Friday, January 23, 2015

Sometimes enough power means too much power

Supplying electricity to a province as large and diverse as Ontario is a complex undertaking, enough that one can always find some detail to “prove” a predetermined attitude, or so it seems. A case in point is the electricity oversupply we had on Christmas.
This is where J. J. Abrams gets his power
That day, as trumpeted by some anti-wind bloggers, saw so little demand for electricity in Ontario (due to mild weather, and most people not being at work) that we had more than we needed, had to give it away to other jurisdictions, even pay them to take it from us. Which means we (Ontario power customers) paid for wind energy we just gave away. Shocking!
We actually had too much power of all sorts: wind, nuclear, gas and hydro, so we bought power from all of those sources, and paid each to forgo producing more, to keep the system in balance. Yes, even worse than buying electricity we didn’t need, we even paid for some that wasn’t made! Scandalous! Or is it…
Context is key. On the lowest-demand day of the year, we had more electricity than we needed. Our power system was built to ensure we don’t run out on the days when we have our highest demand. To have enough power available to keep the A/C on for hot summer afternoons, we need to have far more available than can be used on mild winter holidays.
Sure, it would be nice if we just paid for exactly the power we needed, when we needed it, but that’s not realistic. Power plants cost big bucks to build. Heck, they can cost a half billion dollars NOT to build, as the cancelled gas plant scandal has shown! For builders to take on projects of that scale, they require guaranteed minimum contracts to cover fixed costs and make loan payments so they don’t go belly-up in a season of low demand.
Without it, firms simply wouldn’t be willing to lay out the funds to build power generation. That would leave us without enough domestic generation to meet our needs, and we’d have import more expensive power, which would make electric bills higher.
Of course, if all power generation were publicly owned, we would not have to make such payments. Yet we’d still pay, because the public would be on the hook for the full construction and operating costs, regardless how much power we did or didn’t need. Our bills would reflect that.
Another option would be some kind of storage capacity, so we could “bank” unused power and use it later when we needed it, instead of having to dump it. This could work, but the cost to build that storage would also be massive, and again go against your power bill.
So in the end, there is no avoiding it, and you can’t put all the blame on wind, or nuclear, or any other mode of generation. There have been many signs of mismanagement of the power system by the government, but paying for some wind we didn’t need on a low-demand holiday isn’t one. The simple fact is that if we want to have enough power ready when we need it most, then we must overpay a bit when we need it least. It’s all part of the complex trade-offs of providing reliable power service to Canada’s largest economy.  
Published as my Root Issues column in the Barrie Examiner as "Planning needed to keep Ontario powered up"
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a director of Living Green and the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.

Here's an email I received in response to my column:
Dear Erich,

I read your piece in the Barrie Examiner on the complexity of the electricity system.  I agree that the system is complex, but our over reliance on nuclear energy is a big factor in the current large power surpluses we are experiencing.  These plants have to operate at a steady level 24/7 and provide little system flexibility.  

A far better approach would be to reduce our dependence on nuclear energy and continue to increase our development of renewable energy in combination with water power imports from Quebec.  Quebec has massive capacity to store energy by holding water in reservoirs. Ontario's recent deal to exchange up to 500 MW of power with Quebec can be used to essentially transform Ontario wind and solar power into firm baseload power.  We send power to Quebec when we have a surplus; they send it back when demand peaks in Ontario.  

Of course, one of the key advantages of solar energy is that it produces most of its power "on peak" -- hot sunny days when power demand is highest.  Another reason we have a power glut is that the Ontario energy bureaucracy has consistently over estimated future demand for power and underestimated the potential of energy efficiency.  We need a more flexible and responsive electricity system, and that means one built around distributed generation sources like wind and solar.

