Tuesday, October 20, 2026

vancouver needs housing, not more excuses: help support this petition

 

vancouver needs housing, not more excuses: help support this petition




Thousands of people in Vancouver are living without permanent housing. Some are sleeping outside, some are staying in shelters, and others are moving from one temporary place to another, never knowing where they will be safe next.

The Downtown Eastside is a community living with the consequences of a housing crisis that has gone on for far too long. Poverty, trauma, mental health challenges, addiction, discrimination and stigma cannot be addressed properly when people do not have a safe, stable place to live.

A petition has been presented calling on the House of Commons to take action. It needs public support.

what is this petition about?

This is a formal petition asking Canada's federal government to provide increased funding to British Columbia so the province can expand its Housing First program and create more permanent, appropriate housing for people experiencing homelessness.

Housing First means that people are helped into stable housing without having to first prove they are sober, overcome addiction or resolve every other difficulty in their lives. The principle is that having a safe place to live can provide the foundation for addressing other challenges.

People may also need ongoing mental health care, addiction services, medical care and practical support. Different people have different needs, and housing should reflect that.

what are they asking the federal government to do?

The petition calls for at least 3,500 additional housing units over five years, divided into three categories:

1,000 supportive housing units

Permanent homes with access to ongoing support services for people who need assistance to maintain their housing and improve their quality of life.

500 complex-care housing units

Housing for people with significant, overlapping needs who may require more intensive, coordinated health and social supports.

2,000 deeply affordable homes

Homes with rent subsidies so that eligible residents pay no more than one-third of their net monthly income toward rent.

These are not just numbers. They represent the possibility of a front door, a safe bed, a place to prepare food, privacy, dignity and an opportunity to rebuild a life.

why does federal funding matter?

Housing is expensive, and building thousands of homes requires sustained funding and cooperation between governments.

The petition asks the federal government to provide additional funding to British Columbia and its agencies, specifically prioritizing Housing First and the creation of these 3,500 homes.

The petition also refers to a May 2026 Superior Court ruling as a reason governments must take their housing obligations seriously. The ruling's precise implications should be checked against the court decision itself, but the broader demand is clear: governments must take meaningful action to address inadequate housing and discrimination.

how can you help?

  • Read the petition. Understand what it asks for and who is organizing it.
  • Sign it if you are eligible. Follow the petition's official instructions and provide any required information.
  • Share it. Send the petition link to friends, family, community groups and anyone concerned about homelessness.
  • Talk about it. Ask your elected representatives what they are doing to increase permanent housing and fund the supports people need.
  • Keep following up. Real change requires more than promises. It requires funding, homes being built and people actually getting housed.

Please note that a formal House of Commons petition has specific signing and submission rules. Follow the instructions on the official petition page.

don't look away

People experiencing homelessness are not disposable. They are members of our communities, and they deserve safety, dignity and a place to call home.

We cannot keep treating homelessness as though it is an unavoidable feature of city life. Nor can we expect people to recover from trauma, illness or addiction while leaving them without the security of a home.

Three thousand five hundred homes would be a meaningful step. It would not solve every problem, but it would give thousands of people a better chance.

If you believe housing is a basic human need, help make this petition visible. Read it, sign it if eligible, share it and ask our governments to act.

A home is more than a roof. It is a foundation for living.


Petition e-7775: Vancouver homelessness and housing crisis

Sponsored by MP Jenny Kwan · Vancouver East

The petition opened on September 29, 2026, and is scheduled to close on January 27, 2027. 

The petition calls for federal funding for 3,500 housing units over five years. Follow the official page's eligibility and signing instructions.

21 things to know about the Indian Act — and why your vote matters

 

By Bob Joseph

21 things to know about the Indian Act — and why your vote matters

In 1876, Canada passed the Indian Act. That same year, my great-great-grandparents were married.

Think about that for a moment.

While my ancestors were building their lives and families, Canada was putting legislation into place that would give the federal government sweeping control over First Nations identity, land, governance and many aspects of everyday life.

My family history is one of the reasons I keep researching the past. The dates on a family tree are not just dates. They sit within a much bigger story about the people who lived here, the laws imposed on them, and the generations who lived with the consequences.

The Indian Act was not simply a law about land. It became a tool of colonial control and assimilation. It interfered with Indigenous governance, discriminated against women, restricted cultural and spiritual practices, and helped establish a system in which the government determined who qualified as an “Indian” under Canadian law.

Here are 21 points from the sketchnote by @michael_tdsb, with some historical context.

21 things you may not know about the Indian Act

1. Denied women status

First Nations women faced sex discrimination under the Act. Before 1985, a First Nations woman who married a man without status generally lost her own status and her associated rights. Men did not face the same rule when marrying women without status.

2. Introduced residential schools

The Indian Act became part of the legislative framework used to impose residential schooling on First Nations children. Amendments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries strengthened compulsory attendance. The residential school system separated children from their families, communities, languages and cultures.

3. Created reserves

The Act established federal powers over reserve lands and their administration. Reserve lands had already been created through colonial policies and treaties, but the Indian Act consolidated government control over them.

4. Renamed individuals with European names

Indigenous people were subjected to colonial naming practices and record-keeping systems. European names appeared in church, government and school records, sometimes replacing or obscuring Indigenous names and family connections.

5. Restricted First Nations people from leaving reserves

The sketchnote refers to the pass system, which restricted First Nations people's movement off reserves in parts of western Canada. Importantly, the pass system was imposed by Indian Affairs officials without a clear statutory basis in the Indian Act itself.

6. Enforced enfranchisement

Enfranchisement meant losing legal Indian status in exchange for recognition as a Canadian citizen under the colonial system of the time. Some provisions made enfranchisement automatic for people who met specified qualifications, including certain university graduates. In some circumstances, a person's family also lost status.

7. Could expropriate portions of reserves

The Act gave the federal government powers to control reserve lands, including provisions allowing reserve lands to be surrendered, taken or otherwise dealt with under specified conditions.

