Did you have a good Easter weekend? Did your family gather around the table and break bread together? Who was there? Was it just Mom and Dad and the kids or is your family bigger than that?
In North America the idea of family is something we fight about. One of our fights is whether the concept is reserved for the biological family or whether it can encompass a larger variety of social forms. Some conservative Christians like James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family demand a return to the traditional Christian family. Focus on the Family is an evangelical organization dedicated to “helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.” It is opposed to divorce, abortion and homosexuality as social practices that undermine the family. Its publications approvingly quote and publicize others who promote the concept of the natural family which is defined as “married mom and dad, with children”
Recently I was in Thailand attending a Christian conference. Over the course of the week a small group of us formed strong social bonds. In addition to this Canadian, there was a man from Costa Rica, a man and a woman from Argentina, a woman from South Africa and a man from Greece. We were all adults, mixed genders, multi-racial, multi-lingual and not related by blood or marriage. And yet, we shared food together, lent money to one another, traveled together, rescued each other and cared for one another. We drew a wide circle and called it family.
Is it too much to call this family? I don’t think so. Families have taken many forms over the last several thousand years. In Old Testament times the average Hebrew household numbered between 50 and 100 people. In North America it averages between 2 and 3. At the time of the Roman Empire, family could include slaves, clients and tenants of the property. The evangelical scholar Rodney Clapp concludes that “what evangelicals call the ‘traditional family’ is in fact the bourgeois or middle-class family, which rose to dominance in the nineteenth century – not accidentally alongside capitalism and, a little later, America as the ascendant world power.” The form of the family is a response to economics, politics and culture. What’s important is not the form of the family but the ethics of the family. Is it good? Is it safe? Is it caring and open to others? Does everyone participate in the decisions that affect them?
Freedom and mutuality, peace and justice are some of the characteristics of an ethical family. Does that mean constructed families are more moral than given families? No, even democratic institutions can be unethical if they do not care for and protect the rights and interests of minorities and dependent members.
I recently came across a poem that illustrates the ethics of family life. The author is Edwin Markham.
“They called me heretic and thing to flout
and drew their circle to keep me out;
but love and I had the wit to win:
we drew our circle to take them in.”
Does your family circle invite people in or keep others out?
First Published April 20, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
A Moral Economy Can Warm Your Body and Your Soul
Climate change is back in the news. The glaciers are melting, North America is warmer than normal and northern Europe is colder than normal. That’s why they refer to extreme weather events instead of global warming. It’s really all about increasing chaos and the change that will be required for us to pull back from the abyss.
In my last column I challenged you (and me) to change. I claimed that we could and should increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. Some readers have challenged me for ideas. Where are the practical ideas for how we can achieve these goals?
Municipalities and companies have all kinds of ideas. The City of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan is looking to recover the heat in wastewater and use it to cut the energy costs of its wastewater treatment plant. The City of Toronto is using the cool waters from deep in Lake Ontario to provide air conditioning to the downtown core. The international chemical company, Air Liquide is running an experiment in Quebec with hog farmers. They are trying to determine the feasibility of capturing methane from hog production and turn it back into an on-site fuel source.
But what about the challenge I issued to myself? I already think of myself as being energy efficient. I live in a small house. I walk to work. I am passionate about public transit. As my old household appliances give way to age, I have replaced them with more energy efficient models. Privately though, I wondered if I had set the bar too high. How I would achieve additional energy savings because I still need to save another 30%.
This fall I installed a programmable thermostat on my furnace. A friend had installed one and made wild claims for its efficiency. I was skeptical but decided to experiment. I programmed the furnace to a lower temperature from after bedtime until one hour before I arise in the morning. Last week I received my gas bill and compared my energy consumption year over year. After less than 6 months in operation my energy use has declined by 24%. Yes, this winter has been warmer than others but the energy saving is still substantial. In Ontario, natural gas prices have just increased by a staggering 40% but my energy bill is actually declining.
Maybe global climate change is not the most pressing issue in your mind. Maybe saving money is not your highest priority, though I would find that hard to believe. If that is true, consider this. Since the change in thermostat, my valentine and I have had more intimate moments than either of us can remember. The crisp night air draws both of us together under the covers for whole body embraces, warming for body and soul. So, if environmental responsibility doesn’t turn your crank and shaving costs doesn’t tickle your fancy, consider the fringe benefits of recycling body heat. You can cool it down and heat it up all at the same time. (And I bet you thought the moral economy was boring, didn’t you?)
First Published February 23, 2006
In my last column I challenged you (and me) to change. I claimed that we could and should increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. Some readers have challenged me for ideas. Where are the practical ideas for how we can achieve these goals?
Municipalities and companies have all kinds of ideas. The City of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan is looking to recover the heat in wastewater and use it to cut the energy costs of its wastewater treatment plant. The City of Toronto is using the cool waters from deep in Lake Ontario to provide air conditioning to the downtown core. The international chemical company, Air Liquide is running an experiment in Quebec with hog farmers. They are trying to determine the feasibility of capturing methane from hog production and turn it back into an on-site fuel source.
