Dan's Diatribe

Please Recycle Responsibly

2010-04-08T07:24:00.001-07:00

When it comes to getting rid of your garbage it has become rather frustrating for some people to understand how to fully manage their waste, so that it has the least amount of impact on the landfill. There are two types of landfills; municipal landfills which are governed and operated by the municipality; and, there are private landfills; which are governed by the Ministry of Environment and operated by private operators. Generally speaking any waste that goes to a municipal landfill was generated by residential waste and some institutional, commercial and industrial(IC& I) locations. Additionally, waste collected for a municipal landfill is generally collected by the municipality either through their own equipment or a contracted service. Private landfills generally deal with waste generated and collected outside of services provided by a municipality. An example of this would be your local mall, while they may have a multi-stream bins for the consumer to deposit paper and another container for glass bottles, the total non-diverted waste collected generally ends up in a private landfill.

Municipalities set different diversion targets; Hamilton wants to achieve a 65% diversion by the year 2013, today we are at approximately 44% diversion rate. However, this diversion rate only speaks about municipally collected waste targets. Hamilton is one of the few communities which offers two-stream (or multi-stream) recycling in place of a single-stream recycling, in other words we prefer to separate our fiber or newspapers from our containers or bottles and cans. There is some argument that if Hamilton were to move to a signal-stream recycling program that our diversion rate would increase significantly. Perhaps that might have been the truth back in the late 1990s when curb-side recycling became part of the regular waste collection cycle and there was some resistance to change, so the argument was that if you put all of your recyclables in one container you'd be more apt to participate in a diversion program. Hamilton has offered multi-stream recycling for quite some time now with great success. Our current diversion rate as of 2009 is 44%. While that's a far cry from 65%, it's high enough to be recognized by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). To further support our success, Hamilton was one of nine communities across Canada that was recognized by FCM's Green Municipal Fund in a report released not too long ago. Interestingly enough, what I found most confounding is that a Hamilton City Councillor was pictured with a Hamilton resident presenting a "Gold Box" for their diversion efforts. This is the same Councillor who has publicly criticized Staff for being too aggressive in their waste management efforts.

As of April 5, 2010 Hamilton implemented a one-bag limit (or one-container limit) for non-diverted waste. Those opposed to the one-bag limit, cited that illegal dumping would again rear its ugly head and that perhaps if Hamilton was to offer a single-stream recycling program (versus a container limit), our diversion rate would fare better. It would appear that we have a couple of red herrings being used as excuses for those who struggle with how to manage their waste. While I wouldn't profess to be the best at diverting my waste, I will say that I have implemented a couple of subtle changes in my household waste management practices that have enabled me to realize a single container of waste (sometimes less) each week. To start with, I essentially have no waste containers. In the kitchen I have a split garbage can with half being for garbage and the other half for compostable waste; all of my paper recyclables goes into a bin of its own; in the washroom and in the bedrooms I have very small containers for waste, with the regular receptacle now used for either recyclables or compostable waste. At the end of each week I take the bag that's in the kitchen and I go to all the other receptacles in the house and add the smaller bins of waste, that plus kitty litter equals about a half a container or bag per week. The $64,000 question would have to be if Hamilton was to change its recycling methods from a multi-stream to a single stream operation, would more Hamiltonian's recycle more. It's been stated that roughly 85% of Hamiltonian's who receive curb-side collection are already complying with the one bag limit. The concern by some is that just because 85% of Hamiltonian's are only putting out one container doesn't necessarily mean that they are complying with the one-container limit; they could be dumping illegally. I can only say that if that is what certain individuals believe in, then that would imply that they do not have faith in the citizenry of Hamilton that they are doing what they can to manage their waste.

Certainly when you look at the FCM report, Hamilton has some very lenient programs intended on controlling or managing our waste diversion. Other municipalities who have a higher diversion rate also have more strict guidelines with respect to how waste is managed at the curb-side. Those guidelines include bag tagging, more restrictive collection practices, as well as greater recycling options. While Hamilton may not be all the way to bright, they are a North American-wide recognized municipality with respect to some of the programs and initiatives which have been put into practice, including the aforementioned Gold Box program. With the great accolades, how is Hamilton going to achieve 65% diversion rate? Well for starters, they're now going after multi-residential properties where they do have existing curb-side collection or municipally controlled container collection. Recently with the introduction of green carts added into multi-residential buildings, the anticipation is that our diversion rate will increase significantly as the program succeeds. I believe that Hamilton has done enough from a residential curb-side collection program. Making further changes to the curb-side collection program will only create further confusion and resistance to divert waste. Hamilton should continue to focus on where the greatest amount of waste is generated, and that is in the IC&I area. To give you an idea of the impact of this area: 13,000,000 tons of waste was generated in Canada from residential collection, while 22,000,000 tons of waste was collected from non-residential locations. Of the total 35,000,000 tons of waste collected, only 7.7 million tons was diverted; that means that 27,000,000 tons of waste ended up in a landfill. Using 50% and beyond as a benchmark, the FCM identified four keys to success:

Partnerships and collaboration: in other words, they are looking for buy-in from citizens and companies in the formation of policies and practices on how waste is collected.
Convenient options: essentially this is the foundation of any waste diversion option, the more convenient you make it the greater the success.
Policy and legislation: obviously this one is an integral piece to ensure the sustainability of any program or practice that is adopted. It also sets the foundation for other municipalities across Canada to adopt.
Education and promotion: without it any of the above keys to success would fail. When you look at the policies, practices and the ideas that are being discussed and put into action today: without education and promotion they would certainly fall by the wayside without consistent messaging. There's no question that the success of a waste management program is hinged on behavioural change.
"As municipalities become comfortable with the basic elements of waste diversion, they are innovating and expanding on their strategies to reach higher diversion rates. A number of trends are emerging across Canada: zero waste communities; economic instruments; green procurement and consumer education."

Hamilton has demonstrated the above basic elements of waste diversion, continuing to be a responsible recycler will go a long way in helping Hamilton achieve its 65% diversion rate. We cannot afford to be distracted by the few who vocalize their displeasure in policy aimed at responsible waste practices. We must look at the many who have discovered and embraced proper waste management practices, and who have not only reached a one container limit but perhaps exceeded, (and I mean by less than one container) per week. One only has to drive in any one particular neighbourhood on garbage day to observe the number of households who adhere to the policy. If Hamilton indeed has an illegal dumping concern, then we need to address that and not get distracted by blaming our current waste management practices. There's no question that people hate change, but there's also no question that people who choose to be ignorant will continue to do so regardless of what the law says.

Driving Home the Jobs

2010-03-29T15:18:00.001-07:00

The fire has been stoked, and I'm in a bit of a ranting mood. Enjoy my true 'diatribe'!

Early in March, I had the opportunity to attend the Hamilton Civic League's Speaker series as a guest panellist. The topic was transportation, or more correctly: mass transit. Other guest panellists at the table were representatives from cycling, transit, light-rail, and a professor in transportation logistics (who was there representing himself, not the organization he works with). The mandate of the Hamilton Civic League is laudable, and on the surface aims to provide civic engagement in the upcoming Municipal Election in October this year. The Q&A was well prepared and provided in advance, with strict timelines for all panellists to respond.

As I was there as a representative of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce (in my role as Transportation Committee Chair), I tempered my responses to ensure I kept within either current policies or policies in the making. And, like most transportation-themed 'public' forums, the attendees are primarily residents who concerned on the environmental impact of the over-reliance of cars or residents who live primarily in the core. Sadly, individuals poorly represented at 'public' forums are those who actually create the economy that is Hamilton (aka – business/manufacturing senior executives). While there may be a couple of small business owners, it's unusual to see representation from medium-to-large sized companies. When Metrolinx was doing their 'dog & pony' show a couple of years back, you'd typically see less than 5% representation from the goods movement industry in attendance. As a result of this poor showing, policies and recommendations were introduced based solely on those who attended the 'open house'.

In my previous blog I spoke of the important linkage between goods movement and jobs. This misalignment of 'public forums' tend to cloud the true intention of a well-executed transportation grid system. To illustrate the misinformation of goods movement: at one point during the Civic League meeting, the guest panellist representing the economic importance of LRT actually downgraded the recent announcement of Canada Bread's new factory location in the Glanbrook Business Park; noting that the jobs created were 'low paying' and minimalistic. He further commented that the introduction of LRT in the lower City would go a long way towards higher-paying jobs. I can only assume that his vision of LRT stations will be void of restaurants, theatres, and other retail-focused shops, as these locations generally pay minimum wage!

Over the next couple of months, the City of Hamilton staff and Council will make certain decisions on the preferred Truck Route for Hamilton's road network. Once again, and due primarily to the lack of feedback from the industry which actually uses the roads, steps are being proposed to restrict truck movement on roads specifically designed for such use. (Perhaps because I look at things quite differently, I do have to wonder aloud as to why the Traffic Division of the City didn't wander across the hall to the Economic Development Department to engage the industry's most affected by road designation changes. I can't turn back the clocks, so no sense commiserating the issue.) Instead, it's time for a 'call to action' from those who rely on a properly designated Truck Route to 'belly up to the bar'. Any Council meeting open for public delegation is the perfect forum to state the concerns at hand. In the midst of our yearning for environmental choices coupled in the name of a more active lifestyle, we overlook the role that goods movement plays in our livelihood.

Advocates of 'buy local' are correct in applying this methodology to locally produced goods; but, even those goods rely on a sound trucking corridor to get the goods from the location of origin to the location of destination…there are not that many cash registers in the cauliflower fields in the Flamborough region. I can only assume that true zealots of the 'buy local' practice won't be reading this…because any electronic device most certainly required the use of marine/air/rail/truck transport…a verboten practice for the true followers of 'buy local'. As with any 'new' practice in today's economy, we tend to swing too far away from the 'bad' way with intentions of finding the 'right' way, without considering the circumstances of our decisions in future years.

Hamilton is a community diverse in nature and layout; we have a 'downtown' in 5 of the 6 former communities; we have unique suburban communities; and, 65% of our land mass is comprised of rural area. We need to exercise caution, but not get weighed under by the studies and reviews. Using the 'master plan' to guide our actions, we can continue to stay the course in providing a welcoming place for Hamiltonians to live, play …. And work.

Old Age Pensions: A Bottomless Pit?

2010-03-28T14:07:00.001-07:00

Most of us don't really pay attention to pensions until we reach a certain age when we start looking at what we're going to do with our time after retirement (or a version thereof). Generally speaking, pensions are earned over the course of time working in Canada…and according to the current version of the Old Age Security Act…that time must be a minimum of 10 years before one can claim the pension once they reach the age of 65.

Say hello to Bill C-428, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act aimed at reducing the wait time from 10 years to 3 years. The reason? "Whereas the current ten-year residency requirement places undue hardship on recent immigrants who are seniors in that they are unable to adequately access old age security benefits;" (taken from the pre-amble of Bill C-428) Essentially, this Act will enable those seniors who had the opportunity to earn an income in another country to now immigrate to Canada at the age of 62 versus 55 before claiming old age pension.

Excluding special circumstances, this new Act will essentially open a Pandora's Box of financial strain on the public coffers who contribute to the Pension Fund. We know that the reliance on immigrants is becoming more so, as Canada's birthrate is lagging it's death rate…putting the Country at risk of a dwindling population. The influx of well-educated immigrants has helped Canada continue its dominance in the Global marketplace. The gap in the proposed change to the Old Age Security Act is that it is specifically targeting immigrants who are seniors, thereby encouraging those in their senior years to immigrate to Canada for the sole purpose of receiving a pension without having to contribute.

For quite some time, Canadians (and the US for that matter), have grappled with innovative solutions to minimize the impending impact of the tsunami of Baby Boomers entering their retirement years. An article published in 2006 by Pierre Fortin, a professor of economics and associate of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, touched on some of these very real impacts based on the current economy in 2006. Since then we've hit quite the economical speed bump in 2008, which by all accounts should have encouraged policy makers to re-think future decisions…but I don't think the message has reached everyone. The message then was that "…in 2020 (baby boomers) will be 60 to 75 years old. Most of them will have begun their retirement. Just as they entered the job market en masse…they will leave it in large numbers between now and 2025…The consequence is obvious: Our governments will be cash-strapped!"

Instead of commencing with actions which would manage our own self-created strain on the pension fund, the Government is choosing to open up the wallet further to ease user access. When Bill C-428 was introduced into the House of Commons for its first reading on June 18^th, 2009 it passed with little fan-fare. Due to the prorogation of Parliament, the Bill "…is deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation…" Now the Bill is getting some attention from those most affected by the risks of exposure of more pensioners drawing from the fund than what was originally thought.

The time is ripe for social media activism to weigh-in on the proposed Act. If you've got a bit of time to review the issue, and feel it's unfair or requires some tweaking, don't delay and act today.

Talking About Today’s Most Popular 4-Letter Word: Jobs

2010-03-21T14:33:00.001-07:00

As Hamilton moves toward enhancing employment land developments, I offer my thoughts on what drives the economy and the impacts of a well-balanced transportation inter-modal connectivity.

Creating jobs has become the new mantra for politicians, communities, and pretty much anyone who has recognized the cause and effect of consumerism. While some look to develop 'green' jobs, others look to resurrect existing manufacturing sectors, and others look to inspire policy changes to inspire others to become visionaries in job creation.

Whether driven by economics or environmental awareness, creating jobs no longer comes at the expense of convenience or long-term impacts on community development. Here in Hamilton, while we'd like to see the steel mills up and running to their glory days of the early 70s, we recognize that that comes at a cost to our environment and healthy lifestyle…so we temper that wish accordingly. To give credit where credit is due, companies have made significant strides towards providing more environmentally responsible ways to manufacture their products.

Completing the picture towards job prosperity is a well-planned transportation network which optimizes the multi-modal sectors accordingly. For the most part, goods movement is viewed as the 'enemy' of the environment, yet without a goods movement strategy any progress towards job creation is stymied at the onset. Canada Bread recently announced plans to build a new facility in Hamilton, mainly due to the road logistics in place…the ease of access; which leads to cost controls, and minimizing impacts on the environment. Building (or restoring) manufacturing facilities isn't as easy as it once was…ensuring a maximum utilization of the transportation corridor is paramount to the success of the facility.

The introduction of 'clusters' helped manufacturers keep various stages of production within a small area to minimize transportation costs. From these 'clusters', the development of multi-modal 'hubs' became the next logical step in controlling and managing existing methods of goods movement. The best example of this would be the creation of Nine Dragons in China. This multi-faceted facility incorporates a shipping port as part of the warehousing and production facility. In Canada, we have similar multi-modal facilities primarily incorporating the collaboration of rail & road, or road & air, or marine & rail…very rarely would you see a 4-pronged multi-modal regional facility. In either mixed use, one thing is perfectly clear…jobs are the main benefit of these facilities which capitalize on their collaboration to move goods from one destination to another.

Today, Hamilton is poised to expand its current 'gateway' through the incorporation of employment land development, and inter-modal hub facilities connecting roads, rail, marine, and air. In horse-racing vernacular this would be a trifecta worth betting on. Hamilton currently holds one of the larger great lake Ports; an international airport; a national rail linkage capability; and a successful road network poised for further enhancement to connections to the US border and the GTA. From a Regional perspective, Hamilton holds the future success of south-western Ontario's prosperity through expanded multi-modal employment land development.

Understanding the complexities of urban development and environmental protectionism, mass transit must be integrated into the advance of inter-modal development. Availing land for utilization of inter-connectivity of the various modes of transportation is also reliant on the land itself to be 'shovel-ready'…in other words: ensure the lands surrounding the transportation network are feasible for development. Currently Hamilton has an "Airport Employment Growth District" (AEGD) plan on the table, however further enhancement of the plan is required to allow for complete development of the area identified in the AEGD. A common misconception is that businesses who are looking to develop facilities within the Hamilton region can simply utilize existing vacant lands…however one needs to look at why those lands became vacant…it wasn't purely on technological advances…some closures where pinned to lack of transportation connectivity.