8. Could lease uncultivated land

The legislation gave the government powers to administer and lease certain reserve lands, limiting the control First Nations communities had over their own territories.

9. Could not form political organizations

Amendments to the Act restricted First Nations political organizing. In particular, the 1927 amendment made it illegal to solicit funds to pursue Indigenous land claims without government permission.

10. Prohibited soliciting funds for legal claims

This restriction made it much harder for First Nations people to raise money to pursue land claims through the courts. It was removed in 1951.

11. Prohibited the sale of alcohol to First Nations people

The Act included restrictions on alcohol possession, sale and supply involving First Nations people. These restrictions were part of a wider system of discriminatory controls.

12. Prohibited the sale of guns and ammunition

The sketchnote identifies restrictions concerning firearms and ammunition. The precise legal provisions and their scope changed over time, so this point should not be read as a single, unchanging prohibition applying identically to every First Nations person throughout the Act's history.

13. Restricted access to pool halls

The legislation included restrictions on First Nations people's access to pool rooms and similar establishments. These were among the discriminatory controls that were later removed.

14. Imposed the band council system

The Indian Act imposed a system of elected chiefs and councils under federal rules. This undermined the authority of many traditional Indigenous governance systems and placed decision-making under government control.

15. Indigenous languages were suppressed

The Act itself did not impose one universal ban on speaking Indigenous languages in every setting. However, the residential school system and other government policies punished and suppressed Indigenous languages, causing profound cultural and intergenerational harm.

16. Restricted traditional religion

The Act was amended to prohibit certain Indigenous ceremonies and spiritual practices, including the potlatch and other ceremonies. These laws attacked the ability of communities to practise and pass on their traditions.

17. Restricted cultural clothing and regalia

Restrictions on ceremonies and cultural gatherings also interfered with the wearing of regalia and the expression of Indigenous identity. The precise restrictions varied over time and by practice.

18. Made cultural ceremonies illegal

The potlatch was banned in 1884. Later amendments expanded restrictions on Indigenous ceremonies, dances and gatherings. These laws were used to suppress cultural practices and community life.

19. Denied voting rights

This point deserves special attention.

The Indian Act of 1876 tied the right to vote to enfranchisement for First Nations people in the federal system: in general, they had to give up their Indian status to obtain the vote under that framework. Other provincial voting restrictions also applied, including in British Columbia.

In 1960, First Nations people gained the unconditional right to vote in federal elections without having to surrender their status. First Nations women had also been excluded from voting in band council elections under the Act until 1951.

Think about what that means. People whose families had lived on this land for generations were denied equal political rights in the country governing their lives.

20. Created a permit system

The sketchnote refers to the permit system used to control certain activities and movements involving First Nations people. The historical pass system and other administrative controls restricted autonomy, trade and everyday life. The exact rules varied by time and place.

21. Created under British colonial rule to subordinate Indigenous peoples

The Indian Act was enacted by the Canadian Parliament in 1876, within the colonial system inherited from British rule. Its policies were directed toward assimilation and increasing federal control over First Nations people, their lands and their governance.

These 21 points are a starting place, not the whole story. The Act changed repeatedly, and its effects were not identical for every First Nation or every generation. But its history helps explain why Indigenous rights, land, culture, governance and self-determination remain so important today.



-----


animal farm: a more humane ending

 

animal farm: a more humane ending

Imagine a different beginning to the revolution.

The animals are hungry. The farm is falling apart. Mr. Jones is drinking, losing his temper, and neglecting his responsibilities.

The animals are frightened, and something has to change.

But this time, instead of waiting for everything to explode, somebody notices.

An animal welfare worker arrives at the farm. The animals are examined, fed, and moved somewhere safe. Nobody tells them they must remain in a dangerous situation because the farmer has problems of his own.

Meanwhile, somebody looks at Mr. Jones.

When did things start going wrong? Is he suffering from depression? Has he experienced a brain injury? Is his drinking out of control? Does he need medical attention, addiction treatment, counselling, or help managing his anger?

Nobody assumes they know the answer before asking the questions.

Mr. Jones is held accountable for neglecting the animals. He cannot simply promise to do better and be handed the keys to the farm again. His circumstances are assessed, and any return to responsibility depends on whether it can be done safely.

Perhaps he receives treatment. Perhaps he needs supervised support. Perhaps he cannot live independently or care for animals anymore.

Perhaps, as somebody once joked, Mr. Jones needs rehoming.

The animals find a safe home where they can live without hunger or fear. The farmer finds somewhere he can receive the support he needs.

Nobody has to suffer just to prove a point.

And the farm?

The farm is managed by people who understand that caring for living beings is a responsibility, not a privilege that comes with owning property.

There is no glorious revolution. No new dictator. No grand speech about the future.

Just a community recognizing a problem and doing the work required to put it right.

Perhaps that isn't the ending Orwell intended.

But it might be the beginning of a more humane world.

the bigger picture: what happens when we stop protecting human beings?

 Content warning: Discussion of murder, childhood trauma, abuse, and neglect.

the bigger picture: what happens when we stop protecting human beings?

We know what cruelty does to people. We know what happens when children grow up without love, safety, or stability. We know what poverty, violence, institutional abuse, and neglect can do across generations. So why do we keep repeating the same mistakes?

I have been thinking about Charles Manson.

I read Helter Skelter when I was young, and one thing has stayed with me: the idea behind his words, “You made me.”

Manson was a murderer who manipulated others into committing horrific crimes. Whatever happened during his childhood, he was responsible for his actions. But his story also raises uncomfortable questions about how people become capable of such cruelty, how vulnerable people can be manipulated, and how society responds to the damage it helps create.

Manson wasn't the only one. There was Robert Pickton here in British Columbia, Clifford Olson, Ted Bundy, and countless other violent offenders whose names we remember long after their victims have been forgotten.

Why do we keep looking at these cases as isolated monsters? Why aren't we also examining the conditions, warning signs, institutional failures, and missed opportunities that might have prevented some of the suffering?