Thanks for your time, 

Federation of Community Power Co-operatives
info@fcpcoops.ca  |  (416)977-5093 ext 2380

Friday, January 16, 2015

New ridings offer new challenges for Green Party

2015 brings big changes on the local political front. With 30 new electoral districts (ridings) being added across the country to elect 30 more Members of Parliament, 15 of them in Ontario, boundaries which have not changed for over a decade will be moving.
This is your first chance in 2015 to Vote for a Green
In our area, the changes are significant. The Barrie riding, whose borders were drawn to match those of the City of Barrie, is being split across the middle (Tiffin St and Kempenfelt Bay) with each half being augmented with rural areas from the surrounding ridings. As a result, Springwater Township is being moved from the Simcoe—Grey district, and Oro-Medonte from Simcoe North, to create the new Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte (BSOM) electoral district, which has no incumbent MP. The south half of Barrie is joining with the Town of Innisfil, which has been moved out of the York—Simcoe district, to become Barrie—Innisfil (BI). Conservative MP Patrick Brown is the de facto incumbent for BI, although if he wins the provincial PC leadership race, he’ll have to step down federally, leaving that seat also open. Two open ridings in what has been a swing-riding area would draw much national media attention and will certainly make for some exciting, hard-fought races.
You will have already seen some reportage about nomination contests in the new ridings, although the Green Party was usually omitted from the coverage of which parties have or have not had nominations or formed new riding organizations. Luckily, I can correct that oversight!
For Greens, this boundary change is somewhat traumatic for both the Barrie and Simcoe North riding organizations. The Barrie Greens I helped build over the past 10 years have basically been cleaved in half, and what was an entirely urban riding will now be two ridings, each combining urban and rural communities, with divergent needs and feelings. This means adapting to varying campaign styles and even unmatched sign by-laws, which are quite different between Barrie and Simcoe County.
Rainbows, wind turbines, clear cuts to block -
what's not to like about Miss Green?
But this is also potentially traumatic for Greens in Simcoe North. Although Oro-Medonte represents only about 10% of the area and population of the (former) Simcoe North riding, many of the current or former Green Party riding executives and active volunteers happen to live there. In effect, much of the Simcoe North Green Party organization is finding themselves uprooted and dropped into a new riding, even though their address hasn’t changed. Luckily, we are pulling together to address this challenge and together form an even stronger Green presence in the region’s 5 ridings.
As part of this, Green Party members from across the region are meeting on Sunday, February 8, to nominate candidates for BSOM and BI and new riding executives to support the campaign. Starting at 2 pm at O’Hara’s Public House at 420 Leacock Drive in Barrie, the event is open to members of the public, but voting will be limited to party members who live within the new BSOM or BI boundaries and have enrolled by January 25th. Several individuals have already stepped up to be serve as candidate or on the executive, but the party is always open to new applicants, who should contact info@BarrieGreens.ca or call 705-730-7591 to indicate their interest and get more information.

Published as my Root Issues column in the Barrie Examiner
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a director of Living Green and the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation

Friday, January 9, 2015

Je suis Charlie, vraiment!

(Se il vous plaît profiter de ma première blog bilingue , traduit en français par l'intermédiaire de mon ami Nicholas Lescarbeau, de l'original ici - Please enjoy my first-ever bilingual blog, translated to French through the agency of my friend Nicholas Lescarbeau, from the original here.)

