Monday, November 9, 2026

who the fuck is facebook?

Hola, Hello, Bonjour! 🌎

Good Morning! How are you?

Let's talk! ☕🎶

I woke up, tried to share something, and a weird message popped up. In my 15? 20 years on Facebook, I've NEVER seen anything like this.

So, if you post more than TWO links on Facebook, they want you to pay?

WTF??? 🤑🖕

I went to make a coffee, and somewhere between the coffee maker and my first sip, my brain started playing music.

The Who.

Who are you? Do do, do do... 🎶🎵🎼

Except my version had a slightly different ending.

"Facebook, oh, who the fuck are you?" 🖕🤑

Apparently, my brain has its own way of processing corporate nonsense. Sometimes it's a song, sometimes it's a painting, and sometimes it's a very colourful vocabulary. 😎😂

But seriously, who do these companies think they are?

We built our little corners of the internet. We write, create, photograph, research and share. We bring people to their platforms, and now sharing information is becoming another opportunity to charge us.

Well, here's my answer.

I WON'T PAY. 🖕

And maybe 2027 is the year I put down the smartphone and pick up a paintbrush a little more often.

Facebook, you can keep your platform. 🖕

I've got my own little corner of the internet.


🖕🤑🎵🎶🎼l

Who the fuck is Facebook?

(A little rock 'n' roll protest song)

Who are you?
Do do, do do
Who are you?
Do do, do do 🎼

You want my clicks,
You want my time,
You want my stories,
But you won't share mine? 🎵🎸

You built your walls,
You changed the rules,
You want us paying
Like a bunch of fools! 🎶🎸

Oh, Facebook!
Who the fuck are you?
Who the fuck are you?
To tell me what I can share and do? 🎼

I made my blog,
I wrote my words,
I shared my art,
I shared the world. 🎵🎸

You want a cut?
You want a fee?
Well, here's a little message from me! 🎶

Who are you?
Do do, do do
Who are you?
Not the boss of me! 🎼

You can keep your likes,
You can keep your feed,
I don't need your permission
To say what I believe. 🎵

I've got my own little corner,
I've got my own domain,
And I won't pay Facebook
To share my work again! 🎶

OH, FACEBOOK!
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
🎼

Guitar solo. Exit stage left. 🎸


Hey, kids! You might not know The Who. Check them out!! 🎸🎶

And for the rest of us, turn it up!


#WhoTheFuckIsFacebook #GetOffFacebook #Meta #DigitalFreedom #FightBackWithArt #IndependentBloggers #OwnYourContent #NoMoreBigTech #DisconnectToReconnect #Zipolita #TheInternetBelongsToEveryone #RockNRollProtest


another reason to get off facebook: when sharing becomes a privilege

 🖕fb

another reason to get off facebook: when sharing becomes a privilege

Well, here's another reason to rethink Facebook.

Meta is introducing restrictions on sharing external links for some Facebook Pages and professional accounts. Apparently, even sharing links to your own website and the information you want people to read can become a paid privilege.

I have never paid Facebook to promote my work, and I'm certainly not about to start now.

I have spent years building my own little corner of the internet. Nearly 3 million blog views, thousands of posts, art, photography, stories, research and important news. I don't need Facebook to own that work, and I don't need to pay Meta for the privilege of directing people to it.

But here's the bigger concern.

What happens when independent bloggers, artists, community groups and ordinary people can no longer easily share important news and information?

Social media was supposed to connect us. Instead, we're increasingly seeing platforms decide what gets visibility, who gets heard and what creators must pay to reach an audience.

I don't think that's progress.

I have been questioning my relationship with Facebook, Instagram and other big tech platforms for some time. Every new restriction gives me another reason.

And I'm making another personal goal for 2027: getting rid of my smartphone.

Maybe it's time to step back, spend more time outdoors, make art, read, write and reconnect with the actual world.

My blog can stay. My words can stay. My art can stay.

But Facebook doesn't get to decide whether I can share them.

And I'm certainly not paying for the privilege.

🖕

#GetOffFacebook #DigitalFreedom #SupportIndependentBloggers #FightBackWithArt #NoMoreBigTech #OwnYourContent #DisconnectToReconnect #2027Goals #IndependentMedia #TheInternetBelongsToEveryone

#ThrowAwaySmartPhone #BringBackCameras

Sunday, November 8, 2026

The Choice

 A dark speculative story in two versions. A Twilight Zone-inspired tale.

Version one: the warning

It didn't happen overnight.

There was no single day when Canada became unrecognizable. No announcement declaring that compassion was no longer part of the national character.

It happened in increments.

First, the rents went up. Then the shelters filled. Then the food banks ran out of food. Then people started sleeping in parks, under bridges and in doorways.

The elderly searched through garbage bins. Young people disappeared into addiction. Women learned which streets to avoid. Children learned that some things were not safe to talk about.

The wealthy built higher fences.

Politicians made speeches about resilience, personal responsibility and taking care of one another.

Every election brought another promise.

Every winter brought another death.

People watched it happen on their phones. They shared photographs, signed petitions, argued in comment sections and went back to their lives.

Until one morning, something changed.

A young woman stood outside Parliament holding a photograph of her brother.

He had been 19.

He had wanted a job, a room of his own and a chance to start his life. Instead, he had spent his final months moving between shelters, hospitals and the streets.

She wasn't shouting.

She simply asked:

"When did we decide that some lives were worth less than others?"

For once, nobody had an answer.

The country was given a choice.

It could rebuild its social safety net, provide housing, invest in health care, protect children and restore dignity to people who had been abandoned.

Or it could continue pretending that everything was fine.

For the first time in generations, people began to understand that a country wasn't measured by the wealth of its billionaires, but by how it treated its most vulnerable.

And the choice was still theirs.

The screen went black.


Version two: the verdict

Thirty years later, a history teacher stood before a classroom of teenagers.

The students were studying the collapse of a once-prosperous country.

On the screen was an old photograph of a city street.

There were people sleeping in doorways. Makeshift shelters under bridges. Empty storefronts. Security fences around luxury towers.

One student raised her hand.

"Was it always like that?"

"No," said the teacher.

"Then what happened?"

The teacher paused.

"People knew. They had the statistics. They had the warnings. They had reports from doctors, social workers, housing advocates and researchers. They knew children were being exploited. They knew women were being abused. They knew people were dying."

"Why didn't they do anything?"

"They did some things. They made announcements. They held conferences. They created committees. They promised billions. They argued about whose responsibility it was."

"But they knew people were dying?"

"Yes."

The classroom fell silent.

Another student asked, "What happened to the people who made the decisions?"

"Some retired. Some became wealthy. Some wrote memoirs. Some said the crisis was complicated. Others said nobody could have predicted what happened next."

The student looked again at the photograph.

"And the people who died?"

The teacher turned off the screen.

"They became statistics. Their families became footnotes. Their names eventually disappeared from the news."

A long silence followed.

Then a boy at the back of the classroom asked the question nobody had thought to ask.

"Didn't they have a choice?"

The teacher looked at him.

"Yes," she said.

"They had a choice."

The television flickered.

A familiar voice, seemingly coming from nowhere, whispered:

"Apparently, they always did."

END.


canada has a new immigration plan. but has canada learned anything?

Managing immigration numbers is not the same thing as managing a country.

Ottawa has announced its new 2027–2029 Immigration Levels Plan. Apparently, we're going to try this again.

canada has a new immigration plan. but has canada learned anything?


The government says it wants a more sustainable, predictable immigration system, with better alignment between population growth, economic needs, housing, healthcare and infrastructure.

Well, that sounds sensible.

But haven't we heard this before?

Let's look at the numbers.

The new annual targets for 2027, 2028 and 2029:

  • 380,000 permanent residents.
  • 370,000 new temporary resident arrivals.
  • 220,000 temporary workers.
  • 150,000 international students.

That's a substantial number of people, every year.

There is also a proposed one-time measure to transition up to 200,000 people already living in Canada to permanent residency in 2027, through worker and humanitarian pathways.