We cannot explain every violent crime through childhood trauma. Many people survive terrible childhoods without harming others, and not every cruel person has a history of abuse. But we know that childhood adversity can have lasting consequences, and we know that violence, neglect, and dehumanization can be passed from one generation to the next.

So what are we doing to interrupt that cycle?

the children we hurt

Canada took Indigenous children from their families and placed them in residential schools, where many experienced physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. Children were separated from their languages, cultures, communities, and the people who loved them.

The United States operated Indigenous boarding schools with similar objectives.

Enslavement, racial segregation, forced displacement, and other systems of oppression have also inflicted suffering that extends beyond the people who directly experienced them.

These were not simply unfortunate events. They were systems created and maintained by people and institutions.

Children who experience severe trauma may struggle with trust, emotional regulation, relationships, and a sense of safety. Their families and communities may carry the consequences for generations.

That does not mean survivors are broken, or that trauma determines anyone's future. Indigenous communities have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, preserving culture, rebuilding connections, and protecting future generations despite attempts to destroy those bonds.

But resilience should never become an excuse to keep putting people through suffering.

We should be preventing harm, not congratulating people for surviving it.

and now, the children of today

Look at children separated from their parents through immigration enforcement. Look at children living through war in the Middle East. Look at children who have lost their homes, their families, their schools, and any reasonable sense of security.

What happens to a child who grows up believing the world is dangerous, that adults cannot be trusted, and that nobody will come to help?

We cannot predict what that child will become. Many will grow into loving, compassionate adults. Others may struggle with the consequences of what they have endured.

But why are we so willing to expose children to terrible conditions and so surprised when the consequences follow them into adulthood?

We know that safety matters. We know that love matters. We know that children need stable relationships, food, shelter, education, and protection from violence.

Knowing these things should mean something.

what about the people who are almost homeless?

This is where the bigger picture becomes personal.

Imagine being one paycheque away from losing your home. Imagine having a disability, a history of trauma, or simply not earning enough to afford rent.

Now imagine your choices are a shelter where you may not feel safe, or sleeping outside, where you may face theft, assault, sexual violence, exposure, or even murder.

Not everyone experiences these dangers, and shelters differ in their safety and quality. But these are real risks that people experiencing homelessness can face.

Where is the logic in waiting until someone is desperate, traumatized, assaulted, or seriously ill before we decide they need help?

A person should not have to surrender their privacy, dignity, independence, or sense of safety simply to have a roof over their head.

And homelessness does not affect only human beings.

People with dogs and cats can find themselves trapped between keeping their animals and finding somewhere to sleep. Some shelters cannot accommodate pets. Some landlords prohibit them. Some people remain in unsafe situations because they cannot bear to abandon an animal that depends on them.

Then the animals themselves become homeless.

We talk about responsible pet ownership, but what happens when a responsible owner loses their housing through circumstances beyond their control?

We cannot keep treating housing as though it is a privilege that people must continually prove they deserve.

A home is the foundation from which people rebuild their lives.

millions for some things, nowhere to live for others

We can mobilize enormous sums of money to transport captive belugas across the continent, build specialized facilities, and provide intensive veterinary care. We can raise money for animals, fund cultural institutions, build expensive developments, and spend billions on projects that governments and private interests consider important.

Some of these expenditures serve legitimate purposes. Animal welfare matters. Art and culture matter. Scientific research matters.

This is not an argument against saving belugas, caring for dogs and cats, or supporting the arts.

It is a question about priorities.

How can we recognize that an animal deserves specialized care while accepting that a human being may have nowhere safe to sleep?

Why can we organize complex international transfers of animals but struggle to ensure that people have access to affordable housing and basic support?

We should be capable of caring for both.

The issue is not that we care too much about animals. It is that our compassion and our resources are not distributed according to the basic needs of living beings.

And when people lose their homes, the consequences can reach far beyond the immediate crisis.

A person who becomes homeless may lose their possessions, their community, their employment, their health, and their ability to feel safe. Trauma accumulates. Opportunities disappear. The longer the crisis continues, the harder it can become to recover.

Then society looks at the person struggling on the street and asks why they cannot get their life together.

Perhaps we should first ask what happened to the life they had.

when cruelty becomes normal

This brings us back to Manson, and to the politicians and powerful people whose behaviour makes us question how much empathy they possess.

We should not diagnose people from a distance or assume that their childhoods explain everything they do. But we can examine their actions.

Do they humiliate vulnerable people? Do they encourage hatred? Do they accept responsibility when their decisions cause harm? Do they use their power to protect people, or to make others afraid?

A society teaches its values through what it rewards, what it punishes, and what it permits.

When children learn that power means domination, when adults learn that cruelty brings rewards, and when institutions repeatedly fail vulnerable people without meaningful accountability, we should not be surprised when those patterns continue.

This does not mean everyone becomes violent. It means we are failing to address conditions that can make suffering, exploitation, and dehumanization more likely.

We cannot excuse an offender by blaming society for everything. But neither should we pretend that individual crimes exist in a vacuum.

Personal responsibility and social responsibility can exist together.

We can hold people accountable for the harm they cause while also asking what could have prevented that harm in the first place.

the bigger picture

We live in a world where children are traumatized, families are separated, Indigenous communities continue to deal with the consequences of colonial policies, people are displaced by war, and others are pushed out of their homes by poverty.

We spend enormous amounts responding to crises after they happen.

But prevention rarely receives the same urgency.

Protecting children, supporting families, providing stable housing, addressing abuse, making mental health care accessible, and intervening before people reach a breaking point are not merely acts of kindness. They are investments in the future of our communities.

None of these measures will eliminate every violent crime, every tragedy, or every instance of human cruelty. There are no guarantees.

But we already know that neglect has consequences. We know that unsafe environments cause suffering. We know that children need protection and that people need somewhere safe to live.

What are we waiting for?

I don't believe we need to choose between helping a beluga and helping a homeless person. I don't believe compassion should be rationed according to whether someone is cute, wealthy, productive, popular, or politically convenient.

