Sunday, October 18, 2026

why i paint what i paint 🐟🐋🐻

 

Art by Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita 2026



Art by Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita 2026



Art by Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita 2026


why i paint what i paint 🐟🐋🐻

every painting tells a story. some are asking us to pay attention before it's too late.

I don't paint salmon, whales, bears and the natural world simply because they're beautiful.

I paint them because they matter.

Salmon are a keystone species. They connect the ocean to our rivers and forests, carrying nutrients that sustain bears, eagles, trees and countless other living things. They are food for the endangered Southern Resident orcas. They are part of the living history, culture and traditions of Indigenous peoples. And they are part of what makes British Columbia so extraordinary.

Everything is connected.

When salmon struggle, the effects ripple outward. When estuaries are damaged, when rivers warm, when habitat disappears, the consequences don't stop at the water's edge.

We all depend on healthy ecosystems, whether we realise it or not.

That's why I paint these creatures.

Behind every brushstroke is my love for the natural world, my worry about what we're losing, and my hope that we still have time to protect what remains.

We hear a great deal about economic growth, resource development and the billions of dollars at stake. But how do we put a price on a living river? A forest filled with wildlife? A salmon run that has returned for generations? An orca searching for food in the Salish Sea?

Some things are too important to measure only in dollars.

My art is my way of speaking up. I may not be able to change government policy or stop every destructive project, but I can make something that asks people to look closer, think deeper and remember what we stand to lose.

And perhaps that's where you come in.

When you bring home a painting, you're not simply buying something to hang on your wall. You're supporting an independent artist who cares deeply about the world we share. You're making room in your home for a reminder of the wild, interconnected life that sustains us.

My paintings carry messages of Water Is Life, protection, resilience and hope. They are made by hand, with care, and with the belief that art can help people see what they might otherwise overlook.

If one of these paintings speaks to you, I hope you'll consider giving it a home.

Every piece sold helps me continue creating, sharing these stories and standing up for the creatures and ecosystems that cannot speak for themselves in a courtroom or a government office.

I paint them because I love them.

I paint them because they matter.

And I paint them because I want future generations to know that we saw what was happening — and that some of us tried to make a difference.

Art is my voice. The natural world is my inspiration. Protecting what we love is everyone's responsibility.

— Tina Winterlik, aka Zipolita
Artist, photographer and storyteller

from shell shock to the fentanyl crisis: the wars we never finished

 

from shell shock to the fentanyl crisis: the wars we never finished

I had a really interesting conversation recently about why people want to be alone.

My friend wants to be alone because he doesn't want anyone bothering him. Turn that down. Stop doing that. Why can't you hear me? The constant noise, the arguments, the demands. Sometimes he simply can't hear what someone is saying, and frustration takes over.

I want to be alone for a different reason.

Family can be hurtful. Sometimes you need distance from the people who are supposed to love you, because being around them costs you more than being alone.

Two people. The same desire for solitude. Entirely different reasons.

And that got us talking about childhood, trauma and the things people carry into adulthood.

I've known this friend for 30 years. When you know someone that long, you learn their history. You start looking back at their childhood, their parents, the things that happened to them, and the people they became.

His father went to war.

Think about that for a moment.

We used to call it shell shock. Eventually, we developed terms such as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The words changed as we learned more about what war does to the human mind.

But what happened to the people who came home?

What happened to their marriages, their children, their drinking, their tempers and their ability to feel safe? What happened when a father who had experienced things no child should ever have to imagine returned home to raise a family?

Not every veteran became abusive or alcoholic, of course. Many raised loving families. But trauma can leave wounds that affect relationships, especially when people have no support, no language for what they're experiencing and no way to process what happened.

And children grow up inside those homes.

They learn what love looks like by watching the adults around them. They learn how people handle anger, how they deal with grief, whether it's safe to speak up and whether they should hide their feelings.

Sometimes the damage is obvious. Sometimes it takes decades to understand.

Then those children become parents themselves.

And the cycle can continue.

the children who inherit the consequences

Look at the young people struggling with addiction, homelessness and despair today.

We see the behaviour. We see the crisis. We see the person sleeping outside, the person using drugs, the person who seems angry, withdrawn or impossible to reach.

But what happened before we met them?

Did they grow up in a home filled with violence? Did a parent struggle with addiction? Did they experience abuse, neglect, poverty or the constant fear of losing their home?

Perhaps their mother was struggling to survive, trying to keep her children fed and housed with almost no support. Perhaps she was dealing with trauma of her own.

We don't know every person's story. We shouldn't pretend that we do.

But we should be asking the questions.

When we see a generation struggling, we need to look beyond the individual and examine the conditions in which people are growing up.

Poverty isn't a personal failure. Trauma isn't a character flaw. And a child shouldn't have to spend adulthood recovering from what the adults around them couldn't resolve.

the war that never really ended

We've spent generations fighting wars, bringing people home and then often leaving them to figure out the aftermath themselves.

We talk about supporting veterans, but what about the families living with the consequences of untreated trauma?

What about the children who grew up afraid of their fathers, or afraid for their mothers? What about the people who learned to numb themselves with alcohol because nobody taught them how to live with their pain?

And what about the children those children eventually raised?

The effects of trauma don't pass automatically from parent to child, and families can break these cycles. With support, safety and treatment, people can heal. But ignoring the wounds doesn't make them disappear.

Sometimes the consequences show up years later in a relationship that falls apart, a person who cannot trust anyone, a family that stops speaking to one another, or someone who would rather be alone than risk being hurt again.

today's fentanyl crisis

We call it a drug crisis. We call it an addiction crisis. We call it a homelessness crisis.

It is all of those things.

But we also need to look at the conditions that make people vulnerable in the first place.

The illegal drug supply has become extraordinarily dangerous. Fentanyl has made an already devastating problem deadlier. People are dying, families are grieving, and communities are struggling to respond.

There is no single explanation for addiction. Trauma doesn't explain every case, and not everyone who experiences trauma develops an addiction.

But when we know that childhood adversity, mental distress, poverty and disconnection can contribute to a person's vulnerability, why wouldn't we invest in preventing those harms?

Why wait until someone is in crisis?

Why not support families before they break apart? Give children safe homes, stable adults, food, education and somewhere to turn when life becomes unbearable. Make mental-health care accessible. Treat addiction as a health issue. Give people a chance to recover without abandoning them when recovery takes time.

And when someone is already in crisis, why should our response end with getting them out of sight?

we need to stop passing the damage along

I'm not suggesting that understanding someone's past excuses everything they do. People can be hurt and still hurt others. Accountability matters.

But accountability without understanding doesn't necessarily change anything.

If we want healthier families and safer communities, we need to look at what produces harm, not just punish the people in whom that harm eventually appears.

Perhaps we need to stop treating every new generation as though it arrived here without a history.

The wars of the past left casualties on battlefields. Some of their consequences followed people home. Some entered family homes, shaped childhoods and influenced the lives of children who never saw a battlefield.

Today's crises have their own causes and their own realities, but we cannot afford to ignore the human suffering that came before them.

We cannot undo every childhood. We cannot erase every trauma. We cannot save everyone.

But we can stop pretending that people become broken in a vacuum.

What if some of the crises we keep fighting are also the consequences of wounds we never properly treated?

What if preventing the next crisis means caring for people long before they reach the point where everyone else finally notices their pain?

Maybe it's time to stop asking only what's wrong with people.

Maybe we should start asking what happened to them, what support they were missing, and what we can do to make sure the next generation has a better chance.

Because the children growing up today deserve more than another generation of inherited pain.

from trinidad to ireland to canada: the making of a matriarch

 On mothers, migration, racism, courage and the lives that shape the next generation.

from trinidad to ireland to canada: the making of a matriarch


Sometimes, you can disagree with someone's politics and still find yourself stopping to admire the life they've lived.

I've been thinking about Dr. Hedy Fry and her son, Pete Fry, and the remarkable journey that sits behind their names.

Hedy was born in Trinidad and Tobago in 1941. She went to Ireland to study medicine, immigrated to Canada in 1970, established herself as a physician in Vancouver and eventually entered federal politics.

Now her son, Pete, has reached a significant milestone of his own in Vancouver politics.

Imagine that for a moment.

A Caribbean-born woman travels to Ireland to study medicine, builds a life in Canada, raises a family and becomes a public figure. Decades later, her son steps into a leadership role in the city where their family made its home.

I may not have agreed with Hedy Fry's Liberal politics, but I can recognize determination when I see it.

And I find myself wondering what it took to get there.

the weight of being different

We talk about education as though everyone begins at the same starting line. We talk about professional success as though hard work alone determines the outcome.

