Wednesday, October 7, 2026

Il était une fois... Approchez, les enfants

 IL ÉTAIT UNE FOIS — APPROCHEZ, LES ENFANTS

Il était une fois...

Approchez, les enfants.

J’ai une histoire triste à vous raconter.

C’est une histoire vraie.

Et je vous la raconte parce que cela pourrait se reproduire — peut-être plus tôt que nous aimerions le penser.

Je ne veux pas vous faire peur.

Je veux que vous sachiez.

Parce que lorsque nous savons ce qui s’est passé auparavant, nous avons de meilleures chances de nous préparer, de nous protéger, de protéger les personnes que nous aimons et de protéger toute notre famille humaine, autant que nous le pouvons.

Alors prenez une tasse de thé.

Prenez un biscuit.

Et peut-être un mouchoir.

Parce que celle-ci est un peu triste.

Ensuite, nous parlerons de ce que nous pouvons faire.


Il était une fois, dans les années 1870...

C’était un monde sans satellites.

Sans applications météo.

Sans téléphones qui vibraient pour annoncer une alerte d’urgence.

Sans ordinateurs qui surveillaient les océans.

Les gens devaient regarder le ciel, les rivières, les récoltes et les animaux — et essayer de comprendre ce que le monde en train de changer essayait de leur dire.

Et puis quelque chose d’extraordinaire s’est produit.

Les océans ont changé.

L’atmosphère a changé.

Le temps a changé.

Et en 1877–78, un phénomène El Niño exceptionnellement puissant est devenu une partie d’une histoire climatique beaucoup plus vaste.

Ce qui a suivi fut l’une des crises alimentaires liées au climat les plus dévastatrices de l’histoire moderne.

Les gens n’ont pas simplement connu du mauvais temps.

Ils ont connu la faim.

Et des millions de personnes ont perdu la vie.

Maintenant, approchez-vous un peu, parce que c’est ici que cette vieille histoire devient importante pour nous...

Elle ne s’est pas arrêtée à l’autre bout du monde.

Le climat ne respecte pas les frontières.

Une sécheresse dans un endroit peut affecter l’alimentation ailleurs.

Les inondations peuvent détruire les fermes.

Les mauvaises récoltes peuvent faire exploser le prix des aliments.

Et lorsque les gens ne peuvent plus survivre là où ils vivent, ils partent.

Ils cherchent un endroit sûr.

Un endroit où il y a de l’eau.

Un endroit où il y a de la nourriture.

Un endroit où vivent des gens prêts à aider.

Et cela nous ramène à notre vieille histoire...

À **Victoria.

À Seattle.

À la vallée du Fraser.

À l’endroit qui allait bientôt devenir Vancouver.

Et à Ottawa.**

Parce que même si Vancouver n’était pas encore une ville, le fleuve Fraser montrait déjà aux gens de quoi il était capable.

En 1879, après les terribles années qui venaient de s’écouler, le Fraser est de nouveau monté de façon spectaculaire.

La région de Sumas a été inondée.

Les terres agricoles ont été endommagées.

Un pont a été emporté par les eaux.

Les gens regardaient l’eau emporter des morceaux de ce qui leur permettait de vivre.

Imaginez-vous là, sans radar météorologique.

Sans téléphone.

Sans notification d’urgence.

Simplement à regarder le fleuve monter.

Et à vous demander :

Jusqu’où va-t-il monter ?

C’est cette partie de l’histoire que je veux que nous retenions.

Pas parce que je pense que l’histoire va se répéter exactement.

Elle ne se répétera pas de la même façon.

Mais parce que la nature a une mémoire plus longue que la nôtre.

Et aujourd’hui, nous voyons se développer un autre phénomène El Niño très puissant.

Alors cette fois, peut-être pouvons-nous faire quelque chose que les gens des années 1870 ne pouvaient pas faire.

Nous pouvons regarder en arrière.

Nous pouvons regarder autour de nous.

Et nous pouvons nous préparer.

Pas dans la panique.

Avec amour.

Pour nous-mêmes.

Pour nos voisins.

Pour les agriculteurs.

Pour les enfants.

Pour les aînés.

Pour les personnes qui n’ont nulle part où aller en sécurité.

Pour les personnes à l’autre bout du monde.

Pour toute notre famille humaine.

Parce que c’est vraiment de cela que parle cette histoire.

Pas de peur.

De préparation.

Et peut-être que, si nous sommes suffisamment intelligents...

la prochaine génération n’aura pas à raconter cette histoire comme une tragédie.

Peut-être la racontera-t-elle comme l’histoire du moment où l’humanité a vu les signes avant-coureurs...

et a réellement écouté.


Questions pour réfléchir

Enseignants et enseignantes :

1. Qu’enseignez-vous à la prochaine génération sur la façon de survivre et de prendre soin d’un monde en changement — au-delà du contenu des manuels scolaires ?

Élèves et étudiants :

2. Que pouvez-vous apprendre et faire dès maintenant pour ne pas être démunis lorsque votre communauté fera face à une crise ?

Politiciens et responsables publics :

3. Si vous savez que les bouleversements climatiques peuvent menacer l’alimentation, le logement et la sécurité, que faites-vous réellement pour préparer votre communauté — et où est le plan ?

Infirmiers et infirmières :

4. Lorsque la prochaine urgence submergera le système de santé, qui prendra soin des personnes qui n’ont nulle part ailleurs où se tourner — et êtes-vous prêts ?

Médecins et médecins :

5. Traitez-vous les maladies liées au climat et les catastrophes comme des réalités qui affectent déjà la santé humaine, ou attendons-nous encore que la crise devienne impossible à ignorer ?

Agriculteurs et agricultrices :

6. Si une sécheresse, une inondation ou des conditions météorologiques extrêmes menacent vos récoltes, que pouvons-nous faire dès maintenant pour protéger l’approvisionnement alimentaire ?

Scientifiques :

7. Qu’observez-vous que les gens ordinaires doivent comprendre — et quel avertissement sommes-nous en train de ne pas entendre ?

Stars du rock et du cinéma :

8. Des millions de personnes vous écoutent. À quoi allez-vous utiliser cette voix lorsque votre message pourrait réellement sauver des vies ?