Je suis Charlie.
Je suis Charlie Hebdo
Aujourd'hui j'écris alors que les médias couvrent l'assaut meutrier à Paris, au bureau du journal satirique Charlie Hebdo, qui a laissé 12 morts dont le rédacteur en chef ainsi que plusieurs dessinateurs et rédacteurs.
Personnellement, en tant que chroniqueur, je suis en faveur de la liberté d'expression et m'oppose à toute censure quelle quelle soit.
Mon historique concernant l'expression et la censure remonte à plus loin. En grandissant, j'adorais la satire effrontée de Mad et de Cracked ainsi que, plus tard, celle du National Lampoon et, à l'occasion notre propre Frank canadien. Au secondaire, les élèves avaient le droit le matin de faire des annonces bouffonnes ; parfois nos diffusions en direct outrepassaient la limite de l'administration et nous étions réprimandés. Des amis se sont faits dire qu'ils ne pouvaient porter de Tee-shirts offensants, inclus ceux arborant un berger irrité aiguillonnant des moutons avec la légende : «Foutez-moi le camp !» (Trad.: “Get the flock out of here!”) (Ah! Les années 80, si innocentes…).
Ensuite, pendant plusieurs années, j'ai écrit et été rédacteur de mathNEWS (Le journal ayant peu de maths et encore moins de nouvelles), une publication estudiantine, bi-mensuelle de la faculté des mathématiques de l'Université de Waterloo. Un jour, la publication-sœur The Cord, un journal estudiantin de l'Université Wilfrid Laurier voisine, publia un article traitant des pratiques sexuelles, susceptibles ou pas de transmettre le VIH/sida. En ces temps de confusion et d'ignorance, l'article très explicite, mais factuel, était très important. Mais la Fédération étudiante s'indigna et elle fit temporairement fermer le journal. Je présentai un papier couvrant les faits saillants de l'information "bannie", mais mes propres réviseurs refusèrent de le publier refroidis par la fermeture de l'autre journal. mathNEWS même, pour avoir publié des caricatures et des articles irrévérencieux, s'attirait parfois les foudres administratives et des réunions peu agréables dans le bureau du doyen.
Mémorial pour les journalistes tués dans la guerre
Pendant que j'enseignais en Corée du Sud, j’ai été particulièrement ému par une visite au Monument aux correspondants de guerre tués dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions. Peu de choses exigent plus de bravoure que de s’aventurer au front qu'armé d'une caméra ou d'un crayon et du papier afin de ramener la vérité au monde entier.
Aujourd'hui, nous nous rendons à l'évidence: Le front est partout. Ceux qui expriment des idées critiques ou satiriques risquent d'être persécutés ou même tués pour avoir évoqué des idées que d'autres trouvent menaçantes ou irrespectueuses et ce, que la cible soit musulmane ou l'Église orthodoxe Russe ou quelque autre religion. Même les pays évolués comme l'Allemagne, l'Islande ou la Nouvelle-Zélande traitent soigneusement les sensibilités religieuses avec des loiscontre le blasphème. Tel que rapporté par le réseau anglais de Radio-Canada, Salam Emenyawi, président du Conseil Musulman de Montréal, condamne l'attaque à Paris comme étant épouvantable et pense qu'il devrait y avoir des lois plus dures concernant ce qui peut être publié sur la religion et sur la publication de caricatures offensives pour certains -- favorisant la liberté d'expression, mais attelées à des limites pour ce qui est des thèmes religieux.  
Je suis en désaccord complet.  Bien que je considère cruel de ridiculiser les membres courants de la communauté et que je considère illégal d'encourager la haine et la violence; nos politiciens, chefs religieux ainsi que nos propres croyances méritent et doivent être critiqués, satirisés et même, au besoin, être ridiculisés. Plus une idéologie nous affecte et plus elle doit être remise en question, examinée et débattue. En fait, les lois devraient plutôt permettre une plus grande liberté dans ce sens. Aujourd'hui, le Président français François Hollande a très justement déclaré que les victimes étaient des héros.  
À moins de délibérément imprimer des renseignements erronés ou d'encourager la haine uniquement basée sur le ciblage d'un groupe, il ne devrait pas y avoir de limites quant à la capacité d'exprimer des idées, de les mettre en question ou de les critiquer fût-ce en mots ou dessins. Une idée valable peut facilement résister à la critique et au ridicule sans autre protection légales.  
Je suis Charlie.
Publié en version original anglaise dans ma chronique Root Issues dans le Barrie Examiner, ayant pour titre There should be no limits on the ability to question.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins est administrateur de Living Green et de Robert Schalkenbach Foundation