But what happens when you're also navigating racism, prejudice and the assumptions other people make about you before you've even opened your mouth?

Hedy studied medicine in Ireland during a period when women and people of colour faced significant social barriers. I don't know the details of what she personally experienced, and I won't invent them. But I wonder what those years were like for a young Caribbean woman pursuing a demanding medical education far from home.

Ireland has its own complicated history of colonialism, oppression and struggles for self-determination. Its history is not interchangeable with the histories of Indigenous peoples in Canada, but there are difficult questions about power, identity, discrimination and cultural survival that connect these experiences.

And then there is Canada, a country that likes to tell itself a story about fairness and opportunity while people continue to encounter racism in workplaces, schools and everyday life.

I know this isn't just history.

a friend, a family and the cost of racism

I have a friend whose family is from Uganda. There are eight children in the family. My friend is in her thirties, and she recently returned to Ireland after spending a year in Canada.

Her brother had been living in Ireland, but he returned to Uganda because he couldn't handle the racism he experienced.

Think about that.

Leaving a country because the weight of being treated as though you don't belong becomes too much to bear.

My friend encountered racism at work here in Canada, too. What made me furious was that she didn't want to report what happened because she was worried about the man's family. She felt concern for the consequences they might face.

I understand compassion. I understand not wanting innocent family members to suffer.

But why should the person who experiences racism have to carry the responsibility for everyone else's wellbeing?

Why should she have to weigh her own dignity against the possible consequences for the person responsible?

And why should someone have to think twice about reporting discrimination because she fears what might happen if she speaks?

I still get angry thinking about it.

Racism doesn't always announce itself with a slur or a public confrontation. Sometimes it happens at work, in a conversation, through an assumption or in a decision that affects someone's livelihood. Sometimes the person targeted says nothing because they have too much to lose.

And sometimes they leave.

We need to pay attention to the people who decide they can no longer stay.

the matriarch and the next generation

This brings me back to Hedy Fry and Pete Fry.

We talk about matriarchy as though it means simply replacing men with women in positions of power. But I wonder whether we should also be talking about the influence of women whose lives, decisions and determination help shape the next generation.

A mother is not responsible for every decision her adult child makes. Children become their own people, with their own values and their own paths.

Still, imagine being a mother who travelled across the world, trained as a doctor, established a career and raised a family, then watched her son enter public life.

Whatever their political differences, there must be something significant about seeing the next generation find its own way.

Perhaps she feels proud. I can't know her private feelings. But I can appreciate the possibility.

And I can appreciate the journey.

Trinidad. Ireland. Canada.

Three places, three histories, and a family whose story stretches across them.

courage doesn't always look the way we expect

We often celebrate people once they have achieved something visible. We see the doctor, the politician, the mayor, the successful professional.

We don't always see the years of uncertainty, the doors that may have been closed, the loneliness of living somewhere unfamiliar or the energy required to keep going when other people question whether you belong.

Nor do we see everyone who tried and decided the cost was too high.

My friend's brother returned to Uganda. That, too, is part of the story of migration. Not everyone who leaves home finds a place where they can flourish. Sometimes returning home is the choice that makes life possible again.

There is no shame in that.

But there should be shame in a society that allows racism to push people away while congratulating itself on being welcoming.

I want a world where my friend can report discrimination without feeling responsible for protecting the person who caused it. Where her brother could have built a life in Ireland without being worn down by racism. Where a young woman studying medicine can be judged by her abilities rather than the colour of her skin or the country she came from.

And where the achievements of people like Hedy Fry can be discussed honestly, without pretending that we know every obstacle they faced.

I can disagree with a politician and still recognize a life of determination.

I can question a system and still celebrate someone who found a way through it.

And I can look at a mother and her son and wonder about the generations of courage, sacrifice and possibility that brought them to this moment.

Perhaps that is one of the things we mean when we talk about matriarchy: not simply who holds power, but how we nurture the people who will hold it next.

What if we measured a society not only by the people who rise to the top, but also by how many people it allows to belong?

Because talent is everywhere. Courage is everywhere. The desire to build a life, contribute and be treated with dignity is everywhere.

The question is whether we make room for it.

from the arab spring to occupy wall street to no kings: when social media changes sides

 from the arab spring to occupy wall street to no kings: when social media changes sides

Rock Candy Revolution, Facebook, and the uncomfortable question of who controls our digital public square.

There is a video called Rock Candy Revolution that got me thinking about how much our world has changed.

It reminds me of the days when social media was celebrated for helping ordinary people organize, share information and challenge those in power.

Remember the Arab Spring? Occupy Wall Street? The people who took to the streets because they believed the system was failing them?

Remember when Facebook was part of the story of how people found one another, spread the word and organized demonstrations that traditional media could not always keep up with?

Now look at where we are.

when facebook helped people rise up

During the Arab Spring, which began in late 2010 and spread across the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, social media helped activists share information, publicize abuses and coordinate protests.

In Egypt, Facebook became an important organizing tool for activists challenging Hosni Mubarak's government. It helped people connect and brought events to the attention of audiences around the world. 

Social media didn't create those revolutions on its own. People had lived with grievances, repression and economic hardship long before they went online. But suddenly, they had new ways to communicate, organize and make themselves heard.

The internet made it harder for information to remain confined to one street, one city or one country.

People were watching. People were sharing. People were joining.

And the world was learning just how powerful that connection could be.

occupy wall street: we are the 99%

Then came Occupy Wall Street in September 2011.

People gathered in New York's Zuccotti Park to challenge economic inequality and the influence of wealth over politics. The movement spread to cities across the United States and around the world.

Social media helped Occupy groups share information, coordinate demonstrations and build connections between people who might otherwise never have met. Researchers have examined how Facebook and Twitter helped the movement spread to new cities.

The slogan was simple: We are the 99%.

It was a way of expressing the frustration of people who felt that economic and political systems were serving the wealthy at everyone else's expense.

Occupy did not solve inequality. It did, however, bring questions about wealth, corporate influence and political power into conversations that reached far beyond the parks where people gathered.

And social media helped carry those conversations.

the promise of connection

For a while, there was something hopeful about the possibilities.

You didn't need a television network, a newspaper publisher or a wealthy sponsor to spread an idea.

You could take a photograph, record a video, publish a post or share an event with people hundreds or thousands of kilometres away.

You could connect with people who cared about the same things you did.

You could organize.

You could witness events as they unfolded rather than waiting for someone else to decide which stories deserved attention.

For artists, activists, independent writers and ordinary people, these platforms opened doors that had previously been difficult to access.

But there was a catch.

We were building communities on platforms we did not own.

We were building audiences using systems we could not see inside.

And the companies providing those connections retained the power to change the rules.

fast-forward to no kings

On October 17, 2026, the No Kings movement held rallies and voter-mobilization events across the United States.

That same day, the movement's official Instagram account became inaccessible during a major day of action.

Meta subsequently said an automated system had mistakenly suspended the account after detecting unusually frequent posting, sharing or commenting. The company apologized. The movement said its administrators had been unable to access the account even after it became visible again. 

Let's be clear: the reported suspension does not prove that Meta deliberately targeted the movement for political reasons.

But it does demonstrate a problem that deserves serious attention.

A movement can spend weeks organizing an event, only to discover that its access to a major communication platform can disappear at a critical moment.

Even when a suspension is accidental, the consequences are real.

People can miss announcements. Organizers can lose access to their audience. Important information can fail to reach the people who need it.

And an apology after the event cannot restore the hours that were lost.

the same technology, a different kind of power

This is what troubles me.

The technology that helped people organize during the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street has become part of an enormous corporate system that controls how much of the world communicates.

The technology itself can still connect people. It can still help a movement spread. It can still bring attention to stories that might otherwise go unnoticed.

But the companies controlling the platforms also have the power to restrict access, remove content, suspend accounts and influence what people encounter.

Those decisions can affect political movements, community groups, journalists, artists and small businesses alike.

We don't need to assume that every suspension is censorship or that every automated decision has a political motive.

We do need to recognize that a system capable of connecting millions of people is also capable of interrupting those connections.

And when so much public communication depends on a handful of private companies, that power deserves scrutiny.

who owns the public conversation?

Facebook helped make the internet feel like a place where ordinary people could finally be heard.

We shared our photographs, stories, opinions, artwork and experiences. We found communities. We learned about events. We followed movements taking place thousands of kilometres away.

We invested our time in building connections, often without thinking about what it meant to depend on a corporation for access to our own audiences.

Now we have to ask harder questions.

Who decides which voices are visible?

How do we know whether moderation decisions are fair?