But what about the challenge I issued to myself? I already think of myself as being energy efficient. I live in a small house. I walk to work. I am passionate about public transit. As my old household appliances give way to age, I have replaced them with more energy efficient models. Privately though, I wondered if I had set the bar too high. How I would achieve additional energy savings because I still need to save another 30%.
This fall I installed a programmable thermostat on my furnace. A friend had installed one and made wild claims for its efficiency. I was skeptical but decided to experiment. I programmed the furnace to a lower temperature from after bedtime until one hour before I arise in the morning. Last week I received my gas bill and compared my energy consumption year over year. After less than 6 months in operation my energy use has declined by 24%. Yes, this winter has been warmer than others but the energy saving is still substantial. In Ontario, natural gas prices have just increased by a staggering 40% but my energy bill is actually declining.
Maybe global climate change is not the most pressing issue in your mind. Maybe saving money is not your highest priority, though I would find that hard to believe. If that is true, consider this. Since the change in thermostat, my valentine and I have had more intimate moments than either of us can remember. The crisp night air draws both of us together under the covers for whole body embraces, warming for body and soul. So, if environmental responsibility doesn’t turn your crank and shaving costs doesn’t tickle your fancy, consider the fringe benefits of recycling body heat. You can cool it down and heat it up all at the same time. (And I bet you thought the moral economy was boring, didn’t you?)
First Published February 23, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
Convicted by Climate Change
I was convicted in Montreal. I had plenty of company – between 5,000 & 10,000 others. We were all convicted of failing to stop, of failing to understand and of failing to do enough to combat global climate change. I am talking about the meetings held to discuss the Kyoto Protocol under the United Nations sponsored Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Canada signed this agreement and promised to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels before 2012. Since that time, our emissions have increased by 24%.
Why should I worry about this? Isn’t this someone else’s problem? Actually, that is the attitude of the US Government. With only Australia for company, they have refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol in spite of having helped to draft it (as Bill Clinton was at pains to point out) and in spite of being the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. In a critical and dissenting response, 195 American cities have signed on to meet Kyoto style emission reduction targets. Ten American states have also signed on including California with its famous Republican Governor. The head of the American Business Council for Sustainable Energy has also urged action because corporations need government agreement before they invest the billions of dollars needed to change industrial and consumer practice.
Maybe the best way of understanding the problem is to say that the Earth is running a fever. The average body temperature of the Earth has already increased by almost one full degree. The average temperature at the poles is increasing more rapidly. In the MacKenzie River Valley, running north into the Arctic Ocean, the average temperature has increased by 1.7 degrees. Once the average body temperature increases by over two full degrees the icecap over Greenland will melt. This will increase the percentage of freshwater in the North Atlantic, interrupting the Gulf Stream current, cooling northern Europe. It will raise ocean levels, flooding Prince Edward Island, small countries in the Pacific and parts of Manhattan. Not all areas of the world will experience increased water levels. Instead, the St. Lawrence River system is expected to have water flows decreased by 24% and water levels in Lakes Huron and Michigan are expected to decrease by between 0.5 and 1.5 metres within 45 years. It is expected that we will have more extreme weather events, more oscillation between flooding and drought, and more storm patterns in new places. Already in 2004 Argentina experienced the first recorded hurricane in the South Atlantic.
I was convicted in Montreal because I became convinced I was part of the problem and I needed to be part of the solution. Changes in government policy are necessary but they won’t be enough. I need to change. Cities across the world are challenging themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020. We need to do the same. It will take government action to shift from coal fired generating stations to wind, solar and biomass generation, but it will take the concerted effort of committed and convinced citizens to decrease our electrical, gas and oil use. The beginning of a cure for our global fever is to increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. This will only happen if we all do it together.
First published in December 2005
Canada signed this agreement and promised to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels before 2012. Since that time, our emissions have increased by 24%.
Why should I worry about this? Isn’t this someone else’s problem? Actually, that is the attitude of the US Government. With only Australia for company, they have refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol in spite of having helped to draft it (as Bill Clinton was at pains to point out) and in spite of being the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. In a critical and dissenting response, 195 American cities have signed on to meet Kyoto style emission reduction targets. Ten American states have also signed on including California with its famous Republican Governor. The head of the American Business Council for Sustainable Energy has also urged action because corporations need government agreement before they invest the billions of dollars needed to change industrial and consumer practice.
Maybe the best way of understanding the problem is to say that the Earth is running a fever. The average body temperature of the Earth has already increased by almost one full degree. The average temperature at the poles is increasing more rapidly. In the MacKenzie River Valley, running north into the Arctic Ocean, the average temperature has increased by 1.7 degrees. Once the average body temperature increases by over two full degrees the icecap over Greenland will melt. This will increase the percentage of freshwater in the North Atlantic, interrupting the Gulf Stream current, cooling northern Europe. It will raise ocean levels, flooding Prince Edward Island, small countries in the Pacific and parts of Manhattan. Not all areas of the world will experience increased water levels. Instead, the St. Lawrence River system is expected to have water flows decreased by 24% and water levels in Lakes Huron and Michigan are expected to decrease by between 0.5 and 1.5 metres within 45 years. It is expected that we will have more extreme weather events, more oscillation between flooding and drought, and more storm patterns in new places. Already in 2004 Argentina experienced the first recorded hurricane in the South Atlantic.