The government says this will help people who have already established themselves here, while addressing labour needs and longstanding humanitarian commitments.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

But I have questions.

first, what happened to the planning?

Canada has experienced enormous population growth, housing shortages, strained healthcare services, overcrowded infrastructure and an increasingly difficult rental market.

International students have been recruited into an education system that hasn't always provided adequate housing or support.

Temporary foreign workers have sometimes found themselves in vulnerable situations, dependent on employers for their ability to remain in Canada.

And Canadians, including people who have lived here their entire lives, are struggling to afford a place to live.

These are not separate conversations.

They are connected to how governments plan, regulate and manage population growth.

immigration isn't the problem. poor planning is.

Let's be very clear.

Immigrants are not responsible for Canada's housing crisis.

People coming here looking for safety, opportunity, education and a better future are not the enemy.

Many newcomers are working incredibly hard, contributing to their communities, paying taxes and filling essential jobs.

Canada needs immigration. Our communities, economy and future benefit from people bringing their skills, experience and cultures here.

But welcoming people comes with responsibilities.

If governments invite people to Canada, they must plan for housing, healthcare, schools, transportation and essential services.

You cannot keep increasing demand without ensuring the infrastructure exists to support it.

And you cannot expect people already struggling to survive to simply absorb the consequences of political and economic decisions.

who benefits from the system?

This is another question worth asking.

Employers want workers. Universities and colleges want international students. Governments want economic growth and tax revenue.

But what about the people themselves?

Are temporary workers being treated fairly?

Are international students receiving the education and opportunities they were promised?

Are newcomers finding affordable housing?

Are Canadian workers receiving fair wages and reasonable working conditions?

And are governments ensuring that employers aren't using immigration as a way to avoid improving wages and working conditions?

We need to examine the system, not turn people against one another.

and what about the people already here?

There are Canadians who cannot find a family doctor.

Families spending half their income on rent.

Young people wondering whether they will ever own a home.

Seniors struggling to afford groceries and housing.

People sleeping in parks, on sidewalks and in doorways.

People who have worked their entire lives and now find themselves one unexpected expense away from losing everything.

What is the plan for them?

What is the plan for the people who have fallen through the cracks?

We should not need to choose between helping newcomers and helping people already living here.

A decent country should be capable of doing both.

a country needs more than immigration targets

The new plan maintains 380,000 permanent resident admissions and 370,000 new temporary resident arrivals annually through 2029.

The government describes this as stability and sustainability.

But stability for whom?

Employers need predictable access to workers. Educational institutions need predictable enrolment. Provinces need to plan for population growth.

And ordinary people need to know they can afford a home, access healthcare and build a future.

Those things should not be optional extras.

I would like to see governments publish meaningful progress on housing affordability, healthcare access, infrastructure capacity, worker protections and homelessness alongside immigration targets.

Not just promises. Measurable results.

Because a population strategy without a social strategy is incomplete.

And economic growth that leaves more people struggling isn't necessarily progress.

Canada doesn't just need an immigration plan. Canada needs a plan for Canadians, newcomers and everyone trying to build a decent life here.

Perhaps this time, instead of congratulating ourselves on another announcement, we should measure success by how well people are actually living.

That would be a good place to start.

— Tina Winterlik Zipolita

Sources: Government of Canada's 2027–2029 Immigration Levels Plan and Budget 2026, Chapter 3.


#Canada #Immigration #HousingCrisis #AffordableHousing #Healthcare #TemporaryForeignWorkers #InternationalStudents #Homelessness #EconomicJustice #BetterPlanning


kitsilano, from hippies to high-rises: whose neighbourhood is this?

 

kitsilano, from hippies to high-rises: whose neighbourhood is this?

Part 1

I've been thinking about Vancouver's history, particularly Kitsilano, and how neighbourhoods change over time.

I recently watched a 1964 film about Vancouver's plans for urban renewal. It got me thinking about how we describe neighbourhoods, who gets to decide what needs improving, and what happens to the people who already live there.

Kitsilano was changing in the 1960s. Some older buildings were deteriorating, rental housing was becoming more common, and young people, students and hippies were moving in.

West Fourth Street became known as Love Street.

Not everyone was pleased.

Tom Campbell, Vancouver's mayor from 1966 to 1972, was openly hostile towards the hippie counterculture. He was also involved in property development, including Parkview Towers at 1450 Chestnut Street.

That building was controversial because of its height and size. It stood out dramatically from its surroundings, and for years there was very little nearby development of comparable scale.

Eventually, the neighbourhood changed again.

And again.

1450 chestnut: a little piece of my Vancouver history

I have a personal connection to this building.

I moved into 1450 Chestnut in 1997. I was looking for somewhere I could feel safe after some frightening experiences in other parts of Vancouver.

My rent was $630.

Over the years, I recorded it increasing to $825 in 2004 and $925 in 2007.

Think about that.

I wasn't looking for a luxury lifestyle. I wanted somewhere to live, somewhere I could feel comfortable, and somewhere I could afford.

That building was originally associated with housing for seniors and students, another interesting part of its history that deserves further investigation.

Today, finding an affordable apartment in Kitsilano is an entirely different proposition.

Rents have skyrocketed, and the neighbourhood that once attracted young people, artists, students and people looking for an alternative way of life has become increasingly expensive.

Who gets to stay?

and then came another transformation

Look across the water today.

Sen̓áḵw is rising on Squamish Nation land, with an eventual plan for 11 residential towers and more than 6,000 rental homes.

The first three towers are already changing the skyline.

The first tower was reported to be 77% occupied in November 2026.

The development is an important Indigenous-led economic project. The Squamish Nation has a right to pursue economic independence, create housing and build wealth for future generations. That history and that ownership matter.

But we can recognize those rights and still ask questions about the development.

Who is actually renting these apartments?

Who can afford the market rents?

How many homes are occupied by Squamish Nation members, other Indigenous residents, newcomers, temporary foreign workers and people moving from elsewhere in Vancouver?

What are the income requirements?

Who manages the buildings, and how are rents determined?

The development has market rentals as well as below-market homes, but we need to understand the actual distribution rather than assume that thousands of new rental homes automatically mean thousands of affordable homes.

And what happens to the surrounding neighbourhood?

eleven towers and a changing waterfront

The eventual development is expected to accommodate up to 9,000 residents.

That's an enormous addition to an already busy part of Vancouver.

What about transportation?

What about pedestrian safety?

What about cycling infrastructure?

I use the surrounding area, and the bike path is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for me. More people, more activity and more congestion require thoughtful planning. A protected cycling route on a planning document doesn't automatically mean people feel safe using it.

The infrastructure needs to keep pace with the development.

We also need to talk about public access, parks, green space and the cumulative impact of all these new residents.

These are not arguments against housing.

They are questions about whether we are planning complete communities or simply building residential towers and hoping everything else catches up.

what does progress actually look like?

Vancouver has been redeveloped repeatedly.

In the 1960s, neighbourhoods were described as run down and in need of renewal.

In the 1970s, we celebrated innovative urban planning and new waterfront communities.

Expo 86 brought international attention and enormous changes to False Creek.

The 2010 Olympics brought another round of promises and development.

Now we have Sen̓áḵw, one of the most ambitious urban developments in the city's history.

Each generation has its vision of a better Vancouver.

But I keep coming back to the people who actually live here.

The young people who once rented in Kitsilano.

The seniors who need secure housing.

The artists and workers who helped give neighbourhoods their character.

The newcomers trying to establish themselves.

The temporary workers contributing to the economy.

The people who simply want a safe, affordable place to call home.

I moved to Kitsilano because I wanted to feel safe. I didn't move here to become wealthy or to enjoy a luxury waterfront lifestyle.

I wanted to belong somewhere.

And I wonder how many people arriving in Vancouver today can still have that experience.

A city isn't successful simply because its skyline is impressive, its property values are high or its developments win architectural awards.

It is successful when ordinary people can afford to live in it, participate in it and feel that they belong.

We need to look at Vancouver's history honestly, including the mistakes, the promises, the people who were displaced and the communities that were never properly consulted.

And we need to ask a very simple question:

When we finish building the Vancouver of tomorrow, who will actually be able to afford to live here?