What happens when an automated system makes a mistake?

Can a person or organization get a meaningful explanation and a timely appeal?

And why should an important civic announcement depend on a single company's ability to keep an account functioning?

These questions matter regardless of whether we agree with the people whose accounts are affected.

Freedom of expression should not depend on whether a platform finds a particular message convenient, popular or profitable.

And the right to organize should not depend entirely on a company's algorithms.

we need more than a facebook page

Perhaps one of the greatest lessons from these movements is that communication networks matter.

We should be able to use social media without making ourselves completely dependent on it.

Independent websites, email lists, alternative platforms, direct community networks and accessible public information can help ensure that a single suspension does not cut off an entire audience.

Platforms should also provide transparent rules, meaningful appeals and safeguards against mistakes that interfere with civic participation.

The answer isn't to abandon every useful technology. It is to recognize its limitations and build alternatives.

Because the internet was supposed to make communication easier, not leave us wondering whether our ability to speak to one another can disappear overnight.

how our world has changed

When I think about the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and now No Kings, I see a question that stretches across all three.

What happens when people discover that they can organize together, challenge powerful institutions and make themselves heard — but the communication systems they depend on are controlled by corporations they cannot hold directly accountable?

The world has changed.

Social media helped demonstrate the power of people connecting across borders. But the growth of these platforms has also concentrated enormous control over communication in private hands.

The promise of connection remains. So does the vulnerability.

I don't want to believe that the tools that once helped ordinary people find their voices will become the very things that prevent them from reaching one another.

But neither do I want us to confuse having an account with having control over our own communication.

The real question is not whether social media can change the world. We already know it can.

The question is whether the people using it will have a meaningful say in how that power is exercised.

Because the ability to organize, share information and challenge authority should not depend on the permission of a platform.

And the next time a movement needs to reach the public, we should not have to wonder whether its account will still be there.

When the digital revolution depends on a corporate gatekeeper, who is watching the gatekeeper?

when social media silences the people

 when social media silences the people

No Kings, Facebook, Instagram and the troubling power of private platforms to control public conversation.

Imagine organizing a peaceful demonstration, spending weeks getting the word out, connecting communities and encouraging people to show up. The day arrives. People are preparing to march, thousands of events are taking place, and suddenly the social media account being used to communicate with the public is suspended.

What happened to the No Kings movement's Instagram account on October 17, 2026, raises an important question: Who gets to decide what the public sees, and when?

According to reports, Meta temporarily suspended the movement's Instagram account on the day of the rallies. The company subsequently said its automated systems had made a mistake and apologized.

An apology is welcome. But it doesn't erase the consequences of losing access during a major public event.

censorship doesn't always look like censorship

We tend to imagine censorship as a government banning a newspaper, confiscating books or arresting someone for speaking out.

But in the digital age, censorship can take a different form.

It can look like an account suspension. A post that suddenly becomes invisible. A page that disappears. A link that stops working. A person who discovers that they can no longer reach the audience they spent years building.

Sometimes there may be a legitimate reason for moderation. Platforms have to address scams, threats, harassment and other harmful behaviour.

But what happens when automated systems get it wrong?

And what happens when there is no meaningful way to challenge the decision before the moment has passed?

A correction the following day cannot give people back the opportunity to see an announcement they missed yesterday.

private companies, public consequences

Facebook and Instagram are owned by Meta, a private corporation. They are not public squares in the legal sense, and they have their own rules.

Yet millions of people use these platforms as their primary source of news, community information, political discussion and event announcements.

Activists use them to organize. Artists use them to find audiences. Small businesses use them to earn a living. Families use them to stay connected.

When a platform becomes this influential, its decisions have consequences far beyond its own business.

A suspension can interrupt a protest. A mistake can damage a small business. A recommendation algorithm can influence which stories people encounter and which ones they never see.

Nobody needs to prove a grand conspiracy for these problems to deserve attention.

A system can interfere with public participation even when nobody intended it to.

That is why transparency and accountability matter.

an apology isn't enough

When a social media company suspends an account by mistake, the public deserves more than a vague explanation about automated systems.

People deserve to know:

  • What rule was supposedly broken?
  • Was the decision made by an automated system or a human reviewer?
  • How quickly can an account holder appeal?
  • Why can a mistake remain unresolved during an important public event?
  • What safeguards prevent the same thing from happening again?

And when a political or civic organization is affected, independent scrutiny is especially important. We should not have to rely entirely on the company responsible for the suspension to explain whether its own systems worked properly.

There is a difference between proving that an error occurred and proving that someone deliberately targeted an organization. We should be careful not to confuse the two.

But we should also be careful not to dismiss the consequences simply because a company calls something a mistake.

what happens when we depend on platforms we don't control?

This is the bigger problem.

We have built a world in which access to the public increasingly depends on corporations whose rules, algorithms and moderation systems ordinary people cannot meaningfully inspect.

We can spend years creating content, gathering followers, sharing information and building communities. Yet the platform retains the power to restrict our access.

Our audience may be there, but we don't own the means of reaching it.

That should concern journalists, activists, artists, community organizers and anyone who believes that an informed public is essential to democracy.

It should concern us when the affected group is one we disagree with, too. Freedom of expression is not supposed to depend on whether we like the message.

Today it might be a protest movement. Tomorrow it could be a housing advocate, an environmental organization, an Indigenous community, an independent journalist or an ordinary person challenging a powerful institution.

If the rules are unclear and the appeals process is inadequate, everyone is vulnerable.

don't put all your eggs in one digital basket

There is a practical lesson here, too.

Organizations should maintain independent websites, email lists, alternative communication channels and ways to reach supporters that do not depend on a single social media company.

Social media can be useful, but it should not be the only place where important information lives.

And the public should continue asking difficult questions about automated moderation, political content, transparency and the concentration of power in the hands of a few technology companies.

We should not have to guess why an account disappears.

We should not have to wonder whether an announcement was hidden, an account was incorrectly flagged or a legitimate appeal was ignored.

We should be able to expect clear rules, timely explanations and a fair process.

democracy requires an informed public

The No Kings account suspension does not, by itself, prove deliberate political censorship. Meta attributed the incident to an error, and that explanation deserves to be examined rather than automatically accepted or rejected.

But the incident illustrates a genuine problem: a mistake by a powerful private platform can affect the ability of people to communicate at a critical moment.

That is not a trivial inconvenience when public participation is at stake.

Freedom of expression means little if people can speak but cannot reliably reach anyone. And a public conversation is not truly open if access to it depends on systems that operate without adequate transparency or accountability.

We need more than promises that the algorithms will get better.

We need meaningful safeguards, independent scrutiny and communication systems that allow people to remain connected even when a private platform fails them.

Because the ability to organize, exchange information and question those in power should never depend entirely on the goodwill of a technology company.

When the digital public square has a private owner, who protects the public's right to be heard?

That is the question we should be asking.

And we should keep asking it.

Saturday, October 17, 2026

the university-for-free fairy tale: what about the rest of us, langara?

 the university-for-free fairy tale: what about the rest of us, langara?

When education is advertised as easy to afford, whose reality are we being asked to believe?

I just saw an advertisement aimed at Langara College alumni featuring a young woman talking about how she went through university for free, using bursaries, as though it were all so easy.

Excuse me?

I attended Langara. I walked away with $22,000 in student loans and just $500 in bursary money.

Twenty-two thousand dollars in debt. Five hundred dollars in bursaries.

And now I'm watching an advertisement that makes getting an education without paying for it sound like an easy accomplishment.

What exactly are you selling here, Langara? Education, or a fairy tale?

one student's success story is not everyone's reality

I'm not suggesting this young woman is lying about her personal experience. Perhaps she qualified for substantial financial assistance. Perhaps her circumstances, eligibility, program or funding opportunities were different from mine.

Good for her if she managed to graduate without student debt.

But there is a significant difference between saying one student received enough financial assistance to cover her education and creating the impression that going to university for free is an easy, realistic option for everyone.

Where is the context?

How much did she receive in bursaries? Did she receive government grants? Was her tuition covered by a special program? Did she have help with rent, food, transportation and other living expenses?

And how many students who applied for assistance received nowhere near enough to cover their costs?

If an institution wants to promote a success story, it should be prepared to explain the circumstances behind that success. Otherwise, it risks selling an illusion to prospective students who are already struggling to figure out how they can afford an education.

the numbers tell another story

I investigated Langara's published financial aid information.

The college acknowledges that student loans and grants are intended to supplement students' own financial resources, not replace them. Its current estimate for a typical domestic student taking a full course load is approximately $6,989 for one year of tuition, student fees and books — before rent, groceries and the other costs of living.

