who do not fit into the mould of what the party appears to consider "real Canadians".

Instead of promoting policies that could benefit all segments of society, this government has promoted a culture of fear. Unprecedented surveillance of Canadians is now routine, and through Bills C-24 and C-51, this government has extended even more extraordinary powers to law enforcement & intelligence agencies, to be exercised largely in secret and without adequate oversight. This is in response to an exaggerated threat of "terrorism" (a word that seems to have a very flexible, result-driven definition). These laws, in my view, cannot survive a Charter challenge. The government has been unwilling to even listen to the reasonable concerns of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, several Privacy Commissioners, as well as many other respected organizations and individuals. The Commons Committee hearings were a sham, and showed contempt for anyone who did not fully support the Bills.

I am old enough to remember the USSR, and the stories of people being spied on by the government, being arrested without charge and detained without recourse. We in the west were appalled at their tactics, and felt quite smug about our freedoms. It is deeply disturbing to me that our government no longer views such surveillance and detention as intrusive and excessive, and seems to be following in the Soviet footsteps.

This is not my Canada. It is not the Canada I grew up in, and it is not the Canada I want to live in. It is not the Canada I want to hand over to my children.

Instead of donating to the Conservative Party, I will be offering my money, my support, and my help to organizations who are fighting to reverse these trends, and to restore the compassionate Canada I believe the majority of Canadians want and deserve.

Yours truly,

David Harvey

Burlington, Ontario

While Patients Needlessly Die, Ontario Won't Account For $132 Million Earmarked For Hepatitis C Treatment

People in Ontario are dying from Hepatitis C because they can't afford the drugs that can cure the disease. The provincial government won't cover the cost, and has not accounted for $132 million it received from the Federal Government earmarked for Hepatitis C treatment.

On November 4, 2014, Brenda Peever from Ottawa died from complications of Hepatitis C contracted from a blood transfusion she received in 1979. Mrs. Peever was eligible for a new drug that has a 90% cure rate, but she could not afford the $55,000 cost. The province would not fund the treatment. Her story can be found here:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/ottawa-family-blames-red-tape-for-death-of-hep-c-patient-1.2096531

Now word that a man in Windsor is facing the same issue:

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/drug-cure-for-hep-c-comes-with-95000-price-for-windsor-man

This should not be happening. In 2002, the Ontario government signed an agreement with the Federal government which transferred to Ontario $132 million to provide health care to people who were infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood received before 1986. The funds were provided over 10 years. The final payment of approximately $21 million was scheduled for this fiscal year (2014/15). 

The Agreement states:

"WHEREAS there are health care services for Hepatitis C that are not fully insured by publicly financed health care systems in Canada;"

"The parties agree that their shared policy objective is to ensure that persons infected with Hepatitis C through the blood system prior to January 1, 1986 and after July 1, 1990 have reasonable access to therapeutic health care services indicated for the treatment/cure of Hepatitis C."

"The parties agree that the federal transfers will be used for health care services indicated for the treatment of Hepatitis C infection, and medical conditions directly related to it, such as current and emerging antiviral drug therapies, other relevant drug therapies, immunization and nursing care."

The agreement also required the Ontario government to issue reports to the public every 5 years on how the money was being spent. The government issued a report in 2007. Although a report was due under the agreement in 2012, it does not appear that any such report was issued. 

The 2007 report, which also attaches a copy of the agreement, can be found at:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/hepc_agreement/hepc_agreement_20070207.pdf

It is unacceptable that a person in this province died because there was no funding for a drug that could have cured her, when the province has received millions of dollars from the federal government specifically earmarked for such treatments. The Ontario government has not accounted for those funds, despite a written agreement requiring such reports.

I raised the issue of the transfers, and the missing report, directly with then Health Minister Matthews in February 2014, but never received any followup.

Where is the money? Why is Ontario 3 years late in accounting for how it has been spent? Why won't the government spend that money on drugs that can cure the disease?

I'm Convinced the Ontario Liberals Broke Ontario's Campaign Finance Laws

I'm convinced the Ontario Liberals broke Ontario's campaign finance laws, but Elections Ontario won't do anything about it.