More to come. There is considerably more to investigate about False Creek, Expo 86, the Olympic Village, public land, affordable housing promises and what happens when development moves faster than the infrastructure needed to support it.

whose vancouver? 50 years of planning, but whose history are we telling?

 whose vancouver? 50 years of planning, but whose history are we telling?

I read Brian Palmquist's latest City Conversations article, 50 Years Forward, Not Back, about Vancouver's planning history.

Brian has spent more than 50 years in Vancouver and has an impressive professional history as an architect. He remembers a time when planners listened to communities, when residents could speak directly to senior planning staff, and when public consultation helped shape the city.

I don't disagree that public consultation matters. In fact, I think it matters enormously.

But I have a different question.

Whose history are we celebrating?

And who benefited from Vancouver's transformation?

Before False Creek became a desirable waterfront neighbourhood, before the marinas, condominiums, seawall and expensive real estate, what was here?

It wasn't an empty industrial wasteland.

For thousands of years, the lands and waters were part of the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

There were forests, wetlands, streams and tidal flats. Salmon, trout, sturgeon and other fish were abundant. Bears, elk, deer and other wildlife inhabited the surrounding landscape.

These were living ecosystems, food sources, travel routes and culturally important places.

Indigenous peoples hunted, fished, travelled and cared for these territories long before Vancouver became a city.

Then came colonization, settlement, logging, railways, industrialization and pollution.

The landscape was transformed.

And when the industrial uses began disappearing, the city had another opportunity to transform it.

But let's not pretend the story began with progressive urban planning in the 1970s.

Who got displaced along the way?

Vancouver's urban renewal history is particularly uncomfortable.

In the 1950s and 1960s, neighbourhoods such as Strathcona were labelled blighted. City planners proposed demolishing large portions of established communities.

Chinese residents, working-class families, older people and other residents were living in homes that were often in poor condition.

But why?

Racism, housing discrimination, poverty, overcrowding and inadequate access to home improvement financing all played a role.

Some neighbourhoods were allowed to deteriorate while redevelopment was anticipated.

The resulting conditions were then used to justify clearance.

There were real public-health problems, including tuberculosis. But we should be asking why people were living in unhealthy conditions, not simply describing their homes as blight.

Japanese Canadians had already endured forced displacement, incarceration and terrible living conditions during the Second World War. Tuberculosis was a serious problem in those communities.

These histories belong in our understanding of Vancouver's housing and planning decisions.

Now let's talk about False Creek South.

It is frequently celebrated as a model of progressive urban planning.

The original vision included co-operative housing, non-market rental housing and market condominiums. There was an intention to create a mixed-income community.

That was a worthwhile idea.

But today, False Creek South is also a desirable waterfront neighbourhood, and much of the land is still publicly owned.

The City owns 80% of the land.

There are market condominiums, co-ops, non-market rental homes and other housing arrangements.

We need to distinguish between them. Co-operative housing can provide genuinely affordable homes, and non-market housing serves an important purpose. But market-rate leasehold condominiums are not affordable housing simply because the land belongs to the City.

The question is whether the original public purpose is being maintained.

Most of the original 60-year leases expire between 2036 and 2046.

That raises some very important questions about public land, property rights, compensation, inheritance and the future of affordable housing.

Who benefits from the land that belongs to the public?

And what happens when those leases end?

Then came Expo 86.

Vancouver was marketed to the world.

The waterfront was transformed, industrial lands were redeveloped, and the city entered a new era of international attention and real estate investment.

The False Creek North plan originally called for 20% non-market housing.

But the promised housing did not all materialize.

The 1990 plan identified 20 sites. Six were developed with government funding, producing 544 homes. Eight sites were converted to market housing, and six remained undeveloped after funding was cancelled.

The requirements subsequently changed.

There is a history here of changing agreements, changing priorities and public benefits that were promised but not fully delivered.

And we haven't even examined all the promises surrounding the 2010 Olympics and the Olympic Village.

So when we look back at 50 years of Vancouver planning, we need to look at more than architecture.

We need to look at land ownership.

We need to look at displacement.

We need to look at racism, class, public investment and the enormous increase in property values.

We need to ask who was invited into the planning room and who was left outside.

And we need to remember the people who lived here before there was a planning department.

I agree with Brian that housing affordability, homelessness, urban livability and infrastructure should be priorities for the next 50 years.

But I would add something.

Environmental restoration, Indigenous history, land rights and accountability for previous promises must be part of that conversation.

A beautiful waterfront doesn't tell us whether we have built a fair city.

A seawall doesn't tell us whether we have protected the ecosystem.

A co-op doesn't mean every person can afford to live in the neighbourhood.

And a public consultation doesn't mean the public had any real power over the final decision.

Vancouver needs to stop congratulating itself long enough to examine its own history.

Fifty years forward, certainly.

But not without telling the truth about the past.


1. To city planners: When you design a neighbourhood, whose needs come first — the people who already live there, the people who need affordable housing, developers, or the future market?

2. To False Creek residents: Do you know the history of the land beneath your home, and do you believe today's waterfront should remain accessible and affordable to future generations?

3. To the City of Vancouver: When public land is leased for private residential development, how do you ensure that the public receives lasting benefits rather than simply watching land values increase?

5. To the dogwalkers and waterfront users: When you enjoy the seawall, parks and waterfront, do you ever consider the wildlife, original ecosystems and Indigenous histories that existed here before the paths, marinas and developments?

6. To temporary foreign workers: Does Vancouver offer you a genuine opportunity to build a life here, or does the city benefit from your labour while leaving you struggling with housing insecurity and limited rights?

7. To newcomers and immigrants: When you arrive in Vancouver hoping for a better future, are you finding the affordability, opportunity and sense of belonging that brought you here?

8. To tourists: Are you seeing the real Vancouver, including its housing crisis, displacement and environmental history, or mainly the beautiful waterfront that has been packaged for visitors?

9. To developers and politicians: How many times can affordable housing commitments, neighbourhood plans and public promises be changed before we stop calling it progress and start calling it a failure of accountability?

10. To everyone who calls Vancouver home: What kind of city are we leaving behind — one where people, wildlife and communities can thrive, or one where the privilege of living here increasingly depends on how much money you have?


what was he fighting for?

 

great uncle jimmy: what was he fighting for?

I've been thinking about humanity, the rise and fall of civilizations, the destruction of cultures, the abuse of power and whether we ever really learn from history.

And then I started thinking about my Great Uncle Jimmy.

My mother called him Uncle Jimmy. His name was James Charles Enos, born in Nanaimo, British Columbia. He had Indigenous and Portuguese family connections.

He enlisted in Victoria on November 6, 1915, during the First World War. He was a Private in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.

I've been researching his military records, trying to piece together his life. There are hospital admissions, repeated problems with his left foot, he was shot in hip and records of his medical discharge.

I wish I knew more.

I wish I knew what he was thinking when he enlisted. Was it patriotism? Duty? Adventure? A desire to protect his family? Did he believe he was defending freedom, democracy or his country?

I don't know.

And perhaps that's one of the hardest things about researching family history. We can sometimes find the dates, military numbers and medical records, but we cannot always recover the thoughts and feelings of the person behind them.

fighting for a country that didn't treat everyone equally

There is another part of this history that deserves attention.

More than 4,000 Indigenous people served in the First World War. They volunteered to fight for Canada, despite living under a government that denied them many of the rights enjoyed by other Canadians.

They fought alongside non-Indigenous soldiers. Yet when they returned home, many discovered that the equality they had experienced in uniform did not extend to civilian life.

The Canadian government took reserve land during the war. Afterward, the Soldier Settlement legislation enabled land to be transferred to non-Indigenous veterans, while many First Nations veterans were denied equivalent opportunities.

Their access to pensions, benefits and settlement assistance was also unequal.

Some Indigenous veterans had fought for a country in which they were still legally treated as wards of the government.

Think about that for a moment.

They were good enough to fight for Canada, but were not treated as equal citizens when they came home.

what are we actually fighting for?

This brings me back to the bigger questions.