Langara also explains that bursaries are awarded to eligible applicants who demonstrate financial need, and that students should not count on those funds to cover tuition or books because the money is generally awarded near the end of the term.

Sources: Langara's financial aid information, student loans, and Langara bursaries.

That doesn't sound like a guaranteed, easy, free ride to me.

And it certainly wasn't my experience.

who gets left behind?

Students are routinely encouraged to pursue higher education as a pathway to a better future. They are told to invest in themselves, build their skills and work toward their dreams.

But what happens when the investment means years of debt?

What happens when the bursary you receive barely makes a dent in the cost of your education?

What happens when you do everything you're supposed to do, yet still leave school owing thousands of dollars?

Not every student has family money, a partner paying the bills, savings in the bank or the luxury of concentrating on school without worrying about survival.

Some students are working while studying. Some are supporting children. Some are struggling to afford housing and food. Some have no financial safety net whatsoever.

These students deserve more than a polished promotional video suggesting that the solution is simply to apply for bursaries.

They deserve honest information about the odds, the eligibility requirements, the amounts available and the financial risks.

langara, answer the questions

If this advertisement is intended to inspire future students, I would like to know:

  • How much financial assistance did this particular student receive, and from which sources?
  • What proportion of applicants receive bursaries, and what is the typical amount awarded?
  • How many students receive enough grants and bursaries to cover their full education costs, including living expenses?
  • What information does Langara provide to students whose financial assistance falls far short of their actual needs?
  • Does the college acknowledge that a success story about studying for free can create unrealistic expectations when presented without financial context?

I'm not asking Langara to stop celebrating students who succeed. I'm asking it to be honest about what those stories represent.

education should open doors, not disguise the cost of walking through them

My experience at Langara left me with $22,000 in student loans and $500 in bursaries.

That is my reality. It is not necessarily every student's reality, but it is a reality that deserves to be heard alongside the feel-good stories.

Education can change lives. I believe in learning, creativity and giving people opportunities to build a better future.

But opportunity without financial transparency is not enough.

If a college wants to advertise that someone went to university for free, show us the full picture. Explain how it happened. Tell prospective students what assistance is available, who qualifies and what they may still owe.

Don't sell students the dream of a free education without being honest about the price.

And don't confuse one person's exceptional circumstances with a system that works for everyone.

I know what my education cost me.

What I want to know is why the story being advertised makes it sound so easy.

This post reflects my personal experience and questions raised by Langara's published financial aid information. I have not independently verified the student's individual funding or the full circumstances behind the advertisement.

Friday, October 16, 2026

modern carol: a tale of two aunts

 

a modern carol: a tale of two aunts

Originally written November 28, 2024

Chapter 1: The bitter rich

Victoria Parker sipped her designer bourbon in a penthouse overlooking the city skyline. She had recently returned from her annual trip to New York, her luggage filled with Broadway programs and luxury purchases.

A successful businesswoman, Victoria prided herself on her hard work. She believed that determination was the key to success and often reminded others that anyone could get ahead if they simply tried hard enough.

“Everyone has to work hard,” she would say. “If you want something, you have to earn it.”

She was particularly fond of offering this advice to her Aunt Margie, who still lived in the family's aging farmhouse, struggling to make ends meet.

Victoria's teenage twins sometimes listened to these lectures, although they were usually more interested in their phones. They barely knew their cousin Emily, Margie's daughter, who had left home at seventeen, determined to escape the suffocating poverty of their small town.

Emily had worked tirelessly, including through the pandemic, hoping to build a better future and attend college. But hard work alone hadn't been enough. There was never quite enough money, never quite enough security, and every setback pushed her dreams a little further away.

The family history was complicated. Victoria's parents, Carol and Richard, had acquired the family home decades earlier under circumstances Margie considered deeply unfair. What one side of the family called an inheritance, the other remembered as a betrayal.

Carol and Richard now spent much of their time travelling the world on cruise ships. Whenever Margie mentioned her financial struggles, they reminded her that there were always jobs available for those willing to look.

Margie's sister Linda was somewhat more comfortable, thanks to a modest inheritance from her late husband. But she, too, struggled with the difficult balance between helping her family and protecting her own financial security.

The family remained connected by blood, Christmas cards, and occasional obligatory gifts. What had disappeared was the feeling that they were responsible for one another.

It was Christmas Eve when Victoria finished wrapping the customary cheques she sent to Margie and Linda. Outside, the city glittered with holiday lights.

Then the lights flickered.

The room grew cold.

And somewhere in the silence, a voice called her name.

Chapter 2: The ghost of Christmas past

A golden glow filled the room. From its centre emerged an ethereal figure: a young girl clutching a battered teddy bear.

“Who are you?” Victoria demanded.

“I am the Ghost of Christmas Past,” the girl replied. “Come with me. There are things you have forgotten.”

Before Victoria could protest, the room dissolved around her.

They stood in her grandmother's old farmhouse. The kitchen smelled of cinnamon and freshly baked cookies. Laughter drifted through the rooms, and the Christmas tree leaned slightly to one side, decorated with handmade ornaments.

Little Margie was baking beside their grandmother. Young Victoria sat on her grandmother's lap, listening to a story.

“Your grandmother loved you both,” the ghost said. “She never measured that love by money, achievement, or possessions.”

Victoria watched herself laugh as her grandmother kissed the top of her head.

Then the scene changed.

She saw the family gathered around a table, voices raised, faces tight with anger. The dispute over the farmhouse had torn through the family. Margie stood in tears while Victoria's parents insisted they had every right to what they had taken.

Young Victoria watched from the doorway, frightened and confused.

“Do you remember?” the ghost asked.

Victoria looked away.

She remembered the arguments. She remembered Margie's tears. She remembered feeling that something wasn't right.

But she had been young, and the adults had told her not to interfere. Over time, silence became easier than asking questions.

“People tell themselves stories to live with what they have,” the ghost said. “Sometimes those stories become more important than the truth.”

The farmhouse faded.

Victoria was left wondering how much of her success had been built on a history she had never wanted to examine.

Chapter 3: The ghost of Christmas present

A second spirit appeared, a large, warm figure draped in green.

“I am the Ghost of Christmas Present. Let us see what your world looks like today.”

They arrived at Margie's farmhouse.

The kitchen was small and drafty. The walls needed repair, and the heating struggled against the winter cold. Margie and Emily were preparing Christmas dinner with what they could afford.

Their meal was simple, but they laughed as they worked. Emily told her mother about a course she hoped to take. Margie listened carefully, offering encouragement even though she had no idea how they would pay for it.

Victoria watched them stretch every dollar, make do with what they had, and find moments of happiness despite their circumstances.

“Why don't they simply move somewhere better?” Victoria asked.

The ghost turned toward her.

“With what money? And where would they go? Do you imagine that everyone has the choices you have?”

Victoria had no answer.

Next, they visited Linda. She sat alone at her kitchen table, looking over her bills. She wanted to help Margie, but her own savings were limited. She had spent years feeling guilty that she couldn't do more.

The ghost showed Victoria something else: a series of unanswered messages, conversations that never happened, and invitations that stopped coming.

Sometimes the family had offered money instead of companionship. Sometimes they had offered advice instead of listening. Sometimes they had done nothing at all.

Then they visited Victoria's home.

Her twins were scrolling through social media, looking at photographs of expensive holidays and glamorous destinations.

“Why does Aunt Margie even send Christmas cards?” one remarked. “It's so lame.”

The other laughed.

Victoria felt a sudden sting of shame.

She had taught them about success, ambition, and achievement. She had taught them how to recognise the appearance of wealth.

But had she taught them how to recognise another person's suffering?

“Your children have learned from what you do,” the ghost said. “Not merely from what you tell them.”

Victoria watched her twins return to their screens, unaware of the lives unfolding beyond their comfortable world.

For the first time, she wondered whether her own indifference had become a family inheritance.

Chapter 4: The ghost of Christmas yet to come

The final ghost appeared without a word.

Its face was hidden beneath a dark hood. It extended one hand, and Victoria followed.

They stood in a quiet cemetery.

Before them was a gravestone bearing Margie's name.

Victoria stared at it, unable to speak.

The scene shifted. Emily stood at her mother's funeral, grief etched across her face. The gathering was small. Years of distance had left the family with little to say and even fewer reasons to come together.

Victoria reached toward her cousin, but the vision moved on.

She saw her twins as adults. They had become successful in their own ways, but their relationships were fractured. Old resentments had hardened into lifelong habits. They competed with one another, kept score, and rarely spoke unless there was something to gain.

Victoria watched them turn away from her, too.