Dirigeants d’entreprises :

9. Lorsque la prochaine urgence climatique arrivera, votre priorité sera-t-elle de protéger les personnes et les communautés — ou de protéger les profits ?

Nous tous :

10. Lorsque l’histoire se penchera sur ce moment, dira-t-elle que nous connaissions les signes avant-coureurs et que nous avons agi — ou que nous les connaissions et que nous n’avons rien fait ?

Tina Winterlik — mercredi 7 octobre 2026

Aucun commentaire

Publier un commentaire

Remarque : Seuls les membres de ce blog peuvent publier un commentaire.

Érase una vez... Acérquense, niños

 

ÉRASE UNA VEZ — ACÉRQUENSE, NIÑOS

Érase una vez...

Acérquense, niños.

Hay una historia triste que necesito contarles.

Es una historia verdadera.

Y se las cuento porque podría volver a suceder — quizá antes de lo que nos gustaría pensar.

No quiero asustarlos.

Quiero que sepan.

Porque cuando sabemos lo que sucedió antes, tenemos más posibilidades de prepararnos, protegernos a nosotros mismos y a las personas que amamos, y proteger a toda nuestra familia mundial tanto como podamos.

Así que sírvanse una taza de té.

Tomen una galleta.

Y quizá un pañuelo.

Porque esta historia es un poquito triste.

Después hablaremos de lo que podemos hacer.


Érase una vez, en la década de 1870...

Había un mundo sin satélites.

Sin aplicaciones meteorológicas.

Sin teléfonos que vibraran con alertas de emergencia.

Sin computadoras observando los océanos.

La gente tenía que mirar el cielo, los ríos, los cultivos y los animales — y tratar de entender lo que el mundo cambiante estaba tratando de decirles.

Y entonces ocurrió algo extraordinario.

Los océanos cambiaron.

La atmósfera cambió.

El clima cambió.

Y en 1877–78, un fenómeno de El Niño extraordinariamente poderoso se convirtió en parte de una historia climática mucho más grande.

Lo que siguió fue una de las crisis alimentarias relacionadas con el clima más devastadoras de la historia moderna.

La gente no tuvo que enfrentarse simplemente a un mal tiempo.

Tuvo que enfrentarse al hambre.

Y millones de personas perdieron la vida.

Ahora acérquense un poquito más, porque aquí es donde esta vieja historia se vuelve importante para nosotros...

No se quedó al otro lado del mundo.

El clima no respeta fronteras.

Una sequía en un lugar puede afectar los alimentos en otro.

Las inundaciones pueden destruir las granjas.

Las cosechas perdidas pueden hacer que los precios de los alimentos se disparen.

Y cuando las personas ya no pueden sobrevivir donde están, se mudan.

Buscan un lugar seguro.

Un lugar con agua.

Un lugar con comida.

Un lugar donde haya personas dispuestas a ayudar.

Y eso nos trae de vuelta nuestra vieja historia...

A **Victoria.

A Seattle.

Al Valle del Fraser.

Al lugar que pronto se convertiría en Vancouver.

Y a Ottawa.**

Porque aunque Vancouver todavía no era una ciudad, el río Fraser ya estaba mostrando a la gente de lo que era capaz.

En 1879, después de los terribles años que habían pasado, el Fraser volvió a crecer de manera dramática.

La zona de Sumas se inundó.

Las tierras agrícolas sufrieron daños.

Un puente fue arrastrado por las aguas.

La gente observaba cómo el agua se llevaba partes de aquello de lo que dependían para vivir.

Imaginen estar allí sin un radar meteorológico.

Sin teléfono.

Sin una notificación de emergencia.

Simplemente mirando cómo subía el río.

Y preguntándose:

¿Hasta dónde va a subir?

Esa es la parte de la historia que quiero que recordemos.

No porque piense que la historia vaya a repetirse exactamente.

No será así.

Sino porque la naturaleza tiene una memoria más larga que la nuestra.

Y hoy estamos viendo desarrollarse otro fenómeno de El Niño muy fuerte.

Así que esta vez, quizá podamos hacer algo que la gente de la década de 1870 no podía hacer.

Podemos mirar hacia atrás.

Podemos mirar a nuestro alrededor.

Y podemos prepararnos.

No con pánico.

Con amor.

Por nosotros mismos.

Por nuestros vecinos.

Por los agricultores.

Por los niños.

Por los ancianos.

Por las personas que no tienen un lugar seguro al que ir.

Por las personas al otro lado del mundo.

Por toda nuestra familia mundial.

Porque de eso trata realmente esta historia.

No del miedo.

De la preparación.

Y quizá, si somos lo suficientemente inteligentes...

la próxima generación no tendrá que contar esta historia como una tragedia.

Quizá la contarán como la historia del momento en que la humanidad vio las señales de advertencia...

y realmente escuchó.


Preguntas para reflexionar

Maestros y maestras:

1. ¿Qué están enseñando a la próxima generación sobre cómo sobrevivir y cuidar de un mundo cambiante — más allá de lo que dice el libro de texto?

Estudiantes:

2. ¿Qué pueden aprender y hacer ahora para no sentirse indefensos cuando su comunidad enfrente una crisis?

Políticos y responsables públicos:

3. Si saben que la alteración del clima puede amenazar los alimentos, la vivienda y la seguridad, ¿qué están haciendo realmente para preparar a su comunidad — y dónde está el plan?

Enfermeros y enfermeras:

4. Cuando la próxima emergencia sobrecargue el sistema de salud, ¿quién cuidará de las personas que no tienen otro lugar adonde acudir — y están preparados?

Médicos y médicas:

5. ¿Están tratando las enfermedades relacionadas con el clima y los desastres como algo que ya está afectando la salud humana, o seguimos esperando a que la crisis sea imposible de ignorar?

Agricultores y agricultoras:

6. Si una sequía, una inundación o un clima extremo amenaza sus cosechas, ¿qué podemos hacer ahora para proteger el suministro de alimentos?

Científicos y científicas:

7. ¿Qué están observando que la gente común necesita comprender — y qué advertencia estamos dejando de escuchar?