I believe we should be asking why we have the resources to do extraordinary things while so many basic human needs remain unmet.

And I believe we need to stop looking at every tragedy as though it has nothing to do with the world we have built around it.

When another child is abused, another family is displaced, another vulnerable woman disappears, or another person dies without a home, we should ask more than who is responsible for that individual tragedy.

We should ask what failed, what could have been different, and what we are prepared to change.

Because the bigger picture is not simply about serial killers, residential schools, immigration detention, war, or homelessness.

It is about the kind of society we are creating, one generation at a time.

We cannot keep hurting people, neglecting children, abandoning the vulnerable, and then wondering why the world is full of suffering.

If we want a different future, we have to start building it now.

Not after another generation has been damaged.

Not after another life has been lost.

Now.


Written by Tina Winterlik, aka Zipolita

I write about people, places, and things because the stories we tell about our world matter. Sometimes the most important question is not whether we can afford to help, but why we have accepted a world in which so many people need help and cannot find it.

who funds vancouver’s art world—and who benefits?

 

who funds vancouver’s art world—and who benefits?

Following the money behind Vancouver’s art galleries, public installations, private foundations, and real-estate wealth.

There is a real story here, and it goes beyond paintings hanging on gallery walls or sculptures appearing in public spaces. It is about money, influence, philanthropy, property development, and who gets to decide what Vancouver’s cultural legacy will look like.

I started looking at the Vancouver Biennale, the Audain Foundation, the Polygon Gallery, and the Vancouver Art Gallery. What emerges is a network of private wealth, real-estate companies, corporate sponsorships, government grants, charitable foundations, and public cultural institutions.

Art is often presented as something that belongs to everyone. But who pays for it? Who decides which artists and projects receive support? And what do we, the public, actually know about the financial arrangements behind these institutions?

the michael audain connection

Michael Audain built his fortune through real-estate development, joining Polygon Homes in 1980. His philanthropic activities have also made him a significant figure in British Columbia’s art world.

The Audain Foundation reported approximately $423.3 million in assets and $30.7 million in revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. Its reported revenue included investment income and donations, while its grants supported other charitable organizations, including major cultural institutions.

The foundation reported distributing approximately $18.9 million in grants to 37 qualified donees that year.

Those are substantial sums. They raise legitimate questions about the role private wealth plays in determining which cultural institutions thrive, which projects receive funding, and whose vision of art and history receives public recognition.

This is not an accusation of wrongdoing. It is a reason to look more closely at how cultural philanthropy works, where its money originates, and how its priorities are established.

the biennale: public art and private money

The Vancouver Biennale brings large-scale art into public spaces. Its stated funding sources include government grants, corporate sponsorships, donations, in-kind contributions, and proceeds from art sales.

Its listed supporters have included the Province of British Columbia, the Canada Council for the Arts, RBC Foundation, and Buschlen Mowatt Nichol Foundation.

The Biennale’s 2024 charity financial information, as summarized by Charity Breakdown, reported approximately $38,000 in revenue against $391,181 in expenditures, with year-end assets of about $2.9 million.

The figures suggest the organization spent considerably more than it received in reported revenue that fiscal year, drawing on existing resources. That is not evidence of misconduct, but it does invite questions about reserves, funding arrangements, and long-term sustainability.

How much support comes from taxpayers? How much comes from private donors? What portion is cash, and what portion consists of donated services, materials, or other in-kind contributions?

And how are decisions made about which artists and installations receive that support?

Public art can enrich a city. The public should also be able to understand how the organizations responsible for it are funded.

follow the sponsors

The Polygon Gallery’s 2024 annual report identifies Polygon Homes and Quay North Urban Development among its presenting sponsors. The report also describes support from the Audain Foundation and the growth of the gallery’s endowment.

The Vancouver Art Gallery Foundation, meanwhile, lists the Audain Foundation and Michael J. Audain and Yoshiko Karasawa among its supporters. Its annual reporting acknowledges contributions from individuals, corporations, foundations, and government partners.

These connections are documented in the institutions’ own published materials.

They provide a starting point for understanding how Vancouver’s cultural organizations rely on a combination of private philanthropy, corporate sponsorship, investment funds, and public support.

The next step is to examine the details: how much each organization receives, what restrictions apply to the money, whether gifts are designated for particular projects, and how funding decisions affect programming and institutional priorities.

A donor does not automatically control an institution simply because they make a large contribution. But significant donations can shape what becomes possible, which projects are funded, and what receives attention.

That influence deserves public discussion.

philanthropy, tax benefits, and the bigger picture

Charitable donations can qualify for tax credits or deductions, depending on the donor, the type of gift, and the applicable tax rules. Private foundations also operate under specific charitable and regulatory requirements.

However, there is an important distinction between a foundation’s assets, the grants it distributes, and an individual donor’s personal tax savings. These are not interchangeable figures.

To understand the financial picture, we need to examine the actual filings, the legal structures involved, and the applicable tax rules rather than assume that every donated dollar produces a particular tax benefit.

There is still a worthwhile question to ask: how does the charitable system balance public benefit with the priorities of wealthy donors?

A museum might receive millions for a building, an acquisition, or an endowment while community artists struggle to pay rent, buy supplies, find exhibition space, or make a living from their work.

Both forms of cultural activity matter. But are the resources distributed in a way that supports the wider artistic community, or do the largest institutions naturally attract the greatest share of attention and funding?

That is worth investigating.

and what about housing?

This is where the conversation becomes particularly relevant to Vancouver.

When significant cultural donors also have substantial real-estate interests, it is reasonable to examine their business activities alongside their philanthropy.

Vancouver’s housing crisis did not arise from one individual or one company. It involves decades of policy decisions, land values, investment, development, supply, speculation, and broader economic forces.

But we can ask how property wealth is accumulated, how it is reinvested, and how philanthropic contributions fit into the public image and civic influence of wealthy businesspeople.

We can also ask whether the city’s priorities reflect the needs of ordinary residents.