“Is this what will happen?” she whispered.

The ghost remained silent.

Another scene emerged.

Emily, older now, stood outside a modest home surrounded by flowers. She held a diploma in her hands. Her life had not been easy, but she had built something of her own through perseverance, friendship, and help from people who had chosen to care.

Victoria wanted to believe this was the future she could create for her family.

But the ghost showed her something else: Emily's life continuing without her, Margie's memory fading from family conversations, and the farmhouse standing empty.

Victoria understood that she could not command the future. She could not undo every injustice, guarantee forgiveness, or purchase back the years that had passed.

She could only decide what to do with the time she had left.

“No,” she cried. “Please. I can change. I can do something.”

The shadow raised its hand.

Then everything disappeared.

Chapter 5: A different kind of Christmas

Victoria woke in her own bed.

Morning light spilled through the windows. For a moment, she lay still, uncertain whether the night's visions had been dreams or warnings.

Then she reached for her phone.

There were messages she had never answered, conversations she had avoided, and family photographs she had looked at without really seeing the people in them.

She began making calls.

First, she contacted a lawyer to review the history of the family farmhouse. She would not pretend that a phone call could settle years of disputed claims, but she was finally willing to examine the facts and pursue a fair resolution.

Next, she called Margie.

There was a long silence after Victoria said hello.

“I owe you an apology,” she began. “I've spent years telling you how to live without understanding what your life has actually been like. I've judged you when I should have listened.”

Margie said nothing for a moment.

Victoria resisted the urge to fill the silence with explanations.

“I don't expect you to forgive me today,” she continued. “But I want to do better. If you'll let me, I'd like to start by asking what you need.”

It was the first time in years that she had asked without already deciding what the answer should be.

She also contacted Emily. Together, they discussed realistic ways to support her education, including a commitment to contribute toward tuition and other expenses.

Victoria reached out to Linda, too. Rather than making promises on behalf of the family, she asked how they might work together without placing the entire burden on one person.

That afternoon, Victoria drove to Margie's farmhouse.

She brought groceries, a small Christmas tree, and an envelope containing money for immediate expenses. But she understood that these gestures were only a beginning.

“I can't change what happened,” she told Margie. “And I know a gift doesn't make everything right. I want to show you that I'm serious.”

Margie accepted the gifts, but she did not suddenly forget the past. Emily remained cautious. Trust, Victoria realised, was not something she could demand simply because she had finally decided to offer it.

They sat together at the kitchen table.

They talked about their grandmother, the farmhouse, the years of silence, and the things they wished had been different.

There were tears. There were uncomfortable moments. There was no magical solution.

But for the first time in a long while, they were speaking honestly.

Victoria's life began to change, not because she gave away her wealth or abandoned everything she had achieved, but because she stopped treating success as proof that she had done everything right.

She began examining the assumptions she had passed on to her children. She learned that hardship was not always the result of poor choices, that opportunity was not distributed equally, and that generosity meant more than writing a cheque at Christmas.

Her twins did not transform overnight, either. They resisted some of the conversations and questioned some of their mother's decisions. But they began to understand that the world beyond their comfortable lives was not a distant abstraction. It was made up of people they knew, people they had overlooked, and people whose stories deserved to be heard.

As for Victoria, she discovered that the most meaningful measure of her life was not the size of her home, the places she had travelled, or the things she could afford.

It was whether she had used what she possessed to make life a little less difficult for someone else.

Christmas came and went. The family still had problems to resolve, and not every wound healed.

But a door had opened.

And Victoria finally understood that the greatest poverty in a family is not always a lack of money.

Sometimes, it is a lack of compassion.


Reflection questions

  1. What did Victoria learn about the difference between working hard and having equal opportunities?

  2. How can family history, inherited wealth, and unresolved injustice shape relationships across generations?

  3. What is the difference between giving money and offering meaningful support?

  4. Can reconciliation happen without accountability? What might rebuilding trust require?

  5. How do social status and material possessions influence the way we judge other people's lives?

  6. What responsibilities, if any, do people with greater resources have toward struggling family members and their wider communities?

  7. If the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Yet to Come visited you, what might they ask you to reconsider?

A final thought: We cannot change every circumstance into which we are born. But we can question the stories that justify indifference, acknowledge the advantages we have received, and choose not to look away when someone needs help.

marguerite brulé, née sook

 

marguerite brulé, née sook: finding the woman behind the family records

historical and genealogical preservation note

This post is shared for family-history, genealogical, educational, and historical preservation purposes. It draws on a published local history and historical records referenced within that publication. Historical terminology is retained where necessary to represent the original sources accurately. Some relationships and dates remain under investigation, and interpretations may change as additional evidence is found. Original sources are credited for further research.

a name that brought the pieces together

Sometimes genealogy is not about finding a new name. It is about finally understanding how the names you already know belong together.

For years, I have been researching my family history across the Pacific Northwest: T’Sou-ke, Iroquois, Kalapuya, French Canadian, the fur trade, the Oregon Country, and Vancouver Island.

I had already been writing about Mary Ann Brulé Voutrin, her testimony about her parents, and the church records that document her family.

But there was another woman whose story deserved its own place in my research.

Marguerite Brulé, née Sook of T’Sou-ke.

I found her story in The Sooke Story – The History and The Heartbeat, published by the Sooke Region Museum in 1999. Reading the account again brought together several details I had encountered in my research but had not fully connected.

Here was Marguerite in the historical record, not simply as somebody's mother or wife, but as a woman associated with the T’Sou-ke community and remembered in local oral history.

a marriage recorded in 1838

The book reproduces a Catholic marriage entry dated 11 February 1838 at Fort Vancouver.

It records the marriage of Jean Baptiste Brulé, a French Canadian engagé, and Marguerite, identified in the record as Sook by nation.

The entry also mentions Joseph, aged seven, whom Marguerite acknowledged as her legitimate child from an earlier marriage.

That detail is important because another marriage record, from the Willamette Valley in 1848, identifies Joseph Brulé as the son of the late Jacques Iroquois and Marguerite Brulé.

The records therefore give us a family connection spanning two marriages and two regions. Jean Baptiste Brulé became part of Joseph's family, while the earlier record identifies Jacques Iroquois as Joseph's biological father.

These distinctions matter. Historical relationships can be complicated, and the records do not always use family terminology in the same way we might today.

a family travelling north

According to the Sooke Region Museum's account, the Brulé family travelled north around 1850 with other Hudson's Bay Company employees and their families.

The group included Jean Baptiste and Marguerite, Joseph and his wife Mary Ann, and their children.

The account places them on Vancouver Island near the T’Sou-ke village along the Sooke River. It describes a developing community of interconnected First Nations and French Canadian families, including the Brulés, Josephs, Armours, Jolibois, and Poiriers.

These were families living through a period of profound change. The fur trade connected people across enormous distances, while emerging colonial boundaries increasingly divided territories that families had long travelled through.

Their lives cannot be understood through modern borders alone.

They married, raised children, maintained relationships, and established communities in a changing world.

remembered for the bone game

One detail in the book stopped me.

The account preserves a recollection attributed to Queesto, Chief Charlie Jones of the Pacheedaht, who described Marguerite visiting the village with a deerskin and the pieces used for the traditional bone game.

The recollection portrays her playing with women in the community and being known for her skill.

This is a different kind of historical evidence from a baptism or marriage entry. It is a memory passed down through people who knew the community and its traditions.

It gives us a glimpse of Marguerite participating in social and cultural life rather than appearing only in records created by colonial institutions.

I was especially interested in this passage because my carving instructor had once spoken about someone who was particularly skilled at the bone game. I do not yet know whether the person my instructor described was Marguerite. That connection remains a question for further research, but it is another lead I want to follow.

The account in the 1999 book deserves to be preserved and read in its original context, alongside the voices and knowledge of the communities whose traditions it describes.

what the census tells us

The book reports that the 1881 federal census listed Marguerite, or Margaret Brulé, as 90 years old.

If that reported age is accurate, it suggests she lived through decades of enormous change in the Pacific Northwest. However, ages in historical records can be approximate, so the original census entry should be consulted before using it to calculate a birth year.

The book also describes a family burial place on a rise overlooking the Sooke River.

That description is another lead for historical research, although the precise location and present condition of the burial place require independent confirmation.

more than a name in a family tree

I have spent years trying to understand the people who came before me.

I have found church records, family testimony, changing spellings, different descriptions of ancestry, and clues scattered across the Pacific Northwest.

Mary Ann's testimony helps illuminate her parents and childhood. Joseph's marriage record connects him to Marguerite and Jacques Iroquois. The Sooke history places Marguerite within a T’Sou-ke community and preserves a recollection of her participation in the bone game.