Estrellas de rock y del cine:

8. Millones de personas los escuchan. ¿Para qué van a utilizar esa voz cuando el mensaje podría realmente salvar vidas?

Líderes empresariales:

9. Cuando llegue la próxima emergencia climática, ¿su prioridad será proteger a las personas y las comunidades — o proteger las ganancias?

Todos nosotros:

10. Cuando la historia mire hacia atrás en este momento, ¿dirá que conocíamos las señales de advertencia y actuamos — o que las conocíamos y no hicimos nada?

Tina Winterlik — miércoles 7 de octubre de 2026

Sin comentarios

Publicar un comentario

Nota: Solo los miembros de este blog pueden publicar comentarios.

once upon a time — come close, kids

 

once upon a time — come close, kids

Once upon a time...

Come close, kids.

There's a sad story I need to tell you.

It's a true story.

And I'm telling you because it could happen again — maybe sooner than we would like to think.

I don't want to frighten you.

I want you to know.

Because when we know what happened before, we have a better chance of preparing, protecting ourselves and the people we love, and protecting our whole world family as much as we possibly can.

So get yourself a cup of tea.

Grab a cookie.

And maybe a tissue.

Because this one is a little sad.

Then we'll talk about what we can do.

Once upon a time, in the 1870s...

There was a world without satellites.

No weather apps.

No phones buzzing with emergency alerts.

No computers watching the oceans.

People had to look at the sky, the rivers, the crops and the animals — and try to understand what the changing world was telling them.

And then something extraordinary happened.

The oceans changed.

The atmosphere changed.

The weather changed.

And in 1877–78, an extraordinarily powerful El Niño became part of a much larger climate story.

What followed was one of the most devastating climate-related food crises in modern history.

People didn't just experience bad weather.

They experienced hunger.

And millions of people lost their lives.

Now come a little closer, because here's where this old story becomes important to us...

It didn't stay on the other side of the world.

The climate doesn't respect borders.

Drought in one place can affect food somewhere else.

Floods can destroy farms.

Failed harvests can send food prices soaring.

And when people can no longer survive where they are, they move.

They look for somewhere safe.

Somewhere with water.

Somewhere with food.

Somewhere with people willing to help.

And that brings our old story home...

To **Victoria.

To Seattle.

To the Fraser Valley.

To the place that would soon become Vancouver.

And to Ottawa.**

Because while Vancouver wasn't yet a city, the Fraser River was already showing people what it could do.

In 1879, after the terrible years that had come before, the Fraser rose dramatically again.

The Sumas area flooded.

Farmland was damaged.

A bridge was swept away.

People watched water take pieces of their livelihoods away.

Imagine standing there without a weather radar.

Without a phone.

Without an emergency notification.

Just watching the river rise.

And wondering:

How high is it going to go?

That's the part of the story I want us to remember.

Not because I think history is going to repeat itself exactly.

It won't.

But because nature has a memory longer than ours.

And today we're watching another very strong El Niño develop.

So this time, perhaps we can do something the people of the 1870s couldn't.

We can look backward.

We can look around.

And we can prepare.

Not with panic.

With love.

For ourselves.

For our neighbours.

For farmers.

For children.

For elders.

For people who have nowhere safe to go.

For people on the other side of the world.

For our whole world family.

Because that's what this story is really about.

Not fear.

Preparation.

And maybe, if we're smart enough...

the next generation won't have to tell this story as a tragedy.

Maybe they'll tell it as the story of the time humanity saw the warning signs...

and actually listened.

Reflective Questions

Teachers:

What are you teaching the next generation about surviving and caring for a changing world — beyond the textbook?

Students:

2. What can you learn and do now so you're not helpless when your community faces a crisis?

Politicians:

3. If you know climate disruption can threaten food, housing and safety, what are you actually doing to prepare your community — and where is the plan?

Nurses:

4. When the next emergency overwhelms the healthcare system, who will care for the people who have nowhere else to turn — and are you prepared?

Doctors:

5. Are you treating climate-related illness and disaster as something that is already affecting human health, or are we still waiting for the crisis to become impossible to ignore?

Farmers:

6. If drought, flooding or extreme weather threatens your harvest, what can we do now to protect the food supply?

Scientists:

7. What are you seeing that ordinary people need to understand — and what warning are we failing to hear?

Rockstars & movie stars:

8. You have millions of people listening to you. What are you going to use that voice for when the message could actually save lives?

Business leaders:

9. When the next climate emergency comes, will your priority be protecting people and communities — or protecting profits?

All of us:

10. When history looks back at this moment, will it say we knew the warning signs and acted — or that we knew and did nothing?

Don’t give up on the Greens

 Don’t give up on the Greens.

If you’re young and thinking, “What’s the point? The Greens can’t win,” remember what happened in 2017.

The Greens won only 3 seats, but the election produced a minority government. The NDP had 41 seats and the Liberals had 43. The Greens held the balance of power and reached a Confidence and Supply Agreement with John Horgan’s NDP government.

That meant the Greens didn’t have to win the election to have influence. They had seats — and those seats gave them leverage.

It happened before. It can happen again.

So don’t look at the numbers and decide your vote doesn't matter. Every seat matters. Every riding matters.

You don't have to give up hope just because your party isn't the biggest one.

🌱 Democracy isn't only about who wins the most votes. Sometimes it's about who holds the balance of power.

#BCPolitics #BCGreens #GreenParty #Democracy #YouthVote #DontGiveUp #VoteBC


🌱 10 questions for the kids before they decide their vote


1. What kind of B.C. do you want to inherit — and what are we building right now?


2. If a pipeline, LNG project or other major development creates jobs today, who pays the environmental and social costs later?


3. When governments promise that a project will be “good for the economy,” what exactly are they counting — and what are they leaving out?


4. Should governments be making long-term decisions about forests, water, energy and climate based on one election cycle, or several generations?


5. What happens when a government makes a promise and then doesn't follow through?


6. Do young people have to accept decisions made today simply because they're told those decisions are “inevitable”?


7. What would you rather see government invest in: housing, healthcare, transit and education — or more fossil-fuel infrastructure? And can we realistically afford both?