A sculpture in a public plaza can be a gift to a community. A gallery can preserve art and provide meaningful public programming. A foundation can support artists and cultural institutions.

At the same time, Vancouver has people without secure housing, artists who cannot afford studio space, and residents who find themselves increasingly excluded from the city they helped build.

Can we celebrate cultural philanthropy while asking harder questions about the economic conditions surrounding it?

Of course we can.

whose cultural legacy are we building?

The Canada Revenue Agency provides public information about registered charities, including financial reporting and details of their activities. Annual reports, donor acknowledgements, corporate records, and government grant announcements offer additional ways to trace the flow of money.

Together, these records can help us investigate:

  • Who provides the funding: wealthy individuals, developers, corporations, private foundations, governments, and public agencies.
  • Who receives it: galleries, museums, public-art projects, art prizes, and other charitable organizations.
  • What the funding supports: buildings, acquisitions, exhibitions, artist programs, endowments, and public installations.
  • What tax rules apply: and what can actually be established about the financial benefits to donors.
  • What remains underfunded: particularly independent artists, smaller cultural organizations, and communities whose histories and creative work receive less institutional attention.

This is not about suggesting that every donation has a hidden motive or that wealthy people should not support the arts. Private philanthropy can provide real and lasting public benefits.

It is about transparency, accountability, and the relationship between wealth and influence.

Vancouver’s art world does not exist separately from the city’s economic reality. The people and organizations with the greatest financial resources often have the greatest capacity to build institutions, fund projects, and shape the stories future generations will encounter.

Meanwhile, artists without wealthy benefactors must find their own way to survive and create.

Who gets to shape Vancouver’s cultural legacy—and whose needs remain unfunded while that legacy is being built?

That is the story I want to explore.

Not to dismiss the art, but to look beyond the gallery walls and follow the money.

sources to explore

Note: Financial figures above are for the specific fiscal years identified, not current balances. The questions raised here are avenues for public-interest investigation, not allegations of financial wrongdoing.

2050: ten years after the last human

 

2050: ten years after the last human

A story about the world that carried on.

FADE IN:

EXT. VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — DAWN — 2050

Rain falls on an empty city.

It has been raining for three days.

Nobody complains.

The traffic lights still hang over the intersection at Broadway and Granville, their faded lenses dark. A maple tree grows through a crack in the pavement. Its branches reach toward the windows of a building where hundreds of people once worked, hurried, argued, fell in love and worried about tomorrow.

Tomorrow came.

Nobody was there to see it.

Ten years ago, the last human being died.

There was no announcement. No final broadcast watched by billions. No gathering of world leaders. There was only an old woman in a small house, a cup of cold tea on the table, and rain tapping against the window.

She had outlived everyone she knew.

Her name was never recorded in the history books because there was nobody left to write them.

When her heart stopped, the human story ended.

The world did not notice.

CUT TO:

EXT. DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER — MORNING

A raven lands on the roof of a parked car.

It looks down at the street.

Once, this place was filled with engines, horns, impatient pedestrians and people staring at little glowing screens. Now, moss spreads between the paving stones. A bus sits crooked against a curb, its windows broken by falling branches. A wall of ivy covers the entrance to a bank.

Inside, paper money lies scattered across the floor.

A few bills have blown through an open doorway and lodged beneath a fern.

Outside, a black bear crosses the intersection.

It pauses beside a bicycle.

Sniffs it.

Moves on.

The bear has never needed money. It has never wondered whether it belongs in this neighbourhood. It has never been told that the land beneath its feet is worth more than it could ever afford.

EXT. STANLEY PARK — LATER

The seawall has begun to crumble.

The ocean has claimed sections of the path, and winter storms have scattered timber across the shore. Trees lean over the water. Their roots have lifted sections of concrete.

A family of raccoons searches through the remains of a picnic shelter.

Beyond them, an eagle circles above the water.

Below the surface, salmon move through the current. The water is not pristine. Human-made chemicals remain in the environment, and plastic still collects in quiet places. Some of the damage will outlast the people who caused it.

But the water moves.

The salmon swim.

Life has not returned to an earlier version of the world. It has continued from the world humans left behind.

CUT TO:

INT. FORMER SCIENCE LABORATORY — DAY

Dust covers the instruments.

A computer screen is black. Shelves hold samples, notebooks and carefully labelled containers. A whiteboard still carries equations that nobody will ever finish.

A calendar on the wall reads DECEMBER 2040.

The building's backup power failed years ago.

Outside, a vine has entered through a broken window and wound itself around a metal cabinet.

There are no scientists here to interpret what happens next.

No one is monitoring the atmosphere. No one is counting the whales. No one is measuring the gradual return of certain species to abandoned habitats.

The knowledge has not all vanished. Books remain in libraries. Data sits on servers that may never power on again. Some records have been lost to fire, flooding, corrosion and time.

The universe does not keep a library for its own sake.

Knowledge survives only when something carries it forward.

EXT. A FORMER SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOOD — AFTERNOON

A deer steps through a garden gate.

The lawn is knee-high with grass. Apple trees bend beneath the weight of fruit. The swimming pool next door is green with algae.

A dog lies in the shade of a porch.

It is one of the last domestic animals descended from the companions humans once took into their homes. Its coat is tangled. It is thin, but alive. It drinks rainwater from a flowerpot.

A second dog appears between the houses.

They watch each other.

Then the first dog rises and follows the other down the street.

The houses stand open. Some have collapsed. Others remain almost intact, their kitchens still holding plates and cups, their bedrooms still containing photographs of people who believed they had plenty of time.

In one photograph, a family stands before a Christmas tree.

A child is missing a front tooth. A woman laughs at something outside the frame. An older man has his arm around someone whose name is no longer known.

The photograph fades in the sunlight.

Nobody will ever ask who they were.

CUT TO:

EXT. THE AMAZON — YEARS LATER

The forest grows over abandoned roads.