No single source answers every question.

Together, however, they provide a stronger starting point for further research.

I also want to be careful about the words used to describe these families. My family research includes people who identified, or were described, in different ways, including Métis, Iroquois, Kalapuya, and T’Sou-ke connections. Those terms have distinct histories and meanings. A historical label in one record does not automatically settle every question about a person's identity, ancestry, or community belonging.

The task is to preserve what the evidence says, listen to family and community knowledge, and remain honest about what we have yet to establish.

Marguerite deserves more than a passing mention in somebody else's story.

She deserves to be remembered as a person whose life connected families, communities, and histories that are still being pieced together today.

And I am still following the trail.

original source

The Sooke Story – The History and The Heartbeat.

Sooke Region Museum, limited first edition, copyright 1999.

ISBN 0-9694942-2-X.

Relevant pages: 40–42, 54–55, and 59.

The book's notes reference Catholic Church records of the Pacific Northwest, including the Fort Vancouver marriage entry and the St. Paul marriage entry, as well as British Columbia land registry records and historical notes attributed to Chris Baker of the Juan de Fuca Historical Society.

This post summarizes and discusses the published account rather than reproducing it in full. Readers are encouraged to consult the original publication and underlying records.


They experienced the loss of old political and social systems and the emergence of new ones.

And they carried their families forward.

That is my history.

Not a simple category.

Not a neat little box.

A tangled, complicated Pacific Northwest story.

T’Sou-ke. Iroquois. Kalapuya. French Canadian. Fur trade. Oregon Country. Vancouver Island.

And me.

Still trying to learn what happened to the people who came before me.

Because the more I learn, the more I realize:

They weren't living on the margins of history.

They were living through history.

Thursday, October 15, 2026

the things we forget: what people have been through

 ***content warning & support resources-See below



the things we forget: what people have been through

We talk about homelessness, addiction, poverty, and people who seem to have given up. But how often do we stop and remember everything that happened before someone reached that point?

People don't all begin in the same place, and they don't all have the same support when life falls apart.

Here are some of the challenges people have faced, especially over the last several years.

1. the pandemic years

  • Losing jobs, contracts, businesses, and livelihoods.
  • Losing homes because the income needed to keep them disappeared.
  • Being separated from family and friends.
  • Living with isolation, fear, uncertainty, and grief.
  • Facing travel restrictions, testing expenses, quarantine requirements, and lost time.
  • Having relationships damaged by disagreements over vaccination and public-health rules.
  • Trying to rebuild a life after the emergency measures ended, often without the resources to do so.

Some people, including me, experienced quarantine twice. I spent 30 days in quarantine, wasn't sick, and had to pay for tests before I could return home. Those were real days out of my life, and the experience stayed with me.

Canada's travel rules changed repeatedly throughout the pandemic. For some travellers, testing and quarantine requirements were substantial burdens. Official Canadian border-measures timeline.

2. losing a home

  • Rents rising beyond what ordinary people can afford.
  • Losing a job and then losing the home that depended on it.
  • Being unable to save enough for a damage deposit, first month's rent, or moving expenses.
  • Having to rely on friends and family, sometimes at the cost of independence.
  • Being told to share a home when privacy and personal safety matter deeply.
  • Living with strangers, noise, conflict, insecurity, and the constant worry about belongings.
  • Being offered shelter options that don't feel safe or suitable.
  • Spending money on storage because there is nowhere permanent to put your possessions.
  • Having no car, no stable address, and limited income while trying to navigate an expensive city.

Homelessness isn't always sleeping outside. Sometimes it means sleeping on somebody's couch, watching the calendar, trying not to outstay your welcome, and wondering where you'll go next.

3. poverty that keeps taking

  • Living on an income that barely covers food, transportation, telephone bills, and storage.
  • Having to choose which bill can wait.
  • Losing money to debts, deductions, or benefit repayments.
  • Being unable to afford the upfront costs that might help you escape poverty.
  • Having to explain your circumstances repeatedly to people who assume you simply haven't tried hard enough.
  • Being unable to afford the things that make life feel ordinary: a private room, a quiet night, a decent meal, or a little breathing room.
  • Watching an unexpected $100 expense become a crisis.

When you have very little, a small financial setback can have enormous consequences. What looks minor to one person can mean groceries for another.

4. family, friendship, and belonging

  • Estrangement from children, parents, siblings, and lifelong friends.
  • Losing relationships during the pandemic and never finding a way back.
  • Being judged for being poor, unhoused, unemployed, or struggling.
  • Depending on someone who later withdraws their help.
  • Feeling unwelcome in the very places where you hoped to find safety.
  • Carrying grief without having anyone you feel comfortable talking to.
  • Watching friends age, become ill, struggle with addiction, or die.
  • Being surrounded by people and still feeling profoundly alone.

A person can have family and still have nowhere they feel they belong.

5. the daily exhaustion people don't see

  • Poor sleep because the environment is noisy, crowded, or unpredictable.
  • Worrying about personal safety while sleeping.
  • Having no secure place to keep a phone, money, identification, or a computer.
  • Struggling to eat properly or prepare food safely.
  • Living with chronic stress while trying to manage ordinary tasks.
  • Being physically exhausted from work that is difficult, poorly paid, or insecure.
  • Having health concerns without reliable access to care.
  • Being expected to make good long-term decisions while dealing with immediate survival needs.

Peace and privacy aren't luxuries for everyone. Sometimes they are what allow a person to recover enough to keep going.

6. young people growing up in a world of loss

Think about the young people in Vancouver who have lost friends to the toxic drug supply.

Some have lost a parent. Some have attended funerals for friends they thought would grow old beside them. Some have watched people they love struggle with addiction, homelessness, trauma, or mental illness.

They are left with grief, unanswered questions, and the knowledge that another phone call could bring more terrible news.

British Columbia recorded 2,253 deaths from unregulated drug toxicity in 2024. Preliminary reporting for 2025 later recorded 1,826 deaths. Even with that decrease, thousands of families, friends, and communities have been affected. BC Coroners Service, 2024 data and 2025 data.

Behind every number was a person. Someone had a favourite song, a laugh, a history, and people who cared about them.

7. why might someone turn to drugs, or feel like checking out?

There is no single explanation, and we should never assume we know an individual's story.

But people may use substances to cope with physical pain, trauma, grief, loneliness, mental distress, or circumstances that feel unbearable. Some are trying to quiet their thoughts for a little while. Some are trying to feel something other than pain. Some are dealing with dependence that has become very difficult to manage.

Others may reach a point where they cannot imagine how their circumstances could change.

That doesn't mean every person who uses drugs wants to die. It doesn't mean poverty inevitably leads to addiction. And it doesn't mean we should give up on anyone.

It means we need to look beyond the behaviour and ask what is happening in that person's life.

And fentanyl makes an already dangerous situation far deadlier. In an unregulated drug supply, people may not know exactly what they are taking or how potent it is.

Understanding someone's pain is not the same as accepting that they should be left to suffer.

8. what happens when society stops seeing people?

We start describing people as burdens, addicts, failures, freeloaders, or lost causes.

We ask why they don't work harder, move somewhere cheaper, find a room, reconcile with their family, or simply make better choices.

But what if they have already tried?

What if they are exhausted? What if their family is gone? What if every affordable room requires sharing with strangers? What if they cannot afford to move? What if they have been trying for years?

What if the person standing in front of us is not someone who never tried, but someone who has run out of options?

We cannot know without listening.

9. what we need to remember

  • Housing is stability, not just a roof.
  • Food security is dignity, not a reward for being productive.
  • Privacy and safety matter.
  • Grief can change a person's life for years.
  • Addiction is not a complete description of a human being.
  • Poverty is not proof of laziness.
  • A person can be struggling without being incapable.
  • People need support before a crisis becomes a catastrophe.
  • Young people need hope, connection, and places where they are wanted.
  • Saving lives requires more than counting deaths after they happen.

We cannot bring back everyone who has died. But we can stop treating the people who remain as if their suffering is an inconvenience.

the question we should be asking

I think about how many people have lost their footing since 2019. I think about people who once worked, paid rent, raised children, made art, travelled, and had plans for their future.

Then something happened. Sometimes several things happened, one after another.

And now they are expected to explain why they haven't recovered.

Perhaps we should ask a different question.

What happened to you? What have you lost? What are you carrying? And what would help you feel safe enough to begin again?

We cannot undo every injustice. We cannot promise that life will be fair. But we can listen without humiliating people, offer help without demanding that they prove their worth, and make sure our neighbours know they have not become invisible.