At the end of the day, evolving Hamilton's gateway status into a true multi-modal hub will spell true job creation. For as we know it, regardless of the product being manufactured or shipped, a successful utilization of all available modes of transportation will sustain our competitiveness in the global market.

The Highway versus the Information Superhighway

2010-03-14T21:29:00.001-07:00

In what is the most likely mismatched poll, CNN has postulated an on-line poll asking voters to choose only one of the following innovations that changed the face of America: the Interstate Highway system, television, or the Internet.

At the time of this writing, some 130,000 voters have pegged the Internet as the top innovation…by an astounding 58%. Lagging dead last is the Interstate at 15%. Comments posted about the article illustrate two altering users of social media…environmentalists who pinned the oil volatility and the war in the Middle East on the reliance of automobiles, while techies championed the dawn of renewed accessibility to information worldwide.

While the commentary following the article recognizes that the road network is not just about cars, but also about goods movement and the trucking industry, there is a disheartening gap in recognizing this by putting the virtual network and the need for information above the economy. While there is no discounting the power of the Information Superhighway (aka: the Internet), there is a tremendous amount of gratitude owed to the users of the Highway…after all, without the Highway we wouldn't have our laptops, desktops, modems, and other electronics at our avail to gain all that time sensitive information.

It's rather disappointing to see that Highways are the enemy, and the Internet is the friend. This rather oblique view on what impacted the landscape of today's America is disturbing at best. This continuing failure to recognize the value of goods movement is a slap in the face of progress of real proportions. On-line shopping requires a well-planned road network, and with approximately 75% of goods shipped in trucks (of all sizes…not just the 18-wheelers), operating in a real-time delivery model would be onerous. And while improvements have been made with other modes of transportation (rail, marine & air), work still needs to be completed on multi-modal facilities to maximize the use of the road networks.

Flying HI

2010-03-08T05:13:00.001-08:00

Hamilton…it's a beautiful City. While not all would necessarily agree, others have gone out of their way to promote Hamilton as the place to live, work, and play. We've got our waterfalls; our prestigious waterfronts (yes, there are two of them…one known as Harbour West, and the other along the shore of Lake Ontario); our Port Authority which is the busiest of all the Canadian Great Lakes ports; and, we also have an International Airport nestled neatly in the southwest region of Hamilton's vast landscape. Tucked nicely between all this, are well-planned roads and rail networks allowing for smooth transitional movement of both goods and people.

Today starts an unsolicited multi-part blog on Hamilton's transportation modes, and the role they play in driving Hamilton's economy. And, what better place to start with Hamilton's International Airport:

Formally known as the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, it was built in 1940 and has since grown from a Training facility to an active passenger and cargo airport. Owned and operated by Tradeport International since 1996, the Airport has developed into a bit of a namesake among other Canadian Airports. However, there is more to building a successful airport than just landing strips and loading areas for passengers and cargo. All too often, and quite too easily, some view airports as land-hogs providing a service for fuel-starved machines designed for moving people and goods from one destination to another. Taking this simplistic assessment on any airport is too narrow of a focus.

The buzz-word of the day would be any word that is either prefixed, suffixed, or blended with the word "green". Developing the lands surrounding the airport properly connected through rail and road networks, can actually lead to Hamilton's International Airport to melding into the "green" environment. Failing to respond to this growth opportunity will have dire circumstances on our employment capabilities. Distribution Centres, manufacturing facilities, transloading facilities, as well as proper passenger facilities, all encompass a successful airport facility. A successful airport facility is rich in employment lands. If one was to look east to our friends in Toronto, their success in planning and building employment lands has now been maximized. What this translates into is higher freight costs due to traffic congestion; higher container fees due to over-booked dockings; and in general…a not too environmentally pleasing execution of goods movement. (I won't go deeper on the higher costs to land at Pearson Airport.)

Today, Hamilton is on the cusp of developing the lands surrounding the Airport into something positive for the growth of Hamilton: employment opportunities and commercial tax revenue…two things in desperate need in this City. With the development of the Airport Employment Growth District, Hamilton is poised to provide a greener, more economically viable, method of transporting freight and people. Leading the charge is Tradeport International Corporation, led by Richard Koroscil (President), a clear case for moving Hamilton's airport past a stale inflow & outflow of people and goods has been demonstrated. To be clear though, developing employment lands surrounding the airport is not the only saviour that Hamilton is looking for…it is one of the many employment land developments needed. Without one, the City can only offer a broken supply of lands, and would be limited on who they could offer said lands to.

Successful Cities have successful airports. Successful airports have successful intermodal facilities. To be successful, proper optimization of land must be realized. Without a successful airport in Hamilton, we limit our growth of employment opportunities and (more importantly), we put added strain on the environment due to increased reliance on a road network.

My next instalment will be on the Port of Hamilton, operated by Hamilton Port Authority.

Writer's note: While I am the current Chair of the Chamber's Transportation Committee, this opinion piece is in no way connected to or affiliated with the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. The writings and musings contained therein are merely my own personal observations and notes on the development of Hamilton's transportation infrastructure. Comments are moderated as I would like an opportunity to respond. All comments are posted.

Making That Call While Driving

2010-02-19T21:09:00.001-08:00

The pundits have made it clear that speaking on your cell phone while driving is dangerous to not only the user, but those around them. However, have they really identified the issue or merely created a smokescreen to the real issue…driver distraction? While I wouldn't advocate for talking on the phone while driving, I do wonder if perhaps we're trying to piece-meal legislation aimed at reducing driver distractions. With today's technologies, we have more resources at our fingertips, not to mention well-laid out road networks aimed at creating the easiest way to get from point A to point B.

The University of Illinois and Northwestern University in Illinois completed a study on the impact of legislation prohibiting hand-held cell phone use while driving. Their findings included several key points, including:

Cell phone subscribers in the US have skyrocketed from 97 million in June 200 to a whopping 267 million as of November 2008.
As reported in USA Today, approximately 11% of the population used a cell phone while driving at some point during their day.
Studies indicated that the average call was 4.5 minutes.
From 1994 to 2004, cell phone subscribers increased by 655%.
The number of minutes-of-use increased 3,600%.
Automobile accident rates dropped by around 5% over the same time period.
Driver distraction is purported to be the cause of nearly 80% of automobile accidents and 65% of near-accidents.
In 2006, these distractions caused 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries, and 1,500,000 instances of property damage annually in the USA.
Cell phones or car phones have been around for nearly 50 years…yep, that long. Just think of the classic Charlie's Angels or McMillan & Wife shows where they picked up the 5-odd pound phone in the car to make that all important call.

Using a phone while driving encompasses no less than three tasks on the user: locating or glancing at the phone; reaching for and dialling; and of course talking. All of these encumbrances affect either the attentiveness of the driver, or the driver's focus on the road. Investigations into whether cell phones actually contribute to a driver's inability to function correctly have been done predominately through simulators, tests, questionnaires, surveys, and observations.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the USA completed a study in 2006 that concluded "…drivers talking or listening to a wireless device are no more likely to be involved in an accident or near-accident, than those not involved in such activities." In fact, of all the 'bans' on cell-phone use, not one jurisdiction has implemented a complete ban on all types of cell phones (hand-held or hands-free).With the introduction of Bluetooth technology which enables a user to provide voice-command interface with between the user and their phone have failed to demonstrate significant reductions of risk.

Here's another piece of statistical data worth chatting about: "…increased cell phone use does not translate into increased automobile accident rates. In particular, there has been an exponential growth in the number of cell phone subscribers from the late-1980s, while automobile accident rates in the US during this same time period have remained at a fairly constant level." By February 2007, sixteen States published data on accidents caused by cell-phone use while driving, and that number represented less than 1% of automobile accidents. Another question comes into play on how enforceable a cell phone ban can be executed; as an example, in New York prior to the ban there was an estimated 2.3% user rate (while driving) which fell to 1.1% after the ban, only to rebound back up to 2.1% a year later.

In order to provide full Legislative measures aimed at reducing automobile accidents, then they're going to need to look beyond one distraction opportunity. One could expect that items like DVDs in vehicles which are visible to other drivers could be argued as an unnecessary distraction; or how about legislating cameras to support going in reverse; or banning conversations with your spouse…because we all know how distracting that can be sometimes. So let's not just look at one distraction available to drivers…let's look at the whole menu, and work with the drivers on how to mitigate those opportunities.

Banning the ABCs

2010-02-16T14:48:00.001-08:00

In the United States, folks spend around $20,000,000,000 (that's Billion) on toys each year. Monitoring the safety of these toys in the US is the Government funded Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) around $10,000,000 (that's Million) on testing toys and other consumer products. Also at play is the not-for-profit watchdogs Ecology Center, which posts unhealthy toys and products on www.HealthyStuff.org. If you're an avid purchaser of toys, you may find yourself dramatically altering your purchasing decisions.

I've not heard of a Zhu Zhu toy hamster, and yet it's been banned due to high levels of 'antimony'. Antimony is a metal extracted predominately from ore composites, with roughly 84% of the world's supply coming from China. Antimony will burn when a flame is held to it, but will extinguish itself when the flame is removed. While its use is in a variety of markets from children's clothing, toys, and seat covers, antimony's most important use is as a hardener in lead for storage batteries.

I have heard of the 'imaginarium cube' – that oddly-shaped cube that has 12 cut outs of various shapes, wherein a child then inserts the appropriately shaped object…and that too was banned, but for high levels of 'barium'. Barium is a soft silvery metal not easily extracted and is founded in certain ore composites. Like Antimony, barium has many uses ranging from the medical field to the making of bricks, glass, and the green colour seen in fireworks.

And, toys made with PVC are at risk of containing unsafe levels of 'cadmium' and have been banned accordingly. Cadmium joins the aforementioned as a metal extracted from ore composites. The highly toxic metal, cadmium is widely used as in electroplating due to its excellent corrosion resistance. You'll find it in solder, and it's used as a barrier to control neutrons in nuclear fission.

The US Government has decided that these particular metals require legislative intervention through the introduction of the Safe Kids' Jewelry Act, preventing the aforementioned ABC metals from being manufactured, sold, or distributed in children's jewelry. Hot on the heels of recent recalls of toys imported from China this past December, this latest piece of legislation may not have been fully thought out. Antimony in particular is used as a fire-retardant in toys and clothing. Remove this component, and we've opened up a whole new sub-set of concerns. This particular legislative piece is meant to dovetail into the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and as such carries some pretty stiff controls and penalties for failure to comply.

While manufacturing and selling safe toys should be a given; and understanding that these particular metals are not exactly new to the industry; it calls into question the business ethics of manufacturers who knowingly create harmful toys intended for children. Whether it is ignorance or simply arrogance, the fact that it occurs at all is disturbing. To throw a loop into this particular legislation is that barium doesn't register on the HealthyStuff website. Perhaps they are reacting to a Canadian ban on Connecticut-based company Melissa & Doug manufactured products due to barium-laden paint on the recalled items.

While the children learn their ABCs, I guess the parents will also be watching their ABCs in their toy purchases.

My First Social Media Orgy

2010-02-13T08:15:00.000-08:00

To start with, I've never really been a fan of "opening ceremonies" or "closing ceremonies" of any sporting event. While I understand the symbolic-ism of such events, I have found that they've become more of a show-piece as a means to raise revenues through ticket and advertising sales. I'd put it into the same category as singers who feel the need to change a National Anthem into a 'power ballad'.

Last night was the 2010 Winter Olympic Opening Ceremonies in Vancouver. While a fantastic showpiece that demonstrated some rather unusual performances; punked-out fiddlers, spoken-word presentation, poorly coordinated lip-syncing by Bryan Adams & Nelly Furtado, and some wild-haired Opera singer...and a malfunctioning cauldron to light the ultimate symbol of the Olympic Games.

After watching a few shows I had dvr'd, I decided to tune in to the ceremonies, missing the first hour or so. Mimicking what I imagined most social media folks on Twitter or Facebook or whatever were doing, I sat with my laptop open ready to comment at some point of the event. What I didn't realize, was just how many other folks were doing the same thing!

I consider myself as a bit of a social media hobbyist, and therefore not attuned to the intricacies of Twitter or Facebook. I've learned that the number sign (#) prefixed in front of a word in Twitter brings you to a whole new sub-set of Tweets specifically related to that word. Last night, I stumbled upon #Olympics, and soon found myself in (what I'll refer to as) a social media orgy.

Tweets were coming in at an astounding rate of (as high as) 1,000+ per minute. I struggled between reading the posts and watching the ceremony. And, what amazed me the most, was that I was witnessing the true power of social media. Folks from all over the world were sounding off, providing insight, or paying respect to the folks of Vancouver who coordinated such an amazing event. Most of the time, the content was rather hilarious.

I was rather pleased with the level of content which was posted. Incidents of offensive language was minimal, and for something as real-time as this was, there were no lewd comments (that I could see). No one was asking if there were any young girls on-line, and no one posted threatening language. In fact, the folks who oversee Twitter activity did a nice gesture by not updating posts during the moment of silence for Georgian athlete Nodar Kumaritashvili, who died earlier in the day from a luge accident.

The Ceremony itself was rather confusing, and trying to keep up with the number of posts only exasperated the confusion. I'm not sure I'm ready to contribute to the social media main stream. So perhaps I will ease my way into larger social media venues, so that way I'll have an opportunity to hone in my multi-tasking skills.

The Obesity Paradox

2010-02-09T20:03:00.000-08:00

In honour of Heart Month, I thought I would expose "The Obesity Paradox". For starters, it's a real term, and while the outcome seems odd, I'm not sure I'd want to gamble with my life.

Let's start with the facts:

To define 'overweight' or 'obese', physicians/specialists use the Body Mass Index (BMI) scorecard. BMI is a statistical measurement, which takes a person’s weight and divides it by their height squared. [BMI = mass/(height)²] The resulting number is then applied to a graph which outlines whether a person is underweight (<18.5),> 30); it does not indicate a person’s percentage of body fat.

2004 Statistic Canada numbers showed that 36% of Canadians age 18 and over were ‘overweight’, and 23% are ‘obese’. Put those two numbers together and you have 59% of Canadians flouting around some excess baggage. The Heart & Stroke Foundation’s 2010 Annual Report dubs this "The Perfect Storm" highlighting the mere fact that we’re not getting any better at controlling our lifestyle. (The report also indicates other factors, but one certainly can’t ignore the ‘weight’ of Canadians.)

In a rather long-named Special Report released by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) indicates that for each single unit increase in BMI greater than 25, the risk of heart failure increases by 5% in men, and 7% in women.

Enter the Obesity Paradox: According to the aforementioned CCS Special Report, once heart failure has become present in patients, subjects with a higher BMI are actually at a decreased risk of death and hospitalization compared to their lower scoring BMI peers. However, those higher scoring BMI patients with heart failure who went on to lose weight showed improved heart health.

One could read into this that those who choose to life an overweight lifestyle are given an opportunity to right the wrong, and lose the weight they should have in the first place. From my vantage point, I don’t know if I’d be willing to take that risk.

Regulating Day Nurseries Exposure to the Sun

2010-02-03T10:29:00.000-08:00

Apparently the Ontario Government is short on dealing with matters more in tune with concerns of their constituents, or perhaps our elected officials have developed some control issues.

My last post touched on a proposed Bill currently entering its 2nd reading on making illegal guns illegal in bars...well we have perhaps a more idiotic Bill currently before the House.

Introducing Bill 229, Day Nurseries Amendment Act (Sun Protection), 2009. To be clear, this Bill is to address children in day care facilities or full-time care...not flowers.

