Do we have a "right" to build ourselves a single family home?

I have a close relative who has opinions on everything. When we chat, especially online, we get into long, tedious discussions that lead nowhere. You see, I, too, have opinions on everything and my opinions do not agree with hers. Oops!

She is big on personal freedom. Don't infringe on my space. Period. Governments pass rules and regulations setting the rules we live under and thus governments infringe on her personal freedom. She had an example.

In a small community where she lived, a percentage of homes had to be town houses, a percentage semi-detached and single family homes could only use X amount of land. These rules were not enacted by the town but forced upon the town by the provincial government. She felt a small village should be allowed to plan its own approach to urban expansion and not be forced to adhere to urban-use guidelines devised by the Provincial government.

This sounds reasonable but is it?According to the Ontario Farmland Trust, in the past 35 years, Ontario has lost 2.8 million acres (18%) of its farmland to non-agricultural land uses like urbanization and aggregate mining.

And the rate of farmland loss is increasing rapidly. The loss was 319 acres per day according to the 2021 Census of Agriculture, and may well be more today. 

I was raised by an ex-farmer living in Essex County, Ontario. It was the early '50s, 70 years ago, and he and my mother complained about urbanization way back then. They saw the agricultural land of Essex County as some of the best in Canada. Today, when I drive around Essex County, the substantial loss envisioned by my parents is obvious.

My relative does not understand that when she hates government for infringing on her right to build a single family home on as large a chunk of land as she can afford, she is hating me. The government should be, but all too often isn't, the voice of the people. In this case, it is. It represents my voice and the voice of others who feel as I do. If it were left to me to write the regulations, even my home, which I love, would never have been built. (Don't tell my grandchildren.)

I live on a finite planet and I hope my descendants will be able to eke out a good life on this planet for thousands of years to come. Sadly, I don't believe the planet I am leaving my granddaughters is in good shape. It is an indisputable fact that the earth is not as healthy a planet as when I was born. And the planet then was nowhere near as healthy as it was when my grandparents were born in the mid 1870's. Now, jump ahead and I ask you, "How healthy will our planet be in a millennium?)

What has Trudeau done to make you hate him

One of my nieces sent me an email linking to a You Tube video by Kevin O'Leary. She and her older sister have a hate on for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. I am not sure why. I know Trudeau made some big mistakes, immigration and the quickly growing national debt, immediately come to mind. 

He was in power for nine years. Surely, he did something right.What really bothers me about the criticism is the nasty tone of much of it. The title of the You Tube post is:

Kevin O’Leary: Trudeau, the ‘Idiot King,’ is Gone—But ‘Dante’s Hell’ Awaits Next Leader

Before I post my reply to my nieces email, I will admit that I am disappointed in Justin Trudeau. With no newspapers, perhaps it is harder today to get the word out but clearly he failed to deliver his message to the Canadian electorate. No one seems to recall all that he accomplished. Now, to Kevin.

The following is from my email to my niece: 

 

Some of the statements made by O'Leary are correct but I doubt a lot of folk would pick-up on the complexities colouring these statements. But when O'Leary claims foreign investment per capita in Canada has collapsed under Trudeau he is wrong. During Trudeau's time in office the foreign investment per capita grew almost 7% more than it did under the previous PM, Stephen Harper. This may reflect a more favourable environment for foreign investors under Trudeau.

When O'Leary attacks Trudeau on his energy policies, he repeats attacks told by Pierre Poilievre and repeated by others. For instance, O'Leary claims that interest in pipelines collapsed under Trudeau. Any  investor knows this is not true.

 Quoting the National Observer, a left of centre news source, "While Canada was (said to be) “closed” for oil and gas business, the industry increased its oil production by more than a million barrels per day. Its biggest companies posted record profits in 2022, and then almost did it again in 2023. Meanwhile, in 2024 the federal government completed the construction of the first pipeline to Pacific tidewater in decades, one that immediately (and significantly) increased oil prices received by the same companies complaining so bitterly about Trudeau’s reign. LNG Canada, meanwhile, is set to begin operations in 2025, and will have a similarly beneficial impact on the price of natural gas in Canada and the companies that sell it.

As a Canadian investor, I follow pipeline companies like Enbridge. I have appreciated the solid, unwavering support the federal government gave when it came to the Enbridge Line Three problems. Another quote: " Justin Trudeau has been the best prime minister their industry has seen in decades. He has done more to advance their interests, often at the cost of his own political capital, than any of his living predecessors. In addition to TMX and LNG Canada it also fought successfully for Line 3, a major expansion project that faced significant political resistance from the Democratic governor and other politicians in Michigan. Oh, and it also threw more than a billion dollars at the oil and gas industry to help it clean up its old oil and gas wells."

Has Trudeau any black marks against him when it comes to pipelines. Depends on whether you are into saving the planet or not. Trudeau's administration cancelled the Northern Gateway project shortly after taking office, fulfilling a campaign promise to ban oil tanker traffic on British Columbia's northern coast. This decision was seen as a clear signal of shifting priorities towards environmental concern.