Because the people we call homeless, addicted, broken, or lost are still people.

They are somebody's child, somebody's friend, somebody's parent. They are people who have lived through things we may never fully understand.

And they are still here.

Let's remember that.


**

content warning & support resources


Trigger warning: This article discusses homelessness, poverty, grief, addiction, the toxic drug supply, overdose deaths, and thoughts of suicide. Some of these subjects may be painful for readers who have experienced loss, trauma, or difficult circumstances themselves. Please take care of yourself while reading, and step away if you need to.


This article is intended to encourage understanding, compassion, and discussion. It is not intended to diagnose, judge, or diminish anyone's personal experience.


If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available:


- Canada Suicide Crisis Helpline: Call or text 988, free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

- BC Mental Health Support Line: Call 310-6789 (no area code required), 24 hours a day.

- Crisis Centre BC: Visit "crisiscentre.bc.ca" (https://crisiscentre.bc.ca/) for support and resources.

- Immediate danger: Call 911.


If you are grieving someone who has died, struggling with substance use, or simply finding life difficult to manage, you deserve compassion and support. You do not have to wait until things become unbearable to reach out.


Please remember: behind every statistic is a human life, and behind every loss are people who continue to grieve. Let's talk about these realities with care, respect, and kindness.

THE DAY

 

THE DAY

eat the rich now

It started like any other day.

The sun was shining. Dogs barked behind garden fences. Children hurried past with their parents, backpacks bouncing, shoes untied, breakfast still clinging to the corners of their mouths. Buses sighed at the curb. Coffee machines hissed. Somewhere, a radio played an old love song.

And then the newspapers arrived.

It was the headline that turned heads.

EAT THE RICH.

Three words.

No explanation. No byline. No photograph.

Just those three words, printed in enormous black letters across the front page of every major newspaper in the country.

People stopped walking.

A man lowered his coffee cup. A woman standing at a bus stop slowly unfolded her paper, then unfolded it again, as though a different message might appear beneath the first.

Someone laughed.

Someone else said, "What the hell?"

By nine o'clock, the headline was everywhere.

On television screens. On phones. Across digital billboards that had advertised luxury watches and investment opportunities only minutes earlier.

The stock market stumbled.

The news anchors smiled nervously.

The government called an emergency meeting.

And somewhere in a glass tower overlooking the city, a billionaire locked his office door.

Because he had seen something the others hadn't.

There was a photograph on the back page of his newspaper.

It showed a dining room.

A long table. White linen. Silver cutlery. Twelve empty chairs.

At the far end sat a thirteenth chair.

And on the plate in front of it was a human tooth.


By noon, the first rumours had begun.

A technology mogul had disappeared from his private island. A property developer had been found hiding in a maintenance room beneath one of his own apartment towers. An investment banker had abandoned his car in the middle of a highway and run barefoot into the woods.

The stories grew stranger by the hour.

A video appeared online showing a crowd outside an exclusive restaurant. The windows were blacked out. Something scraped against the glass from the inside.

Then came the screaming.

The video ended.

Nobody knew who had filmed it.

Nobody knew what had happened inside.

But by evening, the internet was filling with photographs that no one could explain.

A dinner plate on a velvet cushion.

A pair of expensive shoes beside a drain.

A handwritten menu featuring the names of people who, according to the news, were still alive.

The authorities called the images fabricated.

The platforms began deleting them.

That only made them spread faster.

And beneath every image, beneath every rumour, beneath every shaky recording uploaded in the middle of the night, appeared the same three words.

EAT THE RICH.

People began to panic.

Some cheered. Some prayed. Some bought weapons and barricaded their doors. Others stood in the streets holding cardboard signs, unable to decide whether they were witnessing a revolution or the beginning of something far older.

The billionaires hired security.

They moved their families into bunkers.

They turned off their phones.

But the strange thing was this: the people disappearing weren't always the richest.

They were the ones who had become famous for believing themselves untouchable.

The ones whose names appeared in court documents, leaked messages, private flight logs.

The ones who had laughed when asked how ordinary people were supposed to afford a place to live.

One by one, their photographs appeared on the front pages.

Then their names disappeared from the news.

Then their photographs disappeared.

And finally, people began to notice that the stories were no longer about missing men and women.

They were about empty chairs.


Sarah had been reading for nearly an hour when she reached the chapter titled The First Supper.

She had picked up the book at a secondhand shop. No author was listed. No publisher. The cover was plain black, with three words embossed in a dull, metallic red.

EAT THE RICH NOW.

She'd thought it was satire.

A strange little underground novel. Something written by an angry person with too much time on their hands.

But the details were unsettling.

The dates.

The locations.

The names.

Some of them were real.

She turned the page.

A photograph had been printed between two chapters. It showed a banquet room, with a chandelier shaped like a crown hanging above a table set for twenty.

Sarah frowned.

She knew that room.

She had seen it on the news last week, in a story about a private gathering of the world's wealthiest investors.

Only the photograph in the book was different.

There were twenty place settings.

Twenty silver plates.

And at the head of the table, a single black napkin folded into the shape of an open mouth.

Sarah felt a cold sensation creep up her spine.

She turned the page.

A list of names.

She recognized the first one.

Then the second.

The third belonged to a man who had vanished two nights earlier. His family had released a statement saying he was taking time away from public life.

The fourth had died in a private hospital, according to an announcement that had been quietly removed from the internet.

Beside each name was a date.

And beside each date, written in red ink, was a single word.

SERVED.

Sarah's hands began to tremble.

She flipped ahead, faster now, pages whispering beneath her fingers.

There were photographs of dining rooms, private jets, underground garages.

There were transcripts of conversations that had never been made public.

There were descriptions of things she couldn't quite bring herself to read.

And then she reached the final page.

It contained a single paragraph.

You laughed when you first heard the rumours. Everyone did. You thought it was a joke, a metaphor, a slogan printed on a protest sign. You thought the world was too civilized for such things.

Below it was a line of text.

Civilization is a very thin tablecloth.

Sarah stared at the words.

Her mouth went dry.

Outside, a dog began barking.

Then another.

Then all the dogs on the street seemed to erupt at once.

Her phone vibrated on the table.

A breaking-news alert.

She looked down.

BILLIONAIRE REPORTED MISSING — POLICE INVESTIGATE UNUSUAL SCENE.

A second alert appeared.

Then a third.

Sarah stood so quickly that the chair toppled behind her.

She remembered the rumours now. The jokes people had made. The strange posts that appeared and vanished. The stories about private kitchens and locked rooms, about people who had paid fortunes to keep certain things quiet.

She had laughed at those stories.

She had told her friends they were ridiculous.

The room seemed to tilt.

She looked back at the book.

The final page had changed.

Or perhaps she simply hadn't noticed the words at the bottom before.

A sentence had been written beneath the paragraph, in the same red ink.

SARAH WILL READ THIS AT 8:17 P.M.

She checked the clock.

8:17.

Her face went white.

The book slid from her fingers.

She stumbled toward the bathroom, barely making it to the sink before she began to vomit.

When she finally raised her head, she saw her reflection in the mirror.

Behind her, on the open book, another line had appeared.

She has finished the first chapter.

And somewhere downstairs, the front door opened.

Sarah stopped breathing.

A voice called her name.

It sounded almost friendly.

Then came the soft, unmistakable scrape of a chair being pulled out at the dining table.

And a voice she had never heard before whispered:

"Whose hungry?"

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

David Eby: Two Chances, Broken Promises and a Housing Crisis That Won't Go Away

David Eby: Two Chances, Broken Promises and a Housing Crisis That Won't Go Away

Housing, groceries and the promises British Columbians are still waiting to see fulfilled.

Dear David Eby,

How many chances does a premier get?

You became premier in 2022, and British Columbians gave your government another mandate in 2024. You had time to understand the housing crisis, the cost of groceries, the growing number of people living without homes, and the struggles of ordinary people just trying to survive.

Yet here we are, still asking the same questions.

Where are the results for the people who need help the most?

1. The $1,000 household relief promise

During the 2024 election campaign, you promised a household tax break worth more than $1,000 for an average family, with relief beginning in 2025. You connected that promise to the cost of groceries and everyday essentials.

The original plan for immediate relief was subsequently shelved. Families who were counting on that form of help did not receive the promised payment as originally advertised.

A campaign promise is not the same as money in people's pockets.

Source: BC NDP: David Eby announces household relief

2. 300,000 homes: Where are the affordable options?

In October 2024, Eby announced a plan to unlock 300,000 middle-class homes over the next decade.

But a target is not a completed home, and a completed home is not necessarily an affordable home.