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Je suis Charlie

I am Charlie Hebdo
Je suis Charlie.
I write this today as live news covers the deadly attack on the Paris office of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, with 12 killed for their political coverage, including an editor and several cartoonists and writers.
As a newspaper columnist myself, I strongly identify with freedom of speech and oppose censorship of ideas.
But my personal history with expression and censorship goes back further. Growing up, I loved the irreverent satire of Mad and Cracked magazines, and later National Lampoon and occasionally, Canada's own Frank. In high school, students were allowed to do morning announcements in a comedic style; sometimes our live broadcasts crossed a line administration felt was too far, and were censored. Friends were told not to wear to school T-shirts that might offend, including one featuring an angry shepherd goading his sheep captioned “Get the flock out of here!” (Ah, the 80s, such innocent times).
Later, I wrote for, then edited for several years mathNEWS (“The paper with a little math and even less news; news with a math slant!”), fortnightly student publication of the University of Waterloo Math faculty. One time, sister publication The Cord, student paper of neighbouring Wilfred Laurier University, published an article detailing which sexual practices were or were not likely to transmit HIV/AIDS. It was very explicit, but also factual and, in those times of confusion and ignorance, very important. But the student union took offense and shut the paper down temporarily. I submitted a story covering highlights of the “banned” information, but my own editors refused to run it, under chill of the other shutdown. mathNEWS itself occasionally took heat, including probation and awkward meetings in the Dean's office, for publishing irreverent articles or cartoons.
Memorial for journalists killed in war
While teaching in South Korea, visiting Imjingak memorial park, I was particularly moved by a monument to war correspondents killed in the line of fire. I can think of few things braver than going to the front lines, armed only with camera or pen & paper, to bring truth back to the wider world.
Today we are graphically reminded the front line is everywhere. Those who express critical or satirical ideas can be persecuted, even killed for expressing ideas others find threatening or disrespectful, whether the target is Islam or the Russian Orthodox Church or other majority religions. Even enlightened nations like Germany, Iceland, or New Zealand coddle religious sensibilities with laws against “blasphemy”. As reported by CBC, President of the Muslim Council of Montreal Salam Emenyawi condemned the Paris attack as horrific but feels there should be tougher laws around what can be published about religion or putting out religious cartoons that are offensive to some – in favour of freedom of expression but with limits on religious topics.
I disagree completely. While I feel it is cruel to single out average community members for ridicule, and rightly illegal to goad hatred or violence, our political or religious leaders and beliefs need and deserve criticism, satire, even ridicule as necessary. The more an ideology influences our lives, the more it must be questioned, examined, and argued. If anything, laws should allow greater freedom in this direction. French President François Hollande rightly declared today’s victims heroes.
Short of deliberately printing false information or calling for hatred of people solely based on their group identification, there should be no limits on the ability to express, question, or criticize ideas, whether in words or pictures. If a set of ideas is worthy, it can easily withstand criticism or ridicule without special legal protections.
I am Charlie.

Published as my Root Issues column in the Barrie Examiner as "There should be no limits on the ability to question"
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a director of Living Green and the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation

Friday, January 2, 2015

LabourWatch is watching me!

John Mortimer, the President of the right-wing business-funded anti-union organization Canadian LabourWatch Association, took the time to write a letter to the editor critiquing my column of last week about the Senate. I copy his text here, followed by my response.

Columnist shouldn't throw stones

(Re: 'Going to the polls before the snow melts' in the Dec. 22 edition of the Examiner)

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins’ Barrie Green Party 2011 online profile says he was an 'education consultant'. His op-ed column is full of inaccurate education.

The writer, who makes errors such as the ones noted below, also appears to call Green Party leader Elizabeth May a “partisan and flighty” Member of Parliament in the House of Commons.

First, Canadian Senators are not “securely serving-for-life representatives” – they must retire no later than age 75.

Second, calling disgraced Senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin Conservative “party hacks” is completely contradicted by their decades as respected, high-profile journalists of prominent media organizations.

They were never long-time party activists, let alone “party hacks”.

Finally, he inaccurately criticizes the Senate process regarding Federal Bill C-525, the Employees’ Voting Rights Act, which aligned three federal labour codes with six different provincial labour codes and all 50 American states.

The new law statutorily protects an employee’s right to the bulwark of democracy – a secret ballot vote in place of unionization with union cards alone.

He claims that the bill had “significant errors”. This is completely false. He also misrepresents what happened in the Senate.

The bill had been amended by a House of Commons committee earlier in 2014. The committee missed adding the number '.1' in two places to get its amendments perfect. These errors were not in the original draft of the Bill that came to that committee.

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs had before it a legal opinion from a prominent lawyer and Queen’s Counsel, along with three high profile Court rulings, one from the Supreme Court of Canada, noting such numbering errors are a reality, particularly when laws are amended (as was the case with this Bill).

I was in the committee room for that additional session.

At that whole extra hearing on the two tiny, tiny numbering errors, the committee considered the law of the land on errors and voted the Bill into law. Our common law says any tribunal or court corrects such errors when faced with them; to do otherwise would be 'absurd', our courts have ruled. All governments pass laws from time to time to correct these errors which are a reality of life.