We talk about civilization, progress, technology and how advanced humanity has become.

But what does progress mean if we continue to repeat the same mistakes?

We destroy the buffalo, dispossess Indigenous peoples, exploit the land, fight wars over territory and power, and then wonder why communities and ecosystems suffer.

We have extraordinary scientific knowledge, yet we still struggle with inequality, poverty, homelessness and discrimination.

Perhaps the real measure of a civilization isn't how much territory it controls, how wealthy its leaders become or how advanced its technology is.

Perhaps it's how it treats people who have the least power.

I don't know exactly what Great Uncle Jimmy believed he was fighting for.

But I know he deserves to be remembered.

Not simply as a soldier, but as a human being with a family, a history and a life beyond the military records.

And I want to remember the Indigenous men and women who served, those who returned injured, those who never came home, and those who came home to find that their own country still denied them equality.

We remember the wars, the battles and the victories.

But do we remember what happened to the people afterward?

And have we learned anything?

Lest we forget.


Reflective Questions

What did freedom mean to soldiers who didn't have equal rights at home?

How much of our history have we never been taught?

Why do we celebrate military sacrifice but overlook what veterans experienced afterward?

Can a country call itself democratic while denying rights to some of its own people?

What did previous generations hope we would learn from their sacrifices?

Are we making the same mistakes in different forms?

What kind of world are we leaving for the generations after us?

#GreatUncleJimmy

#IndigenousVeterans

#IndigenousHistory

#FirstWorldWar

#LestWeForget

#CanadianMilitaryHistory

#VeteransRemembered

#PortugueseCanadianHistory

#TruthAndReconciliation

#RememberTheirSacrifice

original 2026: celebrating the hands, traditions and stories of mexico

 

original 2026: celebrating the hands, traditions and stories of mexico

There is something special about art made by hand. Every thread, colour, shape and texture carries a little piece of history. Behind traditional crafts are generations of knowledge, creativity and cultural traditions passed from one person to another.

From November 12–15, 2026, Mexico City will host ORIGINAL, an Encuentro de Arte Textil, Decorativo y Utilitario (Meeting of Textile, Decorative and Utilitarian Art).

Held at the Complejo Cultural Los Pinos, this four-day gathering celebrates Mexico's traditional artisans, Indigenous communities and the techniques that continue to keep their cultural heritage alive.

And it's free!

four routes into mexican artistic traditions

Visitors are invited to explore four creative routes:

  1. Plant fibres: Discover the art of working with natural fibres, weaving and traditional materials.
  2. Natural dyes: Explore the beautiful colours created using natural materials and traditional dyeing techniques.
  3. Earth: Discover pottery, ceramics, clay and the traditions of working with the earth.
  4. Threads and looms: Learn about textiles, embroidery, weaving and the people who preserve these skills.

There's even a #PasaporteOriginal. Visit all four routes, collect their stamps and receive a commemorative button!

more than a craft fair

This is an opportunity to meet the artisans, learn about their communities, appreciate the work involved in making traditional pieces and support the people who keep these skills alive.

Traditional art isn't simply decoration. It carries knowledge about local environments, natural resources, identity, history and belonging.

It's also a reminder that handmade work deserves recognition and fair compensation. Buying directly from artisans helps support the people behind the work.

event details

ORIGINAL 2026 – Encuentro de Arte Textil, Decorativo y Utilitario

November 12–15, 2026
10:30 am – 8:30 pm
Complejo Cultural Los Pinos
Mexico City, Mexico

Admission is free. Activities are open to everyone.

If you're in Mexico City, this sounds like a wonderful opportunity to spend a few hours exploring the creativity and cultural richness of Mexico.

And if you're an artist, take your time. Look closely at the materials, the techniques and the stories. There is always something to learn from another artist.

Let's celebrate the hands that make things, the knowledge that gets passed down, and the cultures that keep these traditions alive.

Art is more than what we make. It's also what we remember, share and pass on.


#Original2026 #PasaporteOriginal #ArteMexicano #ArteTextil #ArtesanosMexicanos #CulturaIndigena #NaturalDyes #TraditionalCrafts #SupportArtisans #MexicoCulture

paris 2015: canada, where are your climate promises?

 paris 2015: canada, where are your climate promises?

Eleven years of promises. Eleven years of political speeches. And how much has really changed?

I remember watching the Paris climate negotiations in December 2015. I remember Elizabeth May speaking up, challenging politicians and pushing for meaningful climate action. I remember thinking that perhaps we were finally turning a corner.

I also remember Catherine McKenna, Canada's Environment and Climate Change Minister at the time. I thought she was going to be a strong voice for the environment.

I wanted to believe them.

The Paris Agreement was supposed to represent a turning point. World leaders gathered, made commitments and told us that limiting global warming to 1.5°C was essential to protecting our future.

Canada signed on. We celebrated the agreement. We talked about leadership, sustainability and responsibility to future generations.

But then we need to look at what happened back home.

In September 2016, less than a year after Paris, the Trudeau government approved the $11-billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in British Columbia.



Who announced that approval?


Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, alongside Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr and Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc.

And who welcomed it?

Then BC Premier Christy Clark, whose government had been aggressively promoting an LNG industry in British Columbia.

There they were, together, celebrating a major fossil fuel development while Canada was also celebrating its international climate commitments.

The project was eventually abandoned in 2017, but the federal government's decision to approve it remains part of our climate record.

This is the contradiction that deserves attention.

How can governments tell the world that we must urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to approve projects designed to expand fossil fuel production and exports?

How can we talk about protecting future generations while making decisions that increase the environmental burden they will inherit?

And how many times are Canadians expected to applaud another announcement, another climate plan, another target and another international commitment?

Let's look at the numbers.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada's latest emissions indicators:

  • In 2024, oil and gas accounted for 30% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The sector produced 208 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Oil and gas emissions were 76% higher than in 1990.
  • Between 2023 and 2024, emissions from the sector increased another 1.8%.

These are not figures from an environmental activist's opinion piece. They are from the Canadian government's own reporting.

And yet we continue to hear about Canada's climate leadership.

Leadership isn't a speech. It isn't a photograph at an international conference. It isn't signing an agreement and congratulating ourselves.

Leadership means making difficult decisions, following through and accepting responsibility when commitments aren't met.

I don't believe every politician, scientist, environmentalist or country has failed. There are people who have fought tirelessly for environmental protection, often against considerable political and economic pressure.

But the distance between political promises and actual results is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

And I haven't forgotten the Indigenous communities who have had to defend their territories, waters, fisheries and traditional ways of life against industrial development. Their voices should never be treated as an obstacle to economic progress.

The environment is not an inconvenience to be managed around a business opportunity.

It is the foundation of everything.

eleven years later, another conference

Now we are being invited to tune in to another United Nations sustainability programme at COP31.

There will be discussions about transformation, sustainable development, partnerships and solutions.

Fine. Have the discussions.

But I want to know what happens after everyone leaves the conference.

Who is measuring the results? Who is reporting the failures? Who is holding governments accountable?

And what happened to the promises made in Paris?

I'm not interested in another collection of beautiful words about a sustainable future if the decisions being made today continue to undermine it.

We cannot keep passing the responsibility to the next generation.

We cannot keep asking ordinary people to change their habits while governments and major industries make decisions with enormous consequences for the planet.

The climate doesn't negotiate. It doesn't attend conferences. It doesn't care about political talking points or election promises.

The consequences are physical, measurable and increasingly visible.

Canada, we signed the Paris Agreement.

Now let's talk about keeping our promises.

Words matter. But actions matter considerably more.

15 young Canadians who filed La Rose v. His Majesty the King in 2019 are finally having their case heard in Federal Court in Vancouver. The trial began October 26, 2026. 

Should environment ministers be held accountable when their governments approve projects that conflict with climate targets?

What responsibility do politicians have to future generations when making decisions about energy and the environment?

Are economic growth and environmental protection being treated as competing priorities when they should be considered together?

Have Indigenous communities been given meaningful decision-making power over projects affecting their traditional territories?

8. What does climate justice mean when today's children will inherit the consequences of decisions made by politicians they never had an opportunity to vote for?