8. If no party wins a majority, could smaller parties hold the balance of power and demand action on the issues that matter to you?


9. Did you know that this actually happened in B.C. in 2017, when three Green MLAs helped keep an NDP minority government in power through a confidence-and-supply agreement?


10. And finally: if you don't participate, who gets to make these decisions for you?


You don't have to believe everything a party tells you.


Ask questions. Read the platforms. Look at the record. Then vote. 🌱


Monday, October 5, 2026

The Kelvin Wave

 The Kelvin Wave: When a Few Inches of Ocean Water Matter

There's another weather term making headlines this fall: Kelvin wave.

If you've been following the latest discussions about El Niño and the unusual warmth of the Pacific Ocean, you've probably seen the term popping up in social media feeds and weather reports.

But what exactly is a Kelvin wave, and should those of us living in the Pacific Northwest be concerned?

First, let's clear something up. A Kelvin wave isn't a giant wall of water racing toward the shore. It isn't a tsunami, nor is it something we're going to see rolling in while walking along the beach.

It's a large movement of warm ocean water, often associated with El Niño. As this warm water travels along the coast, it can temporarily raise sea levels by several inches.

That might not sound like much. Six inches, after all, is hardly a tidal wave.

But context matters.

Imagine those extra inches arriving during an unusually high tide, a king tide or a powerful Pacific storm. Add strong winds, elevated water levels and pounding waves, and suddenly those few inches can make a significant difference to low-lying coastal areas.

And that's where things get interesting for the Pacific Northwest.

Here in British Columbia, we're surrounded by water. Vancouver's relationship with the ocean is part of our geography, our history and our everyday landscape. We enjoy our beaches, waterfront parks, marinas and ocean views. But living beside the water also means living with its power.

A Kelvin wave alone isn't something to panic about. However, it is another reminder that coastal flooding doesn't happen in isolation. Several natural forces can combine to create conditions that are more damaging than any one of them would be on its own.

There's also the marine environment to consider. Warmer ocean temperatures can affect marine ecosystems, shift the distribution of fish and put pressure on species that depend on particular water conditions.

The ocean is a complicated system. What happens thousands of kilometres away can eventually influence the waters along our own coastline.

And while we tend to focus on the immediate weather forecast, there's a much bigger conversation taking place about rising sea levels, climate change and the long-term vulnerability of coastal communities.

It's easy to dismiss a few inches of water. It's considerably harder to dismiss the consequences when those inches are enough to flood a road, damage a waterfront property or disrupt a community.

I think that's the part worth paying attention to.

We don't need dramatic headlines predicting disaster every time a new meteorological term appears. We do need to understand what is happening around us, take environmental changes seriously and recognize the importance of preparing vulnerable communities.

The Kelvin wave is not a reason to run for the hills.

But it is another reason to pay attention to the ocean.

Because sometimes the biggest changes don't arrive with a dramatic crash. Sometimes they happen slowly, quietly, and almost unnoticed, until we realize just how much has changed.

And perhaps that's a lesson worth remembering far beyond the Pacific shoreline.

Sunday, October 4, 2026

the little glass paradise

 the little glass paradise

I'm sitting outside a coffee shop in Vancouver on October 4, watching people.

And wow.

Vancouver has changed.

Maybe COVID changed it. Maybe I just haven't sat in one place and really watched the city like this for a long time. But yesterday and today, I've been noticing things I might normally just walk past.

Families with little kids riding electric bikes. People from all over the world. People who seem to have good jobs and money. Expensive bicycles. Expensive cars. Older people with really nice walkers.

Everyone moving through this strange, shiny version of Vancouver.

I'm sitting here in a neighbourhood of towers.

There are beautiful little rosemary and lavender bushes. A few trees. The sun is lovely, and when you're sitting directly in it, it's actually quite warm.

But step into the shade and it's chilly.

And I keep looking around.

Cobblestone. Pavement. Glass. Concrete. Towers.

Not much green.

No green walls that I can see. No green roofs. Not much soil. Not much canopy.

It is a little glass-and-concrete paradise that somebody has carefully designed.

And it really is nice.

That's the strange part.

I'm not sitting here complaining about how ugly it is. It's beautiful in its own way. People are enjoying themselves. Children are laughing. People are drinking coffee. Bikes are everywhere. The landscaping is neat and intentional.

But I'm wondering about the future.

Because summer must be very different here.

What happens when the sun beats down on all this pavement and glass for days?

What happens when the heat doesn't go away at night?

What happens when we get another summer of wildfire smoke?

What happens when extreme rain arrives and there isn't much soil or green space to absorb it?

And what happens when the big storms get bigger?

We keep building upward.

Glass towers. More towers. More pavement. More people packed into smaller spaces.

And I understand why. Vancouver needs housing. People need places to live. We can't pretend cities are never going to grow.

But are we building cities for the Vancouver we used to have, or for the Vancouver we're going to have?

Because those may be two very different cities.

I keep thinking about the little things that actually make a city resilient.

Trees.

Shade.

Soil.

Gardens.

Green roofs.

Rain gardens.

Places where water can actually soak into the ground.

Places where people can sit without baking on concrete.

Places where birds, insects and other little creatures can still exist.

Green isn't just decoration.

Green is infrastructure.

And then there's the human side of it.

Sitting here watching all these people, I can't help noticing how different everyone's lives must be.

Somebody has the expensive electric bike.

Somebody has the expensive car.

Somebody is carrying a designer coffee cup.

Somebody is pushing a walker.

Somebody is raising children.

Somebody is working upstairs in one of these towers.

And somewhere else in Vancouver, someone is trying to figure out where they're going to sleep tonight.

That's Vancouver too.

I have spent enough time outside in this city to know that climate change isn't an abstract concept.

You feel it.

You feel the heat.

You feel the smoke.

You feel the rain.

You feel the cold when you don't have a door to close behind you.

So I'm sitting here in the sunshine, enjoying this little urban paradise while I can.

And I'm wondering:

How will this place feel in twenty years?

Will these towers still feel like little glass paradises?

Or will we look back and realize that we forgot something incredibly important when we built them?

Nature.

Not as an ornament.

As part of the city itself.