I was convicted in Montreal because I became convinced I was part of the problem and I needed to be part of the solution. Changes in government policy are necessary but they won’t be enough. I need to change. Cities across the world are challenging themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020. We need to do the same. It will take government action to shift from coal fired generating stations to wind, solar and biomass generation, but it will take the concerted effort of committed and convinced citizens to decrease our electrical, gas and oil use. The beginning of a cure for our global fever is to increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. This will only happen if we all do it together.
First published in December 2005
Money for the Love of It
Did you wish you were an oil worker in Alberta last month? Did you find yourself wondering what it would be like to share millions of dollars with a group of your closest friends? You can’t win if you don’t play! That’s what some people say. Other people say: don’t do it! Money is the root of all evil.
Funny thing is, when people say money is the root of all evil, they are actually misquoting Scripture. In the New Testament, in the first letter to Timothy 6:9 we read “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil;” Notice that this passage does not say that the rich have fallen into temptation, only that the desire to be rich leads there. Money is not the root of all evil but the love of it is.
I don’t begrudge the lottery winning oil workers a dime. Let them enjoy it, I say. On the other hand, I can fairly predict their closest and most cherished relationships will change because of it. Other people will love this new money and want to treat it as their own. Family will expect lavish presents and treats. Friends will expect free drinks and cheap loans. Stores will no longer offer a neighbourhood discount. They are no longer poor. They are now rich and others will covet what they have and manipulate themselves into a share of it.
There are a few choices open to them. They can spend it quickly so that it’s gone - that kind of party normally leaves a big hangover. They can give it away to family and worthy causes. They can buy a farm (see the first option!), or they can invest it and move to a new location where neighbours don’t know about their sudden change in circumstances, Arizona maybe. The least stressful might be option #2 – share the wealth, enhance your community and preserve your relationships.
I have no grievance with lottery winners but I am adamant about opposing lotteries. They deceive people. They distract us from the problems of low farm income, an inadequate minimum wage and inadequate pensions and instead focus our attention on fantasies of the good life. They don’t expand the supply of money, they encourage the love of money and that’s where the sin comes in. Money is a means to an end. Don’t confuse it with the end itself. The world needs stronger, more sustainable, more just communities. Money can help with that but the love of money will get in the way of that.
For years my father bought lottery tickets, though he never won more than $10 to my knowledge. I was always critical of this practice even though I harboured a secret hope that he would win! God bless the lottery winners, but God save me from wanting what they have.
First Published in November 2005
Funny thing is, when people say money is the root of all evil, they are actually misquoting Scripture. In the New Testament, in the first letter to Timothy 6:9 we read “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil;” Notice that this passage does not say that the rich have fallen into temptation, only that the desire to be rich leads there. Money is not the root of all evil but the love of it is.
I don’t begrudge the lottery winning oil workers a dime. Let them enjoy it, I say. On the other hand, I can fairly predict their closest and most cherished relationships will change because of it. Other people will love this new money and want to treat it as their own. Family will expect lavish presents and treats. Friends will expect free drinks and cheap loans. Stores will no longer offer a neighbourhood discount. They are no longer poor. They are now rich and others will covet what they have and manipulate themselves into a share of it.
There are a few choices open to them. They can spend it quickly so that it’s gone - that kind of party normally leaves a big hangover. They can give it away to family and worthy causes. They can buy a farm (see the first option!), or they can invest it and move to a new location where neighbours don’t know about their sudden change in circumstances, Arizona maybe. The least stressful might be option #2 – share the wealth, enhance your community and preserve your relationships.
I have no grievance with lottery winners but I am adamant about opposing lotteries. They deceive people. They distract us from the problems of low farm income, an inadequate minimum wage and inadequate pensions and instead focus our attention on fantasies of the good life. They don’t expand the supply of money, they encourage the love of money and that’s where the sin comes in. Money is a means to an end. Don’t confuse it with the end itself. The world needs stronger, more sustainable, more just communities. Money can help with that but the love of money will get in the way of that.
For years my father bought lottery tickets, though he never won more than $10 to my knowledge. I was always critical of this practice even though I harboured a secret hope that he would win! God bless the lottery winners, but God save me from wanting what they have.
First Published in November 2005
The Moral Economy of the New Orleans Crowd
1773. That’s what New Orleans reminds me of. In 1773 in Cornwall, England a group of tin miners rioted. There was a scarcity of wheat in the local market. Some local grain dealers had begun shipping Cornish wheat to the London market in order to profit from the higher prices instead of selling it locally. Seven or eight hundred miners went to the local grain merchant and offered 17 shillings for 24 gallons of wheat. When they were refused, they broke down the cellar doors and took it all away without paying anything.