9. Why has it taken seven years for these young Canadians to reach a full trial, and what does that tell us about access to justice?

10. If these young people succeed, could their case change how future Canadian governments are held accountable for protecting the environment and the rights of children?


#YouthVCanada

#LaRoseVCanada

#ClimateJustice

#ChildrensRights

#ClimateAccountability

#ParisAgreement

#IndigenousYouth

#COP31

#FutureGenerations

#ListenToTheChildren

Saturday, November 7, 2026

indigenous veterans day: the people who went to war, and the families who waited

 indigenous veterans day: the people who went to war, and the families who waited

November 8 – National Indigenous Veterans Day

Tomorrow is Indigenous Veterans Day in Canada. I want to take a little time to remember something that I don't think we talk about nearly enough.

I have been researching my family tree and recently discovered more about my great-uncle, James Charles Enos, known in our family as Uncle Jimmy.

He was Indigenous (Songhees, Kalapuya, Iroquois, Tsouke) Portuguese, French ancestry. My mother remembered him, and one of the things she told me was that she had the rosary he carried with him into the trenches.

His military records have opened a little window into a time I can hardly imagine. He enlisted in Victoria on November 6, 1915, and his records connect him with the 88th Battalion and No. 10 Pioneer Battalion. 






Medical records



His service file contains multiple hospital admissions, including entries relating to his feet and a gun shot wound to hip,   admissions to the 11th Canadian General Hospital.

I am still piecing together his story. I don't know everything he experienced, what he saw, or what he carried home with him.

But I keep thinking about him.

And I keep thinking about all the other young men and women who went away to war.

the families who waited

Imagine being a parent in 1917.

Your son is perhaps 19 or 20 years old. He has gone overseas to fight in a war that most of us today can barely comprehend.

There is no internet, no texting, no video calls, no way to check whether he is safe.

There are letters, postcards and telegrams.

Letters could take weeks. Telegrams were often the fastest way to communicate news of a death or injury. Families sometimes waited anxiously for information, not knowing whether silence meant their loved one was safe or something terrible had happened.

Imagine seeing the telegram delivery person approaching your home.

Imagine being a mother receiving news that her son had been wounded and was in hospital. Then imagine receiving another notification weeks or months later.

What did those parents do with that worry?

Who comforted them? How did they sleep? How did they carry on with ordinary life while waiting for news?

And what if a parent died while their child was overseas? Did the soldier ever get to say goodbye? How did they find out? What must it have been like to return home and discover that someone they loved was no longer there?

We remember the soldiers who died, but we should also remember the families who suffered losses, sometimes more than one, and the people who waited years for someone who never came home.

the injustice Indigenous veterans came home to

There is another part of this history that deserves to be remembered.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis people served in Canada's military during the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War.

More than 4,000 Indigenous people served in the First World War alone.

They fought alongside other Canadians. They faced the same dangers, the same mud, the same bullets, the same fear and the same possibility of never seeing home again.

But when many returned, they were not treated as equals.

Indigenous veterans faced racism and discrimination. Many were denied access to the same pensions, benefits, land grants and support offered to non-Indigenous veterans.

Some First Nations veterans faced an especially cruel choice: give up their Indian Status through enfranchisement to access certain benefits, or retain their legal identity and community connections while being denied support available to other veterans.

Indigenous land was also taken and transferred to non-Indigenous veterans through postwar settlement policies.

Think about that.

They had gone overseas to serve a country that still denied them equal treatment at home.

and they weren't even allowed to lay a wreath

This is one of the things that really gets to me.

In 1991, Indigenous veterans in Winnipeg went to a Remembrance Day ceremony to lay a wreath for their fallen comrades. They were refused. They were told they could lay it after everyone else had left.

Imagine that.

You have served your country. Your friends have died. You have lived through things most people will never understand. And when you come home to honour those who never made it back, you are told to wait until everyone else is finished.

National Indigenous Veterans Day was established in Winnipeg in 1994, partly because of this injustice.

Indigenous veterans were finally able to lay a wreath at the National War Memorial in Ottawa in 1994, and Indigenous veterans were permitted to march and lay a wreath at Vancouver's Cenotaph as a group in 1995.

It took until 2003 for the federal government to provide compensation to First Nations veterans who had been denied certain benefits after the wars.

These dates are not ancient history. They happened within our own lifetimes.

the suffering that came home

I also think about the people who returned injured, physically and emotionally.

Some came home with missing limbs, scars, chronic pain and disabilities. Others came home carrying memories they couldn't explain to their families.

How many never spoke about what happened?

How many drank to quiet their memories? How many struggled with anger, sleep, relationships or raising children? How many families lived with the effects without ever understanding where they came from?

One friend whose father served in the war once told me about being only five years old and trying to protect his mother from his father's violence. He described hitting him with a broom.

He said that his father  admitted it later in life, crediting his son for stopping it, he eventually took those memories to his grave.

I cannot imagine what that family lived through.

War trauma can travel through generations. It can affect partners, children and grandchildren who never went anywhere near a battlefield.

That doesn't excuse violence or erase the suffering of those who experienced it. But it reminds us that the consequences of war don't necessarily end when a soldier comes home.

There are also complicated family stories. People separated for years, frightened and lonely, trying to find comfort in one another. Relationships formed, marriages changed, children were born, sometimes outside marriage. Birth control was not what it is today, and families sometimes carried unanswered questions about their origins for generations.

There are stories of love, loss, separation, unexpected children, and grief. Some were never discussed. Some were deliberately buried.

And how many families still don't know the full story?

remembering what we don't know

I wonder how many of the people who served have now passed away without ever telling their stories.

How many were too traumatized to speak? How many were taught to keep quiet? How many thought their experiences were simply something they had to live with?

There are fewer and fewer people left who can tell us firsthand what happened.

Sometimes all we have are service records, hospital admissions, photographs, medals, old letters and a few sentences remembered by a child or grandchild.

My mother remembered Uncle Jimmy. She remembered that rosary.

I am grateful for that little piece of family history. It makes the records feel less like paperwork and more like a person. Someone's son, someone's brother, someone's uncle. Someone who was young once and had a whole life ahead of him.

I wish we knew more.

what are we remembering?

I sometimes see military recruitment advertisements offering education, training, financial support and opportunities, including programs for Indigenous young people.

I think we should always be honest about what is being offered and what the commitment and risks of military service really mean.

Education and opportunity are important. But we should never forget the human cost of war, or the history of governments that recruited people to serve while failing to treat them equally when they returned.

I don't want another generation of parents to sit waiting for news that their child has been wounded or killed.

I don't want more children growing up with the consequences of war. I don't want families torn apart, communities grieving, or young people returning home with injuries and memories they cannot escape.

Remembrance Day should be more than a ceremony, a poppy, a wreath or a moment of silence.

It should be about remembering, learning, questioning, imagining what other people endured, and making sure we do everything possible to live differently.

We should be asking our governments difficult questions. We should be challenging racism, discrimination, ignorance and the decisions that lead to war.

And we should be listening to Indigenous veterans and their families, not just once a year, but throughout the year.

Because freedom, equality and peace should not be things we ask young people to fight and die for overseas while denying them at home.

To Uncle Jimmy, and to all the Indigenous veterans who served, those who never came home, those who returned wounded, and those whose stories were never told: you deserve to be remembered.

Lest we forget.

art against stigma: sometimes the freak flag just needs to fly

 art against stigma: sometimes the freak flag just needs to fly

I'm currently participating in an art exhibition called Art Against Stigma, and I've been thinking about what stigma actually means.

Sometimes we think of stigma as something big: discrimination, prejudice, exclusion or outright cruelty. But stigma can also be found in everyday situations. It's in the assumptions we make about people, the labels we attach to them, the expectations we place on them and the way we decide who belongs and who doesn't.

I recently watched a movie that got me thinking about all of this.

a movie recommendation: the family stone

If you haven't watched The Family Stone (2005), I recommend it.

On the surface, it's a family comedy-drama about a woman named Meredith who accompanies her boyfriend home for Christmas to meet his family. Things don't exactly go as planned.