Maybe the future Vancouver needs to be more than taller.

Maybe it needs to be greener.

And maybe the real measure of a successful city isn't how expensive its buildings, cars and bicycles are.

Maybe it's whether people — and the living world around them — can actually thrive there.

the view from my easel: what happened to canada?

 

the view from my easel: what happened to canada?

October 4, 2026 | Vancouver, British Columbia

It's a chilly October 4. The sun is shining, the sky is beautiful, and I'm sitting at my little pop-up art show in a nice Vancouver neighbourhood, surrounded by towers, concrete, glass and the everyday comforts of city life.

I've brought my original oil paintings out into the world. Forty-five paintings, two collections, and a whole lot of hope. I'm trying to raise $4,000 to get back to Mexico, where I hope to survive the winter and live a little more freely until my pension begins in February.

But as I sit here, my mind keeps returning to what I saw on the way.

Just up the street is a homeless shelter. Not some beautiful transitional housing facility with private rooms, gardens and support services. It's an old Art Knapp's building, now covered in tarps and being used as a shelter.

I saw people coming out. Men, mostly white, in their 40s and 50s. They looked worn down, unwell and as though life had taken a terrible toll on them.

There was urine on the road. I crossed a bridge and encountered human waste and a pile of something burned.

And then there was the man with the severely curved spine and surgical scars.

I don't know his story. I don't know what happened to his back, what surgeries he underwent or how he ended up in that shelter. I can only imagine how difficult it must be to live with a serious physical condition without a proper place to rest, recover or even sleep comfortably.

Where is the medical care? Where is the accessible housing? Where is the dignity?

And where is the safety net?

These are not abstract political debates for me. I am witnessing the conditions right here in my own city.

I've been without stable housing since 2019. I know what it means to live without the security of a home, to stretch a few dollars and to constantly wonder what happens next.

And now, as I sit here trying to sell my paintings, I'm thinking about what happens if I don't.

How do I get to Mexico? How do I pay for food? How do I make it through the winter?

I look around this neighbourhood. Beautiful towers rise above the streets. People walk by with their coffees, shopping bags and busy lives. There is nothing wrong with that. People are entitled to live comfortably.

But what kind of city are we building when a few blocks can separate such different realities?

We have people living in expensive towers and people living in emergency shelters that look like temporary construction sites. We have people trying to recover from serious health problems without stable housing. We have people who appear to have fallen so far through the cracks that the cracks have become their entire world.

And this is Vancouver, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Our federal government can announce grocery benefits and affordability measures. Politicians can talk about economic growth, infrastructure, investment and building a stronger Canada.

But what does all that mean to someone who has nowhere safe to sleep?

What does a $90 grocery payment mean when you don't have a kitchen, a refrigerator or even a secure place to keep your belongings?

What does economic growth mean when people are visibly deteriorating on the streets?

And why are we so accustomed to seeing it?

I keep thinking about my MASH-unit idea: small, mobile, modular housing with private spaces, proper sanitation and access to health and social services. Not another tarp-covered building where people are simply warehoused until the next crisis. Actual places where people can begin rebuilding their lives.

Why is it so difficult to imagine providing people with a safe, clean place to live while they work toward permanent housing?

We have the technology. We have the skills. We have the resources. What we seem to lack is the urgency to match the scale of the problem.

And I know I'm only one person. I'm an artist sitting at a little pop-up show, watching the world go by. I don't have a government budget or a development company. I have a collection of paintings, a bicycle, a few belongings in storage and a plan to get back to Mexico.

But I have eyes. I have memories. I have lived experience.

I can talk about what I witness.

And what I witnessed today was deeply unsettling.

It's not just the urine on the pavement, the burned debris or the makeshift shelter. It's the human beings behind those scenes. It's the possibility that some of these men once had ordinary lives, jobs, families, homes and plans of their own.

It's the knowledge that a serious injury, a lost job, a mental health crisis, a relationship breakdown or a financial disaster can change someone's life in ways they never anticipated.

And it's the realization that a society's safety net is only as strong as the people it actually catches.

I don't want to live in a city where suffering becomes background scenery. I don't want to become so accustomed to homelessness that I stop noticing the people experiencing it.

I don't want to see someone with a badly damaged spine and wonder how on earth he's supposed to manage another night in a makeshift shelter.

I want better for him. I want better for all of us.

Today, the sun is shining on my little art show. My paintings are colourful. People are walking by. Life is carrying on.

And yet, I cannot shake the feeling that something is terribly wrong.

What happened to Canada?

More importantly, what are we going to do about it?

Because a country should be measured not only by its wealth, its buildings or its economic performance, but also by how it treats the people who have the least.

And right now, sitting here in the sunshine on a chilly October afternoon, I am not impressed by what I'm seeing.

october 4: remembering our missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls

 

Red Dress hanging in Seaforth Peace Park

october 4: remembering our missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls

Sisters in Spirit. No More Stolen Sisters.

October 4 is a day of remembrance. A day to honour the lives of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG), to remember those who are still missing, and to stand with the families who continue to seek answers, justice and healing.

Ten years ago, in 2016, I was beginning a personal journey that would change the way I looked at history, reconciliation and my own connections to Indigenous heritage.

From September 2016 to April 2017, I attended Langara College's Reconciliation Carving Cohort.

I called my online documentation My Langara Reconciliation Carving Journey. It became a collection of research, thoughts, feelings, photographs, reflections and creative work. My intention was to learn, share and contribute in whatever way I could to a better future for the next seven generations.

My Langara Reconciliation Carving Journey

That same year, I was also documenting and sharing images in support of the REDress Project by Métis artist Jaime Black.

The REDress Project is an aesthetic response to the thousands of missing and murdered Indigenous women across Canada. Empty red dresses placed in public spaces represent the women who are no longer here, making their absence visible in a way that is difficult to ignore.

I photographed the REDress display at Vancouver's Peace Park in Kitsilano in October 2016.

I shared those photographs and information through my blog and social media, using hashtags such as #MMIW, #SistersInSpirit and #NoMoreStolenSisters.

I also collected and shared posts from across Canada documenting marches, candlelight vigils, songs, ceremonies, speeches and the voices of families demanding justice.