In 1766 the Sheriff of Gloucestershire describes a similar scene. A mob had formed “consisting of the lowest of the people such as weavers, mecanicks, labourers, prentices, and boys etc…” They went first to the gristmill where they made off with the flour and wheat. Then they went to the local market where they set and enforced a lower price for grain. Finally they went to farmers, millers and bakers selling all manner of foodstuffs at prices they set, giving the money to the owners. According to the Sheriff, they “behaved with great regularity and decency where they were not opposed, with outrage and violence where there was: but pilfered very little…”
Why does this remind me of New Orleans? Because in the examples above the common people were remembering and re-establishing a moral economy. They remembered that in times of mass hunger there were generally accepted moral principles that governed how people should behave. Prices should be fixed and the poor and hungry should be provided for. The English historian E.P. Thompson called this the “Moral Economy of the English Crowd”.
When a father wades into a pharmacy looking for looking for pop and diapers because the water is unsafe to drink and babies need to be changed regardless, is it random lawlessness or responsible parenthood? When some neighbours steal a van in order to evacuate a senior’s home the civic authorities have abandoned, is it theft or bravery? When local police break into a WalMart and set up camp, helping themselves to provisions, is it looting or setting public priorities over private ones?
Part of the reaction around the world to this disaster has to do with the apparent abandonment of moral principles by the highest authorities. Consider by contrast the reaction in Canada to the Red River flood of 1997. The rich were not rescued and the poor left to drown. The influential were not fed while strangers starved. The healthy were not carried away while the sick were left to fend for themselves. All were treated equally because flood waters have no respect for social class. In 1997 students lined up to sandbag because everyone takes their turn. German soldiers training at CFB Shilo offered engineering and transportation assistance because they had the resources and we had the need. When the people of St. Anne’s prepared their curling rink for evacuees, the fact that their neighbours were from the Roseau reserve was secondary. They were people first and different cultures second.
When the authorities down south dispatched military personnel to protect property instead of the poor, they violated some of our most deeply held moral values. If you said to yourself, “this is not how a civilized country is supposed to behave!” you were echoing a memory going back hundreds of years. Broad social purposes require leadership. If the government won’t provide it the people will.
First published in September 2005
In 1766 the Sheriff of Gloucestershire describes a similar scene. A mob had formed “consisting of the lowest of the people such as weavers, mecanicks, labourers, prentices, and boys etc…” They went first to the gristmill where they made off with the flour and wheat. Then they went to the local market where they set and enforced a lower price for grain. Finally they went to farmers, millers and bakers selling all manner of foodstuffs at prices they set, giving the money to the owners. According to the Sheriff, they “behaved with great regularity and decency where they were not opposed, with outrage and violence where there was: but pilfered very little…”
Why does this remind me of New Orleans? Because in the examples above the common people were remembering and re-establishing a moral economy. They remembered that in times of mass hunger there were generally accepted moral principles that governed how people should behave. Prices should be fixed and the poor and hungry should be provided for. The English historian E.P. Thompson called this the “Moral Economy of the English Crowd”.
When a father wades into a pharmacy looking for looking for pop and diapers because the water is unsafe to drink and babies need to be changed regardless, is it random lawlessness or responsible parenthood? When some neighbours steal a van in order to evacuate a senior’s home the civic authorities have abandoned, is it theft or bravery? When local police break into a WalMart and set up camp, helping themselves to provisions, is it looting or setting public priorities over private ones?
Part of the reaction around the world to this disaster has to do with the apparent abandonment of moral principles by the highest authorities. Consider by contrast the reaction in Canada to the Red River flood of 1997. The rich were not rescued and the poor left to drown. The influential were not fed while strangers starved. The healthy were not carried away while the sick were left to fend for themselves. All were treated equally because flood waters have no respect for social class. In 1997 students lined up to sandbag because everyone takes their turn. German soldiers training at CFB Shilo offered engineering and transportation assistance because they had the resources and we had the need. When the people of St. Anne’s prepared their curling rink for evacuees, the fact that their neighbours were from the Roseau reserve was secondary. They were people first and different cultures second.
When the authorities down south dispatched military personnel to protect property instead of the poor, they violated some of our most deeply held moral values. If you said to yourself, “this is not how a civilized country is supposed to behave!” you were echoing a memory going back hundreds of years. Broad social purposes require leadership. If the government won’t provide it the people will.
First published in September 2005
Culture Is the Work of Many Hands
In my neighbourhood, you can find poetry in the elbow of a sidewalk, in the shelter of a covering elm. I walk my dog and detour so I can receive this gift – no purchase required. A stranger has erected a music stand on the grassy verge, a stranger to me but a member of the commons nonetheless. Its black plywood top is covered in a plastic sheet and beneath it, changed on a weekly basis like the linens, is a sheet of photocopied verse. Last week it was a poem by Marge Piercy. “I want to be with people …who are not parlor generals and field deserters but move in a common rhythm when the food must come in or the fire be put out”. It reminds me of the prairie. It reminds me of a place where food and culture are tenuous. They persist only through the work of many hands.