Essentially if you run a day care facility, you will now be required to do the following:

If a child in your care is going to be outdoors for more than 30 minutes, you must provide adequate sun protection (unless a physician or parent of child advises otherwise in writing)

If this direction isn't enough, the Bill goes further to indicate what is acceptable methods for providing such care...including:

applying sunscreen
ensuring the child is in a shaded area
ensuring the child is only outdoors during shady weather or shady times of the day. And,
ensuring that the child is wearing appropriate clothing to cover his or her head, arms, legs and body

Taken in its literal sense, I will now ensure that my 2 year old niece has had sunscreen applied, placed under a tree at nine o'clock at night (because I'm not really sure what a 'shady time of day is...and will assume that means 'night'), and make sure she is wearing her winter snowsuit and hat.

Have we really sunk this far that we have abandoned our basic life-skills surrounding the care of children? Further still, mandating basic care to this level, of children in day-care facilities brings into question on the requirements needed to become licensed or their hiring skills.

Yes folks, this is our tax dollars at work. I feel so much better now!

Illegal Guns in Bars to be a No-No

2010-01-31T16:19:00.000-08:00

Just when you thought it was safe to go to a bar with your buddy's and enjoy a few bubbly pops, when someone pulls out a gun. And, not just any gun...an 'unlawful' gun. You'd probably think that must be illegal. Certainly the law must be prevent such a thing from happening...yep, me too!

In response to a shooting on December 10, 2009 (and I'm sure others), Chief Government Whip Mike Colle (Liberal MPP Eglington-Lawrence) has thought it was about time illegal guns were banned from bars with the introduction of Bill 238. That's right, we're paying our Provincial representatives to debate the merit of an amendment to the Liquor License Act making licensed bars responsible for ensuring preventative measures are taken to ensure unlawful guns (weapons) make their way into the establishment. This includes: CCTV, metal detectors, presence of 'appropriately' trained security guards, and/or cooperation with the local law enforcement.

Without stating the obvious (the weapons are already 'unlawful' and shouldn't be on anyone's person anyways), and recognizing the intent of this Bill (I'm going to make my Constituents know that I care about their safety), I can't help but wonder if we're developing our political representation which does 'make-work' or reactionary legislation projects. The 'using a sledgehammer to kill a fly' phrase fits very nicely into this particular Bill. Colle is responding to recent shootings in Toronto, and appears to feel that added measures are required to the Liquor License Act to remove the danger from bars. I am concerned about any unintended consequences that could come from such legislation. On the surface alone, it would appear that the bar owner is at fault for preventing a punk from bringing in an illegal firearm into his/her establishment...thereby making the bar owner liable for any potential civil liabilities.

Without taking away the seriousness of individuals who choose to carry illegal weapons, I can't help think that the particular Bill is going to change anyone's particular actions: "Hey Bob, after we rob the store up the street, let's say we go to the bar and down a couple of beers?" "Yeah Joe, that's a great idea...but we'll have to leave our guns in the car. It's illegal now to bring them in." Somehow, I don't think that conversation is going to occur!

While I'm all for restricting illegal firearms, I'm somewhat dismayed that honest folks are being held hostage in the process. If a bar owner is supporting illegal firearms in his/her establishment, then nail the sucker...but don't make the majority of honest working bar owners held accountable for thugs who may happen to walk in to their establishment. After all, I doubt owners are lining up to start a bar with the intent of attracting the ill-repute of their community.

Apple Unveils the New iEdsel

2010-01-29T02:48:00.000-08:00

It's not too often that you'll see a company invest so much of it's time and resources into one specific sku (stock keeping unit) as we've recently witnesses with the unveiling of the iPad earlier this week. The announcement followed probably one of the worst-kept secrets on Apple's latest introduction, as numerous blogs posted 'leaked' pictures of what was dubbed the iTablet. Rumours have gone as far to indicate that Apple has stopped making OS (operating system(s)) for their Mac computers, in favour of focusing on the OS for the iPhone and most likely the iPad. It would appear that Apple is banking on the future of mobile devices to preponderate the computer industry.

However, I have to wonder if Apple didn't just recreate the infamous Edsel that his predecessor Henry Ford and Co. had developed in response to "having more YOU ideas". (There's a good chance that there are a few of reading this are not aware of Ford's blunder with the launching of Edsel, and I would encourage you to read more about the famed automobile.) Like the Edsel, the iPad delivered a punch that really ended up being more like a slap.

The iPad is supposed to deliver all the benefits of a laptop, but with the added value of entertainment included. Yet when you look at the comparative numbers, the iPad just doesn't quite fit into a specific category (just like the Edsel).

Consider this: the iPad's hard drive is a disappointing 64G, versus a comparatively sized Netbook, which come with as much as a 250G hard drive. And, while you can't pinch and pull items on the screen like you can with the iPad, at least the Netbook comes with a cover so that you don't have to purchase a screen protector to keep your monitor free from scratches. Which brings me to my other concern - portability. Perhaps Apple is being mindful of the economy with the launch of the iPad, simply because of what will be a whole new category of accessories which will need to be purchased to protect the iPad.

Finally, the name iPad has garnered an incredible amount of chatter and snickering on blogs and Tweets around the world. Really, Apple? Couldn't you have gone with the iTablet instead?

Personally I'm in the market to purchase a new laptop, and thought that Apple may have the 'better' alternative, however, what they do have now is an iEdsel with no real category. I guess I'll continue shopping...

Living With an Unhealthy Lifestyle

2010-01-26T18:20:00.001-08:00

On Monday, January 25^th the Heart & Stroke Foundation released their annual report on cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Canadians…calling our current situation the "perfect storm" looming in the horizon. The report reinforced earlier findings that we are putting ourselves at increasing risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke. The situation is so bad, that prognosticators are stating that parents will out-live their children.

Maybe we are reticent in responding to 'advice' on how to live our lives when we're not one of the 'statistics' identified, and maybe we just think that we're immune to troubles later on in life because we tell ourselves that we'll change. In either case we cannot dismiss some of the statistics in this and previous reports, including:

CVD accounts for 17% of all hospitalizations
Up to 80% of premature CVD is preventable
9 out of 10 Canadians over the age of 20 have at least one of 10 'risk' factors (overweight, inactive, hypertension, hereditary, et al), 30% have at least 3 factors.
We know how to prevent CVD, and we also know how to manage CVD
Over $22 Billion is spent annually in health care and lost productivity (2000)
Shave 4 ½ years off your lifespan if you have heart disease

Despite the statistics, generally speaking there remains a reluctance to change behaviour towards living a healthier lifestyle. We know that eating a Whopper® will provide 39 grams of fat, (that number jumps to 64 grams if you add the cheese) while eating a homemade burger gives you…well, quite frankly I don't know how much fat…it would depend greatly on how you prepared your meal; what kind of meat you chose; and whether the size was comparable. The one fact I do know is that homemade burgers taste a heck of a lot better than fast food burgers…the problem is that they take way too much time to prepare.

But choosing to consume 'convenience' foods is only part of the concern. In February 2009, the Heart & Stroke Foundation released its Annual Report outlining the striking price variances not only between healthy foods and 'snack' foods, but also pointed out the geographic variances. Examples included:

6 apples purchased for $0.90 in Peterborough, Ontario would cost $7.64 in Rankin Inlet, Nunavet.
A 4L-bag of 1% milk was noted being as high as $15.70

Unfortunately, the same could not be said for 'snack' foods. Pop, chips and other 'convenience' foods failed to demonstrate the same price variances as their healthier counterparts. The pricing variance impacts Canadian consumers so much that as much as 47% of Canadians surveyed stated that they'd occasionally go without items like fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy products, whole grain products, meat, and fish due to the high cost.

Couple the ease of attaining less than healthy foods with a sedentary lifestyle, and you've created some deadly base ingredients for a shortened lifespan. In the HSF 2006 Annual Report, heightened concern was noted on the propensity for inactivity among baby boomers. What disturbs me most about this particular study was that of those surveyed, 81% cited "more funding for projects that would encourage me to be active instead of driving my car" as a factor for changing behaviour. Forget that it is the 'right' thing to do…nope…make sure we're rewarding good behaviour. No reward, no change.

To summarize then…we know that leading an unhealthy sedentary lifestyle, including consuming unhealthy foods and beverages leads to a higher risk of contracting CVD in later years. We know what behavioural changes we need to enact in order to minimize that risk. The question then remains: "What are YOU doing to ensure you live a healthy and long life?"

February 1^st signifies the start of Heart Month. Continued research and advocacy is obviously still required to reach a consensus on what efforts are still required to change our behaviours. Through the generous support of your contributions to HSF initiatives, over $73,500,000 was used for research and health education in Ontario alone.

Selfishly speaking I need you to adapt your lifestyle so that more those funds can be spent on research into congenital heart defects. HSF has assisted in the much-needed research geared to heart surgery techniques, and required lifestyle changes post-operative, as well as developing ways to detect heart defects at an earlier stage in life. I've had three open heart surgeries due to a birth defect in my heart…and my only goal in life is to live. For those of you born with healthy hearts, make the necessary change and continue to support the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

To read more on the Report, visit http://www.heartandstroke.ca/reportonhealth

Life in the Social Media

2010-01-25T08:43:00.000-08:00

Social Media is rapidly becoming the new 'norm'. And, if you're like me, you've got yourself a Facebook profile, a LinkedIn profile, and a Twitter account...not to mention a blog.

I'm often asked how I use each of these social media identities...and, for me it's rather simple: Facebook is my social network comprised mainly of friends and acquaintances; LinkedIn is my business network wherein I connect on work matters only; Twitter network connections offer me an opportunity to market my skills and musings; while my Blog offers me an opportunity to hone in on writing skills. I've gotten feedback from City Councillors and Staff, friends, family, and others on my Tweets, Status updates, and blog posts...both positive and negative. For me, these have provided an opportunity to hone in on what really matters to me and the community in which I live.

However, being in the social 'eye', you can't help but feel a little exposed. You must be conscious of what you opine about, as this area is a public place...and being at risk of liable or misrepresentation can be a word or phrase away. For my part, I will attempt to research as much as I can on a particular topic I am looking to blog...If it's a simple status update or post, I try to be respectful of those who may read it...either directly (a friend/family member) or indirectly (Google search).

The social media is rapidly changing our entitlement to current events and opinions. Newspapers (who I believe will always continue to publish in hard copy) are recognizing this by offering 'paid-for-service' updates. Municipalities and large corporations are rapidly developing methodologies for ROI in a web presence, while smaller companies utilize social media as a primary tool in seeking business. Confidence in social identity is shifting to wherein one almost seems archaic if they don't have some sort of web presence.

I'm working on keeping up with the 'Jones's' of the web world, while not getting too buried in spending every waking hour on preparing the appropriate words to publish. Hopefully I'll pick-up a regular writing gig one day...but until then, I'll continue to live a part of my life in the social world.

Profiled on "The Hamiltonian"

2010-01-17T14:16:00.000-08:00

Follow this link to read my responses to Cal DiFalco's "Ten Tough Questions"

http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2009/01/10-tough-questions-with-daniel.html

There’s Something Floating in my Drink!

2010-01-12T20:11:00.001-08:00

If you have a weak stomach, you may want to exercise caution before reading this particular post. As a matter of fact, if you have a weak immune system, you may want to think twice before you fill your cup with your favourite soda at your local fast food joint.

Apparently someone from Hollins University in Virginia, USA must have thought their cola tasted a little off and figured that perhaps the fountain might be a bit unkempt. So a team of scientist went on a mission to see how clean those self-serve fountains really are, and to serve as a comparative analysis, they looked at a few 'behind-the-counter' fountains as well. Now keep in mind, this study was done in the US…so you can either assume that we Canadians are a fickle (not fecal) bunch, or you can assume that our cleanliness habits are similar to those of our friends south of the border. And not to perpetuate any inaccuracies or misprints, I got my hands on the actual study…so what you'll see here is from the study itself…not a story about the study.

For the purposes of this blog, I'm going to refer to those self-serving fountains…you know the ones…they sit in the lobby area of the restaurant; you order a drink, and the cashier hands you a cup for you to go and fill yourself…I'm going to refer to these as Pop-Overly-Polluted, or POP. The 'behind-the-counter' fountains…the ones that only paid staff can access, and when you order a drink they do all the work and drop down a filled cup of your requested beverage…lid and all…I'll call these POP2.

When you hear the phrase "gathering around the office cooler", it would appear that bacteria mimic our desire to hang out in groups. More than 11% of beverages collected from POP and POP2 contained Escherichia coli, aka E-Coli. If that wasn't a good enough 'ick' factor for you, the report shows that over 17% of the beverages collected contained Chryseobacterium meningosepticum, or loosely translated means: bacteria which causes meningitis. While I'm not sure which is worse…the ickiness of the POP surroundings, or the fact that most of the identified bacteria "showed resistance to one or more of the 11 tested antibiotics".

Like any scientific study, strict controls were set in place and a tonne of documentation was completed. The samples included sugary drinks, diet drinks, and water. To test the contamination against a sample of (what should be) a controlled compliment, they purchased bottled drinks of the identical make up from a variety store. They conducted studies on POP and POP2 to see if there was any contamination difference between the fountains. After they collected their samples and followed a set process for testing, they found virtually no microbial growth in the bottled drinks, however over 70% of POP and POP2 samples had bacterial growth. And, if you thought there might be a difference in the amount of bacteria between POP and POP2…well, you'd be wrong. If you were looking to know which was safer, you may want to consider the time you decide to visit your local eatery. Apparently early morning soda drinkers are exposed to higher bacteria opportunities than those who chose to eat later in the afternoon.

So the next time you make that trip to your local fast food joint, maybe this could be a good argument for getting your drink in a bottle. After all, how many folks do you think lined up at the fountain to re-fill their cup before you took your turn? You'd probably be safer just to kiss everyone in the place instead. (Please don't follow this advice, as there has not been a study to prove whether this is the case or not J)

Blue Box Blues, Part Two: Garbage Disguised As Recycling

2010-01-03T16:30:00.001-08:00

The Blue Box has become the household symbol of something good: the presence of a Blue Box in the home of business sends a message that the homeowner or business owner is doing their part to divert waste from a landfill. As a consumer, we feel a sense of worthiness as we deposit our empty bottle or can into a blue box or another receptacle that is labeled accordingly.

Despite the Blue Box format being around for roughly 30 years in Ontario, not all items are recycled, nor do all Municipalities operate a fully comprehensive recycling program. As a matter of fact, not all Municipalities collect blue boxes in the same manner…some have two-stream (fibres such as newspapers and cardboard in one; and containers like cans and bottles in another) blue box system; some have single-stream (everything in one box or more…no separation required) collection; while others have variations of a two-stream system. But how do you know that everything you're putting into the blue box is actually being recycled into something else? After all, that is the true meaning of recycling…having an item (plastic bottle) be transformed into something else (bag) which prevents it from ending up in a landfill.

A statistical term rarely shared in public domains is 'contamination'. In a report published in December 2009 by the Container Recycling Institute, residents who place all of their recyclables in one 'blue box' or single-stream, see the highest portion of their recyclables end up in a landfill versus their two-stream counterpart Municipalities. As an example, on average 40% of glass collected from single-stream collection Municipalities ends up in landfill, compared to nearly none from Municipalities that offer two-stream recycling. Another variance is the contamination of collected fibres, which hit about 15% from single-stream collected Municipalities, versus virtually no contamination from two-stream Municipalities. The statistics are overwhelming…if you're putting out 10 newspapers and 10 glass bottles/jars a week, 1 ½ newspapers and 6 bottles/jars are ending up in a landfill; maybe not your Municipally owned/operated landfill…but a landfill nonetheless.

So why do Municipalities choose single-stream over two-stream collection? Simply put…cost. Less blue boxes to purchase. And, because they don't see all of the wasted recyclables, they don't factor end-user contamination experienced by the factories that process recycling materials. Communities like Hamilton which currently offers two-stream curbside collection will review single-stream collection as an alternative because of the costs…not necessarily because of the efficacy of the collection options and the life-cycle of the collected item.