The family doesn't particularly like her. She feels judged, uncomfortable and increasingly unsure of herself. But there's another side to the story: she's judging herself, too.

Then Ben, her boyfriend's brother, sees something in her that she hasn't quite recognised herself.

He tells her she has a freak flag. She just isn't flying it.

I loved that.

How many of us spend our lives trying to fit into somebody else's expectations? How often do we hide the parts of ourselves that make us different because we're afraid of being judged?

Perhaps the answer isn't to change who we are. Perhaps it's to let our freak flags fly.

there's more to this movie than christmas

What I particularly enjoyed was how many different subjects the movie brings into the conversation.

Cannabis stigma. The mother disapproves of marijuana, yet later we see other family members enjoying cannabis. It's a reminder of how attitudes change, although even though marijuana is legal in Canada, the stigma surrounding its use hasn't completely disappeared.

Deafness and communication. One of the brothers, Thad, is deaf, and he is gay. His partner Patrick is Black. Their relationship is simply part of the family, but it also gives us an opportunity to think about the assumptions people make about disability, sexuality and race.

Many hearing people don't know sign language or how to communicate comfortably with someone who is deaf. Sometimes the barrier isn't the deaf person. It's the lack of understanding and accommodation around them.

Indigenous history. There's even a conversation about a village and totem pole raising, bringing history into the mix. Indigenous heritage and cultural property deserve recognition, respect and protection.

And those shoes! I had to smile at this one. Even footwear becomes a source of judgement. Women are still expected to dress and behave in certain ways. High heels, appearance, clothing and manners all come with expectations about what it means to be a proper woman.

It's amazing how many rules society creates about how other people should live.

what does stigma look like?

Stigma can surround disability, mental health, addiction, sexuality, race, homelessness, poverty, appearance, age and even the choices we make about how we live.

Sometimes people are judged before anyone has bothered to get to know them.

Sometimes people internalise those judgements and begin believing there's something wrong with themselves.

And sometimes people simply need someone to see them differently.

That's one of the reasons I appreciate this movie. It doesn't need to deliver a lecture about acceptance. It gives us a family full of imperfect people, complicated relationships and uncomfortable conversations.

Nobody is entirely free of judgement.

And perhaps that's something worth remembering.

art against stigma

My participation in Art Against Stigma is important to me because I believe art can open conversations that might otherwise never happen.

My Water Is Life collection includes whales, mermaids, otters, waves, forests and hummingbirds. These paintings are about our connection to the natural world, but art can also be a way of expressing things that are difficult to put into words.

I don't believe we have to be the same to respect one another.

We don't have to understand every choice someone makes to recognise their humanity.

We don't have to agree with someone to treat them with dignity.

And we certainly don't have to fit into somebody else's idea of who we should be.

Maybe we could all use a little less judgement and a little more curiosity.

And if you have a freak flag, perhaps it's time to let it fly.

Art Against Stigma. Because everyone deserves to be seen beyond the labels.

why are Canadians expected to police the telephone system themselves?

 enough is enough: why are Canadians expected to police the telephone system themselves?

I'm getting tired of being told what I must do to protect myself from scammers.

Create a password. Don't answer unknown numbers. Hang up. Block the number. Report the call. Protect your personal information. Watch out for artificial intelligence. Don't trust the voice on the other end.

Really?

Why is all this responsibility being placed on ordinary people?

We are now dealing with scammers who can imitate voices, spoof telephone numbers, impersonate government agencies and exploit personal information to steal money.

And the public is expected to become its own fraud investigation department.

Let's talk about accountability.

Canada's reported fraud losses exceeded $704 million in 2025. Reported losses since 2022 exceeded $2.4 billion. Even more concerning, the government estimates that only 5–10% of fraud is reported.

These are enormous numbers. And they represent real people, real savings, real families and real emotional distress.

(Source: Government of Canada, Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.)

I have some questions for the people and institutions responsible for protecting Canadians.

To the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission):

  • Why are Canadians still receiving so many fraudulent and spoofed calls?
  • What standards are telecommunications providers required to meet to protect customers?
  • How are you measuring whether existing call-blocking technology is working?
  • What consequences are there when providers fail to adequately protect consumers?
  • Why should customers have to pay extra for protections against fraudulent calls?

To Bell and Canada's other telecommunications providers:

  • You have sophisticated networks and access to technologies capable of identifying suspicious calling patterns. What more can you do?
  • Why should customers have to spend their time screening, blocking and reporting fraudulent calls?
  • What are you doing to stop these calls before they reach our phones?
  • Are you investing enough in protecting customers, and are you being transparent about the results?

To the federal government:

  • Where is the accountability for the billions of dollars Canadians are losing?
  • Are our existing laws keeping pace with AI-generated fraud?
  • Who is coordinating telecommunications companies, financial institutions, regulators and law enforcement?
  • What concrete protections are being delivered to consumers?
  • Why are we still treating fraud prevention primarily as an individual responsibility?

And what about our personal data?

Our information has become incredibly valuable. Phone numbers, personal details, photographs and recordings can all contribute to impersonation and fraud.

Who is responsible for protecting that information?

What happens when it is misused?

Why should ordinary people have to spend their time cleaning up the consequences?

I also want investigative journalists paying attention.

Organizations such as the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) have demonstrated the importance of investigating complex international networks, financial wrongdoing and abuses of power.

Fraud is increasingly international. We need investigative reporting that follows the money, examines the systems being exploited and asks who is benefiting.

Enough with simply telling consumers to be careful.

Yes, families should establish safe words. Yes, we should verify suspicious calls. Yes, we should report fraud.

But those are precautions, not a substitute for systemic protection.

I don't want another awareness campaign telling me to hang up the phone.

I want to know what the people responsible for the systems we depend on are doing to stop these calls in the first place.

Our time matters. Our privacy matters. Our money matters.

And our right to use a telephone without constantly wondering whether the person on the other end is real matters.

Who is actually in charge of protecting us, and when are we going to see meaningful accountability?

a family safe word

a family safe word: protecting ourselves from ai voice scams

I came across a post shared by someone who received a frightening phone call. The caller claimed to be his son, saying he had been in a serious car accident and was being held by police.

He recognized something wasn't right.

It made me think about how vulnerable families could become as artificial intelligence makes it easier to imitate someone's voice.

Imagine receiving a call that sounds exactly like your child, grandchild or another loved one, telling you they are in trouble and urgently need money.

Here are some simple precautions every family should consider:

  • Create a family safe word. Choose a private word or phrase that only trusted family members know.
  • Ask for the safe word. If someone calls claiming to be your child or another loved one in an emergency, ask for it.
  • End the call immediately if they cannot provide the agreed-upon word.
  • Don't panic. Scammers rely on fear, confusion and urgency to get people to act without thinking.
  • Don't send money. Never transfer money, buy gift cards or share financial information based on an unexpected phone call.
  • Verify the story. Hang up and call your loved one directly using a number you already have.
  • Contact another family member if you cannot reach the person supposedly in trouble.
  • Keep your safe word private. Don't post it on social media or share it outside your trusted circle.
  • Talk to older relatives. Make sure parents, grandparents and vulnerable family members understand how these scams work.
  • Have a family plan. Agree on what everyone should do if they receive an emergency call.

Artificial intelligence is changing how we communicate, but it is also creating new opportunities for scammers.

A familiar voice is no longer proof of identity.

A simple family safe word could prevent a frightening phone call from becoming a financial disaster.

Share this information. Someone you know may need it.


granville island, employment and the opportunities that never came

 

granville island, employment and the opportunities that never came

A personal story about work, ageism, hiring practices and the question of local opportunity.

Disclaimer: This post reflects my personal experiences, recollections and opinions. I am not making allegations against individual workers or suggesting that every employer operates in the same way. My questions about hiring practices, ageism and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program are questions I believe deserve public discussion and appropriate scrutiny.

Recently, Granville Island invited the public to provide input. I offered a simple suggestion: perhaps they should consider giving people born and raised here, and those with established roots in the community, a fair opportunity for employment.