It reminds me of the homes on Echo Lake in the Qu’Appelle Valley, with their pastel siding and folk art lawns. It reminds me of the 20 ft. high chokecherry sculpture in Lancer, and the 30 ft corn stalk sculpture in Taber. It also reminded me of the mammoth slogans painted on barns, miles from any main roads. It doesn’t matter how many people read it, the farmers have something to say and by God, they are going to say it!
My poetic neighbour shares something with the artistic and vocal prairie farmer. They are reflecting on their lives, taking a point of view, expressing their identities, and adding to the beauty of their environment. They are making their own lives visible and in so doing, claiming public space for proper public purposes. They are engaging in activities that are open and accessible to all, that seek the general welfare of the community and they are doing it for the stimulation and enjoyment of all. This is the ancient meaning of the word – public. It is not concealed and in no way private.
Sadly, it is now common to find political leaders claim the opposite - that there is no such thing as a public purpose or a common good. There are only collections of private goods and interests. The notion of a public welfare and a common good is now so strange that we tend to treat public space as empty space. How easy it has become to think of empty space as commercial space that hasn’t yet been sold. By contrast, these poetry patrons, painters and rural activists are cooperating in the subversive activity of reclaiming public space for public use. They seek no commercial reward and work hard to promote the common good as they understand it. They remember a different world and they can imagine one too. All of us have this capacity but like any muscle or civil right, if we don’t exercise it we will lose it.
“Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.”
- from “To Be of Use”, by Marge Piercy, published in CIRCLES ON THE WATER, 1982, Alfred A. Knopf.
First Published in August 2005
It reminds me of the homes on Echo Lake in the Qu’Appelle Valley, with their pastel siding and folk art lawns. It reminds me of the 20 ft. high chokecherry sculpture in Lancer, and the 30 ft corn stalk sculpture in Taber. It also reminded me of the mammoth slogans painted on barns, miles from any main roads. It doesn’t matter how many people read it, the farmers have something to say and by God, they are going to say it!
My poetic neighbour shares something with the artistic and vocal prairie farmer. They are reflecting on their lives, taking a point of view, expressing their identities, and adding to the beauty of their environment. They are making their own lives visible and in so doing, claiming public space for proper public purposes. They are engaging in activities that are open and accessible to all, that seek the general welfare of the community and they are doing it for the stimulation and enjoyment of all. This is the ancient meaning of the word – public. It is not concealed and in no way private.
Sadly, it is now common to find political leaders claim the opposite - that there is no such thing as a public purpose or a common good. There are only collections of private goods and interests. The notion of a public welfare and a common good is now so strange that we tend to treat public space as empty space. How easy it has become to think of empty space as commercial space that hasn’t yet been sold. By contrast, these poetry patrons, painters and rural activists are cooperating in the subversive activity of reclaiming public space for public use. They seek no commercial reward and work hard to promote the common good as they understand it. They remember a different world and they can imagine one too. All of us have this capacity but like any muscle or civil right, if we don’t exercise it we will lose it.
“Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.”
- from “To Be of Use”, by Marge Piercy, published in CIRCLES ON THE WATER, 1982, Alfred A. Knopf.
First Published in August 2005
Let's End Mandatory Work After 65
Ontario is planning to end mandatory retirement at age 65. Ontario will then join Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick as provinces that have ended this practice.
Most people I know want to retire as soon as they can afford to do so. They have worked hard in one occupation and look forward to a chance to do something different. Some want to paint or play or volunteer or travel. Some want to work at different jobs on a part-time basis. There are two kinds of people who want to keep working after 65. The first type are those people whose identity is tied up in what they do. They may be lawyers or ministers or doctors or farmers who think that what they do is who they are. For them, if they stop doing, they stop being and no one should be able to force them to end their identity and existence.
The second type of person is the person who can’t afford to stop working. They don’t have enough money. They may be clerks or small business people, homemakers or farmers. In the 1960s when the Canada Pension Plan was created, our society was greatly concerned with poverty among the elderly. Our response was to create the CPP as a universal plan. It was thought to provide one leg of a three legged stool for all seniors. The other legs were supposed to be private savings and employer pension plans. Poverty among the elderly has been greatly reduced since 1966 but our three legged stool is still very wobbly. One of the legs is less than half built. Only 40 % of working Canadians participate in a company pension plan. The other 60% will only have the CPP, Old Age Security and whatever they’ve been able to save for their retirement – typically not much more than the value of their house. This is an issue that affects women particularly because they tend to spend fewer years in the paid work force but live longer than men after 65. I know many social workers (mostly women), who have dedicated their lives to improving society and who will retire with next to no company pension. In England the government is considering a new law that would require all employers to enroll their workers in some form of pension plan.