While the Municipalities sort out the hows and what's of curbside collection, the IC&I sector (Industrial, Commercial & Institutional) continue to be the worst offenders in terms of offering recycling options to their patrons, partners and users. Currently the lowest diverters of waste, sitting somewhere around a paltry 16 – 20% diversion rate, they have the least incentive to provide diversion options. It's more costly to offer a diversion waste stream; collection is performed by an outside company, and sent to a private landfill; waste doesn't ordinarily contribute to the revenue line; and, no one is actually monitoring their disposal practices. Consequently, retail businesses that 'pose' offerings of multi-stream waste collection containers may not actually be recycling…yes, this does happen. And, because the IC&I sector deal with similar companies as the Municipalities, there stands a good chance that items being placed in the recycling bin are ending up in the landfill.

So while you take your time to sort through your garbage, or deposit your waste in the appropriate bin at the Mall, know that while progress has been made to divert waste from landfills, we still have a long way to go to get it right. And don't automatically assume that just because it's in a blue bin or a container marked with the recycling symbol, that your item you're disposing of will be recycled. Studies show that the best measure to ensure complete 'cycling' of recycling is to utilize deposit fees on all bottles and cans. Removing these from the collection streams will go a long way to reducing the contamination of collected fibres.

Welcome to the Next Decade

2010-01-02T12:02:00.001-08:00

Ten years ago the fright was on as we were crossing over into a new Century. Y2K became a household term, and businesses spent an inordinate amount of money taking inventory of their electronic inventory, and tagging everything that had a plug. Well we all know how that turned out…

Technology has vaulted our intelligence and accessibility of information to never seen before heights. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter (among others) provide instantaneous gratification on current events, trends, tragedies, and infamy. Everything is changing faster than our generation is able to understand the consequences, both intended and unintended. Add to this, we've embraced the new 'greening' of our environment, our homes, work, and any other area where environmental change could be implemented, have seen significant impact of change.

The good news is that we've been given the resources to reach the most distant remote areas of the World. We've been able to contact with family members with relative (no pun intended) ease. I know I have certainly taken advantage of this one, as I have amassed 2,230 names of family members stretching across the globe so far. And, I have also been able to connect with them either electronically or through the old-fashioned phone-line.

We could also say that having the latest news stories at our disposal has empowered us to become more interested in the world in which we live. Unfortunately, this also allows for embellishment and sensationalism, as we were able to witness with the 'balloon boy' incident. That story alone demonstrated how vulnerable and gullible we can be when exposed to too much information too quickly. We also were able to immediately share the immediacy of Michael Jackson's death, and feel that we were actually in attendance at his funeral.

Now as we enter the second decade of the 21^st Century, news of constantly changing 'smart' phones, computers, and electronic devices continue to arrive in my News Reader, telling me that we've not quite hit our learning potential on how far we can go with the technology available to us today. Without appearing to be a worry-wart, I have to wonder when the other foot is going to drop, signaling the downside of our technological progress. Small examples of 'unintended' consequences have started to creep out, none being tremendously harmful…yet. Because we've yet to go through a generational experience of this technological period, there has yet to be a true measure of our new hi-tech era. We measure each generation through a culmination of years, and currently we are in the supposed Information Age until 2025…although given the speed in which we've progressed, I wonder if we'll hit our target sooner.

Regardless of all we've done, and what we're about to do (technologically speaking), one can only hope that we don't lose our faith in faith, and our 'personability' in being personable. So to that, we should take a moment and write a letter…that is…write with a pen a paper, not print…and mail that letter to a friend or family member. I know it might be a bit nostalgic and maybe a bit immature…yet we need to take a break from the daily intake of change and settle in for a dose of time. Welcome to 2010.

Speaker’s Corner

2009-12-29T21:07:00.001-08:00

Republican Sarah Palin is slated to appear in Hamilton, Ontario to speak on April 15^th, 2010. As to what Mrs. Palin will be speaking about is anybody's guess, but the intent of her appearance is to be a fundraiser of sorts. With tickets to attend starting at a gentle $200 a piece, expect Hamilton's finest to attend and most certainly dole out a few extra bucks on silent auction items and sponsorship opportunities.

When it was announced that Palin was coming to Hamilton to speak, and the net proceeds of her appearance were going to the Hamilton Health Sciences and the Juravanski Cancer Centre, there was outcry among some of the citizenry that booking a speaker such as Palin was blasphemy. So the hosts changed the recipient Charity, and now the Palin supporters are crying shame towards the nay-sayers, blaming them for the hosts changing the Charity designate. Talk about a spinning pit of muddy waters.

I have never really been a fan of Canadian idolization of US political figureheads. Granted, Canada hasn't really shone on the World stage when it comes to political leaders. I would harness a guess that Pierre Trudeau was our last real Leader who carried Canada's identity to the World stage. With that said, Palin becomes the second US politician in the past couple of years to speak in Hamilton (Clinton being the other). It's a sad situation when we are unable to invite a prominent Canadian to speak in Hamilton, with the same fervor that Palin has generated.

Palin quit her job as Governor of Alaska for reasons not totally understood. Her Facebook 'Page' has over 1,000,000 fans; but I'm not sure that that is a sound statistic to use to gage one's popularity worldwide. A long-standing resister to Canada's national Health Care, there were more than a few eyebrows raised when it was announced that the proceeds of her appearance would go to the Hamilton Health Sciences, managers of Hamilton's hospitals.

So while we peons of Hamilton's citizenry bemoan the decision to bring Palin to Hamilton in support of a charitable cause, the organizers shouldn't be surprised by the feedback (both positive and negative) of Palin's appearance in Hamilton. After all, they made efforts to bring her here for a reason…it's just that nobody really knows what that reason is…unless it was to get free publicity…and if that was the case…nice work.

As for me: if I decide that I want to support Hamilton Health Sciences in the order of around $200, I'll just write them a cheque directly versus having only a portion of that amount going to HHS, and the rest going to hear someone speak, not even if it was Al Gore. I'd have to wonder whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper would draw the same attention and interest if he were to speak at a Banquet Hall in Toledo, Ohio….

Blue Box Blues Part I (and a half)

2009-12-14T09:54:00.001-08:00

In advance of my second piece on the Blue Box, I needed to do some preparation and research. Along the way I discovered some interesting reports on the state of curbside collections of diverted waste from 216 Ontario Municipalities. As this was predominately numerical data, I was able to extrapolate information from the various reports and put into one representative report. The findings are interesting, and in some cases disturbing.

Using 2008 data (being the latest available), I was not only able to see which Municipality had the highest (& lowest) diversion rate, but also who spent the most money to get to where they are. Enjoy the following information; I hope you find it as interesting as I did:

The Town of Mono recorded the largest diversion rate in 2008 of 55.03%. It was a modest increase from 2007, where they saw a 54.69% rate (also the highest for 2007).
The Township of Whitewater Region owned the lowest rate, at a paltry 1.79%. They also recorded the largest decrease in diversion rates, falling a whopping 964.25% from 2007 where they recorded a 19.05% diversion rate.
It goes without saying that the City of Toronto diverted the most waste (all diversion numbers are based on weight) in 2008, as they had 166,678 tonnes of recyclables/compostables diverted from the landfill.

When it comes to spending money on diverting waste, it is important to look at more than just the figure; there are capital expenditures (blue boxes, green bins, sorting equipment, et al), operation expenditures (collection crew, management, et al), and marketing tools. All of which impact the cost to divert in some form of variance. Here are some of the spending highlights:

There's no question that if you're going to collect the most diversion, it would go without saying that you'd also incur the most cost, as Toronto does. But, where Toronto does not lead is in cost per tonne…we'll give that award to the Municipality of Killarney…they spent $9,423.35 per tonne collected…ouch! They were at a 28.25% diversion rate, down from 37.54% in 2007.
Spending the least per tonne was the Town of Petrolia. They spent $27.63 per tonne. Their diversion rate for 2008 was 23.17%, up from 19.4% in 2007.

The interesting part of putting this data together was not only seeing the wide range of costs, diversion rates, and collected tonnage, the other piece was recognizing who stood out in the mix:

The Regional Municipality of Durham, which includes the towns of Whitby, Ajax, Pickering and Oshawa to name a few, ranked as the 5^th largest Municipality in terms of tonnage collected, recorded the 8^th lowest (out of 216) in terms of cost at $97.55/tonne. Their diversion rate was 49.44%, up from 47.7% in 2007. They were the only Municipality in the Top 30 (in terms of tonnage collected) to show in the Top 10 Lowest Spent Per Tonne Ranking.
One can only assume that the City of Guelph hit a reporting snag from 2007 to 2008, as they show as one of the most expensive Municipalities in terms of cost per tonne, showing at $728.75. Making this number more terrifying, is that their diversion rate dropped from 43.84% to 25.44%. They currently sit as the 188^th most expensive location out of 216. Not good.
Probably the biggest disappointment in the calculations is the City of Ottawa. Sitting as the 4^th largest community in terms of tonnes diverted (65,410.44), they hold the distinction of the lowest diversion rate of any of their counterparts in the Top 10, with a rate of 33.02% up slightly from 2007 of 32.26%. They spend slightly less than the City of Brockville who has a rate of 41.47%($133.73/tonne vs. $135.71), but more than the Regional Municipality of Waterloo ($121.37/tonne) which shows a 47.12% diversion rate.

For you Hamilton, Ontario fans:

7^th largest in terms of tonnage collected at 40,831.83 tonnes.
Sit as the 51^st lowest spend at $182.12/tonne
44.31% diversion rate in 2008, up from 43.01% in 2007
21^st highest diversion rate in Ontario in 2008, moving upwards from the 29^th position in 2007.

If you are interested in seeing the entire data collection, I have it in an excel file, and all of the figures were provided by Waste Diversion Ontario. Drop me an email request at drodrigues@mountaincable.net for more information.

Reading the Notes

2009-12-14T07:44:00.001-08:00

When it comes to taxes, levies, fees, and whatnot…basically any additional charge lumped onto the product or service I am purchasing…I am normally cautious as to why the fee is present, and where/how the fee is being utilized. So of course when the Ontario Government announced the new "value-added" tax structure of combining the Retail Sales Tax (PST) at 8% with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) at 5%, I was instinctively pessimistic. Initially, the Liberals stated that it was a measure required in order to create jobs. Then, when it became apparent that the Provincial Government was going to receive a hefty windfall of additional tax revenue not previously realized under the existing 2-tier tax payment system, the electorate and the Official Opposition Party pushed back. It appeared that the new HST was a cleverly disguised form of a simple tax grab.

The Lobbyists and Economists who support the HST initiative will tout that, overall, there will be no real gains or losses realized by this new taxing system. After all, once you've completed your tax return and realized some gains as a result of the HST implementation, your increased expenses that you incurred throughout the year leading up to your tax return will be negligible. To drive home this point, a report was (I dare say hastily) prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives titled Not A Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST. Authoured by economist Ernie Lightman, the report admittedly makes assumptions based on only the available tools available. To be fair, I will admit when I'm wrong or have misjudged something, however I still have this nagging feeling that this Report is just another 'smoke and mirrors' campaign to quell the objectors of the HST.

After reading any 'report', I always read the "Notes" section to ensure supporting arguments are well documented. This particular Report had some rather interesting "Notes", a sample of which shows:

Although reductions to the rate of tax in the bottom tax bracket is often touted as benefiting lower income people, in fact most of the benefits of such a change flow to those who are higher income, since everyone who pays income tax has some of their income taxed at the lowest rate. Most people who are low income already pay very little in personal income taxes.

I'm no expert here, but I'd feel comfortable stating that the above "Note" appears to be nothing more than a disclaimer on the Reports assertion that lower income families/individuals will benefit from the HST. As the "Note" clearly states that this is not the case.

So I guess what we have here is a bit of a stalemate. On the one hand we're going to be paying more at the consumer level for goods and services purchased which was previously PST exempted. While on the other hand, the Government (with support from this particular Report) are indicating that you'll save more when you file your taxes. The question will be whether you can afford to spend more upfront to save more at the backend. I honestly don't have the answer, but what I do know is that I'll be spending about $140 more per month (this according to the Tax Calculator found at http://itsmyprovince.ca/index.php). I'm still unsure how this is going to help the economy, as I am finding myself looking for spending reductions in preparation for the HST. The products and services the I use now which are exempt from PST will experience the greatest pain of this new taxing format.

The Blue Box Blues, Part I

2009-12-13T13:24:00.001-08:00

Living in an urban setting in Hamilton, Ontario, the availability of curbside collection of recycling goods has been quite commonplace for over 20 years. The "Blue Box" was introduced in Ontario by the industry which creates the recyclable material as a means of recovering said material in order to continue the true cycle of recycling in the early '80s. Today, more than 95% of Ontarians have access to curbside recycling services…and now the issue is getting muddied with the introduction of a new report aimed at changing behaviours towards disposing and diverting our waste. (The report can be viewed at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/publications/7271e.pdf)

Ontario's diversion rate for residential collection is around 39%, while private or commercial diversion rate sits at about 12%. Put that up against over 34,000 tonnes of waste generate each day in Ontario, with less than half that number coming from residential collection. Using "Rambo" math, means that roughly 25,000 tonnes of waste finds its way to a landfill…everyday. There exists a strong call from not only Municipalities, but also from producers of recyclable packaging/goods, that there be some form of consistent policies/practices on what and where recyclable goods can be collected. To illustrate this need, I will take a single item and identify where and how it is disposed of:

Most consumers have at one point in their life, purchased a coffee to drink on the go…where does one dispose of their coffee cup when they are done? Well, depending on where you live, the results vary:

Windsor…while it's not clear in their literature, & based on the absence of a 'compost/green cart' collection service, it would appear that cups are recycled
London…like Windsor, there remains no clear communication as to where to dispose, but based on descriptions provided, it would appear that the cups are recyclable.
Hamilton…(only because I live here, and I should know…) the cups go in the 'green cart', and the lids go into the blue box.
Toronto…according to their website (http://app.toronto.ca/wes/winfo/search.do), and searching "coffee cup", the search returns either 'garbage' if it's plastic coated, or 'recycling' if it's Styrofoam. The lid goes into the garbage.
Ottawa…according to their website, paper coffee cups go into the 'green cart'.
St. Catharines…run by the Niagara Region; paper coffee cups go into the 'green cart'. The lids are to go in the garbage.
Simcoe…run by the Norfolk Region; it would appear that coffee cups go into the garbage, but there may be a window of argument that could put them in the recycling bins.
Thunder Bay…while not overly clear, it would appear that coffee cups go into the garbage.
Sarnia…paper coffee cups are clearly identified as non-recyclable, and therefore are to go in the garbage.
Kitchener…operated by the Waterloo Region, paper coffee cups go in the green bin.

To summarize, of the 10 municipalities chosen at random, 3 offer recycling (I am including Toronto in this group), 4 go into the 'green cart' composting program, and the remaining 3 municipalities would prefer to see the cups in their respective landfills. (I've made some assumptions on where the cups go when unclear of exactly the location based on the information available on the corresponding websites.) However, the end result clearly outlines how a single (popularly consumer purchased & subsequently disposed of) item can vary across the Province.

Without going to deep into the history behind the paper cup being the preferred choice for drinking on the go (1909…just in case you're curious), it is important to know that most coffee cups are made with high-quality fibre material, due to the heavy health and safety standards required for a hot drink on the go. As coffee cups evolve, as well as the methodology and execution of recycling/composting programs, there really is no reason for these cups to end up in a landfill. The question though is how do we get a consistent program across the Province which will ensure that 100% of the coffee cups sold are diverted into the recycling stream in order to be captured back into the fibre production line?

Now take the above example and times it by the number of items which could be available for blue box collection. You quickly get a sense of the enormity of the problem. The goal is simple: if it is recyclable, then it shouldn't end up in the landfill. The obstacles however are enormous, as the solution isn't going to be an easy one to find. If the report is to go forward without sound input from the public, residents face a real risk of losing curbside recycling collection in favour of 'recycling depots' or 'bring it back campaigns'. And, while that may be okay for new items not currently offered or available in the existing blue box curbside collection program, new unintended consequences will certainly surface with some of the proposed measures.