Roots split bridges. Vines climb radio towers. Rain washes soil into empty buildings. In places where forests were cut down, regrowth begins, although some damaged soils and ecosystems will take centuries to recover, if they recover at all.

In other places, the damage is permanent.

Species that disappeared with the human era do not return.

There are no more industrial fishing fleets crossing the oceans. No more tankers moving oil between continents. No more chainsaws cutting into old forests.

But neither are there people planting trees, restoring wetlands or protecting endangered animals.

The world without humans is not automatically a paradise.

Some animals starve. Some populations grow too large and then decline. Disease moves through herds. Fires burn through dry forests. Storms destroy coastlines.

Nature has never promised kindness.

It has only continued.

CUT TO:

EXT. FORMER NEW YORK CITY — SUNSET — 2050

Ten years have passed.

The skyline remains, but it is changing.

Some towers have lost their windows. Water has entered underground stations. Roads have disappeared beneath vegetation. A tree grows through the floor of an abandoned apartment, its branches reaching toward the light.

Pigeons nest in a courthouse.

A fox crosses the steps of a building where people once argued about justice.

Above it all, the sky turns orange.

No one is watching the sunset through a phone.

No one is posting photographs.

No one is asking how many people have seen it.

For the first time in thousands of years, the sunset has no human audience.

And yet it is beautiful.

INT. AN ABANDONED SCHOOL — DUSK

Rain drips through the roof.

On the classroom wall, a faded poster reads:

OUR FUTURE IS IN OUR HANDS.

Beneath it, small desks stand in uneven rows.

A child's drawing remains taped to a cupboard. It shows a blue Earth surrounded by green trees, smiling people and animals.

The paper has yellowed.

A mouse slips beneath a desk.

Wind moves through the broken windows, lifting the corner of the drawing.

It falls to the floor.

Outside, a tree has grown beside the playground. Its roots have pushed the fence aside. Birds settle among its branches as the last light fades.

The school stands empty.

The future arrived.

FADE OUT.

TEN YEARS AFTER THE LAST HUMAN

There is no final voice-over. No narrator to explain the lesson. No audience within the story to applaud.

There is only wind through the trees, water moving over stone, wings beating in the dusk, and the quiet persistence of life.

The monuments humans built to celebrate their greatness will eventually crumble. The borders they drew will fade from maps. The fortunes they accumulated will become meaningless. Their arguments will no longer disturb the night.

Some traces of humanity will remain for thousands of years. Others will vanish much sooner than anyone expected.

And somewhere, perhaps, an animal will find shelter inside a building designed for a purpose it cannot understand.

It will not know that humans once called themselves the most intelligent species on Earth.

It will not know about their wars, their religions, their inventions or their dreams.

It will know only that the building provides shelter from the rain.

And that will be enough.

THE END.

remember when being decent mattered

 

i remember when being decent mattered

Remember when kindness was a strength, not something people mistook for weakness?

I remember a time before Donald Trump started campaigning for president, when the world felt different. Not perfect. We had racism, violence, poverty, war and inequality long before Trump came along. I remember those things, too.

But something has changed.

Over the past decade, I have watched public conversations become increasingly rude, aggressive and hostile. Things that once might have caused public outrage are now shrugged off as just another day in politics. Insults become entertainment. Cruelty becomes a punchline. Racism gets defended as an opinion, and treating other people with basic respect somehow becomes a political statement.

I keep wondering how we got here.

When did being loud become more important than being thoughtful? When did humiliating another person become a show of strength? When did wealth and power start giving people the impression that ordinary rules no longer apply to them?

And what are we teaching our children?

Kids growing up today may not remember a world before this became so commonplace. They see politicians insulting people, wealthy individuals behaving as though they are entitled to everything, and public figures rewarded with attention for saying the most outrageous things. If that is what they see every day, how are they supposed to know that things can be different?

I remember when people could disagree without every disagreement becoming a war. I remember when you could have a conversation with someone who saw the world differently without necessarily treating them as an enemy. We didn't all agree, and we certainly weren't all kind, but there was still a sense that how you treated other people mattered.

At least, that is how I remember it.

Perhaps that is why this change feels so unsettling. It isn't simply about one politician or one country. It is about the example set by people who hold influence, and the way their behaviour can spread into everyday life.

When leaders repeatedly demean others, people can begin to see that behaviour as acceptable. When the wealthy appear insulated from consequences while ordinary people struggle to afford housing, food and the necessities of life, resentment grows. When people are divided into enemies and allies, compassion can disappear beneath the noise.

Donald Trump did not invent racism, greed, inequality or cruelty. Those things have been with us for centuries. But his rise to political power helped bring a particular style of aggressive, insulting and divisive behaviour into the centre of public life. His supporters may see his approach as speaking plainly or fighting an establishment they distrust. Others see it as normalizing conduct that damages public trust and encourages hostility.

We can acknowledge those differences without pretending that words and actions have no consequences.

And the disparity between rich and poor matters. There is something deeply wrong with a society in which some people accumulate fortunes beyond anything they could reasonably need, while others cannot find a safe, affordable place to live. Wealth does not make someone more deserving of dignity, and poverty does not make anyone less worthy of it.

I have spent a great deal of time thinking about homelessness, inequality, the environment and the way we treat one another. These are not separate issues. They all ask us the same question: what kind of society are we building, and who gets left behind?

I don't want children to grow up believing that cruelty is confidence, that prejudice is courage, or that having money makes someone better than everyone else.

I want them to know that there is strength in kindness. There is courage in standing up for someone being mistreated. There is dignity in admitting when we are wrong. And there is nothing weak about treating another human being with respect.

We don't need to pretend the past was a golden age. Many people were excluded, silenced and mistreated, and their experiences deserve to be remembered honestly. But we can still recognize that the way we speak to one another, the behaviour we reward and the people we choose to honour all shape the world we leave behind.

Maybe that is what troubles me most about these strange times. We have extraordinary technology, more access to information than any generation before us, and the ability to communicate across the globe in seconds. Yet we seem to be struggling with some very basic questions about empathy, responsibility and fairness.

We can do better than this.

Being decent should not be controversial. Kindness should not be political. And no amount of wealth, fame or power should put anyone above the responsibility to treat others humanely.

I remember when I believed those things were understood by more people.

I want the next generation to know they are still worth believing in.

Because the world doesn't become better simply because time passes. It becomes better when we decide that some things are worth standing up for.

And decency is one of them.

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

I blog about nouns — people, places and things; even when negative I try to put a positive spin on it.


HumanDecency #KindnessMatters #SocialChange #PoliticalCulture #WealthInequality #Racism #Empathy #FutureGenerations #HumanRights #ChooseCompassion

Joseph Enos Great-grandfather’s Diary — September 1883

Great-grandfather’s Diary — September 1883

Saturday, September 1, 1883 A. Hamilton and R. Westmorland were going to Nanaimo with Father, but cannot go on account of headwind. Father, R. Westmorland and R. Hamilton went to Nanaimo.

Monday, September 3 J. Goloworthey and J. Riley came on a pleasure trip and remained all night.

Tuesday, September 4 Clearing land by the spring.

Wednesday, September 5 R. Hamilton on the way home from Nanaimo.

Thursday, September 6 Gathering beans at the Spit.

Friday, September 7 Cutting wood. Raining. At home.

Sunday, September 9 Raining. At home.

Monday, September 10 J. Tippet called and brought me a letter from Father, who is in Nanaimo.

Tuesday, September 11 J. Hamilton and Mr. Orwin called. Mr. Orwin will stay and work for us with J. Hirst. Mr. Orwin is splitting rails for us.

Wednesday, September 12 Father returned from Nanaimo.

Thursday, September 13 Splitting rails.

Friday, September 14 Father went to Nanaimo to get the colt shod.

Saturday, September 15 Mr. Orwin splitting rails.

Sunday, September 16 J. and A. Hamilton called. Mr. and Mrs. Tippet and family called and we spent a pleasant day.

Monday, September 17 Chopping trees.

Tuesday, September 18 Wm. Crain is helping us to put up a fence at the bottom.

Wednesday, September 19 Cutting brush.

Thursday, September 20 Les. Lit. Jones called.

Friday, September 21 L. Jones called, returned home.

Saturday, September 22 Cleaning the land.

Sunday, September 23 Father and I went to the head of the way to meet M. Brandy and T. Price. Brought Wm. Inkman’s cattle? May went to R. Willes to let him know we have their cattle in. Father brought two calves from Wm. Inkman’s man.

Monday, September 24 Burning logs.

Tuesday, September 25 Hauling rails to fence the bottom.

Wednesday, September 26 Father and Mr. Orwin fencing.

Thursday, September 27 Father and I hauling rails.

Friday, September 28 Fencing and hauling rails.

Saturday, September 29 Fencing.

Sunday, September 30 Raining. At home.

Excerpt from My Great-Grandfather’s Diary 📖


I’m sharing excerpts from my Great-Grandfather’s diary. They may not always appear in chronological order, so please bear with me as I work through them.


He lived in Nanoose Bay, on Notch Hill, and his diary gives us a glimpse into our family’s life and history.


My Great-Great-Grandfather came from the Azores to Victoria in 1862. He later married my Songhees Great-Great-Grandmother in 1876, the same year the federal Indian Act was enacted.


The diary belonged to my Great-Grandfather. My Great-Aunt Mary eventually donated it to the Royal BC Museum. I was able to have it scanned into a PDF, and I’ve also been working from the handwritten cursive to create a hand-printed transcription so that we can actually read his words.


It feels pretty special to be able to bring these pages back into the family story, more than a century later.


More excerpts to come. ❤️


Transcription Note


Please note: These transcriptions may contain errors. I am working from handwritten cursive that is more than 140 years old, and some words, names and places are difficult to decipher. Where I’m uncertain, I’ve indicated it with [brackets] or a question mark rather than guessing.


I’m sharing these as a work in progress, and I’ll continue to correct and refine the transcriptions as I learn more.

Monday, October 19, 2026

my great-grandfather’s diary — nanoose bay, 1883

 Excerpt from My Great-Grandfather’s Diary 📖

I’m sharing excerpts from my Great-Grandfather’s diary. They may not always appear in chronological order, so please bear with me as I work through them.

He lived in Nanoose Bay, on Notch Hill, and his diary gives us a glimpse into our family’s life and history.

My Great-Great-Grandfather came from the Azores to Victoria in 1862. He later married my Songhees Great-Great-Grandmother in 1876, the same year the federal Indian Act was enacted.

The diary belonged to my Great-Grandfather. My Great-Aunt Mary eventually donated it to the Royal BC Museum. I was able to have it scanned into a PDF, and I’ve also been working from the handwritten cursive to create a hand-printed transcription so that we can actually read his words.

It feels pretty special to be able to bring these pages back into the family story, more than a century later.

More excerpts to come. ❤️

Transcription Note

Please note: These transcriptions may contain errors. I am working from handwritten cursive that is more than 140 years old, and some words, names and places are difficult to decipher. Where I’m uncertain, I’ve indicated it with [brackets] or a question mark rather than guessing.

I’m sharing these as a work in progress, and I’ll continue to correct and refine the transcriptions as I learn more.

my great-grandfather’s diary — nanoose bay, 1883

June 1883

  • June 1, Friday: Cloudy. L. Jones went to Wellington.
  • June 2, Saturday: Cloudy. Father and I took Brindle the cow to Hamilton to take [her to] Wellington tomorrow.
  • June 3, Sunday: Rain. Father and I helped the Hirst Brothers to cattle. Father took Brindle the cow to James Wellington.
  • June 4, Monday: Hirst took his horse home.
  • June 5, Tuesday: Cloudy. Father returned from Wellington. All is well.
  • June 6, Wednesday: Rain. Sowing turnips at the bottom.
  • June 7, Thursday: Cloudy. Sowing potatoes at the bottom.
  • June 16, Saturday: Fine. Hoeing potatoes at the bottom.
  • June 17, Sunday: Fine. A. Westmorland called on his way home from Nanaimo.
  • June 18, Monday: Indian John is helping us hoe potatoes. He killed a deer in our garden.
  • June 19, Tuesday: Fine day. Finished hoeing potatoes.
  • June 20, Wednesday: Father returned from Victoria.
  • June 21, Thursday: Fine. R. Westmorland helped us cut the calves. All is well.
  • June 22, Friday: Cloudy. Weeding little apple trees by the well.
  • June 23, Saturday: Cloudy. Banking potatoes at the spit.
  • June 24, Sunday: Cloudy. AM I went to J. Hamilton to borrow his horse and saddle. PM I went across the bay and received the six dollars from J. Davis for [unclear].
  • June 25, Monday: Raining.
  • June 26, Tuesday: Showery. Working in the blacksmith shop.
  • June 27, Wednesday: Showery. J. and R. Hamilton called.
  • June 28, Thursday: AM banking potatoes at the bottom.
  • June 29, Friday: Fine day. Weeding at the bottom. 5:30, weeding carrots.

August 1883

  • August 11, Saturday: I took J. Hirst across [unclear].
  • August 12, Sunday: I went to the head of the [unclear] and brought our calf home.
  • August 13, Monday: Mowing [farm?]. All is well.
  • August 14, Tuesday: Cutting oats at the bottom. The Bay is all in clouds of smoke from heavy bush fires.
  • August 15, Wednesday: Binding oats.
  • August 16, Thursday: Hauling oats home.
  • August 17, Friday: Father and I went and cleaned the N.W. Bay so the fire don't cross it.
  • August 18, Saturday: Father is gone to keep the [fire?] from coming on the cattle range.

Transcribed from my great-grandfather’s handwritten diary. Unclear words are marked rather than guessed.

Sunday, October 18, 2026

when people reach their breaking point: protests and unrest around the world

 when people reach their breaking point: protests and unrest around the world

October 18, 2026 | Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Something is happening around the world, and I think we need to pay attention.

From Guadalajara, Mexico, to the streets of France and Italy, people are taking to the streets to demand answers, challenge authority, and express their anger about the conditions they are living under.

The circumstances are different from country to country. But beneath today's headlines are questions about the same basic things: dignity, security, accountability, and whether the people in power are listening.

Guadalajara: the right to clean water

In Guadalajara, one of Mexico's largest cities, residents are protesting because their drinking water has reportedly been discoloured, foul-smelling, and potentially contaminated.

A citizen study reported worrying findings in household water samples, including a lack of residual chlorine and evidence of various contaminants. This is a serious public-health concern that requires transparent, independent testing and clear communication with residents.

On October 11, a demonstration demanding clean water ended in clashes with police, injuries, and arrests. On October 18, residents returned to the streets. The second demonstration was disrupted by violent groups, with reports of attacks on businesses and public buildings.

Who benefits when a protest about a fundamental human need becomes a scene of violence? Who gets heard, and whose original message gets lost?

The allegations surrounding the people who disrupted the march require investigation. We should not confuse unproven claims with established facts. But we must not allow the underlying demand for safe drinking water to disappear beneath images of destruction.

Read the Reuters report on Guadalajara's water crisis.

France and Italy: the cost of living and public services

France has experienced widespread unrest, with demonstrations involving students, unions and other groups concerned about living costs, fuel prices, education and deteriorating public services. On October 17, clashes and looting occurred in several cities. Further confrontations followed on October 18.

Italy has also seen violent clashes, including in Milan, amid protests concerning the cost of living and public services.

There is an important distinction between peaceful protest and violence against people or property. We should be able to defend people's right to demonstrate while also recognizing the harm caused by arson, looting and physical attacks.

But another question remains: what happens when people feel that the ordinary channels for getting help, being heard, and improving their lives no longer work?

Read Reuters on the unrest in Milan.

Albania and other places: different struggles, a wider picture

Albania continues to experience anti-government protests and violent confrontations. Elsewhere, demonstrations reflect different political, social and economic grievances.

We cannot honestly claim that all these movements are connected, or that everyone marching has the same goals. Each situation has its own history, demands and responsibilities.

Nevertheless, it is worth looking at the wider picture. Across different societies, people are challenging decisions made by governments and institutions, and demanding that their concerns be taken seriously.

What happens when basic needs become privileges?

Clean water. Safe housing. Affordable food. Health care. Education. Decent work. Freedom of expression. The ability to live without fear.

These should not be luxuries reserved for people who can afford them.

When people struggle to meet their most basic needs while watching institutions fail to respond, frustration can build for years. Sometimes that frustration finds a peaceful voice. Sometimes it erupts into violence. Neither outcome can be understood without examining the conditions that came before it.

And when violence occurs, we must ask who is responsible, who has been harmed, and whether authorities are responding proportionately and transparently.

We need international attention, not indifference

What is happening in Guadalajara deserves international scrutiny. Residents need reliable information about their water, access to safe drinking supplies, and an independent investigation into the violence surrounding their demonstrations.

The same principle applies everywhere: governments must be accountable for protecting people's rights, public health and safety.

International solidarity does not mean accepting every claim without evidence. It means paying attention, checking facts, listening to the people directly affected, and refusing to look away simply because a crisis is happening somewhere else.

I paint the natural world because everything is connected. Water sustains people, wildlife, forests, food systems and entire communities. When we fail to protect it, the consequences do not remain neatly contained within political borders.

We cannot separate environmental protection from human rights. We cannot separate public health from economic justice. And we cannot build a peaceful society while ignoring the conditions that leave people frightened, exhausted, desperate or unheard.

Perhaps the question we should all be asking is this: how much suffering must people endure before those with the power to make changes finally listen?

The answer should never be that people must wait until the streets are burning.

Please share verified reporting, listen to local communities, and help bring attention to the issues people are risking their safety to raise.

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita


why i paint what i paint 🐟🐋🐻





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.