One of the best examples of what life looks like when there are inadequate pensions can be found on Canadian farms. 20% of all Canadian farms are being run by farmers over the age of 65 with annual net farm income of less than $16,000. Many of these would happily hand over the operation to a new generation if they could afford to do so. Demanding an end to mandatory retirement provides only half a solution because it only describes half the problem. Canadians need adequate pensions if they are going to have any real choice about when to retire. People need support in order to be free.
First Published in July 2005
Most people I know want to retire as soon as they can afford to do so. They have worked hard in one occupation and look forward to a chance to do something different. Some want to paint or play or volunteer or travel. Some want to work at different jobs on a part-time basis. There are two kinds of people who want to keep working after 65. The first type are those people whose identity is tied up in what they do. They may be lawyers or ministers or doctors or farmers who think that what they do is who they are. For them, if they stop doing, they stop being and no one should be able to force them to end their identity and existence.
The second type of person is the person who can’t afford to stop working. They don’t have enough money. They may be clerks or small business people, homemakers or farmers. In the 1960s when the Canada Pension Plan was created, our society was greatly concerned with poverty among the elderly. Our response was to create the CPP as a universal plan. It was thought to provide one leg of a three legged stool for all seniors. The other legs were supposed to be private savings and employer pension plans. Poverty among the elderly has been greatly reduced since 1966 but our three legged stool is still very wobbly. One of the legs is less than half built. Only 40 % of working Canadians participate in a company pension plan. The other 60% will only have the CPP, Old Age Security and whatever they’ve been able to save for their retirement – typically not much more than the value of their house. This is an issue that affects women particularly because they tend to spend fewer years in the paid work force but live longer than men after 65. I know many social workers (mostly women), who have dedicated their lives to improving society and who will retire with next to no company pension. In England the government is considering a new law that would require all employers to enroll their workers in some form of pension plan.
One of the best examples of what life looks like when there are inadequate pensions can be found on Canadian farms. 20% of all Canadian farms are being run by farmers over the age of 65 with annual net farm income of less than $16,000. Many of these would happily hand over the operation to a new generation if they could afford to do so. Demanding an end to mandatory retirement provides only half a solution because it only describes half the problem. Canadians need adequate pensions if they are going to have any real choice about when to retire. People need support in order to be free.
First Published in July 2005
The Economics of Family Life
I’m middle aged. Like most of my friends I care simultaneously for children in school and aging parents at home. The older my children get the more important economics becomes. They don’t live in my home anymore but I continue to help pay for their schooling. I pay for dinners, trips and other activities too depending on whether they’re in the same city as me. Sorry kids, I take that back. Better I should say there has always been an economic dimension to our relationship, going back to my first purchase of baby formula, but the economic is not dominant. Our relationship is dominated by affection, memory, shared values and reciprocity. In other words, we form a community – an intimate community, a family.
The same is true of my parents. They turn 89 and 90 this year and they don’t live with me either. Yes, there is an economic dimension to our relationship but it’s not the most important dimension. When I change my father’s clothes or remember for my mother her best friend’s name, I am acting out a familial role that is older than human settlement on the Canadian Prairie. We are being family, one to another.
In formal economics the most common elements of nature, like water and air, are described as ‘externalities’. That is, they are external to the formal economic model and are treated as if they were free. They already exist, you don’t have to buy them and they exist in abundance. That’s true in the abstract but not in the world we inhabit. In the world of you and me, air and water are provided through plants, trees and the hydrologic cycle. They belong to all of Creation and they have very real limits. Indeed, we are bumping up against those limits so frequently, that we are challenging our neighbours to plant more trees, burn less fossil fuels and use water more carefully. Treating air and water as external to the economy is a major threat to our survival.
In formal economic models, families are also treated as ‘external’. They exist, you don’t need to buy them and they exist in abundance. But that’s not really true either. In the world of you and me, lots of families are broken and all the adults have jobs or want them. Very little time is left over for volunteer activity. If we want people to take on the job of care giver to the elderly, we have to pay them.
Now my parents prefer to be cared for at home. They are healthier, more settled, more connected and less confused than they would be in an alternative environment. Besides, they prefer their own bad cooking to someone else’s bad cooking! They have care and it’s paid for.
Air and water may be external to economic models but they are not external to how we breathe or what we drink. In the same way families are not external to how we live or who we care for. Economics are not the most important dimension of family life but neither can it be ignored. If we pretend it doesn’t exist, we won’t survive.
First Published in May 2005
The same is true of my parents. They turn 89 and 90 this year and they don’t live with me either. Yes, there is an economic dimension to our relationship but it’s not the most important dimension. When I change my father’s clothes or remember for my mother her best friend’s name, I am acting out a familial role that is older than human settlement on the Canadian Prairie. We are being family, one to another.
In formal economics the most common elements of nature, like water and air, are described as ‘externalities’. That is, they are external to the formal economic model and are treated as if they were free. They already exist, you don’t have to buy them and they exist in abundance. That’s true in the abstract but not in the world we inhabit. In the world of you and me, air and water are provided through plants, trees and the hydrologic cycle. They belong to all of Creation and they have very real limits. Indeed, we are bumping up against those limits so frequently, that we are challenging our neighbours to plant more trees, burn less fossil fuels and use water more carefully. Treating air and water as external to the economy is a major threat to our survival.