Someone responded that employers should simply hire the best person for the job.

Of course they should. But I think there is another question worth asking: are local people actually getting a fair opportunity to compete?

This isn't an abstract discussion for me. I have some personal history with Granville Island.

my first job on granville island

I worked as a store clerk in a soap shop. When I asked for a raise, my employer gave me a disciplinary letter. I felt I had no choice but to quit.

That decision had consequences. Because I quit, I wasn't eligible for Employment Insurance.

I lost my job, my income and the financial support I might have needed while looking for another opportunity.

my second job

Later, I was hired as a summer relief janitor. I worked for three months but wasn't hired back.

Many of the people working there were temporary foreign workers, which made me question the hiring practices and whether local applicants were being given a fair opportunity.

I also hadn't accumulated enough insurable hours during those three months to qualify for EI.

Two employment experiences, and neither left me with an employment safety net.

trying to get back into the workforce

I began questioning whether ageism and the use of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program were contributing to the difficulties I was experiencing.

I took a 55+ employment course because I wanted to understand the barriers older workers face and find a way forward.

I sent out thousands of resumes over time.

I also personally walked around Granville Island and handed resumes into approximately ten businesses.

I heard virtually nothing back.

The one exception was a chocolate shop, which sent me a rejection letter practically the next day.

Imagine continuing to put yourself out there, applying, approaching employers in person and hoping someone will give you a chance, only to receive silence or rejection.

Eventually, I gave up looking for conventional employment.

piecing together a living

I started cat sitting and dog walking, took on whatever small jobs I could find, and cleaned my sister's house once a week in exchange for grocery money.

I pieced together an income wherever I could.

It wasn't the employment security I had hoped for. It wasn't what I had planned for my working years.

But I adapted because I had to.

who is accountable?

There is another part of this conversation that deserves attention.

Granville Island is federally owned and managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a federal Crown corporation.

So my questions aren't directed only at individual businesses.

They are also directed at Granville Island management, CMHC and the federal government.

What responsibility does the organization managing this public marketplace have to ensure local workers, including older workers, have a fair opportunity?

What oversight exists around hiring practices and the use of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program?

Are employers genuinely unable to find qualified local workers, or are there circumstances in which local applicants are being overlooked?

And who is listening to the people who have actually experienced these barriers?

I am not blaming temporary foreign workers. They are people trying to make a living, too. My questions are about the policies, employers and systems that determine who gets access to employment.

looking back

I'm now approaching retirement and preparing for a new chapter in Mexico.

I should probably feel nothing but relief that I found another way forward. But when I look back, I feel sadness and anger about the opportunities that never came.

I was willing to work. I applied, took courses, approached employers and kept trying.

I wasn't asking for special treatment. I wanted a fair chance.

When Granville Island asks for community input, I hope it is prepared to hear from people who have lived these experiences.

Because behind every unanswered resume is a person.

And sometimes, the people who disappear from the workforce aren't the people who didn't want to work.

They're the people who kept knocking on doors until they finally stopped.


Reflective Questions

Should publicly owned and managed spaces have additional accountability around employment practices?

What happens to people who send out hundreds or thousands of resumes without receiving meaningful responses?

How does losing access to employment benefits affect people who are already struggling financially?

How can we create an employment system where nobody feels they have aged out, been overlooked or become disposable?


Granville Island, CMHC, local employment, ageism, older workers, temporary foreign workers, employment opportunities, fair hiring, workplace accountability, Vancouver employment.


#GranvilleIsland

#CMHC

#FairEmployment

#LocalEmployment

#AgeismInTheWorkplace

#OlderWorkers

#TemporaryForeignWorkerProgram

#EmploymentEquity

#VancouverCommunity

#WorkersDeserveBetter


looking for the family of james charles enos — uncle jimmy

 

looking for the family of james charles enos — uncle jimmy

Sometimes researching your family history takes you down paths you never expected. And sometimes, just when you think you've reached a dead end, you discover another piece of the puzzle.

I've been researching my great-uncle, James Charles Enos, affectionately known in our family as Uncle Jimmy.

Born May 2, 1895, in Nanaimo, British Columbia, James served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force during the First World War. He enlisted in Victoria in November 1915, aged just 20, and wasn't officially discharged until March 19, 1919.

His military records have opened up a whole new chapter of family history. I've been carefully working through his service papers, medical records and hospital documents, including one that appears to place him at Vimy Ridge on April 9, 1917. Family history tells us he was injured when a stampede of horses ran over his foot.

My mother remembered Uncle Jimmy and kept his rosary, telling me he carried it with him in the trenches.

But there is another part of his story I'd really like to discover.

James had four children, named in his obituary as James, Donald, Stephen and Bonita.

I don't know these family members or their descendants, and I would dearly love to reconnect.

Someone once commented on my blog, and I have wondered ever since whether they might have been connected to this branch of the family. At the time, I didn't understand the connection and unfortunately couldn't find them again to follow up.

Perhaps this post will find its way to someone who recognizes these names.

I'd love to hear from anyone who remembers James Charles Enos, knows his children or has photographs, family stories or information to share.

I'm not trying to intrude on anyone's privacy. I'm simply trying to put the pieces together and preserve a little family history that might otherwise be lost.

There are so many stories hidden in old documents, photographs and memories. I never got to know Uncle Jimmy myself, but through this research I'm beginning to understand the young man, the soldier and the family member he was.

If you're part of this family, I'd love to hear from you.

Some family stories take generations to find their way home.

— Tina (Zipolita)


What family memories survive through small keepsakes, like Uncle Jimmy's rosary?

Have you ever discovered a family connection long after the opportunity to meet someone had passed?

How important is it to preserve the stories of relatives we never personally knew?

Could someone reading this hold a missing piece of the Enos family story?

What would you ask a relative from a previous generation if you had one more opportunity


#JamesCharlesEnos

#UncleJimmy

#EnosFamily

#FamilyHistory

#Genealogy

#PortugueseCanadian

#CanadianVeterans

#VimyRidge

#Remembrance

#FamilyStories



remembering james charles enos

 

remembering james charles enos — a young man who went to war




Sometimes family history comes to us one document at a time.

Recently, I've been looking through the First World War military records of my great-uncle, James Charles Enos, trying to piece together a little more of his story.

James was born in Nanaimo, British Columbia, on May 2, 1895. He enlisted in Victoria on November 6, 1915, when he was just 20 years old.

He served with the 88th Battalion, the Victoria Fusiliers, during the First World War.

I've been working through his service papers, medical records and military examinations. Some of the handwriting is difficult to decipher, and not every transcription can be trusted. There are still questions about his movements overseas, including whether he was at Vimy Ridge.*


James Charles Enos — medical movements, 1917

April 10 A163 Casualty list reference

April 15 3rd Western General Hospital, Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales Transferred to Britain

May 4 Canadian Convalescent Hospital, Bearwood, Wokingham Further recovery

May 11 Discharged Discharged from this hospital

This is 1917, later he is shot in hip,  but still researching.

I don't want to fill in the gaps with assumptions. I'd rather take my time and get his story right.

What strikes me most is how young he was. Twenty years old. A young man whose life was interrupted by a war that would leave its mark on an entire generation.

His father died on October 27, 1918, while James was still dealing with his military service.

James eventually came home. He died on May 26, 1960, and is buried in Burnaby, British Columbia.



There is so much history tucked away in these old documents. Behind every service number was a person, a family, and a life that continued long after the war ended.

I'm grateful to have the opportunity to look back, ask questions and put some of the pieces together.

Not to glorify war, but to remember the people who lived through it.

Lest we forget.



I am still researching but want to share this now


Lest We Forget!

AI, artists and another reason to divide us

 

AI, artists and another reason to divide us

There is a growing debate about artificial intelligence, and I think we need to have that conversation. But I also think we need to be careful about where we direct our anger.

There are legitimate concerns about AI.

The environmental cost of enormous data centres, the electricity and water they consume, the use of artists' work without permission or compensation, copyright issues and the possibility of people losing their jobs. These are not silly concerns. They deserve serious attention.