In Part II of this piece I will go beyond the collection component of our diversion process, and look at gaps in the processes in existence today which allow garbage to be disguised at recycling.

King Dickens

2009-12-05T14:34:00.001-08:00

There's no secret in the fact that I enjoy reading Stephen King novels. Actually, I'll correct that…until Misery came out, I considered myself his "number one fan". But once I read his masterful account of the pitfalls of being a "number one fan", I gladly slipped back into being his "number two fan". Over the years, I have been fortunate to amass quite a collection of King's works, both in written format, audio, and screenplays. His latest work titled "Under the Dome" has me transfixed thus far, to the point that my odd jobs are on hold while I slip off to a descriptive imaginary location as only King can transport flawlessly.

One of my hobbies is working on the family tree, and as such I have the pleasure of corresponding with relatives from London, England to various locations in the West Indies, and across the Americas. It was through this, that my Uncle Bill (my mother's brother) had sent me an updated email address. It was one of the most unusual email addresses that I had seen. It lacked the familiar tone that one would expect from owners of email who have past their earlier years of life, and yet one could tell by the address that it contained something of reference for my Uncle. As it turns out, Uncle Bill is an avid Charles Dickens reader.

Of course most of us are familiar with his more popular pieces, especially at this time of the year with the classic A Christmas Carol. I don't think I have met anyone who hasn't seen a version of the movie, (and if you get the chance, the latest animated film with Jim Carrey will most certainly be a classic). The bigger challenge would be: how many have read A Christmas Carol? If you thought King wrote books with such intent detail, that you were convinced he was paid by the word…Dickens most certainly would make King pale by comparison. In an eerie sense, both King and Dickens share the panache for ensuring the reader understand the minute detail of each part along the story. And as such they both were able to enjoy success at the theatres when their writings are transformed into a video production.

While I'm not looking for a debate on who the greatest writers are, as each writer offers their own style and genre into their stories, it is impressive when an authour of fiction can cause change in the non-fiction world. Dickens certainly steps forward in this account, and not to take anything away from King, but really…anyone who doesn't enjoy this time of year is most certainly tagged as "Scrooge". Probably one of the most interesting explanatory terms originated by Dickens, and now used in the medical field, is Pickwickian Syndrome. Aptly named to describe overly obese individuals who contract sleep apnea as well as a host of other symptoms. The phrase was coined as a descriptive term of one of Dickens characters in The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club. Fat Joe, as he was dubbed, carried traits known today as sleep apnea, and because Dickens was able to describe his character with such detail, the term is now applied to individuals who present with similar symptoms.

While the debates will continue on whether the written word will still be as successful as it was prior to on-line technology, I for one will forge ahead with a good King novel…for those times when carting a laptop or e-reader around doesn't seem to cut it, and know that Charles Dickens carries the standard of which all good stories should be told.

Our Not-So-Harmonized Sales Tax

2009-12-02T08:23:00.001-08:00

We've heard the infamous quote spoken by the character Howard Beale in the 1976 movie, Network in which he impassionedly stated repeatedly "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" And, it would appear that Provincial MP's who oppose the new Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) is exactly that, as they face suspension and surely other penalties for their actions in the Legislature.

To recap, HST was initially introduced as a means to assist businesses to acquire capital equipment at a reduced cost (as HST would eliminate 'hidden' taxes claimed to hinder this process), and thereby making Ontario businesses more competitive in the Global economy. Essentially the theory would be that because Ontario businesses could produce products at a lesser cost, then this would drive down the cost to the end user…the consumer. By blending the current two taxes into one blended tax rate, the intention is to simplify the process both from a fiduciary point to the businesses, and to the consumer. The complication in this application is that items currently only taxed the existing GST (Goods & Services Tax) of 5% will now be saddled with an additional 8%, which is the current Provincial Retail Sales Tax (PST) rate. As cries for exemptions filled the inbox of Dalton McGuinty, he finally stated that no further exemptions could be made as Ontario is facing a record debt due to the current economical conditions. In other words, the Provincial Government requires the additional tax revenue that the HST is going to generate to help pay down the massive debt.

If all is fair in love and war, then the introduction of HST should be a wash when it comes to revenues generated by the blending of taxes. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The Provincial Government is actively stating that HST is not a 'tax grab', but the proof is in the pudding. Consider what the City of Hamilton recently identified in a document submitted to Council on November 24^th:

"The proposed 2010 user fees have been developed based on Council's guideline, exclusive of any potential impact of HST…Staff estimated that the impact of the proposed HST on clients who pay our user fees would be approximately $3.7 million."

The report goes further to state that a recommendation has been made to the Province that users be exempt from paying the Provincial portion of the HST.

If you didn't catch it…that's $3.7 million in additional tax revenue collected for no increase in services. It's essentially free cash for the Province to gobble up without having to lift a finger. And, this is only from one Municipality. Add in the rest, and Province is sitting on a mighty lofty sum of increased tax revenue.

While the above is certainly enough to cause a few ulcers and angst, one has to look at the bigger picture and see if indeed the blending of the two taxes does indeed make in impact on the employment sector. Afterall, the Province is stating that the introduction of HST will generate jobs…and lots of them…some 600,000 new jobs in the next ten years. Economists go further to state that our annual income will raise by 8.8% over the same time frame, that the cost of doing business in Ontario and British Columbia (also in the midst of introducing HST) will decline by $6.9 billion, and as a result of this, the private-sector will spend a whopping $47 billion on job creation and capital spending. All this will make us more cost-competitive against the 160+ nations who currently use a similar blended tax system. (Information courtesy of a Toronto Star article posted on November 26^th). Again, with all things equal, Quebec and the Eastern Provinces have been on the HST program for quite some time, therefore one must assume that since Ontario is not, then those Provinces that are using the HST formula are faring better then Ontario, no?

According to StatsCan(Oct '09 figures), Quebec's unemployment rate is 8.5%; Newfoundland and Labrador 17.0%; Prince Edward Island 12.0%; Nova Scotia 9.3%; and, New Brunswick 8.5%. Compared to Ontario's 9.3% and BC's 8.3%, it would appear that we're not that far apart on employment issues within Canada. But what about the rest of the world that has been identified…How are they doing? Doing a quick search to find the 160+ countries purported to be on the HST system, the quick snippets appear to be in the European Nations, and here is how Canada stacks against them in terms of the unemployment rates:

Canada 8.6% (Oct, '09)
Croatia 9.6% (Sept '09)
Denmark 6.4% (Sept '09)
European Union 9.3% (Oct '09)
France 10.0% (Oct '09)
United Kingdom 7.8% (Sept '09)

Again, Canada doesn't stand out as being 'job poor' compared to other countries. Unless the Provincial Government can supply a qualitative list of comparing countries which clearly identifies our 'disadvantage' of being without HST from a 'job creation' standpoint, it would appear that we are looking at nothing less than a feeble attempt to add 'smoke and mirrors' to a simple tax grab formula.

Political Fear of Making Decisions

2009-11-23T06:26:00.001-08:00

The term is called "area rating". Most municipalities and regions use area rating as a means of more accurately taxing residents for services received. The most common use of area rating is with transit. As an example, if you live in a rural setting with no transit services whatsoever, you likely pay less taxes than that of your friend who lives in the suburbs close to a transit stop. While not all municipalities adopt area rating as a means to properly balance taxing for services received, it remains a universal application. And to that, the method of delivering area rating predominately sits in a rural/urban split, or variations thereof. Except in Hamilton, Ontario.

When the City of Hamilton was amalgamated with the former Towns of Dundas, Ancaster, Flamborough, Stoney Creek, and Glanbrook almost 10 years ago, the residents of these smaller towns were put in an obvious state of protectionism, not only on their identity but on their fees for services structure that was in place at the time. Due to add insult to injury was the impending reassessment values of homes which tax rates are applied against, as this was expected to take homes previously assessed at a lower rate to see upwards to a reported seven times the value. To illustrate this, a home situated in any of the former Towns essentially went from being valued at $150,000 to $400,000 thereby creating an instant tax rate increase with no changes in services received. While not all homes in the former Towns experienced this increase, what was recognized by the Townsfolk that generally speaking, homes in the former Towns were worth more than the old City of Hamilton. And in their minds, this means that the new City of Hamilton is being heavily subsidized by the richer former Towns. Politicos of the time recognized that this was going to be battle of epic proportions, so they recommended that instead of enacting area rating based on the normal 'tax for services' formula, that they instead enact area rating based on former municipal or Town boundaries.

But it doesn't stop there…further to this "former Towns" vs. "old Hamilton" boundary area rating system, the area rating actually varies by former Town. To see this in action visit http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/CorporateServices/FinanceBudgetTaxes/PropertyInformationTaxes/TaxCalculatorApp.htm and input $300,000 as the home value, then click on the various former Towns to gage the tax variances. While the tax calculator only offers choices of whether one is within a transit system, their also is the imbalance of how Fire services are applied. The best example of this is in Stoney Creek: they pay a single tax rate for Fire Services, but they have 5 Fire Halls…some with Full Time, some with Volunteers, and some with a Composite (a blend of volunteer and full time employees). So if you resided in rural Stoney Creek, you're essentially overpaying for a service because the level of service is not the same as a resident in urban Stoney Creek who has the luxury of Full Time fire fighters available at all times.

So here we are some 10 years later looking through the same broken glasses trying to figure out a way to fix this crazy area rating formula. While local politicians recognize that it needs to be fixed…and should be fixed, they stall out of the gate for fear of upsetting the folks that put them in office. We've seen a number of City staff reports over the past years recommending a review of area rating brought forward on the Council floor…only to be deferred until the next budget year. Now we appear to have some solid options on how to approach and mend the system, but again it would appear that this time (with thanks to the Mayor), the recommendations will be reviewed after the next municipal election.

This resistance to make a decision on area rating is disconcerting at best. Hamilton should be recognized by a literary society for the volumes of chatter that becomes connected with a decision. Sometimes the decision fails to materialize due to the weight of the communication material associated with the issue. This one cannot afford to get lost on the floor, in the sea of paperwork and consultations…just make a decision and move on. If the voters don't like it, then they won't vote you back in…remember, you're not in office to make voters happy – you're there to make Hamilton prosperous (and that will undoubtedly make them happy in the long run).

Sorting Through the Clutter

2009-11-22T09:16:00.001-08:00

It was a comment made at a round table discussion this past Friday hosted by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario's (HSFO) OCAG. (I will offer advance apologies for not knowing exactly what the initials for OCAG represent exactly, suffice it to say that they are volunteer representatives from across Ontario who meet and provide feedback to HSFO on ways to improve their outreach. My best guess therefore will be that OCAG stands for Ontario Communities Advisory Group.)

HSFO, like most other not-for-profits (NPOs) and charitable organizations are looking at ways to ensure that contributions received are not significantly impacted in a negative way during the current economical climate. While each of us present at the event were there due to our own personal connections with persons with heart disease or who suffered a stroke, the larger element was that we were there not for us, but for others. It's an interesting paradigm (if you'll pardon the 80s term), wherein a group of assembled individuals gathered to not better our own circumstances, but rather to ensure that those not present do not have to endure the anguish and struggles of dealing with coronary disease or symptoms of a stroke. It was through this, that someone at the table where I was seated asked the question, and I'll paraphrase, "How do you sort through all the clutter? How do I prioritize where to give?"

There's a good chance everyone who reads this knows someone, or is someone who has been affected by heart disease or stroke. The same applies to cancer, poverty, and other unfair events to the human race. A key indicator that separates heart and stroke sufferers from most of the others is the altering of one's life in an instant. Often dubbed the 'silent killer', heart attacks and stroke often occur without warning. So the race is on, and in certain circles, we are winning the race towards providing the right education and tools to help those who may be close to, or on their way to, suffering a heart attack or stroke. For those that survive, it's a wake-up call…for those that don't, it becomes one of the saddest moments in a family's life due to the suddenness of the event.

Through the support of donations and volunteers, HSFO has been able to build on the importance of healthy living, as they continue to provide the much needed research funding required to ascertain the appropriate measures to ensure a long and healthy life. One of the largest examples of this focus would be the implementing of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) in various public buildings. A young Chase McEachern recognized the need for AEDs in schools and hockey arenas after watching Jiri Fischer of the Detroit Red Wings suffer cardiac arrest during a game against the Nashville Predators. Unfortunately, Chase himself suffered cardiac arrest while at school and passed away a few days later as a result of the event. Through the efforts of HSFO and the support of Chase's family, AEDs have been placed in 70 municipalities and communities across Ontario. More importantly, the result has seen several lives…including one here in Hamilton, being directly saved by the use of an AED.

Interestingly enough, there are two different types of heart disease: coronary or acquired heart disease, and congenital heart disease. The first develops over time in a person's body either due to lifestyle or genetics. The latter develops either in utero or shortly after birth, and affects approximately 1 in 120 births. As medical expertise advances, continued research and development is required not only to minimize the invasive corrective surgeries of young children and adults, but to also recognize the specialized care of those who survive open heart surgeries. Regardless of which type of heart disease one is affected by, or the level of a suffered stroke – the first goal is to return to a normalized lifestyle. The second is to know not only that ongoing care and treatment is required to maintain that lifestyle, but also what type of care is required.

In the end, it's not easy sorting through the clutter. It comes down to what's important to you and your family. If you can't give your money, look at giving some time…someone, or even yourself might enjoy a longer life as a result of your support.

To look at options available to you, visit www.heartandstroke.on.ca for more information.

Changing Spending Ways

2009-11-18T06:47:00.001-08:00

If you live in Ontario, starting July 1, 2010 you'll start paying a blended 'value-added' tax of 13% on most of your purchases. This blended rate includes the current 5% Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the 8% Provincial Retail Sales Tax (PST). The Liberal Government who introduced this nefarious concept did so on the premise that it was going to make Ontario businesses more competitive in the global environment.

Currently they are completing the standard 'dog & pony' show to various communities, business groups and the like on the positives of this new tax. It's also given them an opportunity to scale the presentation to the audience by making reference to some of the exceptions available. (In Hamilton, home of the original Tim Horton's, it was stated that your morning coffee would be exempt…all hail the great and mighty savings.) Within the various presentations are facts raised that Ontario is about to enter one of its worst debts in history, and short of making cuts to services, the Government is in desperate need to raise revenue through new venues. Introducing the HST as a boon for businesses becomes the perfect smoke for the mirror.

Adding insult to injury is that the HST will apply to basically the same items as what the GST covered…which means we are now going to be paying an additional 8% on services normally received today where we pay only 5%. Apparently the Government hasn't figured it out yet: that there is a limited amount of dollars to be spent, and if the cost of that product or service increases, then the consumer will change their spending ways. I've made a list of some of the changes I'm looking at doing to preserve my limited income:

Newspaper subscription
- I pay monthly for this, and therefore not exempt. The exemption applies at the point of sale.
  - Therefore, I will be cancelling my newspaper subscription.
Cable TV
- This is a tricky one as I have more TVs in my house then I do people. I am working on doing a cost analysis on what my current plan is, versus other options. Certainly a change in viewing habits will be forthcoming.
Home Phone
- I've begun to think why I have this anymore. Certainly with the ease and accessibility of cell phones, and knowing that both bills are going to be hit with an 8% increase, one of them is going to have to go.
  - Say goodbye to the Home Phone
Hydro
- This is a double hit for most of us. As of January 2010, all Ontario homes will be charged based on time of use, thanks to the Smart Meters that were installed recently. It's going to be back to basics baby, cooking outdoors, hanging clothes to dry, extra blankets and sweaters in the winter…I think you get the idea.
Dining Out
- This has to be the most asinine exemption put on the table. The Liberals actually think that I'd be okay with purchases under $4 as being tax exempt? Consider this; if I'm going out with a buddy for a quick burger, we're now going to be paying separately. And, if we both pay by debit, we've just cost the restaurant between $0.12 and $0.30 in debit charges the restaurant owner will have to pay to his bank.
Fuel
- The only way I can get around this one is to become more transit-friendly. For me, that means more business in another city, as their transit system better suits my needs.