In formal economic models, families are also treated as ‘external’. They exist, you don’t need to buy them and they exist in abundance. But that’s not really true either. In the world of you and me, lots of families are broken and all the adults have jobs or want them. Very little time is left over for volunteer activity. If we want people to take on the job of care giver to the elderly, we have to pay them.
Now my parents prefer to be cared for at home. They are healthier, more settled, more connected and less confused than they would be in an alternative environment. Besides, they prefer their own bad cooking to someone else’s bad cooking! They have care and it’s paid for.
Air and water may be external to economic models but they are not external to how we breathe or what we drink. In the same way families are not external to how we live or who we care for. Economics are not the most important dimension of family life but neither can it be ignored. If we pretend it doesn’t exist, we won’t survive.
First Published in May 2005
Ontario Agriculture Needs Sustainable Communities
The problem with public farm protests is they always happen in the winter when the weather is miserable and nobody wants to be outside. You’d think that when the National Farmers Union joins forces with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on any issue, it would be a pretty big story. But it was freezing cold at the beginning of March when the tractors started to circle around Queen’s Park in downtown Toronto. I’d guess about 1,000 farmers were milling about trying to stay warm. There were buses from near London and others from the Windsor area. Others were from east of town near Kingston and the Ottawa valley.
The farmers were united in protesting a lack of government support for family farms, but divided in the specific issues each wanted to pursue. One Middlesex farmer had just sold three cows into the market and netted $20 each. The Essex County farmers were on about the new Ethanol plants being built with Canadian government support near the US border. They were located there so they could access cheap corn subsidized by the US government. Another farmer was protesting the new green belt legislation. He had borrowed money to buy a neighbouring farm and now the bank was after him because the farm could not be developed for housing and its value had dropped.
I was most struck by a mixed farmer from the Peterborough area. His grandparents had settled the farm of 200 acres in 1872. He was now 68 and the only reason he could live comfortably is because he had a pension from the giant paper company Domtar. He had worked for Domtar for 39 years. His family farm was not sustainable and hadn’t been for over 40 years. He was out in the cold, trying to support the family farm he had been subsidizing with off farm work his whole life.
All these farmers wanted provincial government action to preserve family farms. Yet it’s been clear for many years that Ontario’s rural strategy has been to treat farm land as subdivisions in waiting. The only other interest the government seems to have is in farms that can be players in the industrialized world market. One of the ironies is that the provincial government is accused by farmers of placing urban needs before rural needs. They don’t. One of the growing needs of urban Torontonians is for food they feel confident eating. Increasingly, urban dwellers want to know where their food is coming from and who is growing it. Are their farming practices safe and sustainable? Urban dwellers don’t get that answer from the world market. This year I bought a leg of Ontario lamb for my Easter dinner. I didn’t have a choice between Saskatchewan lamb and Ontario lamb. I did have a choice between Ontario and the world market, mostly New Zealand. I even paid a premium for local production. New Zealand farmers are not bad people. It is just that I can exercise no control over the food system there. I don’t have the necessary information nor the political influence.
If the provincial government really wanted to serve the interests of urban dwellers, they would introduce policies that supported sustainable agriculture within local sustainable agricultural communities. That way rural and urban people would both feel more safe and secure.
First published in April 2005
The farmers were united in protesting a lack of government support for family farms, but divided in the specific issues each wanted to pursue. One Middlesex farmer had just sold three cows into the market and netted $20 each. The Essex County farmers were on about the new Ethanol plants being built with Canadian government support near the US border. They were located there so they could access cheap corn subsidized by the US government. Another farmer was protesting the new green belt legislation. He had borrowed money to buy a neighbouring farm and now the bank was after him because the farm could not be developed for housing and its value had dropped.
I was most struck by a mixed farmer from the Peterborough area. His grandparents had settled the farm of 200 acres in 1872. He was now 68 and the only reason he could live comfortably is because he had a pension from the giant paper company Domtar. He had worked for Domtar for 39 years. His family farm was not sustainable and hadn’t been for over 40 years. He was out in the cold, trying to support the family farm he had been subsidizing with off farm work his whole life.
All these farmers wanted provincial government action to preserve family farms. Yet it’s been clear for many years that Ontario’s rural strategy has been to treat farm land as subdivisions in waiting. The only other interest the government seems to have is in farms that can be players in the industrialized world market. One of the ironies is that the provincial government is accused by farmers of placing urban needs before rural needs. They don’t. One of the growing needs of urban Torontonians is for food they feel confident eating. Increasingly, urban dwellers want to know where their food is coming from and who is growing it. Are their farming practices safe and sustainable? Urban dwellers don’t get that answer from the world market. This year I bought a leg of Ontario lamb for my Easter dinner. I didn’t have a choice between Saskatchewan lamb and Ontario lamb. I did have a choice between Ontario and the world market, mostly New Zealand. I even paid a premium for local production. New Zealand farmers are not bad people. It is just that I can exercise no control over the food system there. I don’t have the necessary information nor the political influence.
