Playing it Safe Means Not Playing at All

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?

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?

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)

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

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!

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”

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