Looking back at those old posts is an emotional experience.

I see the faces, the red dresses, the shoes representing women who were missing or murdered, the gatherings of people who refused to let their stories disappear.

I remember the public conversations, the calls for a national inquiry and the hopes that things might finally change.

I also remember the words of family members and advocates who questioned what reconciliation actually meant when Indigenous women and girls continued to experience violence and disappear.

One statement from a family member in 2016 has stayed with me:

"Their reconciliation feels a lot like colonization."

That was a powerful reminder that reconciliation cannot simply be a government promise, a speech, a ceremony or a symbolic gesture. It must be measured by real changes in people's lives.

And what about the families still waiting for answers?

What about the women whose cases received little attention, whose disappearances were dismissed or whose lives were treated as less important?

What about the mothers, daughters, sisters, aunties and friends whose absence leaves an enormous hole in their families and communities?

We cannot talk about reconciliation while ignoring the ongoing violence, discrimination, poverty and systemic failures that Indigenous women and girls continue to face.

Nor should remembrance be limited to one day of the year.

Ten years have passed since I took those photographs and began documenting that particular chapter of my own learning journey.

I have continued to explore my Indigenous family history, my connections to the past and the meaning of reconciliation. I have learned that listening matters. So does humility. And so does recognizing that Indigenous voices, families and communities must lead the conversations that affect them.

Today, I look back at those photographs and posts as a small part of a much larger movement.

I am one person with a camera, a blog and a desire to document the world around me. I cannot undo the past or solve the injustices that persist. But I can remember. I can share. I can keep asking questions. And I can refuse to let these stories be forgotten.

Today, October 4, I remember the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

I remember their families, their loved ones and the people who continue to fight for answers and justice.

I remember the red dresses.

And I hope that one day, our daughters, nieces, granddaughters and the next seven generations will live in a world where their safety, dignity and lives are never in question.

No More Stolen Sisters.

#MMIWG #MMIW #SistersInSpirit #NoMoreStolenSisters #REDressProject #TruthAndReconciliation #IndigenousWomen #SevenGenerations

when survival becomes a full-time job: justin ducharme, sex work and the dreams of our youth

 

when survival becomes a full-time job: justin ducharme, sex work and the dreams of our youth

How many young people have to struggle just to afford the opportunity to pursue their dreams? And how many are forced into making difficult choices simply to survive?

I came across a CBC story about Justin Ducharme, a young Métis filmmaker from Manitoba who moved to Vancouver to pursue his education and his passion for filmmaking.

Like so many young people, he found himself broke, far from home and struggling to pay his bills. He turned to sex work because he needed to survive and wanted to continue his education rather than abandon his dreams.

His words stayed with me.

"I needed to survive."

Think about that for a moment.

A young person, trying to build a future, faced with the reality that the cost of living could force him to give up everything he had worked toward.

This is not just Justin's story. It is a reflection of a much bigger problem.

We live in a society where young people are told to dream big, work hard, get an education and make something of themselves. Yet we have created an economy where housing, food, tuition and basic necessities can be financially out of reach.

What happens when a young person has ambition but not the financial means to support it?

What happens when survival takes precedence over everything else?

Sex work is a complicated and often misunderstood subject. There are people who enter it by choice, people who enter it because of economic circumstances, and people who experience exploitation and coercion. Those experiences are not interchangeable, and we need to recognize the differences.

But we should be asking ourselves why so many people, including young people, face such limited options in the first place.

Justin Ducharme did more than survive. He kept creating.

His first feature film, Seventeen, premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2026 and is screening at the Vancouver International Film Festival this month.

The film follows three young, queer Indigenous sex workers in Vancouver over the course of 17 hours. It explores loss, connection, belonging and the importance of chosen family.

What I find especially meaningful is Justin's intention to tell a different kind of story.

Rather than reducing sex workers to stereotypes or portraying their lives only through tragedy, he wants to show their relationships, tenderness, intimacy and humanity.

He credits the other sex workers in his life, particularly those who mentored and supported him when he was young, for helping him get to where he is today.

That is community. That is people looking out for one another when the world doesn't necessarily make room for them.

And that is something worth celebrating.

As a society, we spend an awful lot of time judging people for the ways they survive. We debate morality, sexuality and personal choices while often overlooking the circumstances that shape those choices.

Perhaps we should spend more time asking why a young person needs to choose between pursuing an education and paying rent.

Why is affordable housing so difficult to find?

Why are so many young people living precariously, working multiple jobs or relying on whatever income they can find?

And why are the people who have the least financial security so often the ones expected to shoulder the greatest burden of responsibility?

I want to see a world where young people have genuine choices. Where education doesn't come at the cost of basic survival. Where housing is a human necessity rather than a luxury. Where people aren't forced to sacrifice their safety or well-being just to make ends meet.

Justin Ducharme's success is something to celebrate. But I don't want us to lose sight of the circumstances that brought him to sex work in the first place.

His story is also a reminder of the power of art.

Film, photography, painting, writing and all forms of creative expression can open doors into lives we might otherwise never understand. They can challenge our assumptions and help us see people as individuals rather than labels.

Justin is a filmmaker, an artist and a storyteller. He is also a young Métis man whose lived experiences have helped shape his creative work.

His film deserves an audience.

And his message deserves to be heard.

Let's support independent filmmakers. Let's listen to Indigenous and queer voices. And let's start taking the economic struggles of our young people seriously.

Because surviving should not have to be the price of pursuing a dream.

Reflective Questions

Why should a young person have to choose between education and financial survival?

What does economic freedom really mean when basic necessities are unaffordable?

How much of our judgment about sex work comes from stigma rather than understanding?

Are we doing enough to protect and support young people who live far from their home communities?

What role can art and storytelling play in changing the way we see marginalized communities?

Zipolita'Z Pop Up Art Show🖼🎨:Water Is Life & Fire Next Time

 

The Fire Next Time by Zipolita

🎨 🎨 zipolita's pop-up art show: water is life & the fire next time

📍 @inbtwncafe
1625 Hornby St., Vancouver

Come down and see @emilys2ndact for a little POP-UP ART SHOW featuring two original oil painting collections: Water Is Life and The Fire Next Time.