If the provincial government really wanted to serve the interests of urban dwellers, they would introduce policies that supported sustainable agriculture within local sustainable agricultural communities. That way rural and urban people would both feel more safe and secure.
First published in April 2005
Slow Food
Our family ate a slow dinner over the holidays. Fourteen people, three courses – We had gathered from six provinces for the occasion. There was enough time to change places between courses so most people had a chance to chat with everyone else who was there. Does it sound like Christmas on the farm? Actually it was at an award winning restaurant that has committed itself to the international slow food movement.
In 1986, McDonald’s opened a hamburger franchise beside the Spanish Steps in Rome. For the Italians, it was the last straw. In order to repel the invasion of fast food, Carlo Petrini, a famous and popular food writer, launched the ‘Slow Food Movement’. Its message is very simple: ‘Eat well and save the planet’! This movement now has 78,000 members in over 50 countries. Outside of Turin they have started a University devoted to gastronomic science.
How will this movement save the planet? First of all the movement is committed to ‘eco-gastronomy’. This means that eating well goes hand in hand with saving the environment. So the movement is committed to preserving heritage varieties of foodstuffs. In Canada there is an agricultural underground of people deliberately cultivating old and uncommon varieties of carrots, potatoes, wheat, rye and flax in order to preserve them. These people are the first heroes of slow food. They are part of the resistance movement for global biodiversity.
Secondly, restaurants committed to slow food are committed to local sourcing of their produce. This means that Jeff Crump, the Head Chef at the Ancaster Old Mill where my family dined, made sure he served a delicate butternut squash soup because he had a local supplier in the middle of winter. Even though he couldn’t provide certified organic venison, he still provided deer meat from a farmer he knew and could observe following organic principles. Disciples of slow food are supporters of local farmers.
Followers of slow food are fighters against the obesity epidemic in North America. It takes fifteen minutes for the brain to register the signal that you have eaten too much. In most fast food restaurants, your meal is over by then. If you take more time over a meal your body will be able to complete the information circuit and moderate its intake. At the University of Toronto, the Human Resources Department is trying to promote work/life balance by persuading faculty and staff to stop eating lunch at their desks. They want people to reduce stress and achieve balance by working less, socializing more and moving about frequently.
In my twenty years of work on rural issues, I can’t count the number of times I heard people say ‘we want to put the culture back in agri-culture’. Well, now there’s a larger, international movement trying to do the same thing. It’s not against trade. It promotes the global trade of unique products, but it is pro-local. By focusing on the benefits of food grown locally and consumed socially, it has touched a nerve at the heart of our modern madness. Do farmers really want to become bio-industrialists? Well, neither do consumers.
First Published in January 2005
In 1986, McDonald’s opened a hamburger franchise beside the Spanish Steps in Rome. For the Italians, it was the last straw. In order to repel the invasion of fast food, Carlo Petrini, a famous and popular food writer, launched the ‘Slow Food Movement’. Its message is very simple: ‘Eat well and save the planet’! This movement now has 78,000 members in over 50 countries. Outside of Turin they have started a University devoted to gastronomic science.
How will this movement save the planet? First of all the movement is committed to ‘eco-gastronomy’. This means that eating well goes hand in hand with saving the environment. So the movement is committed to preserving heritage varieties of foodstuffs. In Canada there is an agricultural underground of people deliberately cultivating old and uncommon varieties of carrots, potatoes, wheat, rye and flax in order to preserve them. These people are the first heroes of slow food. They are part of the resistance movement for global biodiversity.
Secondly, restaurants committed to slow food are committed to local sourcing of their produce. This means that Jeff Crump, the Head Chef at the Ancaster Old Mill where my family dined, made sure he served a delicate butternut squash soup because he had a local supplier in the middle of winter. Even though he couldn’t provide certified organic venison, he still provided deer meat from a farmer he knew and could observe following organic principles. Disciples of slow food are supporters of local farmers.
Followers of slow food are fighters against the obesity epidemic in North America. It takes fifteen minutes for the brain to register the signal that you have eaten too much. In most fast food restaurants, your meal is over by then. If you take more time over a meal your body will be able to complete the information circuit and moderate its intake. At the University of Toronto, the Human Resources Department is trying to promote work/life balance by persuading faculty and staff to stop eating lunch at their desks. They want people to reduce stress and achieve balance by working less, socializing more and moving about frequently.
In my twenty years of work on rural issues, I can’t count the number of times I heard people say ‘we want to put the culture back in agri-culture’. Well, now there’s a larger, international movement trying to do the same thing. It’s not against trade. It promotes the global trade of unique products, but it is pro-local. By focusing on the benefits of food grown locally and consumed socially, it has touched a nerve at the heart of our modern madness. Do farmers really want to become bio-industrialists? Well, neither do consumers.
First Published in January 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)