The politics of switching from sex based to gender based everything (starting with school bathrooms)

Considering that LGBTQ includes Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (not sure what queen includes that the other gender don't). If we can agree that sex is a genetic term that includes Male and Female while gender is a sexual orientation that includes LGBTQ, than what is the core concern behind allowing different sexes or genders peeing in the same washroom? Is the concern sexual activity or physical violence in isolated places? 

Using sex to separate children may have separated boys and girls from forced interactions in vulnerable locations but why would that be important? Sex oriented washrooms don't prevent gay boys, lesbian girls, bi-sexual or queer kids from engaging in sexual activity in their sex oriented bathrooms but perhaps the solution worked for the majority. Gender oriented washrooms (which is being proposed) separate public washrooms by gender identity ideally address the sexual activity issue but are much more difficult to enforce and still fail bi-gendered children unless they are allowed in both washrooms. 

If the issue is physical violence than a separating children by vulnerability might be the solution so that vulnerable children have a special private washroom facility (this is what was being done in Catholic schools). The question becomes is sexual activity and violence really a problem at schools that needs to be or can be addressed by separating one group of children from another? Do we know the frequency or consequence sexual incidences or physical violence in schools? I believe these are real issues and any school system has a responsibility to care for and protected their children based on evidence for ensuring safe and nurturing environments. 

The issue it seams is different cultures (modern secular and traditional christian) have different views on what makes a safe and nurturing environment and in Canada's post christian society former givens are now up for debate. Not long ago we allowed parents to choose the school system based on their belief system and allow tax payers to choose which system to fund. We put a lot of power in the hands of parents to choose a system they believed in and we put power in the school administrators to protect children through architectural practices within their respective systems. 

As we move from sex based separation to gender based separation, is the solution better than its associated social impacts? I think the answer is we don't know yet. Unfortunately, scant reference to any of this research has been used during this short debate other than very general correlative data on who commits suicide or is bullied which we know is minority gendered children. How do gender based systems address switching or multi gender children? 

If rules become this complex and politically charged they become unenforceable meaning we are now in the beginning of experimenting with no rules. There are school cost savings of having a single public washroom but can this be done in a way that allows for children at all stages of their development to be adequately nurtured and protected? The ideological debate has certainly pushed us further than we have answers as of yet.

Visited a house on the Solar House Tour, Checked out Elk Island National Park, and had Ukrainian food in Mundare.

2004-2007 at ECBC

My Engagement

March 7, 2008 Post
Many of you know that this weekend Lily and I went to Calgary to ask her parents for their blessing on our engagement. We left at 12:15 Friday morning and traveled on the 6.5 hour bus ride to Calgary in order to arrive in time for Cory's (Lily's brother) graduation ceremonies. He just graduated from the Calgary police academy. I have been nervously waiting to give them the letter that I wrote asking for their permission for Lily and I to be engaged. I guess I sort of messed up the order of things but I finally got it all straightened out. Anyhow, with everything happening with her brother on Friday Lily and I decided to put it off until Saturday. Saturday morning I woke up before everyone else at 9:00 am, quickly showered and got ready. I waited downstairs anticipating when I would give the letter to her parents. At 10:20 they finally came down stairs to go to work. I gave the letter I had Yolanda translate for me to Lily's mom and dad who were sitting at the kitchen table. First her mom read it and Lily and her parents talked a bit and then her father read it and they talked some more. I stood shaky in silence while they talked back and forth. Lily was smiling, which reassured me that things were O.K. Lily's mom was impressed with my Chinese writing. Lily's dad stood up and walked past me. He patted me on the shoulder and then Lily's parents left for work. I was a little confused and relieved that it was all over. Once Lily's parents were gone she and I embraced and she filled me in on what had transpired. I was golden. They like me, they really like me. Or at worst they will settle for a Gui Lo for a son in law. The end

The Queen: well her garden

If you are interested in gardening and you live in Queen Mary Park, Oliver, Prince Rupert, and Central MacDougal please check out The Queen's web site at www.thequeen.shorturl.com

You can sign up to our waiting list online. Hurry spots fill quickly and we would love to have our 2011 roster by Christmas.

Happy fall!!!

Letter to Minister Clement re: Census Debacle

Dear Minister Clement:

As a Municipal Planner, we know first-hand the importance of the mandatory long-form census questionnaire.