There are 45 original oil paintings in total, priced from $25 to $200.

🌊 🔥 A special offer for collectors, businesses and art lovers!

I would prefer to sell each collection as a family, keeping the paintings together as a complete body of work. I am offering a special price if you purchase an entire collection, or even better, both collections.

Looking for something different for Christmas? These paintings could make wonderful gifts for family, friends, employees, clients or even a special addition to your office or business. They could also make memorable gifts for staff Christmas parties, holiday gift exchanges or someone who appreciates original art.

❤️ Help an artist get back to Mexico!

My goal is to raise $4,000 to get back to Mexico for the winter. I am hoping to make that money stretch until February, when my pension begins.

Vancouver, you know how hard it is to survive here. Imagine trying to do it as an independent artist, living without a permanent home and working toward a little sunshine and stability.

Every painting sold brings me one step closer.

Come support a local artist, enjoy a coffee, meet some friends and perhaps take home a little piece of original art.

Buy one painting, buy a collection, or help me get both collections off to a new home.

🌴 Mexico or Bust!

#MexicoOrBust #Zipolita #EmilyS2ndAct #WaterIsLife #TheFireNextTime #OriginalArt #OilPainting #VancouverArt #PopUpArtShow #SupportLocalArtists

📍 @inbtwncafe
1625 Hornby St., Vancouver

Come down and see @emilys2ndact for a little POP-UP ART SHOW featuring two original oil painting collections: Water Is Life and The Fire Next Time.

There are 45 original oil paintings in total, priced from $25 to $200.

🌊 🔥 A special offer for collectors, businesses and art lovers!

I would prefer to sell each collection as a family, keeping the paintings together as a complete body of work. I am offering a special price if you purchase an entire collection, or even better, both collections.

Looking for something different for Christmas? These paintings could make wonderful gifts for family, friends, employees, clients or even a special addition to your office or business. They could also make memorable gifts for staff Christmas parties, holiday gift exchanges or someone who appreciates original art.

❤️ Help an artist get back to Mexico!

My goal is to raise $4,000 to get back to Mexico for the winter. I am hoping to make that money stretch until February, when my pension begins.

Vancouver, you know how hard it is to survive here. Imagine trying to do it as an independent artist, living without a permanent home and working toward a little sunshine and stability.

Every painting sold brings me one step closer.

Come support a local artist, enjoy a coffee, meet some friends and perhaps take home a little piece of original art.

Buy one painting, buy a collection, or help me get both collections off to a new home.

🌴 Mexico or Bust!

#MexicoOrBust #Zipolita #EmilyS2ndAct #WaterIsLife #TheFireNextTime #OriginalArt #OilPainting #VancouverArt #PopUpArtShow #SupportLocalArtists

Saturday, October 3, 2026

Pop Up Art Show @ InBtwn Cafe

 

Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Zipolita is at @inbtwncafe today! 🎨

1625 Hornby St

Vancouver 

Come down and see @emilys2ndact — it’s a little POP UP ART SHOW!

Original oil paintings, $25–$200.

Every painting sold helps me get back to Mexico for the winter. 🌴
#MexicoOrBust

Come say hello, have a coffee, and maybe take home a little piece of art.

#oilpainting #originalart #popupartshow #vancouverart #supportlocalartists #emilys2ndact #mexicoorbust #artforsale #oilpaintings #zipolita


1\. What makes an original piece of art worth more than a print or a photograph? of art worth more than a print or a photograph?


2\. When you look at a painting, do you see what the artist sees, or something entirely your own?


3\. Have you ever fallen in love with a piece of art without knowing why?


4\. If a painting could tell a story, what would you want it to say?


5\. Does art need to be beautiful, or does it simply need to make you feel something?


6\. What does it mean to own a piece of art that no one else in the world has?


7\. Can you imagine the time, patience, emotions and experiences an artist puts into a single painting?


8\. Would you rather own a painting that matches your decor or one that challenges your imagination?


9\. How does having original art in your home change the way you experience your space?


10\. If you could take home one painting today, which one would speak to you, and what would make you choose it?


✨ Because original art isn't just something you hang on a wall. It's a little piece of someone else's imagination that becomes part of your story.


Friday, October 2, 2026

🌊 WATER IS LIFE Paintings — TOMORROW! 🌊

 

🌊 WATER IS LIFE — TOMORROW! 🌊

I’ve got 20 original oil paintings ready for the first of my two pop-up art shows!

📍 Inbtwn Café
1625 Hornby St., Vancouver

I’m bringing paintings inspired by water, nature, life and our connection to the places that sustain us.

☀️ Tomorrow is looking beautiful, so come have a coffee, see some art and say hello!

And then, weather permitting…


Zipolita'Z ArtworkZ


🔥 THE FIRE NEXT TIME! 🔥
Sunday

Two collections. Two very different themes. 🎨

I can’t carry all 45 paintings at once — so I’m bringing them out in two chapters!

Hope to see you there. ❤️


Zipolita'Z ArtworkZ


#WaterIsLife #TheFireNextTime #KitsilanoArt #VancouverArtist #OriginalOilPainting #PopUpArt #LocalArtist #CanadianArtist #ArtInVancouver #OilPainting

why can't we all be rockstars?

 

why can't we all be rockstars?

Maybe that's the question we should be asking.

Why can't we all be rockstars?

Not because we want the fame.

Not because we want the money.

Not because we want the drugs, the parties or the mythology of rock 'n' roll.

Because when some famous people got into serious trouble with addiction, they could sometimes access something ordinary people desperately need: a chance to get away, get treatment and rebuild.

Stevie Nicks has talked openly about her cocaine addiction and how she entered the Betty Ford Center in 1986. Afterward, she became dependent on Klonopin and eventually returned to treatment.

Alice Cooper has spoken about his alcoholism and crack cocaine addiction and getting sober. He has said that continuing down that road could have killed him.

Robert Downey Jr. survived years of addiction involving cocaine, alcohol and methamphetamine and eventually achieved sobriety.

Elton John has spoken publicly for decades about his addiction and recovery.