Artists deserve protection. Creative workers deserve fair compensation. Technology companies should be accountable for how they develop and profit from these systems.

But lately I've noticed something else happening.

People are being judged simply for asking AI questions, experimenting with it or using it for entertainment. Apparently, if you aren't using it for something serious, you're using it wrong.

Someone suggested that instead of typing prompts into AI, people should send their ideas to a tattoo artist.

But what if someone isn't looking for a tattoo? What if they're just curious, experimenting with an idea or having a little fun?

Not every AI-generated image is intended to replace an artist. Not every question is a threat to someone's livelihood.

We need to separate the technology, the corporations making money from it and the ordinary people experimenting with it.

I can defend artists' rights and still believe people should be free to explore new technology.

I can question the environmental impact and still be curious about what AI can do.

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

We've already found so many ways to divide ourselves: politics, generations, income, education, culture and just about everything else.

Do we really need another one?

Question the industry. Challenge the corporations. Protect the artists. Hold technology accountable. But don't turn ordinary people against each other.

Technology should give us more ways to communicate, learn and create, not more reasons to dislike one another.

Curiosity isn't stupidity. And disagreement doesn't have to become hostility.

We have enough division already.


#AI #AIethics #ArtistsRights #Copyright #EnvironmentalImpact #ProtectArtists #DigitalCreativity #Technology #ThinkBeforeYouJudge #LessDivision

angels don't always have wings

 

angels don't always have wings

Sometimes we get so caught up in the idea of angels that we forget to look around us.

They don't always have wings. They don't necessarily wear halos. Sometimes they look just like you and me.

I read a story about the terrible bus crash near Mackenzie, BC, on November 4. A woman shared what happened when she and her husband, Rich, witnessed the crash.

Before she could even blink, Rich was out of their car, running down a steep embankment towards the overturned bus.

He didn't know what he would find inside. He didn't wait for someone else to arrive.

He had emergency medical responder training, and he put those skills to work. He shut off the bus, which was filling with gas, checked passengers, performed lifesaving interventions and helped organize the response before emergency crews arrived.

His wife's account says he helped save several lives.

Think about that for a moment.

People were hurt, frightened and waiting for help. Cell service in the area was poor. And there was Rich.

Just an ordinary person who chose to act when it mattered most.

Of course, the emergency responders, ambulance crews, nurses and everyone who came together to help deserve enormous recognition. But I think Rich deserves to be recognized, too.

His wife's words stayed with me. She said that if she were ever in a situation like that, there would be no one else she would want arriving first.

That says everything.

We hear so much about the bad things happening in the world. Cruelty, indifference, greed and people looking the other way.

But there is another side to humanity.

I've met angels. Perhaps you have, too.

They are the people who show up when you need them. The strangers who stop to help. The people who give without expecting anything in return. The ones who remind us that compassion hasn't disappeared.

I don't think angels need wings.

Sometimes they drive down a highway, witness a terrible accident and run towards the people who need them.

Sometimes their name is Rich.

There is still so much good in this world. Let's remember to recognize it, celebrate it and, whenever we can, be a little bit of it ourselves.

Because hope isn't always something we wait for.

Sometimes it's something another human being brings us.

#AngelsAmongUs #EverydayHeroes #Humanity #Hope #Compassion #ActsOfKindness #MackenzieBC #GoodPeople #BeTheGood #HopeIsAlive

Friday, November 6, 2026

would prime minister carney like to spend a night outside?

 would prime minister carney like to spend a night outside?

Not in a hotel. Not in a heated government building. Not in a warm shelter with a bed waiting.

Just one night outside.

In the pouring rain. In the freezing cold. With wet shoes, wet socks, inadequate clothing and nowhere to go.

Perhaps then we could have a different conversation about Canada's 10-year plan to end homelessness.

Because while governments are planning for 2036, people are trying to survive the winter of 2026.

And the consequences are horrifying.

In Winnipeg, during the 2021–22 fiscal year, hospitals recorded 90 frostbite diagnoses. Nineteen resulted in amputations.

Nineteen people lost fingers, toes or other parts of their bodies to injuries caused by extreme cold.

This isn't ancient history. It is a documented example of what happens when people are left exposed to winter conditions without adequate protection.

A 2025 Canadian burn-centre study found that frostbite accounted for 35% of thermal-injury admissions among unhoused patients, compared with 10% among housed patients.

Think about that.

People aren't simply getting cold. They are suffering permanent injuries. Some will never walk comfortably again. Some lose digits or limbs. Others face lifelong pain and disability.

And this is happening in a country as wealthy as Canada.

Prime Minister Carney has announced nearly $30 billion for a 10-year strategy to address homelessness.

Housing, mental health care, addiction treatment, rental assistance and supportive housing are all important.

But what happens tonight?

What happens to the person sleeping under a bridge? The senior sleeping in a park? The woman whose belongings are everything she owns? The person with wet shoes and no dry socks? The person who cannot find a warm place to sit, let alone sleep?

They cannot wait ten years.

We need emergency warming spaces, accessible shelters, dry clothing, warm boots, food, outreach workers and immediate access to medical care.

We need affordable housing now, not just promises of housing eventually.

And we need to recognize that not everyone experiencing homelessness has an addiction or mental health condition. Some people simply cannot afford a home.

Mr. Carney, perhaps spending one night outside would help put this crisis into perspective.

Not as a publicity exercise. Not with cameras following you or a warm room waiting at the end.

Just one night experiencing the conditions that thousands of Canadians face.

Because leadership isn't only about announcing billions of dollars and setting targets for the next decade.

It's also about recognizing the human beings who might not survive until then.

The rain is falling. Winter is coming.

People are still outside.

And some are losing parts of their bodies simply trying to survive.

We cannot call this a plan to end homelessness if we aren't also doing everything possible to prevent people from dying homeless this winter.

A home is a human necessity.🤗🩷✌️🫶🛌🛀🚽🍽🎂🌮🌽🥕🏡⛺️

Warmth is a matter of survival.🏠🧯🛟

And people cannot wait.😪💔🚑⏳️⌛️🌬🔥🌊☔️💧❄️☃️🥺💀☠️


10 questions every Canadian politician should ask themselves


1\. Could you spend one night sleeping outside? In the rain, in freezing temperatures, without a warm bed waiting for you at home?


2\. Could you spend one night in an emergency shelter? Sharing space with strangers, carrying everything you own, worrying about your belongings and personal safety?


3\. Could you spend 24 hours in an emergency room? Waiting for medical attention, surrounded by people in pain, knowing that some have nowhere to go when they are discharged?


4\. Could you survive on the income you expect a senior to live on? After rent, food, transportation and basic necessities?


5\. Could you find a home on minimum wage? Not a theoretical apartment in a budget calculation, but an actual available apartment you can afford?


6\. Could you live without a permanent address? Try finding employment, receiving mail, accessing services or keeping important documents safe.


7\. Could you manage a serious illness without stable housing? Where would you store medication, recover after surgery, keep clean or get enough sleep?


8\. Could you leave your belongings unattended every day? Imagine everything you own fitting into a few bags, with the constant possibility of losing it.


9\. Could you wait ten years for the government to solve your housing crisis? What would happen to your health, your finances, your relationships and your hope in the meantime?


10\. If you had to choose between paying rent and buying food, what would you do? And how would you feel knowing that the country you represent has the resources to do better?


 One final question for every level of government:

If you wouldn't accept these living conditions for yourself, why should you accept them for another Canadian?

Perhaps every elected official, before making decisions about homelessness, should spend time listening to people who actually experience it.

Visit shelters. Sit with outreach workers. Meet people living outside. Understand what happens in emergency departments. Talk to seniors living on inadequate pensions.

Don't just visit for an hour with a photographer.

Listen. Learn. Understand.

Because public policy is not an abstract exercise. It determines whether people have food, shelter, warmth, medical care and a safe place to sleep.

You cannot understand the full human cost of homelessness from a comfortable office.

And nobody should have to lose their fingers, toes, health or life before their government recognizes their need for a home.

💔

#EndHomelessness #HousingIsAHumanRight #Frostbite #HomelessnessCrisis #Canada