In the past, data from the long-form questionnaire have been used to inform program and policy decisions in our community. The data allow us to ensure that program investments - often with federal money - are targeted toward the populations who need them the most.

Moreover, comparing past data with more recent numbers allows us to see whether programs are working or whether adjustments need to be made, as well as shared municipal/federal and municipal/provincial programs, make a positive impact and provide the best return on investment.

Many of our departments depend on census data help create safe, healthy, ecologically responsible communities. When we want to involve communities with large immigrant populations in revitalizing rundown areas or enhance business areas we use information about language demographics to help do that work. When we want to provide efficient transportation options that reduce CO2 we use trip departure data. When we want to integrate land use and transportation we need to know how many people live within a walk-able distance of LRT stations.

As planners we understand the unsustainable cost of urban sprawl but are unable to communicate the cost without good census data. We use census data when we are determining what the priority neighbourhoods are to revitalize. This is vital so that we can take advantage of existing infrastructure. Many of our statutory plans dictate that we implement programs to leverage the efficiency of smart growth urban intensification and slow inefficient urban sprawl but the inability to get specific data will prevent benchmarking progress and decreases the value of our performance measurements. Goals that are not measured are seldom achieved.

I recognize that your government is proposing changes that would see the long-form questionnaire distributed to more homes across the country, but completing it becomes voluntary. The voluntary nature of the new form will compromise the quality of the data and will not accurately reflect the socio-economic or population diversity demographics that municipal governments use to shape their programs. By changing the form, long-term comparisons of census data which is vital to trend analysis and planning will no longer be possible.

I urge you and your government to reconsider the decision to eliminate the mandatory long-term census questionnaire in 2011 and beyond. The quality of municipal policies and programs depends on this data.

Sincerely,
Michael Brown

Planner

Sea Lice and Fish Farming in a Globalized Economy

Mitigating the Impact of Aquaculture on Wild Salmon in British Columbia

Policy networks and policy tools will be of extreme importance to mitigate the negative impacts of aquaculture and save British Columbia's wild pink and chum salmon stocks. By implementing a precautionary approach, policy actors in the government of British Columbia can ensure the survival of wild salmon and the economic and ecological benefits that come to human and nonhuman users from a healthy wild salmon ecosystem.

ISSUE
The pacific coast of British Columbia (B.C.) has become a sought after location for multinational aquaculture operations because of the abundance of inlets and rivers able to host fish farms and direct market access to the United States under NAFTA (Hoogensen, G. 2008. Chapter 6, Howlett and Brownsey). Initially, small fish farms were developed, funded by B.C. provincial government subsidies for small business and agricultural tax incentives, but as the market changed so too did the make up of aquaculture operations. Large multinationals began buying up smaller operations and expanding their domain. Currently, 90% of B.C.'s salmon farm licenses are controlled by a Norwegian triad of companies Cermaq, Marine Harvest, and Greig Seafoods (Straight, 2006). Furthermore, fish farms have grown both in number and in concentration. Along an 80 km stretch (see Figure 1) of the Broughton archipelago there are over 20 fish farms, some, with more than 1 million fish in open net fish pens (Straight, 2006).

BACKGROUND
Since 2002, the scientific community studying aquaculture and its effects on wild B.C. salmon (www.wildbcsalmon.org) were aware of the negative impacts that sea lice from fish farms were having on wild stocks. Early fears have been further confirmed by several scientists (Krkosek and Morton, 2007) who have predicted that sea lice from net-pen salmon-farming could wipe out wild salmon in four years if current business practices prevail. This is one of the latest in a series of warnings regarding the adverse impacts current fish farming practices are having on wild salmon stocks.
In the Broughton archipelago, west of northern Vancouver Island at the mouth of Knight Inlet sea, salmon smolts have been decimated by sea lice as they pass through a gauntlet of fish-farms on their way out to the ocean (Straight, 2006). Sea lice, that infest adult salmon in fish-farms, are far more deadly to baby salmon, called fry or smolt (see Figure 2), that do not yet have hard scales which help protect adult salmon from the sea lice. Research by Alexandria Morton (2005) the director of the field station in the Broughton archipelago has found that as few as two sea lice can be lethal to smolts, however, her research found some salmon smolts with as many as 20 sea lice attached.