You're limited by law as to how much you can give an Ontario political party in a year. However, you can give as much as you want to that party's leadership candidates. When the Liberals held their leadership campaign in 2013, one of the party's rules was that all candidates had to give 25% of all funds they raised to the party. The annual donation limit for contributions to a party at the time was $7500. But if you gave $7500 to the party, plus $10,000 to a candidate, 25% of your donation to the candidate went to the party. So your donation to the party was $7500 + (25% of $10,000=$2500) = $10,000. You clearly donated more than the $7500 limit to the party that year.

In law, there's only 2 ways to look at this: either the candidate was acting as a fundraising agent for the party, in which case the individual donated more than the legal limit, or the money became the property of the candidate upon donation, and therefore the candidate donated more than the legal limit to the party. Either way, it is a violation of the Ontario Election Finance Act to accept a donation from anyone that is in excess of the legal limits.

I wrote to Elections Ontario about this issue. At first, they wrote back saying they didn't understand the concern I was raising, so I wrote back and explained it again. They then wrote back and said there was nothing in the Elections Act that prohibited a leadership candidate from transferring funds to the party, so they didn't think there was any violation of the Act. I thought they were still missing the point, so in May, 2013 I wrote the following to try to make it crystal clear. I never heard back from them.

Section 28 of the Election Finances Act reads:

"28. No political party, constituency association or candidate registered under this Act and no person on its or his or her behalf shall knowingly accept any contributions in excess of the limits imposed by this Act."

Given the 25% transfer rule applied by the Ontario Liberal Party to its leadership contestants, in my view the leadership contestants were accepting contributions on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party.Accordingly, the leadership contestants would be in violation of section 28 if they accepted any contribution which would result in a transfer to the party of an amount exceeding the contributor's annual limit as set out in the act. For example, if a leadership contestant accepts a contribution of $40,000, he or she would know that $10,000 was collected on behalf of the party, and that that amount is in excess of the limits set out in section 18. Accordingly, accepting the donation of $40,000 would be a violation of section 28.

Further, your position that transfers from leadership contestants to parties is not prohibited by the Act depends on determining that such transfers are not contributions. However, it is section 27 that sets out what transfers are not contributions. That section does not include transfers from leadership contestants to parties. It reads:

"27. A registered party and any of its constituency associations or official candidates registered under this Act may transfer or accept funds, goods and services to or from each other and all such funds,goods, other than goods held in inventory for any candidate for use during a campaign period, and services accepted by such political party, constituency association or candidate shall be considered notto be contributions or campaign expenses for the purposes of this Act but shall be recorded as to source and any funds accepted shall be deposited in the appropriate depository on record with the Chief Electoral Officer."

Since section 27 does not list leadership candidates, it must be assumed that transfers from leadership candidates to parties are contributions, and therefore are subject to the limits in section 18,and prohibition in section 28.

If your position were correct, that leadership candidates were permitted to transfer funds because there is nothing in the act that prohibits it, section 27 of the act would not be necessary.
The only provisions in the Act which directly authorizes monies to be paid over from leadership candidates to parties is subsection 42(5).This applies only to surplus following a leadership contest. Where 25%of monies collected are specifically for the purpose of transfer to the party, they cannot be considered surplus.

Please directly address these 2 issues, which in summary are:

1. Were the leadership contestants collecting money on behalf of the party, due to the application of the 25% rule?

2. What provisions of the Act state that transfers of funds from leadership contestants to parties are not contributions, and therefore exempt from the limits in section 18?

If I were on Hamilton City Council, here's the motion I'd put forward

Many of Hamilton's City Councillors seem hesitant to wade into the controversy surrounding the Integrity Commissioner's report into the incident between Lloyd Ferguson & Joey Coleman. They have raised concerns about interfering with the conclusions of the Integrity Commissioner where the intent of setting up the office of the Integrity Commissioner in the first place was to separate the politics of council from issues regarding the Code of Conduct. While I understand these concerns, I do not believe that means Council has no recourse when it receives a deficient report following what appears to be an incomplete investigation. Ultimately, it is Council who has the authority and responsibility to ensure that its Code of Conduct is adhered to. If their chosen process (Integrity Commissioner) proves inadequate in any particular circumstance, they have an obligation to revisit the issue. 