Jacoby-Hawkins either needs to get his facts right and be more careful himself, or maybe recognize that he is no more perfect in his glass house than those he throws stones at.

It is unclear to what extent he is still in fact a Green Party 'partisan' and 'party hack' or is headed to the same career path as former media personalities Duffy and Wallin, and maybe an eventual appointment to the “chamber of sober second thought”.

John Mortimer

President

Canadian LabourWatch Association

Vancouver, BC


Well, he took the trouble to write that lengthy and detailed letter, so I felt I owed him at least the following response.

Thank you for reading my column and taking the time to write in, John! I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood some of my points.
When I contrasted the Senate's "sober second thought" with the House of Commons, I was speaking to the implications of that phrase, namely that MPs are partisan and flighty. Although some of them certainly are, I was noting the generalization inherent in that concept, not making a categorical claim. I happen to know several MPs (including Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer, but also Michael Chong, Nathan Cullen, and Joyce Murray) who are not at all flighty or partisan - if the rest of the House were like them, then perhaps we would not need a Senate at all!
Now, as to a secure job "for life", since retirement age in Canada is generally 65 or younger, having a position guaranteed until 75 pretty much meets that definition, would you not say? (Although in our original Constitution, there was no mandatory retirement for Senators - but then life expectancy was well below 75, too). Especially since their guaranteed post-retirement pension is well above the average income of a working Canadian, such as the employees of the businesses who fund LabourWatch.
One could certainly wish that Duffy's and Wallin's long media careers would have prevented their descent into political hackdom, yet it seems they dived right in as soon as they were appointed, spending much of their time (and allegedly some public money) on partisan fundraising.
As to whether the errors in the bill are significant, as I claimed, or tiny, as you characterize them, I quote Chair of the Public Service Labour Relations & Employment Board Catherine Ebbs: "The impact of this change is not trivial because our current specific regulations will be effectively removed from our tool kit to deal with applications for certification," referring to how her board could lose its power to regulate the evidence that must be filed when an employee organization applies for certification of a bargaining unit.
Sure, those errors can probably be fixed by a tribunal or court, but why pass laws that we already know will have to be challenged in court to correct? And what happens to the government offices that have to deal with incorrect legislation in the meantime, given how long it may take to get a ruling?
We clearly disagree on some opinions, as is our right, but I don't have my facts wrong.
I don't know if a community volunteer can rightly be termed a "party hack", but thank you for suggesting that I am Senate material, and your confidence that my party will someday be in a position to make that appointment. If your prediction comes true, I'll be sure to invite you to my swearing-in.
Yes Virginia, interesting things do sometimes happen in the Senate

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Senate Sez: We're going to the polls before the snow melts.

The Canadian Senate is colloquially known as the “chamber of sober second thought”. The implication is that partisan and flighty Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, facing election every 4 years or less, may pass unwise legislation to score political points, so we need a group of mature, non-elected and securely serving-for-life representatives to review legislation before it becomes law.
For most of Canadian history, that concept has worked fairly well. In addition to improving or delaying problematic bills, the Senate has taken on and studied many controversial social issues, including elections, taxation, illegal drugs, and prostitution, and been able to put forward more pragmatic suggestions (such as legalization of the latter two, and reforms of the former two) than it seems governing MPs are allowed to endorse. And in recent years, the Senate’s roll in examining legislation for basic errors has become more crucial, as bills are forced through the House by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative majority with debate cut off, committee hearings a pretense, and all proposed amendments, even of corrections of blatant errors, shouted down.
Nevertheless, the Senate’s committees do perform valuable functions, even if their advice is being ignored for now. Yet they are reaching the point where they won’t be able to do even that, due to a lack of appointments. 16 vacancies have developed over the past year, and Prime Minister Harper is in no hurry to fill them. In his view, as long as the Senate has a Conservative majority and quorum to pass his government’s legislation, it’s good enough for him. But is it good enough for us?
I would argue not, and the Speaker of the Senate would agree, because these vacancies mean valuable committee work can’t be done, and some regions of the country are going under-represented. So what is the holdup?
Marching as to the polls?
Essentially, Harper seems to feel that if he can’t have his style of elected Senate, then we’re better with as little Senate as possible. And he’s probably very wary of making the normal style of appointments – of party hacks, basically – because of how he’s been burned by his past appointees, like suspended Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau. If an early election is in the wind, now would be a bad time to risk more such appointments, which could safely be made after said early election.
Another Senate signal of an early election is that it recently found significant errors in private member’s bill C-525 limiting union powers, but passed it anyway. The pretext was that if the bill were corrected, it would have to go through the House again, and that might not happen before the next election, in effect killing the bill. Well, if the next election truly isn’t until October of next year, then isn’t that more than enough time? One would think so. But if the next election is actually coming in late winter or early spring, then getting even this very flawed anti-union bill onto the books becomes a pressing issue.
Combine these Senate signals with expensive Conservative candidate literature appearing in our mailboxes last month and the message seems to be get ready to go to the polls before the snow melts.