IMPLICATIONS
The mortality of wild salmon can be largely blamed on fish farming practices since, in nature and apart from humans, sea lice do not pose a risk to smolts. This is because, in nature, adult salmon do not occupy river and estuary areas where salmon smolts and fry pass-by on their journey out to the ocean. Research by Morton and Routledge (2005) have found 80% mortality rates for smolts passing fish farms infested with sea lice. With so few salmon reaching the ocean the numbers of wild salmon are crashing and the new generation of salmon breading is severely reduced. Krkosek (2007) has published his research on projections of extinction in Science, a respected journal, showing his findings. He has predicted that Wild Salmon numbers will be reduced to one percent of historic levels within four to five years if current sea lice populations are not reduced in sensitive migratory routes (Reuters, December 16, 2007).
The impact of this would be catastrophic as it would affect many other species that rely on salmon for food including bears, eagles, coyotes and whales. The cost of a collapse to salmon stocks would also destroy much of the nature based tourism that exists in the region which is estimated by the Wilderness Tourism Association (WTA) to be around $700 million in revenues annually (Straight, March 6, 2008). Without grizzly bears feeding off salmon there is no bear watching and without salmon there is no salmon run to draw nature based tourists, not to mention the unseen environmental and ecological cost that would incurred.

POLICY CONTEXT
In 1995 the BC government placed a moratorium on fish farm license to mitigate the effect of fish farms on wild stocks, however, the policy backfired and aquaculture operations increased stock numbers in existing fish farms (Howlett M, Rayner J. 2003). Legislation was problematic since it lacked any caps on the number of fish allowed in existing aquaculture operation. The concentration of fish in the Broughton archipelago continued to increase leading to greater depletion of wild salmon stocks (Hoogensen in Chapter 6 Howlett and Brownsey, 2008). The increased concentration of fish farms in the archipelago created a feeding ground for sea lice and a significant hazard for smolts on migratory routes. In 2002, the provincial government overturned the moratorium expanding fish farm operations and, simultaneously, cutting funding to monitoring and enforcement programs, transferring responsibility onto industry to self regulate (Living Oceans Society).

POLICY NETWORKS
The WTA, who has claimed that they will be adversely affected by a collapse of wild salmon stocks, have funded research on river ecology and lobbied Norwegian multinational share-holders for alternative aquaculture practices (Straight, March 6, 2007). Multinationals have thus far been unwilling to remove net-pen fish-farms claiming they are taking action by improving fish net security and using pharmaceutical drugs to fight sea lice infestations. Historically, the two main policy agents in B.C.'s aquaculture industry are the B.C. fisheries department and Norwegian multinationals who acted in partnership to promote and expand the aquaculture industry. The B.C. government promoted the aquaculture industry as a strategy to move B.C.'s economy to a post staples economy, while aquaculture corporations have been allowed to heavily influenced aquaculture policy in the province because of their economic contribution to the province.
Both the Wilderness Tourism Association and environmentalists have called on government to place a moratorium on further licenses, implement meaningful limits on the concentrations and numbers of fish farms allowed in sensitive salmon migratory routes and a commitment by the industry to move existing fish farms away from sensitive migratory routes. In response, the provincial government created a scientific body to study the issue. The appointed B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum recommended moving fish farms out of sensitive areas to test if salmon would make a comeback; however, according to key scientists on the panel, industry has impeded effective scientific research by refusing to come to the table (wildbcsalmon.org). Meanwhile industry has launched a campaign contesting current peer reviewed scientific studies showing the impact of farm fish to wild salmon stocks. All three of the Pacific Salmon Forum's lead scientists have resigned out of frustration with industry, claiming they are not cooperating in providing necessary information on numbers fish in farms, numbers of sea lice, and the quantity of pharmaceuticals used to fight sea lice. Industry has also refused to allow pens be left empty to provide a control group in the archipelago, which is necessary to discern causality. Despite the objections by the original scientist on the panel the government Forum replaced the scientists and continues to study the issue in a limited capacity. A lead scientist said that when he realized industry was not on board and that The Pacific Salmon Forum would not be able to make meaningful headway without industry he did not want to lend his name to the credibility of the study.
Environmentalists, natural fisheries, and tourism appear to be in conflict with industry that is said to be decimating wild salmon stocks. The provincial government is the only body able to deal with the conflict but is in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the B.C. government has for a long time been proponents and supporters of aquaculture in the way of subsidies and tax incentives and, on the other hand, responsible for monitoring and ensuring the protection of fisheries. Other players involved include the government of Alaska that prohibits farm-fishing and has a thriving wild fish industry which they are seeking to protect. They have requested that the government of B.C. not grant further licenses for fish farms near the Alaska B.C. border fearing disease often associated with fish farms could contaminate wild stocks and damage their wild salmon fishery. Further expansion of B.C. aquaculture could lead to greater conflict between B.C. and Alaska. Industry has argued that they are taking measures to reduce fish escapes from pens, and have increased use of drugs to combat sea lice, but have been unwilling to provide possibly damning evidence by complying with government research. Furthermore, the transnational Mainstreem has recently been granted additional 20 year licenses for fish farm operations along the northern B.C. coast that could further exacerbate existing environmental uncertainty.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The 'business as usual' approach is unacceptable and government can not wait for industry to comply with research before necessary research is done. We are recommending the following.
That:
• Fish farming in sensitive areas be moved to pen farming, or move away from streams and inlets.
• Stakeholder boards like exist in Nova Scotia be created to resolve conflict and support best practices
• Immediate removal of farm fish from sensitive salmon migratory routes, with a commitment to relocate those farms in the future
• A moratorium on new net-cage fish farms on the coast until peer-reviewed science shows “minimal or no impact on wild fish stocks”;
• Industry must show a willingness to support the development and testing of new fish-farming technology.

CONCLUSION
A transition to closed-containment technology was one of the key recommendations made by the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture, which held public hearings in 20 coastal communities before submitting its final report to the province in May 2007. Immediate Precautionary action should be implemented to avoid a fate similar to that of the Atlantic Cod fishery that cost 40,000 jobs and high costs of welfare funding needed to combat the social problems that resulted from massive job loss. In B.C. employment by aquaculture is declining as mechanization makes fish farming more profitable, meanwhile, wilderness tourism is employing ever more people from wilderness guides and interpreters to hotel and restaurant staff to accommodate the increasing wilderness tourism industry. Government is able to make important decisions now that will have long lasting effects and can ensure a sustainable aquaculture industry, without sacrificing the ecological integrity of the Broughton archipelago area or the lively-hoods that depend on it.

REFERENCES
Cox S. Tyee. March 1, 2006. Push North for Fish Farms Blocked. A Tyee Special Report. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from HYPERLINK "http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/03/01/PushNorthFishFarm/" http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/03/01/PushNorthFishFarm/

Dart, Jennifer. May 2, 2007. Mainstream gets 20-year approvals for nine fish farm sites. The Westerly News. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from

Goldburg R, Naylor R. 2005. Future seascapes, fishing, and fish farming. Ecol Environ 3(1): 21-28

Government of British Columbia. John van Dongen. 2002. WHY B.C. LIFTED THE MORATORIUM ON FISH FARMS. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/nrm_news_releases/2002AGF0020-000827.htm

Hamouda, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Noakes, D.J., Fang, L., and McDaniels, T. 2005. The salmon aquaculture conflict in British Columbia: A graph model analysis. Ocean and Coastal Management. 48(7-8):571-587
Hoogensen, G. 2008. Chapter 6 - The Canadian Fisheries Industry: Retrospect and Prospect. Canada's Resource Economy in Transition: The Past, Present, and Future of Canadian Staples Industries. Editors Howlett and Brownsey, 2008, Emond Montgomery Publications Limited Toronto, Canada.

Howlett M, Rayner J. 2003. (Not so) "Smart regulation"? Canadian shellfish aquaculture policy and the evolution of instrument choice for industrial development. Department of Political Science, Simon Frazer University, Burnaby B.C., Canada VSA 1S6. Maritime Policy 28 (2004) 171-184.

Krkosek M, Lewis M.A., Morton A, Frazer L.N., Volpe J.P. 2006. Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish. PNAS.