I am sure I am not the only one who will change spending ways, and based on the above samples, I fail to understand how those businesses affected by my changes in spending ways will be pleased with this new taxing system. Every company associated with the aforementioned will see a decline in sales (albeit, maybe only mine). There are of course other negative impacts of the new HST, but I wanted to highlight the ones that have a daily impact in my life. At the end of the day, I have no appetite for doling out more taxes to the government and seeing nothing new in return. This is a sham, plain and simple.

Setting the Bar Too High

2009-11-09T20:09:00.001-08:00

By now the news of the 2015 Pan American Games being awarded to Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, or Southern Ontario, or some other variant geographical winning location name. Part of Hamilton's contribution will be added event locations including a government-backed/financed 15,000 seat stadium, a swimming pool at McMaster, and a velodrome. Adding to Hamilton's wish or needs list, is that the current 30,000 seat Ivor Wynne Stadium, home of the Canadian Football League Hamilton Tiger-Cats, is in dire need of replacement.

With that, Hamilton's leaders of perennial prognosticators of pugilistic participants are seeking to take the 15,000 seat gift tand double its size through private support most likely in corporate sponsor dollars towards the larger stadium. If there is a shortfall of required additional dollars required to build the larger than required stadium (for the Pan American games), then funds will be garnered through the tax assessment. Hardly something which taxpayers are supportive of.

To determine whether a 15,000 or a 30,000 seat stadium is the best fit, we must first look at the numbers:

Originally known as the Civic Stadium, it was constructed for the 1930 British Empire Games (now called the Commonwealth Games), Ivor Wynne has certainly enjoyed many years of athletic events. Throw in a few concerts, which caused much disdain from residents living close by, and you've got one heck of a facility…or at least it was. The 2007 Pan American Games in Rio de Janeiro saw close to 90,000 attend the opening ceremonies at the Maracana Stadium. While Hamilton will not be involved in any of the pomp and ceremony, the proposed stadium is planned to be used for the "Athletics" components of the competitions. Back in '07 Athletic competitions were held in two stadiums, the 60,000 seat Estadio Olimpico Joao Hevelange and the spacious Flamengo Park. When the Games were hosted in Winnipeg in 1999, attendance for all events hovered around the 500,000 mark for about 330 events, plus the opening and closing ceremonies. Given the history of the Games, it would appear that a 15,000 seat stadium is more than appropriate for Hamilton's participation in the Games.

What is sure to become the major tenant before and after the Games, is the CFL TiCats. Oddly enough, they're looking for the extra seats, which based on their historical trends, leans somewhat inappropriately too far out of a realistic reach. In 2008, the Kitty Litter attracted an average of 20,785; a decrease of 10.4% from 2007. This decline saw the stadium void of fans by the tune of 29.8% per game. Hamilton is a City in desperate need of adding value to the product it fields during the CFL season; certainly leaving the stadium one-third empty leads one to believe that there is little to no value in rushing out to buy a ticket to a game. 2009 attendance numbers fair no different, with only a slight increase in attendance (and one could go further to argue the actual numbers, as announced attendance seldom reflects those present in the stands).

Hamilton would do well to build a 15,000 seat stadium, with the capability to expand or add seats as required depending on the game or event. One only needs to look at the success of the Montreal Alouettes who moved from the spacious Olympic Stadium to the cramped confines of the 16,600-seat McGill University. The end result saw the Als play for a sold-out game every time. This equated to higher valued tickets and product…meaning more revenue for the team. You can rest assured that no one is giving away tickets for free in Montreal. In other words: why expand your inventory and dilute the value, when you can reduce your inventory and increase your value? From a business case scenario, this makes complete sense. Other sports franchises have toyed with this concept with consistent results; they create the demand to warrant a higher capacity facility while capitalizing on increased revenue growth due to high demand.

Manage the expectations, and the rest will take care of itself. Set the expectations too high, and you leave yourself vulnerable to criticisms which distract from any successes attained over time.

Finding the right University – From a First Time Experience

2009-11-08T14:37:00.001-08:00

I've reached that time in my life where I'm finding myself helping my daughter choose a university to continue her education and pursue her love for the sciences. The lists of universities that we are reviewing in no particular order are: University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario, University of Guelph, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Nipissing University, McMaster University, University of Alberta, and the University of British Columbia. We are about half-way through either touring the faculties or attending showcase events hosted by a university, and wanted to share some observations.

So far I'm surprised that more effort is not put into creating a "wow" factor for perspective students. Each of the presentations thus far has been unfortunately 'canned' in both delivery and style. Considering the progression of technology, I'm continually amazed at the continued habit of presenters simply reading from the PowerPoint slides shown on the screen. I will give high marks however to UOIT who used 3D technology in their introductory video, but then lapsed back into reading from the slides later on. There is something to be said about 'knowing your audience', and I can't help but wonder if the universities actually get it. Assembled before them on the day of the tour or event, are students who have made concessions to visit either the university or event location with genuine interest in possibly attending that location – more effort should be made to make them feel like they should choose one over the other.
Just what is the value of University Rankings? It appears that every university and college ranks tops, in the top ten, the best in, etc., on someone's list, but I'm unsure of the value of this ranking. I've met professors who went to 'x' university, but teach at 'y' university…and want my daughter to attend 'y' university. If 'x' university was good enough for them, why shouldn't my daughter go there instead? Perhaps what universities should focus on is the 'weight' of their degrees, and what added value is included in the teachings to reach said degree. Is a B.Sc. from McMaster regarded differently than one from Nipissing?
While the Internet holds a plethora of information on each university/college, it's surprising how many responses to questions asked at tours/events were "just visit our website for more information." No one was guiltier of this than UBC, who pretty much answered every question with "check our website". Which considering that they were in Toronto with potential applicants, if their intent was to drive traffic to their website, they should have at least had terminals present to walk the applicants through to ensure they were able to get the answers required. Questions are being asked with the intent to solicit a response…not to be brushed aside.
Referring to the first point of knowing the audience, I would expect that if those in attendance are not from the city that the university/college was located, that more time would be spent on life outside of the classroom. UWO did a wonderful job in this category, spending more time on the social aspects of attending university then on the classrooms. While the purpose of attending a university/college is to gain knowledge, the time spent in the classroom pales in comparison to the time spent in social circles…especially for a student who will be living in residence. A student who doesn't feel comfortable attending a particular location, is not going to enjoy their time…and this could affect their ability to succeed later on.

Here is our ranking of the universities of interest before our tours:

UBC
UOIT*
UofA*
UofW
UofG*
UWO
NU*
MAC**

And after visiting half of these:

UWO
UofG*
UofA*
UBC
UOIT*
UofW
NU*
MAC**

* - signifies that we have not toured or attended a specific event for this location, so this order will definitely change once this has been completed.

** - Because we live in Hamilton, McMaster has automatically been relegated to the bottom of the list, as my daughter has it in her mind that she wishes to attend university somewhere else other than the city she resides…if only just to enjoy the residence experience.

The intent will be to whittle the application list down to five. I'll leave it up to my daughter to decide which location she'll attend based on the anticipated letters of acceptance.

What Hamilton Means to Me

2009-11-03T17:31:00.001-08:00

When I moved to Hamilton Ontario from London Ontario, I was unsure of what to expect. Living in London was your basic WASP environment, with a clear distinction of the upper and lower classes eloquently stated through the famed geographical EOA tagline. EOA stood for "East of Adelaide". Adelaide is the north/south street which became the marker for dividing the haves from the have-nots. While there is no definitive historical event, or hard-set data which dictates the EOA status, there certainly is an impression that there are more single-parent homes and social housing residents in EOA than any other area in London. Clearly, this is London's version of the "wrong side of the tracks", and I was a product of living in EOA. Our large family (8 kids) were raised in the most eastern neighbourhood (at the time…there is now a whole new set of subdivisions east of where I grew up…they hated the EOA tag so much, they adopted the "west of 100" tag to distance themselves from the poorer residences of EOA).

Hamilton has some similarities to London; spare the London only EOA tag…Hamilton carries its customary 'North-end' or 'East-end' tags, depending on who you speak to as to where the bad-ass part of town is. For my part, choosing where to live in Hamilton became solely reliant on a work associates recommendation of "Don't live below the mountain." So we embarked on finding a place on the mountain…which for clarity is the top of the Niagara Escarpment. In hindsight, we should have looked more closely. While I won't argue that the 'lower' city has its challenges, it does have something that the 'mountain' doesn't: community identity. Through no fault of its own, neighbourhoods built on the mountain were constructed primarily for commuters. Through growth commencing some 40-50 years ago, it's relatively young by comparison to the lower city, and as such lacks the cohesiveness garnered from long-standing families who were able to pass their home on to their children. While there are some active neighbourhoods on the mountain, the numbers pale in comparison to those in the lower city, despite the higher population on the mountain.

It's been 13 years since the decision was made to move to Hamilton, and I'd have to say that the decision to stay was made within 6 months of arriving here. Hamilton's proximity to Toronto, Niagara Falls, and London makes any trip manageable within an hour's drive. The fact that Hamilton is home to a number of waterfalls is something that continues to amaze family and friends still trapped in flat London. I'm not going to say how many waterfalls there are here, as the number seems to vary depending on the source. Sufficed to say, I'd recommend that you check out www.cityofwaterfalls.ca to get a good idea of how many waterfalls there really are. Whenever family or friends pay a visit, I make sure I spend a good couple of hours giving them the tour of some of the key sightlines of Hamilton, including those smokestacks which are a part of Hamilton's heritage.

Hamilton is poised to be something greater than it currently is, and through some innovative concepts, could actually become an envied City. In a little less than a year from now, residents will be heading to the polls to elect their municipal leaders. There remains some angst on whether the current leadership has not only the vision, but the fortitude to implement the change required to move Hamilton from 'potential' to a 'potent' community. It is often said of any community that the voter only cares about the issues that impact them directly (road needs paving, sidewalk is cracked, etc.). And, it's often said of any community that the incumbent politician only cares about the boundaries in which they represent. And, it's often said of any community that the current politician holding office is re-elected more often than not, regardless of their ability to be a true community leader.

While Hamilton certainly does have these obstacles before them, they also have some true visionaries who are working with city staff and politicians on what can and needs to be done to move Hamilton forward. One of the largest obstacles that may impede any progress would be the tax rate. Not unlike any other municipality, the economy has sapped resources while increasing the strain on the social services and programs – cuts to both are unavoidable, we'd be foolish to expect anything less. I'm looking forward to the coming years, but will steal a phrase from Albert Einstein who quipped, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten."

In keeping with the current flu-isms: The challenge now will be to see if we can look past ails us, in order to administer the vaccine required to provide future protection should we encounter another viral economical downturn.

Playing it Safe Means Not Playing at All

2009-10-27T08:06:00.000-07:00

At the current Canadian Cardiovascular Congress held October 24 – 28, a 7-year study was released which looked at 20,719 grade 9 students. Most notably, in the findings were that cholesterol levels grew from 9% in 2002 to 16% in 2008 of the 14-15 year old students studied. This translates to almost one in five teens being at a very high risk of developing either Type 2 Diabetes or premature heart disease. Concurrently, the study found that levels of 90 minutes physical activity (at least 5 days a week) dropped from 28% to 22% in the same time period.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read into this study: youth today need to be more active. The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is: How?
Consider these reasons:
Ø Right from the time infants are able to walk, restrictive activity is enacted and only due to the social aspects of how we live and work today. Structure is introduced at a very early stage of growth, mandating the times of where, when, and what activity will be available to the toddlers, especially for those who attend a day-care or similar facility. Statistics indicate that ‘stay-at-home’ mothers/fathers raise children who not only eat better, but also engage in more physical exercise.
Ø As children age, the tendency is to enroll them into some sort of group or sporting team based on interest and availability. In a UK study released in March 2009, it was found that the cost of sport and cultural activities rose by 67% over the past 10 years. Compounding this rise in costs is the decreased cost for technological products like video games, DVDs, cell phones, et al; which fell between 17 – 29% depending on the category.
Ø Let’s not forget about protecting children from harm. There are about 16,200,000 Google matches for the search phrase “protecting children”. Everything from sex, to predators, violence, food, the environment, to you name it: there’s a way to protect your child from it. Today’s parents have more information at their fingertips on the perils and cautions of raising a child then those of earlier years. Being cautious and apprehensive becomes natural, as a result of being more aware of the risks. I wrote an earlier piece on “Fear”, and how rules and practices are enacted just on the anticipation of something wrong…this carries into the home life as well.
Ø Certain stereotypical perceptions can affect a willingness to engage in organized activities. There is the “hockey parent” who is affectionately known as overbearing and verbally abusive; who can in affect cause individuals to lose interest in getting their children involved just because they don’t want to expose themselves or their children to this type of boorish behavior.
Ø And then there’s the issue of competitiveness. According to the National Alliance for Sports (US) some 20 million kids register each year for a myriad of sports activities. However, approximately 70% of them quit playing by the age of 13, and never play them again. The number one reason according to the National Youth Sports Coaches Association is that they quit because it stopped being fun. As children age, the introduction of ‘winning’ versus ‘losing’ overrides the premise of playing ‘just for fun’. While I’m not advocating removing this mindset…in fact, I believe it is essential to a child’s preparedness for adulthood; there remains a lack of objectives around ‘house league’ versus ‘competitive (rep/select) league’ play. While it’s okay to lose a ‘house league’ game, one shouldn’t feel demeaned by their coach/parent/peer just because they chose to play at that level. As it is, they chose to play at that level either for the reason that they didn’t want to play competitively, or lacked the ability (something that parents far too often interject their opinions).
We have a ways to go to remove barriers impeding healthy active lifestyles in youth. Everything from affordability to setting standards and expectations of play. At the risk of sounding like grandpa on the front porch, sipping lemonade and spinning tales of old…I remember when I was involved in coaching soccer in London, Ontario: we had simple rules for play; non-sponsored teams; simple rules for the parents; (a rule that after 4 weeks of play, we could move players around to even up the teams – although parents of kids on the stronger teams opposed this ideology, especially if their kid was the one to move to a weaker team); substitutions were structured to ensure fair play for all; we kept score, and posted the standings; everyone made the playoffs. Most importantly, there was open communication to all parents and players. While it wasn’t a perfect system, I would have to say it was by far the most enjoyable for me as a coach, parent, and participant (we later started an adult mini-soccer league using the same guidelines…it was a hit!)
It is also imperative that we look at the affordability of participation. All too often, youth are left behind due to the high cost in being active. Much like the high cost of healthy eating, just being physically active also carries a healthy price tag (pun intended).

What's In A Name?

2009-10-21T06:58:00.000-07:00

In the City of Hamilton, Ontario a movement is afoot from some Councilors to ensure the protection of the currently named Henderson Hospital, named after Nora-Francis Henderson, the first woman on Hamilton council and social activist. Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS), who manage the operations of Henderson Hospital, received a gift of $20 million from Charles and Margaret Juravinski to aid in the redevelopment of Henderson Hospital. Overall, the Juravinski’s have contributed around $43 million to community health-care causes, including a major contribution to the neighbouring Juravinski Cancer Centre. In exchange for their kindness, HHS stated that the hospital will now be named the Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre.

Under the new redevelopment project, due to be completed in summer 2010, the hospital will have expanded in size and resources. One could argue that it is a brand new hospital. And, not to be forgotten, HHS plans on naming a wing of the (re)new(ed) hospital in Henderson’s name. The curious point in all this is that this started some three years ago with nary a peep from neighbours and councilors regarding the name change. However now that they are drawing to completion, and most likely ceremonies are being planned and booked, folks are starting to voice their displeasure in changing the name.

City Councilors Tom Jackson, Terry Whitehead and Scott Duvall who rule the roost around the hospital grounds are taking up a fight with HHS begging them to keep Nora-Francis Henderson’s name alive on the front of the hospital. For the record, these same three were members of the ill-fated committee aimed at bringing the NHL’s Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton, of which included the allowance to sell the naming rights of Copps Coliseum (named after former Hamilton Mayor Victor Copps). From a political angle, one could assume that both the HHS and area Councilors failed to properly communicate the change to the community three years ago; however that would open a nice finger –pointing exercise not worthy of anyone’s time.

Named ‘public’ buildings are usually done so to honour, to recognize, or to brand a person or product/service; whether done so as a courtesy or as a sold proprietary license. The application of these ‘names’ seem to differ depending on the building applied. Sports facilities have a long-standing tradition in offering up the naming ‘rights’ to companies as a means to generate revenue for the host team. Libraries apply names in either recognition or through gift-giving. Hospitals on the other hand tend to be more representative of the community in which they reside (at least in Canada). A cursory view of the list of Canadian hospital names shows no ‘privately’ named hospitals. If we were to look at Ontario’s powerhouse of health care resources, Toronto we’d see that it is managed by the University Health Network (UHN). They once received a single donation of $37 million towards the development of cardiac research at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, situated within the Toronto General Hospital.

So was it wrong to offer the name change to the Juravinski’s in return for their contribution? Probably.

Did HHS communicate to the politicians the change? Yep.

Did the politicians voice their concern at the time? My guess would be no, and I’d say it was because they saw the value and the reasoning at the time. But now the phones are ringing from disgruntled citizens expressing their displeasure, and as a habit they go out looking for a fight…instead of communicating the facts from the start.

It is indeed sad that the Henderson name will be removed from the front of the hospital, and a new name will grace its place. It’s a wonder that HHS didn’t look to give the location a new name like Hamilton Mountain Hospital, with the Henderson Wing & the Juravinski Centre, in order to promote Hamilton. It would appear that HHS moved too quickly in the offer of the name in return for their generousity, and now the Juravinski’s are looking like the bad guys. As it stands now, a precedent as been set for future contributors, who are now going to be looking for something more than just their name on a wall within a larger institution.

How Stable Are Electricity Prices?

2009-10-09T11:31:00.001-07:00

In an article published in the October 3rd issue of The Hamilton Spectator, Hamilton Horizons was appealing to the Ontario Energy Board to increase rates by about $0.32/month to homeowners, and $0.80/month for businesses. Their reasoning: because of a revenue shortfall of more than $2.8 million due to the shutdown of US Steel Canada. So what’s a half-a-dollar between friends? Let’s go deeper…
According to Hamilton Horizon’s spokesperson Sandy Manners, the reason for the request was due to fixed costs of supplying and servicing an electrical grid. Furthermore, Horizon sets its rates based on projected revenue. To that, Manners states that while they have managed to avoid increases the past two years due to added efficiencies, there is only so far that they can go. Translation: by using (or consuming) less hydro, your rates will actually increase because the costs associated with managing the electrical grid are fixed.
Now I’m not a business major, but I would suspect that there are not a lot of businesses out there who wouldn’t set their rates based on projected revenue. If Tim Horton’s set their coffee prices based on consumption, then theoretically prices would rise every time a location closed, or a competitor opened up nearby causing a reduction in customers, therefore less cups of coffee being purchased. It just doesn’t happen that way in the private sector. Hamilton Horizon is municipally owned, and therefore holds the power (pun intended).
Adding insult to injury on this ‘because we’re getting less revenue, I have to charge you more’ debacle, the Ontario Government is pushing the Smart Meter “Time of Use” rates to be in place sometime in 2010. For my household, that actually means another increase in electrical rates. Our household does not operate on a typical 9-5 lifestyle. Doing laundry at 10 o’clock at night is not an option, and leaving it to the weekend will mean less travel and consumerism, as we’ll be at home doing all the ‘heavy-load’ electrical chores (laundry, yard work, et al) in order to get the same rates that we are receiving today. So here we are stuck in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. With the push on for electrifying our petroleum-dependant resources (cars, rapid-transit, et al), coupled with calls for restraining our everyday electrical-dependant resources (lights, appliances, et al); it almost appears as if there is an attempt to maintain a level demand system for electricity, all under the guise of protecting Mother Earth. With the news that there is a limit to how far one electrical grid can go to be efficient before fees increase, leaves a bit of a sour taste in ones mouth about the truth surrounding the fixed cost efficiencies of electricity versus the volatile costs of petroleum. I’m not sure they’re much different anymore.

Peak Oil: A Crisis Now or a Fear of a Crisis. (Thinking out loud)

2009-10-06T07:18:00.000-07:00

Peak oil should be identified as the mid-point of available oil reserves, nothing more, and nothing less. Like most ‘curves’ in available resources or materials, there is a finite reserve that has a beginning and an end. Somewhere in the middle is the peak. Prognosticators have indicated we are close to arriving at that peak, and therefore drastic measures are needed to slow down the arrival time.
Economists and Environmentalists are both predicting a similar outcome: that oil prices are set to be much higher than what they are today, albeit with vastly different reasons. We already got a glimpse of this in July 2008 when oil hit $147 a barrel. Yet, it quickly fell to $33 a barrel before stabilizing at around the $70 a barrel price, only slightly higher than it was in 2005.
Today, we can find many books, blogs, and articles on what we should and should not be doing to preserve not only our oil reserves, but the planet itself. The proliferation of ‘greening’ our home and workplace, to ways and tips to ‘protect’ the environs in which we live. There’s no doubt about it, the generation which follows us will be more acutely aware of the consequences of their actions…whether good, bad, or indifferent.
A few years ago I happened upon a book titled “God Wants You To Be Rich”, written by Paul Zane Pilzer. If you get a chance, pick it up at your local library or listen to it on-line. Pilzer is an economist, but with a very keen sense on why and how we approached the world we live in today. His take on the progression of technology, coupled with his apotheosis that there is no such thing as limited resources, since all resources are man-made (or at least their use is man-made), thereby meaning all resources are limitless.
Pilzer’s best example of this was the history of how and why we came to use oil reserves today. Dating back to the use of whale oil, and including the infamous ‘gasoline’ shortage of the early ‘70s. Whenever mankind has faced a crisis, either real or implied, Pilzer identifies (and correctly so) that we have the capacity to adapt our lifestyle to minimize the impact of said crisis.
Since I have you in a reading mood, take a spin over to “Fear: The History of a Political Idea” written by Corey Robin. The opening paragraph notes that “…fear is the first emotion experienced by a character in the Bible. Not desire, not shame, but fear” Robin takes the reader through the consequences of not responding to ‘fear’, and goes further to identify on how ‘fear’ has shaped policies and laws created over time.While we may or may not be close to attaining ‘peak oil’, the fact that there is a ‘fear’ of what can happen once this occurs, is spurning change. While Pilzer embarks on a journey that equates change with logical adaptation, Robin draws on our emotional weakness which causes change. Who knows, maybe it’s a bit of both.

Just Because I Said I Was Sorry, it Doesn’t Mean it Was My Fault

2009-09-24T16:53:00.000-07:00

British Columbia started it, Saskatchewan and Manitoba followed, and now the Yukon Territories and Ontario are looking to join in on the “I’m sorry, but that doesn’t mean it’s my fault” legislation – otherwise known as the Apology Act. Bill 59 passed its second reading on May 15th, 2008 and is now in front of the Standing Committee on Social Policy for fine tuning before heading to the Third Reading and Royal Ascent. (Let’s not forget our neighbours to the south, where 35 States have some form of apologetic legislation). This particular piece of legislation is applicable only in civil matters and not criminal proceedings.
On the surface this seems like an appropriate piece of legislation, given that according to the 1999 American Bar Association Journal, 30% of plaintiffs would not have sued if an apology was given. Furthermore, published in the 2003 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 37% of patients and family members suing may not have done so if an apology and an explanation was provided. Seems odd though that there are no Canadian Statistics on the impact of an issuance of an apology in advance of a lawsuit.
The move to bring this legislation into Law, is to allow compassion to be given without the fear of retribution based on an apology being interpreted as an admission of guilt. Due to the escalating civil suits which are realizing an increased monetary settlement or award, saying ‘sorry’ was used as a leverage to assign blame and guilt. Thinking back, if this was truly the case, then all those who expressed sorrow when my cat Tabitha died by saying “I’m sorry your cat died”…I should have sued them, because they just admitted guilt in the cause of her death! Yet I digress…
While those in the medical field are applauding this piece of legislation, it’s unfortunate that it becomes necessary to authour a law making it okay for a surgeon to say their sorry when someone dies on the operating table, regardless of fault. Consequently, the option is on the side of caution by not expressing any remorse for the loss, and leaving those behind to figure out whether the surgeon really cared or not. The impact of this legislative piece is still to be realized, but because this applies only to civil cases, their remains some questions surrounding cases which appear before both the criminal and civil courts. If a driver apologizes for hitting a pedestrian in civil court, knowing that it is not admissible in the proceedings, does that put the driver at risk in the criminal courts as this Act would inapplicable in the criminal system?
The larger concern could stem from ‘false apologies’ that could appear as a means to appease mourning family members. If Bill 59 was to pass making it okay to say sorry without fear of civil reprisal, than what is to stop medical institutions from issuing a blanket “Just Say You’re Sorry” Policy…diminishing the real intent of a truly remorseful medical individual.I’m sorry for this piece… it’s not my fault!!

Harmonization – A word only singers should use, not the taxman!

2009-09-21T06:56:00.000-07:00

It is said that there are two things in life unavoidable – death and taxes. It’s really unfortunate that taxes have become such a mainstay in our lives to become unavoidable, heck even acceptable in some cases. Have you ever purchased something of value and paid no tax? Yep, me neither. Somehow those merchants who advertise with gusto “save the tax” or “we’ll pay the tax” manage to still charge us the tax on our bill of sale.

Ontario is poised to follow our neighbours to the east, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, with the introduction of the HST, or Harmonized Sales Tax on July 1st, 2010. Some promoters of the new taxing system will even go further to tag it a Value-Added Tax…because that sounds a whole lot easier to sell!! A tax that adds value…who’d a thunk!!

The argument for the blending of the current (RST) Provincial Retail Sales Tax (8%) and the (GST) Federal Goods & Services Tax (5%) is that this “Made in Ontario” solution will “help make businesses more competitive domestically and internationally.” This said according to the website http://taxharmonization.on.ca/. The proponents for HST and the Ontario Liberals cite the success of the HST in the Atlantic Provinces as it’s reasoning for the blending of taxes. As is usual with other Liberal party reforms, they’ll lean to an academic report as their source of information. In this particular case, they point to “Lessons in Harmony: What Experience in the Atlantic Provinces Shows About the Benefits of a Harmonized Sales Tax”, written by Michael Smart out of the C.D. Howe Institute.

Unlike other reports written by professors this one is only 28 pages in length, so one can read it fairly quickly and easily. Smart runs through a gambit of examples on the successes of HST as felt by the Atlantic Provinces, and leave one with a fairly complacent feeling that HST is okay. That is until you reach the Appendix. Up until this point, Smart has been very clear that the figures and examples that he used are estimates, and as the reader, you don’t question the figures…until now. In the opening paragraph of the Appendix, Smart writes “…my main estimates of the investment impact of the reform may be confounded by other economic changes in the Atlantic provinces, such as the sharp expansion in the offshore oil and gas sectors in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and the introduction of the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit for manufacturing and processing industries in 1997.”

The bottom line is that when it comes to taxes, the consumer always loses…no matter how you sugar-coat the delivery method. According to the Hamilton Spectator, they quote Revenue Minister John Wilkinson as saying “We’re still listening to music on an eight-track when the rest of the world has an iPod. We can’t attract investment and jobs in the 21st Century with a tax system from the 1960s.” Wow, Ontario must really suck at attracting businesses solely on how our tax system is managed. I guess someone at Toyota should have picked up on that one before they built their plant in Woodstock.

Perhaps it’s not the system that’s scaring investment away from Ontario, but rather the tax rate. With the new HST, consumers are going to be anteing up more at the till in some instances, with seeing little to no change in other purchases. The argument that businesses will lower their prices due to the cost savings received through the HST system falls short of an accurate depiction of business costs. The main thrust or benefit to the businesses is on capital expenditures and managing tax reporting. Speaking of tax reporting, with the new HST system, the Provincial government is providing one-time transitional funding for small businesses to cover the cost of new accounting and point-of-sale systems. (Maybe I missed something here, did we just spend more tax-payer money?)

Other business costs previously exempt from the RST, but now applicable for HST include advertising, memberships, association fees, and other services. Considering the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce is comprised of over 75% of small business, I wonder how receptive they’ll be to an automatic increase in their membership of 8% due to the HST?

The other elephant in the room is the question of proposed tax increases. Right now, with each tax applied differently it is very easy for the electorate to channel their displeasure at any tax increase. Raise the GST? (which is being strongly considered to mitigate the increased debt acquired through the recent recession) Hit up your local Member of Parliament. Raise the RST?(which is probably unlikely at this time, but there are no guarantees) Challenge your local Member of Provincial Parliament. But raise the HST? Any contemplation of this makes it way too easy for deflection of blame to the other recipient of the tax monies.

Enjoy your purchases now fair consumer, as of July 1st 2010 you'll be be rejoicing your Canadian citizenship in one breath, while cursing your choice to reside in Ontario in your next breath.

“Hi, I’m a Long Time Listener, First Time Host…Go Ahead, I’m on The Air”

2009-09-18T14:39:00.000-07:00

I remember growing up thinking that the Radio was king. I especially loved the stories told by folks like Paul Harvey (“…and now you know the rest of the story.”), and still to this day, Stuart Maclean and his fictional family of Dave & Morley. Perhaps it’s because I come from a large family, six sisters and a brother, that radio became an integral part of my life. I so wanted to be one of those great story tellers.
As technology advanced (and I grew older), I abandoned the conventional form of radio use and fell in love with listening to radio on the internet. While I have an iPhone, I get more use out of listening to the radio than anything else the phone has to offer, and of course that includes 900CHML. I found that my passion for the radio grew stronger.
Over the last few years, I listened with admiration of past Talk Show Idol contestants and subsequent winners and wondered when I would summon enough courage to step up to the microphone. Through recent volunteer involvement, I had the pleasure of being a guest on 900CHML and found myself being like a kid in a candy store. I’d been hit by the proverbial street dealer offering me a ‘free’ chance on radio…and I found myself hooked! But if I wanted more, I was going to have to pay for it!! My payment…apply to Talk Show Idol IV. So I did.
The first step: go to 900CHML Headquarters for a group interview. While excited to get the call and the interview, I wasn’t overly concerned as I felt this was more of a ‘meet and greet’, and treated as such. That is until Andy Zimmerman, Promotions Coordinator and Jeff Storey, Program Director, advised us that they will be reviewing whether we are ‘on air’ worthy or not. After the meeting, I was excited but nervous that I may not quite have the qualities they’re looking for from a contestant.
Then came the email…Andy sends the schedule of appearances, and I get the nod as first up. Terrific - perhaps, I shouldn’t have spoken first in our group interview…oops. Now I started to worry, “what was my ‘word’ going to be on the following Monday?” I started rehearsing what I thought my word would be about…the ‘word’ I thought I was going to get was “Hamilton”. It turned out to be “Election”…oops again. Earlier that day I had nailed the morning quiz, so I was somewhat confident that I could manage these ‘tests’ Andy and Jeff were putting us through. That is until Scott Thompson said “Election”. My mind went blank and I started spewing what I thought was senseless musings about a Federal Election, not even sure if the monologue made any sense to the listeners. “Okay, I need to kick it old school”, I posted on my Facebook and Twitter status afterwards.
Choosing my topic for Friday weighed heavily on the fact that I was first up. I wanted to set a standard that would make it difficult for the other contestants following me. This was a contest after all, and I wanted to be the one to advance to the next round. So the hunt was on for the most appropriate topic that would not only set me apart from Alison, Joe and Allen…but resonate with the judges as impactful. Due to all of the volunteer work and diversified work history, I had a treasure chest of topics to choose from. In the end, I knew that if I was to have a chance at winning the week, I needed a topic that I was comfortable with; and, one that contained a supportive guest who could speak well. (I was going to be nervous enough, and didn’t want my guest to be a weak speaker.)
I called on a past acquaintance, Patrick Mathieu to be my guest. I wanted an opportunity to share with the listenership a personal side of me, and also thank the man who provided me the focus I needed to move past a personal experience. Patrick’s work in taking the topic of mortality, and using it as a positive one, having authoured “The Power of Mortality”, as well as countless speaking engagements, had had a tremendous impact on my life. Not knowing if I would ever get the chance to have time on air to share with others “The Power of Mortality”, I thought it best that this should be that time.
My “Talk Show” time went fairly well, heck, I even got a caller…something I wasn’t really prepared for, given the topic and all. The judges, Andy, Jeff and Shiona were kind to me, providing me with key points of listener management. Being first up didn’t necessarily mean that their kindness was enough to get me through to the next round, as the other contestants had not been up yet, so nothing was a given. Due to other commitments, I was only able to catch snippets of the other contestants, and what I had heard was solid enough to make the judges choice not an easy one at all.
I’d like to thank Patrick Mathieu for being my guest. You can see what he’s all about at www.powerofmortality.com
Thanks to 900CHML for the opportunity. To Andy, Jeff, and Shiona for their time and feedback. And of course to Matt Holmes for giving up his time slot to us amateur talk show host wannabe’s.
And of course, to the listeners of 900CHML…because without you, the station would not be the success it is today.To view other blogs by me, visit my blog at http://hamiltonbusinessmatters.blogspot.com

Doctor to Patient: Electronic Connection Concerns

2009-09-04T16:21:00.000-07:00

With today’s technology rapidly expanding with bloggers, tweeters, and instant messaging, one has to wonder how long it will take before doctors and patients start communicating via the Internet more regularly.