O'Leary attacks Trudeau for the change in how energy and mining permits are granted. With energy permits, Trudeau advanced a process containing a lot of environmental scrutiny. With mining permits Trudeau slowed approvals by moving emphasis to sustainability. Those who like Trudeau like to say he has focused on balancing environmental concerns with industry needs. This has not made industry happy and clearly has not pleased either O'Leary or Poilievre. Me? I'm pleased.

O'Leary states what most of us already know: Canada's wealth is heavily tied up in its natural resources. But which party is better at guiding Canada into the future? Personally, I am not a big fan of Trudeau and have taken a strong dislike to Pierre Poilivre.The Canadian economy needs diversification and better resource management to ensure long-term prosperity and resilience against market fluctuations.For this I pick Mark Carney. Carney has quite the resume. He cares about the environment and he has business smarts that no one can doubt.

I'd go on but the truth is just as I said at the beginning. Trudeau has failed to beat his own drum and he has made mistakes that have often been blown out of proportion by the opposition but they are still mistakes. It is time for a change. I'd vote for Carney and Freeland in a flash. I am very suspicious of anyone who refuses to get security clearance while making insulting, childish, personal attacks on the other party, as Pierre Poilievre likes to do. O'Leary takes the same rude approach, an approach that is being emulated by more and more people, when he refers to the prime minister as an "Idiot King".

Canada's debt is far too big and growing far too fast. The Liberals have not run a workable budget. When Freeland resigned she made it clear she could no longer go along with a "costly political gimmick". For that reason and others, I like Mark Carney and Freeland. They are bright, Carney has an especially strong background in government finance, and they might find ways of making the difficult decisions palatable.

P.S. One last thing, I am very proud of the way Justin Trudeau treated Canada's indigenous people. As of January 2025, 132 long-term boil water advisories have been lifted in Canada, while 33 advisories remain active across 28 indigenous communities. Compare the Trudeau response to the problem to that of Stephen Harper. Harper's government did not implement binding regulations for water quality on First Nations reserves, which contributed to ongoing water crises. The absence of such regulations meant that First Nations lacked the same protections that non-Indigenous communities enjoyed.

Why so many folk are listening to people like Kevin O'Leary and Pierre Poilevre is mind boggling to me. The world is a complex place and requires adult discussion between the opposing sides. Repeating "axe the tax" is simplistic. Get rid of the carbon tax. Fine. But what are you, Pierre, and your party going to do about the carbon problem?

I could write a lot more but enough, Betty. I think you can see I am not swayed by the linked video.

Cheers,

Ken

p.s.I look forward to a short comment.

Dancing Grandpa! Or, Heart Failure Be Damned.

Today was Christmas and the cockroach was up at daybreak. Isla, my youngest granddaughter, caught me, the cockroach, doing my Christmas dance. I have heart failure and a new hip, replaced after a fall playing basketball. 

I am living proof that the Canadian healthcare system can work. I have had robotic surgery to repair a failing mitral valve in my heart. I had my first pacemaker/ICD placed in my chest almost two decades ago. Next year, I plan on getting my third pacemaker. Life is good!

You often read stuff about the Canadian healthcare system, bad stuff, sadly it is not all lies. Some of it is true. That said, the American system has its flaws. I had my first heart incident while visiting a friend in California. Despite running up a huge bill, the U.S. doctors did not discover what had caused my heart to go into overdrive, requiring a big, and very painful, electrical jolt from the two paddles of a defibrillator to return my heart to its normal rhythm.

I seem to be impossible to keep down. My doctors all agree that of all animals, the you-can't-keep-'em-down cockroach best symbolizes me.

I wanted to share this video and did not know where to post it. I decided my blog might be as good a place as any to post it. Enjoy.

Click on the broken square in the lower, right corner of image to enlarge.

 

I see The Rapture as dangerous nonsense.

When I a boy The Rapture was seen as just nonsense by all the religious folk I knew. My minister, his curate, my Sunday school teacher and my mom all agreed: nonsense. Today belief in The Rapture has grown to the point that belief in it has even infected my friends and co-workers. It may have even touched my family.

Recently, a nephew posted a link on Facebook to a book by N.T. Wright and Michael Bird: Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. The title is a bit of a mouthful but if I understand correctly, Wright and Bird think The Rapture is not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense.

I read that Michael Bird has posted warnings about Donald Trump. Good for Bird! I understand that Bird been very critical of Donald Trump, particularly when it comes to his influence on evangelicals. Bird points to a complex relationship between evangelicalism and Trump, a relationship in which a surprisingly large number of evangelicals supported Trump.

One source found by an AI search engine reported: "Bird has analyzed why a large percentage of white evangelicals voted for Trump despite doubts about his faith and character. He suggests that this support may stem from a desire for political power and influence rather than genuine alignment with Christian values. He points out that Trump's behaviour and statements often contradict traditional evangelical beliefs, raising questions about the authenticity of his faith."