People need to know how many homes have actually been completed, how many are available at rents ordinary people can afford, and how many are within reach of people living on pensions or very low incomes.

There have also been questions about the delivery timeline for the government's proposed first-time buyer financing program, which was intended to support 25,000 homes annually.

Where is the clear public accounting showing whether these promises are reaching the people who need help most?

Source: The Tyee: Eby made promises that connected. What happened to them?

3. Affordable housing put on hold

In July 2026, The Tyee reported that at least 3,500 affordable homes across 25 Metro Vancouver projects were affected by provincial funding decisions.

The reported breakdown included 486 homes cancelled, 1,484 paused and 1,533 left in limbo.

These categories matter. Not every affected home was cancelled, but thousands of homes faced uncertainty.

For someone who already has a home, a delayed development might sound like a bureaucratic problem.

For someone sleeping outside, couch-surfing or watching their last affordable rental disappear, it can mean another year of uncertainty.

How can we talk about solving homelessness while affordable housing projects are being cancelled, paused or left waiting for funding?

Source: The Tyee: BC set to lose 3,500 affordable homes because of budget cuts

4. Building homes is not enough

The province has introduced zoning reforms, supported housing construction and funded projects. Those actions should be acknowledged.

But the housing crisis cannot be measured only by how many homes are announced or how many developments are underway.

We also need to ask:

  • How many homes are affordable to people living on disability assistance, pensions or very low incomes?
  • How many supportive and non-market homes have actually opened?
  • How many people remain homeless while waiting?
  • What happens to people who cannot afford market rent and do not qualify for middle-income programs?

A new condo does not automatically become a home for someone living on a few hundred dollars a month.

People need housing they can actually afford, not simply assurances that more housing is coming.

5. Grocery relief: Promises versus reality

In 2024, Eby promised a household tax break to help with everyday expenses. The original plan for immediate relief was subsequently shelved.

Now the BC NDP is promoting proposed measures to tackle grocery prices through competition and limits on profits on basic food items.

Those are different approaches, but neither should be confused with a guaranteed $1,000 payment to every family.

Competition may help reduce prices over time, but people need affordable groceries today.

When a government makes a specific financial promise during an election, voters deserve a clear explanation of what happened to it.

6. What about the people falling through the cracks?

What about people who have been unhoused for years?

What about older people who have worked, raised children, contributed to their communities and now cannot afford a room of their own?

What about people living on small pensions who cannot afford today's rents, never mind save for a down payment?

What about those who need a safe, independent place to live rather than an overcrowded shelter or a housing arrangement that does not suit their needs?

Where is the urgency for them?

Housing policy must include people at the bottom of the income scale, not just first-time buyers, middle-income households and people who can afford market rentals.

A government cannot declare success while people are still being left behind.

7. Two chances. What happens now?

David Eby, you have had two opportunities to lead this province through a housing crisis that has been building for years. Your government has introduced policies and built housing, but important promises have been delayed, changed or left without clear delivery timelines.

British Columbians deserve a straightforward accounting of what was promised, what was delivered, what was cancelled and what remains unfinished.

Not another glossy announcement. Not another list of future intentions.

Actual results.

And this is not just about one premier or one political party. Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim and municipal leaders must also answer for the decisions within their own responsibilities. Housing is a shared responsibility, and passing the blame between levels of government does not give anyone a place to live.

I want to see politicians held accountable for their records, not simply rewarded for making new promises.

If two opportunities to deliver meaningful change have not been enough, voters are entitled to ask whether they want to give the same leadership another chance.

Because a home is not a luxury. Food is not a luxury. Dignity is not a luxury.

They are the foundations of a decent society.

People should not have to wait indefinitely for the basics of life.

Two chances. Now show us the results.

People need homes, food and dignity. Not another election promise.

#housingcrisis #affordablehousing #homelessness #costofliving #groceryprices #housingforall #accountability #britishcolumbia #vancouver #politics



A note about sources and accuracy: I have made every effort to keep the information in this article accurate and to link to sources where possible. Figures and policy details are based on published reports and public announcements available at the time of writing. Promises, proposals, funding decisions and completed projects are not the same thing, and I have tried to distinguish between them. Readers are encouraged to consult the original sources and check for updates, as government policies and housing figures can change. The purpose of this article is to encourage transparency, accountability and an honest conversation about housing affordability and the cost of living in British Columbia.

people aren't products

 people aren't products: whatever happened to understanding one another?

Maybe we've become so focused on asking “What's wrong with this person?” that we've forgotten to ask “How does this person experience the world?”

We live in a time when there seems to be a label for everything. How we think, how we learn, how we remember, how we react to noise, how we socialize, how we grieve, how we move through the world.

Sometimes these labels are useful. They can help people understand themselves, find community, access support, and receive treatment when they need it.

But somewhere along the way, I wonder whether we've started confusing the label with the person.

when everything becomes a market

We live in an economy that finds ways to turn human needs into business opportunities.

There is money in assessments, diagnoses, prescriptions, therapies, programs, and lifelong management. Some of these services are necessary and life-changing. People deserve access to care, and nobody should be shamed for seeking help.

But we should also be willing to ask difficult questions about a society that can profit from identifying problems while investing far less in preventing suffering in the first place.

What about the loneliness that comes from being excluded? The exhaustion of living in poverty? The anxiety created by housing insecurity? The distress of watching the natural world disappear while being told to carry on as usual?

Not every struggle originates inside the individual.

Sometimes we need to look at the world we've built around them.

how did we forget to listen?

Imagine a person who notices patterns before others do. Someone who remembers conversations from decades ago. Someone who hears ordinary sounds more intensely, needs solitude to recover, or sees a situation from a perspective nobody else seems to understand.

Must we immediately decide what that person is?

Could we first ask questions?

What do they notice that others miss? What overwhelms them? What brings them peace? What have they learned through experience? What do they need from the people around them?

Human beings are complicated. Two people can experience the same moment and walk away with entirely different memories of it.

We don't all process the world in the same way. Why should we expect everyone to fit the same mould?

what can we learn from Indigenous knowledge?

Many Indigenous knowledge systems place importance on relationships, community, Elders, responsibilities, and learning through lived experience. Knowledge is not simply information to collect; it can be something carried, shared, practised, and passed between generations.

Indigenous peoples and cultures are diverse, with their own traditions and understandings of human differences. There is no single Indigenous worldview. But there is much to reflect on in approaches that emphasize relationship and responsibility rather than viewing a person in isolation.

What if we spent more time learning from one another?

What if an older person had opportunities to share what they had learned, rather than being dismissed as out of touch? What if a young person who questioned the status quo was heard rather than immediately judged? What if someone who needed a different way of living was met with curiosity instead of suspicion?

We don't have to romanticize the past to recognize that community, intergenerational knowledge, and belonging matter.

people aren't problems to be managed

I worry that we've become too comfortable treating human beings as categories to sort, statistics to measure, risks to manage, and consumers to target.

We see it in healthcare, education, housing, employment, and social media. We measure productivity. We count economic contributions. We assess whether someone fits the system.

But what happens to people who don't fit?

What happens when someone is poor, unconventional, sensitive, independent, or unwilling to follow the crowd? What happens when a person has something valuable to offer but doesn't have the credentials, money, connections, or personality that society rewards?

A person's worth should not depend on how easily they fit into an institution or how much money they generate.

And understanding someone does not mean ignoring their difficulties or refusing them help. It means seeing the whole person, not reducing them to a diagnosis, a problem, or a stereotype.

perhaps we need to recover our curiosity

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I simply wonder whether we've lost something important in our rush to explain everything.

Perhaps we need to become better listeners.

Perhaps we need to make more room for people who experience life differently.

Perhaps we need to remember that a diagnosis can describe certain characteristics or difficulties without defining an entire human being.

And perhaps we need to question an economic system that can place a price on almost anything while struggling to recognize the value of kindness, patience, wisdom, creativity, and genuine human connection.

Not everything valuable can be measured.

Not every difference needs to be corrected.

Not every struggle is an individual failure.

And not every person needs to be put into a box before we can treat them with respect.

People aren't products. They're not problems to be solved or markets to be captured. They're human beings to be understood.

Maybe a better starting point — for healthcare, for education, for our communities, and for how we treat one another — is a simple question:

How does this person experience the world?

And then, instead of rushing to answer for them, we could do something that seems increasingly rare.

We could listen.

Because understanding one another shouldn't have to be profitable to matter.

Reflective Questions

Have we become too quick to label people instead of understanding them?

Can a label help someone while still limiting how others see them?

What have we lost by placing so much value on productivity and profit?

How can we make more room for people who experience the world differently?