According to a recent article in The Medical Post, use of e-mail by physicians in order to manage patient care is indeed becoming more common. However, what’s noted is that physicians aren’t as eager to establish an electronic link with their patients. It’s the patients wanting to establish a quicker link to their medical practitioner. If you were to look at the availability of ailments, cures, medicines, and interactions on the Internet, it makes sense that patients want better links with their doctors.

A simple example case would be someone wanting to send a quick message to their doctor asking if it’s normal to feel a ‘little bloated’ while taking a new medication. Most certainly that individual could contact the pharmacy to seek support, but not all patients are comfortable with their Pharmacist…certainly not to the same familiarity as their family doc. And, because the question is a simple one, making an appointment doesn’t warrant the expenditure to obtain confirmation of the symptom being experienced.

The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), the country’s principle provider of medical liability protection for physicians is now offering support for the physicians who use e-mail to communicate with their patients. To minimize the legal liabilities associated with electronic communication between physician and patient, the CMPA has identified some potential key areas of concern. Physicians are directed to:

Ø Review the applicable federal, provincial, college, and regulatory requirements affecting the use of e-mail transmitting patient information.

Ø Consider the implications of confidentiality, privacy and security. To this point, they ask that physicians not use free-mail or internet-based services to transmit information. So for patients using Hotmail or Gmail, you’ll need to subscribe to a home based or subscriber based service.

Ø Timeliness of responses. E-mail in particular can vary in timeliness from both the sender and the receiver as firewalls, and reliance of the service provider could impede prompt communications.

Ø And, Clarity of communications. Written communication lacks emotion, including sensitivity to the recipient of the text information.

To assist physicians, the CMPA created a consent form for the physician and patient to complete, outlining guidelines for both users to follow in order to address the above risk factors.

So now comes the question in all of this: Would YOU correspond with your physician via e-mail or texting for ‘simple’ reasons (ie – setting an appointment, request for bloodwork, et al)? In today’s age of secure electronic technology, probably the bigger question is how important is it to you to have an electronic link to your physician? And, are the risks greater than the return with this ‘new’ form of communication?

Today’s physicians are managed with more complexity than days of our fathers and grandfathers. Lawsuits and patient expectations have grown as patients arm themselves with more information about symptoms and treatments available around the globe. In Canada, the government has managed to delve deeper in the management of health care as one of its prerogatives of providing the funding for all Canadians to enjoy. This means a greater workload for all physicians, who may want to opt for a more efficient means of meeting their patients’ needs.

The roadblock right now though, is the liability associated with societies growing greed to hold all liability claims (whether incurred intentionally or not) to a subjective price tag.

Taking My Ticket To Ride

2009-08-28T05:52:00.000-07:00

As part of one of the committees that I sit on, I had the opportunity to participate in a ‘ride-along’ with the Hamilton Police Service. I did so on a Friday night 7pm to 7am shift recently. I hope you enjoy my synopsis of the evening.

My partner for the evening was P.C. Maddick, a fourth year constable with the Hamilton Police Services, one of 6 female officers on this particular shift, and also one of the senior officers that evening. One of the first observations that I noted was that for each of the calls we attended with other officers, there was a brief conversation beforehand to establish roles and responsibilities for each of the officers attending. They also ran background checks on all of the calls, to ensure their safety and to understand the possibilities of what could transpire during the call.
Our evening together started off slow, cruising the streets running license plates, walking about the area parks, and ensuring that we were visible to the community we were patrolling. This actually turned out to be a good thing, because it allowed for the two of us to get to know each other and establish a comfort level, which was vitally important, as Maddick was responsible for my safety. She not only had to watch out for her safety on the job, but now she had a civilian along for the ride, whom she was responsible to ensure that I returned in the same condition as I started the shift.

The first calls of the evening were of the lower priority type: custodial complaints, noise concerns, swimmers in a closed public pool…generally the type wherein warnings were issued after it was ascertained that no prior convictions or warrants were on record for the individuals in question. We dealt with punk-ass kids who felt they were above the law, and not required to respect those in authority. It will be very interesting to see where these folks will end up as they get older.
My first adrenaline rush came on a call that took us to the rural area of Hamilton. We were responding to a noise complaint, but there was a history between the complainant and the accused. Upon further investigation before attending the call, the accused had a prior history with the police. So here we are, myself and two other officers, attending a call at a rural location in the dead of the night…and there are barking dogs on site…we can’t see them clearly, but we know they’re present. Now, I am not a fan of dogs on farms, I’ve had one too many negative experiences with farm dogs, so my affliction to them is warranted. After the accused assured us that the dogs were secure, a heated conversation is had between the officers and the accused. I was amazed at the calmness of the officers, always in control, and demonstrating preparedness if the chat did not go as intended. As they finished the conversation and headed back to the cars, we were alerted that the dogs were no longer secure. I ran as fast as I could to the car, and dove in the passenger seat, closed the door and watched with great amazement as the officers attending quickly assessed their options without panicking (as I had just done!). The dogs were secured by their owners, and off we were to another call. I was quietly checking my pants to ensure that they were still clean!!

Our last call of the night involved a neighbourhood dispute which had turned into a bit of a fisticuff between some of the residents and guests. The call was attended by several officers, including the sergeant, who oversaw those attending to ensure that everyone had a role in obtaining information as to what had happened. There was clear frustration among the officers in attendance, as obtaining information as to what had happened was hampered by drunken witnesses, and feuding neighbours who were visibly upset and offered subjective accounts of what had happened, versus objective observations. Calls of this nature are time consuming, and can cause grief for others looking for quicker responses for their concerns, and grief for those at the call, as closure is a long ways off.

Overall, my experience of the night was enlightening, and I gained new found respect for those officers who work the beat. I was impressed with how they approached each call, regardless of the priority assigned to the call. And, on a personal note, because I was partnered with a female officer, I gained a new sense of some of the additional obstacles that they face, as well as an increased appreciation of their value on the Force. Given some of the obstinate individuals we had the pleasure of dealing with; their presence alone immediately defused some of the tensions, as their appeared to be a temperance on the male’s part to be overly aggressive. I could feel the aggression kick in when they wanted to know who I was…let’s just say, I made sure I stood in the background as much as possible!

I would like to thank the Hamilton Police Services, Superintendent Ken Bond, and Sergeant Dave Hennick for the opportunity to participate in the ‘ride-along’. And most of all, PC Mallory Maddick for putting up with this shadow on her Friday night shift.

Cigerette Smoking in Public Spaces

2009-08-11T06:06:00.000-07:00

I really thought that this subject was no longer a 'hot topic', that is until yesterday when I visited a couple of restaurants in the Burlington area and got an earful about the infringement of rights forced upon the owners with respects to no smoking in their establishments.

The Ontario Government recently passed legislation banning smoking within public enclosed spaces, whether they are partially enclosed or fully enclosed. Contained within there breifing on the law, they state that their "commitment to reduce tobacco consumption by 20% before the end of 2007 was achieved ahead of schedule." In addition, "Between 2003 and 2006, there was a 31.8 per cent decline in tobacco consumption indicating that approximately 4.6 billion fewer cigarettes were sold."

I'm not exactly sure how they measure their statistics, but according to Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, their numbers seem to contradict the above information. Tax Revenues from Tobacco Sales from 1999 to 2008 show a completely different story. According to the figures presented, the 3-year period immediately preceding 2003 shows a combined revenue of $2,379,380,568 (2000-2001 to 2002-2003 Figures are shown in combined years versus calendar years.) Conversely, for the same time frame (2003-2004 to 2005-2006) $4,182,000,000 of tax revenue was collected, an increase of over 40%.

Continued efforts are being made on almost every governmental level to reduce smoking in places beyond the current Provincial legislation. Everything from cars, to apartments, to venues regardless of enclosure restrictions. The intent is to protect those who are either sensitive to second-hand smoke, or as a measure to reduce the impact of smoking related illnesses on our health care system. All in all, there is no argument against legislative protectionism on those who choose not to smoke or be around those who choose to smoke. The question arises on those who do choose to smoke, and those who wish to provide a place to enjoy that choice.

No one will argue that smoking is detrimental to one's health. Yet, the Government condones smoking through their administration of taxing the sales of tobacco products. Understanding that measures are required to restrict the availability and promotion of tobacco products to minors, continued efforts must be maintained to ensure that this doesn't stop short of its intended audience.

Currently the Government monitors and creates measures with respects to the sale and consumption of alcohol. Why then can't the Government create similar measures for the sale and consumption of tobacco? Ideally, tobacco products shouldn't be available for sale in convenience stores and gas stations. For the same reasons that alcohol isn't available (in Ontario anyway)...for the argument of protecting youth from accessing the product in question. No one under 19 is allowed to purchase tobacco products, so let's put that product in places where one has to be 19 to enter. Now let's go one step further...allow these establishments to become 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' only. Forget trying to split the seating arrangements to 'smoking' or 'non-smoking', because we know this doesn't work for those who don't smoke.

With the restriction of the availability of tobacco products for purchase, you can bet that the number of 'smoking' only establishments will be limited, and those who enter will be above the age of 19, thereby restricting the purchase of tobacco products by minors. Today, tax revenues from tobacco sales are close to $1,000,000,000 which would lead one to wonder that if those tax revenues were no longer feeding government programs, what would we be willing to cut from our service programs.

Advocating for Better Customer Service

2009-08-01T06:58:00.000-07:00

The following story should have been a no-brainer for the folks at FIDO, instead it became a test of patience and perseverence for a client. This is a true story.

The client has been with FIDO since 1995 and has 3 phone lines, each under a different term contract expirying at various times. As a matter of interest, the client used to have a fourth line, but transferred ownership of that line to his son, who committed to a new contract with FIDO. The client has a good rating with FIDO, and rarely calls with concerns over service issues. His credit rating is rated 'low', as he pays his bills within the perscribed timeframe. On average, his monthly bill is approximately $300 per month for the 3 lines.

Now that you have the background on the client, we'll approach the situation: When the introduction of the iPhones commenced a little over a year ago, the client requested an upgrade on one of his lines to the iPhone. He also took the $30/month 6-GIG data package add-on to his existing phone contract. FIDO obliged his request without objection. At that time, he also inquired whether one of the other lines could also receive the iPhone upgrade, and he was advised that he would have to wait until June 2009, which he excepted.

This year, Apple introduced the 'new' iPhone with enhanced features not included on the first version. Our client contacted FIDO in July requesting the upgrade to the line previously mentioned that needed to wait until June to upgrade. He was denied the upgrade due to an internal policy change which was implemented on February 3rd, 2009 restricting any contract renewals prior to 6-months from expiry of existing contract term. This was a 'no exceptions' policy direction. Which would mean that our client who still had 11 months remaining on his contract with FIDO (for this particular line) would not be able to upgrade to the iPhone (at the reduced price for the phone) until February 2010.

In a conversation with the FIDO Supervisor, he was told his only two options would be to purchase the iPhone at full cost, or wait until February 2010 (& hope that FIDO was still offering the iPhone at that time.) What baffled our client the most, was that the policy was not put in place for the customer, but rather for FIDO. As explained to him, the reason for the policy was that FIDO had experienced a number of complaints from the first launching of the iPhone from clients who were not pleased with the extended contract terms applied to their contract when they upgraded to the iPhone. So as a means of dealing with this communication concern, FIDO chose to place all of their customers into one pile...

Not satisfied with the explanation for the decline, our client then took the next step of contacting senior management at FIDO requesting further explanation to the policy. Within a week, FIDO contacted the client explaning that while they do have the 'no exceptions' policy, there was a reason that they have humans answering the phone and not computers..."to allow for intelligent decisions to be made." The senior staffer who contacted our client resolved the concern, and he now is the proud owner another iPhone (this one is white).

The moral of the story here is to approach obstacles in life with logic, not emotion. At no time during my clients interaction with FIDO did he use profanity, make virulent statements, generalize or trivialize, or get personal. To FIDO's credit, neither did they. They remained logical and focussed on the policy before them...what was required was a bridge to be constructed between a customer and a retailer to solve a situation which could have had dire results if not corrected. The only way that bridge gets constructed is to advocate for what you believe in, and leave your personal opinions at the door. Get the facts first. Understand them second. Look for a solution (if there really is one) third. Make sure you're speaking with the right person fourth. And, finally make sure you thank them for taking the time.

Welcome

2009-07-30T18:47:00.000-07:00

I had it in my mind that I would have lots to discuss in my blog page, but of course once I am ready to get this going...I've hit the perverbial wall.

For those who may not know me, I am a committee junkie. I am the current head of 6 different committees, plus I sit on other committees as a member only. My CV reads something like this:

President, Hamilton Chapter Council, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario
Chair, Transportation Committee, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce
Chair, DARTS, Board of Directors
Chair, Clean City Liaison Committee, City of Hamilton
Chair, Waste Reduction Task Force, City of Hamilton
Chair, Property Standards, City of Hamilton
Member, Winona Men's Club
Member, Rotary Club of Hamilton
Member, Superintendents Advisory Committee, Hamilton Police Services
Member, Government Affairs Committee, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce

I am a bit of a job hound, having worked for over 20 different companies so far. It's not that I am a bad employee...it's more of a case where I develop unrest for what I am doing and look for the greener grass on the other side. Check these jobs out (they're not in exact order, but pretty close):

Mother's Pizza (first job at 15)
Burger King
McDonald's
Shakee's Pizza
Cashway Building Centres (twice)
The Top Shop
Your Countertop Place (my own company)
Wal-Mart
The Hamilton Spectator
Brant Windows & Doors
The Hamilton Bulldogs Hockey Club
Dynasty Communications
RIBA Corporations
The Little Green Tree
And other less jobs where I only stayed long enough to realize that what I was doing wasn't what I had expected.

Through these jobs, my skillset definately leans towards sales and marketing/consulting. There's not a lot I can't discuss or hold a conversation about. While I may lack a strong educational background, I have more than made up for this through genuine street smarts.

I hope you stay tuned to this blog. I'll entertain, educate, and just generally add something new to your day.

Thanks,
Dan