Living Oceans Society. Summer 2002. Fish Farm Moratorium Lifted. Rising Tide Newsletter. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://livingoceans.org/newsletter%20files/summer%202002.pdf

Morten A, Routledge M. 2005. Motality Rates for Juvinle Pink Oncerhynchus gorbusha and Chum O. keta Salkmon Infested with Sea Lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis in the Broughton Archipelago. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 11(2):146-152

Morton, A. 2002. Sea Lice Outbreak in the Broughton Archipelago. Raincoast Research. L iving Oceans Society Newsletter. Summer 2002. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://livingoceans.org/newsletter%20files/summer%202002.pdf

Reuter (2007, December 16). Fish Farms Drive Wild Salmon Populations Toward Extinction. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/12/071213152606.htm

Straight (2008, March 6). B.C. tourism operators raise alarm over sea lice. Andrew Findlay. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from HYPERLINK "http://www.straight.com/article-13805/tourism-operators-raise-alarm-over-sea-lice" http://www.straight.com/article-13805/tourism-operators-raise-alarm-over-sea-lice

Tourism Vancouver Island. Photo retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://www.vancouverisland.travel/north-island/

Wild B.C. Salmon. Website. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from HYPERLINK "http://www.wildbcsalmon.ca/Sealice/Story.html" http://www.wildbcsalmon.ca/Sealice/Story.html


FIGURES

Figure 1.
INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.vancouverisland.travel/img/regions/north-island.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET
Photo Credit: Tourism Vancouver Island

Figure 2.
INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.wildbcsalmon.ca/Sealice/files/page17_2.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET
Photo credit: Alexandra Morton - Sea Lice on Salmon Smolt

Letter to Honerable Jim Prentice re: Cost of Climate Change

Dear Mr. Jim Prentice:

I can only assume that you have read the IPCC findings, the Stern Report, and most recently the TD climate leadership report in order to prepare yourself to lead Canada's Ministry of the Environment (summary available at www.td.com/economics October 29, 2009). Knowing the facts is essential to making responsible decisions for Canada's future and the future generations around the world who will directly experience the impacts of this governments choices. I strongly implore you, if you have not already informed yourselves, discover the science on these critical issues and learn how to convey the urgency of real action to your colleagues so you as an elected leader can help bring Canada into a constructive role dealing with this very important issue.

The scientific community is now saying that if we do not come to binding targets on CO2 in Copenhagen we will miss our rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to limit global temperature increases to 2*C. Canada needs to partner with our partners like the US and Britain to set real legislation that can make a difference. Individual action is needed, but all Canadians need your help to set the signals that allow us to do the right thing; that is your role as Minister of the Environment. I personally need you to do more than you are required to do by your party, and I understand that these decisions are complex and difficult, however this is where you excel. By now you have developed finely tuned skills in finding creative solutions to deal with challenging problems.

You now hold a vitally important leadership role, and in such Canadians demand that you think solemnly about the legacy being left to our children and those of the poorest nations least able to deal with climate chaos? Edmonton's climate is predicted to resemble that of Loydminister, and Calgary will be a city in the desert within the next decades. Global temperature events and weather patterns have already become more severe and unstable. And we are already seeing the devastating invasion of Mountain Pine Beetles and extreme weather across the country and particularly in the north. Such rapid changes have unacceptable costs, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Our children and grandchildren are being handed an unstable and insecure future as this government foolishly drags its feet. The science is clear, action is needed now. Government has the legislative power to create frameworks that corporations and institutions, families and communities need to make necessary business and lifestyle changes to prevent runaway climate change and help us all adapt to a more uncertain future.

Sincerely,
Michael Brown

Coalition Crazyness

I am one of the 40.6% of Albertan's that participated in the last federal election. I support the coalition of the 62% of Canadian's that voted for someone other than the Conservatives. I am worried by the health of our democracy due to the current level of partisanship shown by the conservatives in their massive PR campaign to tilt public opinion away from a democratic coalition. I am disturbed by how few Albertan's seem to understand parliamentary democracy or how serious it is that our Prime Minister peroged parliament so he wouldn't lose his job. I am impressed and disgusted at the same time at how quickly Conservative hacks were able to get the attention of the media, with blogs, party rally's, influencing internet search engines, and flooding talk shows with their talking points creating manufactured anger. Their points are mainly false and extremely hypocritical , but seem to be effective in swaying opinion. I worry this will harm our democracy and polarize our country. Boo to partisan hacks, shame!