I believe there is a way to address this while avoiding the concerns raised by some members of Council. If I were on Hamilton's City Council, here is the motion I would put forward:

WHEREAS on February 26, 2014, an altercation took place at City Hall involving Councillor Lloyd Ferguson & Mr. Joey Coleman;

AND WHEREAS two separate complaints were made by members of the public to the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Hamilton concerning whether Councillor Ferguson’s behaviour was in violation of the City’s Code of Conduct;

AND WHEREAS a report on the incident was delivered to the City by the Integrity Commissioner on February 25, 2015;

AND WHEREAS that report was delivered 9 months after the initial complaints were made, despite by-law provisions requiring such reports to be delivered within 60 days of the initial complaint;

AND WHEREAS the Integrity Commissioner advised the City that his ability to deliver the report in a timely fashion was hampered by his personal medical issues;

AND WHEREAS the Integrity Commissioner interviewed Councillor Ferguson regarding the incident, but did not interview Mr. Coleman or any of the other several witnesses to the incident as part of his investigation;

AND WHEREAS the circumstances set out above have raised questions about the adequacy and fairness of the investigation undertaken by the Integrity Commissioner;

AND WHEREAS the report delivered by the Integrity Commissioner lacks the type of thorough review of evidence, findings of fact, analysis, reasoning and discussion of an appropriate sanction expected in such reports;

AND WHEREAS it is essential to preserving the integrity of the City of Hamilton that the investigation of complaints regarding possible violations of the Code of Conduct are seen to be thorough, fair and balanced;

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City of Hamilton retain an independent person other than the Integrity Commissioner to conduct a new investigation & report with respect to this incident.


---

FULL DISCLOSURE: Joey Coleman is a personal friend of mine.

A radical proposal to fight cancer

I have a radical proposal to make for Canada. Here's the idea: Canada should eliminate its military, and redirect all military spending towards cancer research. It's not as crazy as it sounds.

Here's how it would work: The current military would establish a search & rescue force, and a humanitarian aid force. Appropriate personnel and equipment would be allocated to those forces. Then, all current offensive military equipment (fighter jets, tanks, artillery, gunships) would be sold. The proceeds of those sales would be used to assist transition of all military personnel who were not retained as part of the search & rescue or humanitarian aid forces.

From that point forward, the entire budget previously allocated to the Canadian military would be redirected to cancer research. We'd make a deal with the rest of the world: if you support and defend us, you can have royalty free licences for any advancements in cancer treatment and prevention we discover. I recognize this requires a renegotiation of our NATO membership, but the benefits accrue to every country willing to support us.

Let's face it: Canada's offensive military capability currently exists to fight wars in other parts of the world. While there are tangential benefits to Canadian security, our forces are most often used to stabilize situations in areas far from our borders. We have not had occasion to use military force against another nation on Canadian soil since the War of 1812. Given our geographic location, the only real threat to our sovereignty is the United States. No country in the world other than the US would dare attack us on our soil, not because they fear our military, but because they assume the US would bring its military might to our defense. In the event the US decided to attack us, the reality is our military would be unable to repel them.

I do not, in any way, wish to belittle the men and women in our military. They are dedicated, well trained, and by all accounts as good at what they do as any in the world. Rather, I simply question whether their mission is the best use of resources.

Canada spends $19 billion per year on the armed forces. It spends about $250 million per year on cancer research. The total spent in Canada on cancer research, including all private & public funds, is approximately $550 million. By redirecting military spending, we could increase cancer research spending over twenty fold. The impact could be astonishing.

Each year in Canada, almost 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer. Over 75,000 die from it each year. Over 800,000 Canadians are currently living with a cancer that has been diagnosed in the past 10 years. Two out of every five Canadians will develop cancer in their lifetimes. One in four will die from it. Globally, there are over 14 million people diagnosed with cancer each year, and over 8 million deaths. As the population ages, it is expected that soon cancer will surpass heart disease as the number one cause of death in North America.