UPDATE: This column attracted a Letter to the Editor - see it, and my response, here.

Published as my Root Issues column in the Barrie Examiner.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a director of Living Green and the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Confronting oppression begins at home

Recently I spoke at an interfaith luncheon themed “Confronting Oppression” on behalf of Elizabeth May, who was at a climate conference in Lima, Peru, trying to save all of Creation from our collective sins against Nature. I have always been fascinated by the variety of religions; my own family has Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish roots, but in the Green Party I have also enjoyed working with people who are Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Quaker, pagan, Humanist, atheist, agnostic, or Unitarian. We each share different ideas on how to meet our common goals and benefit from the exchange. This diversity of the Green movement, and of Canadians, is not a weakness but a strength. Nature shows us that more diverse ecosystems are more resilient, and history shows communities comfortable with diversity can better weather adversity.
Confronting oppression is an important task, yet there are different approaches. The knee-jerk reaction is to defend those who are like us from those who seem different, the “other”, us vs. them. We see Christians or Jews persecuted by Islamist extremists in the Middle East, and retaliate by persecuting Muslims in our own country; then they see that oppression of Muslims and use it to justify their own violent actions. This kind of reflexive hostility can legitimize oppression. Confronting your own oppressor may also fail because we get little credibility or respect from them, which is the root of the problem. And we won’t achieve cultural reconciliation if we begin by branding the other as “barbaric”.
(Illustration by Pedro Molina)
So what to do? Well, while religious groups are often the victims of oppression, they are also often perpetrators. Virtually every major religion is being oppressed somewhere, but is also the oppressor somewhere else. That is where we have the opportunity to more effectively confront oppression, by looking to ourselves and seeing if there are ways our own group needs to internally confront its own oppressive actions and de-legitimize them.
We saw a wonderful example of this earlier in the fall when Barrie’s Muslim community gathered at City Hall to express support for peace and disavow the violent tactics of the Islamic State. Jewish Canadians can likewise speak up when Israel’s defensive actions cross boundaries. Buddhists can ask Burma not to persecute their Muslim minority, and Hindus can make the same request of Indian nationalists. In China, we see the oppression of Tibetan Buddhists, Muslim Uighurs, and Falun Dafa practitioners. While there is no Chinese state religion we can reference, certainly when China comes to Canada with bags of money to invest in the tar sands, we can say “before we deal, let’s talk about human rights”.
And Christians in Canada can reach out to churches in nations like Russia or Uganda which implicitly or explicitly persecute, even execute homosexuals. Or we can look at our own tragic treatment of our aboriginal population, whose genocidal* residential school legacy still impacts today, and missing or murdered women cry out for attention.
We have the most credibility with those of the same belief, hence that is where we can have the greatest effect in confronting oppression. Canada can show diverse peoples living and working in harmony, then speak with a strong voice to the many nations we came from and share that example. In this way, we can all work productively to create a more harmonious society free of violence and oppression.

Adapted from my remarks to the 10th annual interfaith meeting hosted by the Islamic Humanitarian Service and Interfaith Grand River and published as my Root issues column in the Barrie Examiner as "Canada can show others how to live in harmony" (Also in the Innisfil Examiner)

* for some reason, the word "genocidal" was edited out of the Examiner's version

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a director of Living Green and the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation