So what do we really want?

We really are a fickle bunch.  It does not matter what any federal government does sooner or later the sitting party loses it’s luster and nobody is happy.  One of the promises the Harper government made as a campaign strategy was tougher crime laws.  Stiffer sentences, zero tolerance was the hope put before the electorate.  So far we have seen Bill C15 brought forth which surprisingly got the support of Ignatieff and the Liberal MP's.

If Bill C15 becomes law it will see mandatory prison sentences for several drug offenses.  Other bills the conservatives have put before Parliament ended up stalling when Parliament was prorogued.  However,  Bill C15 is not really what the average person was hoping for when Harper promised to be “Tough on Crime.”

What I wanted to see was a bill that would address increased legislated punishments on the Criminal Code.  Even to go as far as amending the Criminal Code to readdress some offenses that have fallen into the dual-procedure trap, allowing the courts to treat some serious crimes as summary offenses, allowing some to get off for crimes such as breaking and entering your businesses and only get a monetary fine instead of time.

So, the conservatives started with drug offenses and we are to hold our breath and wait for the real work to begin.  I guess it is a good start but I couldn't help but notice that this Bill was received by the public with great skepticism and in many cases plain anger.

Colleagues have written articles using Bill C15 as a platform to call out against tougher crime bills in general.  Yet, it is hard to imagine anyone not wanting to put away criminals for at least some length of time in an attempt to make the streets safer.

One function of Bill C15 will provide provisions to impose a minimum six months sentence to anyone caught in the possession of marijuana, including the possession of over five marijuana plants.  Along with this Bill the government has suggested that the federal prison system will be expanded to accommodate the increased prison population.  I am certainly not one to side with the likes of Mark Emery, the King of Pot, but if the conservatives wanted to push ahead with tougher crime laws, why did they start with the 420 crowd?

The liberal press was quick to jump on this bill and cite uncredited studies that showed that tougher laws for pot smoking  don't deter potheads from puffing up.  And, increased prison systems don't make our streets safer. In fact, some reactions cited support for softening laws for drug offenses with the logic that everyone sooner or later will do it, so let them just be and go after the 'real criminals' instead.  It is not surprising that the conservatives got this reaction, you could see this coming a mile away  So it begs the question, 'Why did Harper not just take a legal pen to sentences on crimes like sex offenses, assaults, home invasions and frauds to name just a few?’

This is where I believe we can all agree on.  And, if it takes spending some 'shovel ready' funds to make the prison system beefier then I'll put down the word processor and don a hard hat.  Hell, I would enjoy seeing the prisons built.

However, building new prisons is too simple a view of the problem and what we have been doing over the past 30 years has been focusing on rehabilitation based primarily on social programs aimed at educating people before they offend.  And, when the education fails we usher the offender into institutions disguised with such politically correct titles as young offender Centres.  A place where future career criminals are exposed to more programming in an effort to evangelize them into well rounded members of society.  But in too many cases the kids are back into the system, and by the time they turn 18 they have developed great contacts and skills that put them into places call Prisons instead of Centres.

I know I am whining here, but the bottom line is this. I really don't believe that most sociopaths can be rehabilitated. I also believe that the only way to fight crime is to create an environment where the criminal begins to perceive that there is a high likelihood of being caught.  And, along with being caught, there is a judge with some ca-hones willing to impose a sentence worthy of giving the scumbag pause.  Because that is where we have failed.  The Criminal Code of Canada is a toothy piece of work, but after the police break their backs and get them before the courts, we tend to see lenient sentences handed down even thought the Criminal Code has provisions for a stiffer penalty in place.

So, this is where the initial hopes for stiffer penalties for criminals lay.   In the hands of promises made by the conservative government.  It is also very evident that so far we have not seen this promise fulfilled.  Quite frankly, I have been rather pleased with the Harper government and I have said as much in the past.  But I too can be fickle, and when Parliament sits once again after the lengthy break it will be interesting if we see the legal landscape of Canada is efficiently tackled.  Until then, lock your doors and buy a car alarm, because so far Canada does not have a system that deters crime.

A Community in Tears

"The death of a child is like a period  placed before the end of a sentence."  anonymous

With the homicide of two young children in Millet on February 1st, the small town of Millet has been left bewildered and in a deep state of mourning. Last Friday about 300 people gathered at the Millet Agriplex after sunset and slowly marched under the guidance of candle light to the former home of the two boys. In front of the house people had placed stuffed animals showing their sorrow for the loss of these children. People who have never meet the boys or their families cried openly in the street. The countenance displayed by many is heavy, and we struggle to understand what events or conditions influenced the death of children we will never have the opportunity to know.

What we do know has only been printed in the pages of the daily press or have been told to us on newscasts on television and radio. Most of what we have been told, is just not official, and has been in many cases inaccurate and speculative. The official stance by the RCMP as of February 8th is tight lipped, stating simply that two children died as a result of homicide, and the deaths occurred in Millet. No persons have been arrested or charged. No other details have been released. This position is understandable as the investigative process must be allowed to take its course. This however, does not quell the public curiosity or the need to have information to deal with a community in mourning.

As parents, the thought of losing your child is unthinkable. The pain and suffering the surviving parent endures is for many just unimaginable. I raised two daughters and both are grown and have moved on. One having married and given me a terrific son-in-law and two wonderful grandchildren. My eldest daughter moved out, bought a house and is running a successful practice in Edmonton. I have had the blessing of never experiencing the death of a child. Therefore, I can only imagine the grief being felt by the two boys families.

However, a candlelight vigil is an act of communal suffering, It is a very profound statement by friends, neighbours and strangers that clearly advises others that the death is something personally and tangibly felt. It is also the first stage of a community in mourning, where in order to deal with the loss we see a need to do something about it. And, because the community cannot take direct action to resolve the grief, anger follows, then remorse and finally acceptance. It is during these points that people can succumb to further speculation and rumour. A dangerous concoction of emotions and misdirected language that can deepen the pain of the surviving family. This is a condition I am all to familiar with, and which makes this weeks editorial the hardest comment I have ever put to paper.

So I need to put this out there. Our publication has been silent on this issue, and we have been quiet on this matter deliberately. These deaths which occurred only two block away from our office hit us hard. And, as a result there is nobody in our office that is immune to the grief. As a weekly publication, we did not want to come out with speculation, whether confirmed or otherwise. Because, if we made a mistake, the surviving family and community would suffer at the hands of a publication that was only looking for a headline.

Instead of being a source of discomfort to the family, our community can provide the comfort needed which often comes through others who have been in the same place. There is a comfort in knowing that others have been through what we face and have survived. Whether it comes from a touch of a hand, a shoulder to cry on or an ear to listen, the community can provide the grace to come along side in what ever capacity that is needed and reach out to provide comfort that they themselves have already received. This is precisely how a community deals with grief, and the vigil was just one example.

Someone once said that “the death of a child is like a period placed before the end of a sentence.” Like an unfulfilled thought, when a child dies, all the hopes and ambitions for that child to grow into adulthood dies with it. The thought of the fulfilled life is stopped short and left incomplete. The loss of these two children will be felt for years to come by all who are touched by the grief. As we grasp to understand what took place our hearts go out to the family of Jayden McConnell aged 10 months, and Connor McConnell aged 2.5 years. You will always be in our thoughts.

To Peak or Not to Peak?

Love it or hate it, there is no doubt that whether you are an environmentalist or a rabid consumer of hydrocarbons also known as fossil fuel, oil is what makes the world's economies thrive. The truth is that everything we own, from a toaster to a loaf of bread, oil is used at some point in it's creation.

Out of billions of inhabitants of this world, we use products made of plastics, which are oil based products. Every item you purchase has been made in a plant which needs to be powered. Power that is generated by fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. The bottom line is this. Our dependency on oil cannot be weaned overnight. Because, if that was true, we would all be freezing in the dark, and according to experts world oil supplies are in serious decline.

Now a debate has been waging on what many have been calling peak oil. Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.

According to industry watchdogs the world reached its peak oil production in 2006. This, of course, was revised from a previous peak oil calculation that stated that 1970 was the beginning of the end. Peak oil came to the top of the list again when news reached that Saudi oil production had peaked in 2009, news that can only raise the price of a barrel of oil. As peak oil pundits pound the pavement with the news of a dry hole, the laws of supply and demand influence markets world wide.

While those in power banter back and forth on the issue of peak oil and clamber in an effort to save their lifestyle, a small group of geologists and scientist sit back and snicker. Because these people are not buying into the peak oil crisis. They are those scientists that state that oil grows in the crust of the earth, liken to blood in a living creature. Yes, these folks are considered by the ruling party as the lunatic fringe.

One such scientist, a Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continuously manufactured by the Earth under superheated conditions and extreme pressures. As the primordial syrup migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to prehistoric times.

As a consumer of oil, I for one, like what the lunatics are preaching. If true, the laws of lunacy, can stabilize the price of fuel and provide much needed time to develop alternative energy sources without throwing public funds at projects that act like an energy placebo.

The 'primordial syrup theory' is not completely lacking observed science. A good example is the Eugene Island oil field, deep off the Gulf of Mexico that was believed to have achieved 'peak oil' operation years ago and according to experts was in a decline. For some time it behaved like any normal field. Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to 4,000 barrels a day. Then inexplicably the field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years earlier.

There are some credible oil suppliers who also do not believe in 'peak oil'. Recently the head of Saudi oil giant Aramco, Khalid al Falih came out with the statement, “We don't believe in peak oil,” during a speech that was to quell concerns that the largest oil field in the world, Saudi Arabia had peaked and was in serious decline.

By the time anybody graduates from high-school, they have been educated to believe that oil is the result of decaying matter from plants and animals millions of years ago. And, for the most part, that explanation sounds credible. If this were the case then a debate over 'peak oil' would not be an issue in the industry and oil companies could go about their business finding reachable sources and development method of extracting.

Until recent news, I had discarded the 'primordial syrup' theory as science fiction, or the fantasies of academic dreaming. However, news from NASA this week can cause a pregnant pause in the debate, which came from 1,363 Billion kilometers away. Scientists have discovered that a moon of Saturn, Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Titan not only rains oil, it also oozes oil.

I am not so sure that we can no longer consider scientists like Thomas Gold as lunatics. Unless you believe that Titan had enough life millions of years ago, to be processed into a fossil fuel. I guess it is true, oil is where you find it.