Canada's national health care system could help position us for one of the most promising area's of cancer research - data analysis. We now have tools available to cross-reference and analyse enormous amounts of data. The answers to cancer prevention and treatment may lie in the analysis of the sequenced genomes of millions of people with and without cancer, or in the analysis of proteins, environmental factors, or other health markers. If anonymized, detailed health and demographic data could be pulled in from all of the provincial health care systems, we could have a large enough data set to find the keys to unlock the mysteries of cancer that have so far been eluding us.

In addition to the obvious benefit to global human health, the economic benefits to Canada could be enormous. The development of Canada as a world leader in high tech biomedical research could reposition our economy away from cyclical resources and unsustainable manufacturing. We would attract the best and brightest in the world, and create spin-off industries in pharmaceuticals, data analysis, laboratory testing and biomedical manufacturing.

There is no doubt that our military assists people around the world. We help solve problems. The question to be asked is how can we devote our resources to have the maximum impact on problems relevant throughout the globe. The Gates Foundation has shown that with targeted dedication and resources, significant impacts can be made in improving global health. In 1980, the World Health Organization targeted smallpox, and eliminated it from the earth. Targeted, all-in efforts yield results.

Our withdrawal from overseas military work would likely have a minimal real world impact, as other countries would no doubt continue on. Our full commitment to cancer research, with a scale of resources never before marshaled, could do more global good than is possible with our armed forces. The military might of the US has led many to call it the "world's police". Let's make Canada the world's oncologist.

The Pre-Campaign Book That I Want To Read

It seems obligatory that every aspiring candidate for president or prime minister write a pre-campaign book, then do the talk show circuit promoting their book. Inevitably, these books are titled something like "What I Believe" but the content is "I Am So Great!".

I can't imagine a scenario where I'd be so bored that I'd actually pick up and read Justin Trudeau's "Common Ground" or Hillary Clinton's "Hard Choices". Being forced to read the upcoming tomes from Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Since these books are almost always ghost written anyway, I thought I'd help out those who have not yet committed their oh so important thoughts to paper. Here's the table of contents of the political book I'd actually read:

Chapter 1 - The List of People I'm Currently Sucking Up To

Chapter 2 - The Jobs, Grants & Regulatory Changes I've Promised To the People Listed in Chapter 1

Chapter 3 - The People I Pal Around With That I Actually Can't Stand

Chapter 4 - A Prioritized List of the People I Will Throw Under The Bus The Moment They're No Longer Useful To Me (most of Chapter 3's list, plus others)

Chapter 5 - The List of Campaign Promises I Have No Intention of Keeping

Chapter 6 - The Electorate Are Too Stupid To See Through My Bullshit

Chapter 7 - The People Who Know Too Much About Me, and How I Will Silence Them

Chapter 8 - What I Really Think Of My Predecessors & Opponents

Chapter 9 - The Beliefs & Opinions I Hold But Will Never Say Out Loud

Chapter 10 - How I Pretend To Sympathize With Every Interest Group

Chapter 11 - How I'll Live A Rich & Comfortable Life After I Leave Office

An Open Letter to CBC News

Throughout my career, I have been involved in issues that have made national, and sometimes international headlines. As a result, I've been exposed first hand to most of Canada's news organizations. I've dealt with reporters & columnists from all of the major newspapers & networks, and I can say that no news organization can match the caliber of people I've dealt with at the CBC. They have been intelligent and committed, and have shown the utmost in professionalism. They have followed issues in depth. The same reporter or reporters have been assigned to stories long term, and have taken the time to learn about their subjects. In short, compared to most of its peers, CBC news has been excellent.

But ...

Recent revelations of conflicts of interest are damaging to your credibility. More damaging still are the defensive responses of CBC management. Narrowly construing conflict of interest policies to claim that "technically" there was no breach does not inspire confidence. 

You are being held to a very high standard. This is appropriate. You have established a standard of excellence that you should be proud of, and you should defend it, not by dismissing or attacking critics, but by acknowledging that any reasonably perceived conflict of interest is, in fact, a conflict of interest. Reputations for journalistic integrity are built over generations, but can be quickly destroyed. They are fragile, and must be protected with the utmost care.

Accept the criticism. Resolve to do better. Canadians rightly expect it.