The following expresses my position better than I could ever could: Bird expresses concern about the implications of supporting leaders like Trump who exhibit authoritarian tendencies. He agrees with N.T. Wright in arguing that Christians should actively oppose totalitarianism and work towards sustaining liberal democratic values, emphasizing that true Christian witness involves promoting justice and mercy in society rather than aligning with political figures based solely on their stance on specific issues like abortion.

So, just who are these two authors? I found the following on the Christian Book website: 

N. T. Wright is the former bishop of Durham and senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. He is one of the world's leading New Testament scholars and the award-winning author of many books, including?After You Believe, Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, Interpreting Paul, and The New Testament in Its World, as well as the Christian Origins and the Question of God series.

Michael F. Bird is Deputy Principal and Lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College,?Australia. He is the author of numerous scholarly and popular books on the New Testament and theology, including, with N. T. Wright, The New Testament in Its World (2019).

I don't agree with every position that these two take. But, when it comes to The Rapture and Donald Trump and a lot of other evangelical concerns so dominant today, I must say that I find Wright and Bird dead on.

Christianity, as I knew it, is under attack more than ever before

I was born an Anglican. Before I was one year old, I was baptized. As a young boy, while my parents were in church, I was in Sunday school. I liked my church. I liked my Sunday school teacher, a local lawyer, and all around good guy. I liked the church curate -- a newly ordained young minister serving under the guidance of the church priest, who himself was another cool guy. I looked up to all three.

These three men all emphasized one should take a balance approach to the scriptures. The bible was a book worth knowing but I don't believe any one of them ever claimed the bible was the infallible word of God. If this seems like an odd idea to be discussing with a young boy, you are right, it was. So, why did the topic even come up?

My best friend at the time was a member of the Christian Missionary Alliance church. Although I did not often attend a Sunday service, there were mid-week services and special events that I frequently attended. The CMA was, and still is today, an evangelical church. Some of the ideas expressed there were vigorously opposed by the leaders of my church, the Anglican church.

At one special event, I learned I was living in the End Times. With lots of references to bible passages, the speaker built an airtight case for his claim. It can be worrying enough for a young child to learn that the world, as he knows it, is soon coming to an end, but to also learn that he was not saved just made it much harder to bare. He was following a false religion, he was told. He was in grave danger of eternal damnation.

The end times brouhaha was non-sense, a misreading of the bible my Anglican clergy friends and my Sunday school teacher all agreed. It simply was not going to happen: not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Relax. I had to decide which take on the scriptures I was going to believe. I decided to go with the Anglican one. It simply seemed more reasonable.

My Anglican mentors clearly thought I was flirting with some dangerous ideas but I was young and there was going to be lots of time to iron all this out. My Christian Missionary Alliance friends thought I was playing with fire, Hell fire. The end was nigh and I had to make the right decision and make it now. 

I did. As I said, I sided with the Anglican viewpoint. The end times is bunkum. It just wasn't going to happen. Here it is some 70 years later and discussions about the end times are still being bandied about. Dozens of leaders in the evangelical movement have come and gone, many are now dead, and their take on the "infallible word of God" has proven to be very fallible.

Is this being Christian?

I have good friends and close relatives who, when I was a boy, would not have been considered truly Christian. 70 years ago, they would have been outliers. Fanatics. Not today. Today, they are becoming mainstream and they are moving the stream to the right, very far to right.

Religion permeates everything in their lives and I do mean everything. For instance, my relative told me, "As a Christian, I seek out other Christians . . . " And then continued, "CBC seems skewed to uphold a liberal perspective and criticize the conservative view." Clearly, to her, the CBC is neither conservative nor Christian.

I take umbrage at today's use of the "conservative" moniker to describe right-wing individuals who adopt extreme positions, such as opposing vaccinations. I feel this totally misrepresents conservatism as I knew it some 70 years ago. 

Back then, I would have thought a belief in the value of universal vaccinations was a very conservative stance. A conservative person would never have taken an extreme, anti-science position and argued against vaccinations for children and others. In the early '50s the fight against diphtheria was just gaining momentum. The mortality rate for diphtheria was usually from 5% to 10% but in some cases it could be much higher. And it was a frighteningly hellish death.To be an antivaxxer back then would have labelled one as an idiot and not as a Christian.

A Pew Research Center survey from 2017 noted that over 20% of white evangelicals believed parents should have the right to decide against vaccinating their children, even if it poses health risks to others. Endangering your neighbours and your children is not Christian and how such a position could be described as conservative seems just wrong.

The rise in vaccine hesitancy among conservative groups is linked to political rhetoric and misinformation, some of it generated by certain evangelicals themselves. These trouble-making liars would not have been allowed to spread their stupidity in the church I attended as a boy. My Jesus was a bright fellow. A trustworthy chap. A man you could count on. And children could have counted on him to do the right thing, he would have had any children in his care vaccinated.

Valentina Gomez: Quote Without Comment

 

..............