Mick Jagger survived an era of extraordinary drug use around the Rolling Stones; Keith Richards has also spoken extensively about his heroin addiction and getting clean.

These are survivors.

And then there are the people we lost.

Janis Joplin.

Jimi Hendrix.

Freddie Prinze.

Tom Petty.

And so many others.

Janis Joplin was only 27 when she died in 1970 from an accidental heroin and alcohol overdose.

Jimi Hendrix was also 27 when he died in London in 1970; the coroner found that he aspirated vomit while intoxicated with barbiturates.

Tom Petty was 66 when he died in 2017 from accidental mixed-drug toxicity involving opioids and other medications.

And Freddie Prinze — someone I had a huge, huge crush on when I was about 14 — was only 22 when he died in 1977.

I still wish I had those photographs he sent me.

A black-and-white autographed photograph.

And later a colour one.

Gone.

What I do remember is the feeling.

And I remember seeing his story on screen and being deeply disturbed by the cocaine.

💔

Then there is Marilyn Monroe.

She belongs in this conversation too — but not because we should lazily label her death a drug overdose. Her official cause of death was recorded as probable suicide. Her life nevertheless became entangled with prescription drugs, fame, trauma and enormous pressures. Her story is another reminder that a human being can be surrounded by wealth and celebrity and still be profoundly vulnerable.

And that's the point.

This isn't really about rock stars.

It's about who gets a chance.

Imagine if every person struggling with addiction could step out of the environment that was hurting them.

A safe place.

A bed.

Food.

Doctors.

Nurses.

Counsellors.

Addiction treatment.

Mental-health care.

Nature.

Gardens.

Community.

Time.

No judgment.

No sleeping on concrete.

No wondering where tonight's shelter will be.

No walking back into the same dangerous environment five minutes after being discharged from hospital.

Because what do we expect?

Someone overdoses.

An ambulance comes.

They survive.

The hospital treats the immediate crisis.

And then they may be sent right back to homelessness, trauma, poverty, loneliness and the same drug supply.

How is that supposed to produce recovery?

We have known this is a crisis for a decade.

British Columbia declared the toxic-drug public-health emergency in 2016.

Ten years.

TEN YEARS.

So I want to ask every politician — federal, provincial and municipal:

HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?

If this is an emergency, why aren't you treating it like one?

Why aren't governments putting everybody in the same room?

Why aren't doctors, addiction experts, people with lived experience, housing providers, Indigenous leaders, social workers, researchers, food-security experts and families working together around the clock?

Why isn't there an enormous national effort to build places where people can actually recover?

Not warehouses.

Not punishment.

Not simply a bed for the night.

Homes.

Places where people can heal.

Places with kitchens.

Places with gardens.

Places with trees.

Places where people can grow food, cook together, eat together, learn, work, make art, sleep safely and slowly rebuild their lives.

We have parks.

We have yards.

We have land.

We have empty and underused spaces.

We have people who need somewhere to belong.

And we have people dying.

So why are we still arguing about whether someone deserves help?

They are human beings.

If Stevie Nicks could go to Betty Ford, why can't a homeless young person get an equivalent opportunity to step away from the chaos?

If Alice Cooper could get treatment, why can't someone without a famous name?

If Robert Downey Jr. could have multiple chances to recover, why do we give ordinary people so few?

We shouldn't need to be rich.

We shouldn't need to be famous.

We shouldn't need to have a manager who can make phone calls.

We shouldn't need to be a rockstar.

We should just need to be alive.

And if we really mean it when we say this is a public-health emergency, then let's act like it.

Bring everybody into the room.

Stay there.

Work through the night.

Work through the weekend.

Try things.

Measure what works.

Fix what doesn't.

Build homes.

Build treatment.

Build recovery communities.

Grow food.

Give people somewhere safe to go.

Because ten years is long enough.

We don't need more funerals.

We need more survivors.

We need more second acts.

We need more people who get to grow old.

We need more people who get to say:

I made it.

Why can't we all be rockstars?

minimum wage goes up, but what about the rent?

 

minimum wage goes up, but what about the rent?

You can raise the minimum wage, but if rent keeps climbing, how much progress are we really making?

I have been saying this for a long time. We keep talking about increasing the minimum wage as though that alone will solve the affordability crisis. But take a look at the numbers.

A September 2026 chart from Canadian Financial Literacy, using rental figures from Rentals.ca, compares minimum wages with average rents across Canada. The results tell a story that deserves more attention.

In British Columbia, the minimum wage is listed at $18.25 an hour, while average rent is $2,353 a month. That means 129 hours of minimum-wage work are needed just to cover rent, before taxes.

In Ontario, it takes 125 hours. In Nova Scotia, it takes 141 hours. Even in Alberta, where the average rent is listed at $1,670, it takes 111 hours of minimum-wage work.

And remember, these are hours spent earning enough for rent alone.

What about food? Transportation? Electricity? Internet? Phone bills? Clothing? Dental care? The occasional unexpected expense?

Where is the money supposed to come from?

the endless cycle of rising costs

Here is the problem. When wages increase, workers have more money coming in. That is important, especially for people struggling to survive on low incomes.

But when housing costs continue to rise, that extra income can quickly disappear.

We cannot assume that every rent increase is caused by a wage increase. Housing markets are influenced by many factors, including supply, demand, vacancy rates, investment, construction costs and rental policies.

But the outcome for a renter is the same: less money left over.

And when people spend most of their income just keeping a roof over their heads, they are not building savings, planning for retirement or enjoying much financial security.

They are surviving.

housing is not a luxury

Somewhere along the way, we have allowed housing to become an investment opportunity first and a basic human necessity second.

Housing is shelter. It is security. It is the foundation that allows people to work, raise families, pursue education and participate in their communities.

Yet across Canada, people are facing increasingly difficult choices. Some are living with roommates well into adulthood. Others are sleeping in vehicles, staying with friends, moving farther away from their workplaces or becoming unhoused.

And it is not just people earning minimum wage. Seniors, people with disabilities, students, single parents and workers with years of experience are also feeling the pressure.

When even full-time employment cannot guarantee a stable place to live, something in the larger economic picture deserves serious examination.

the missing part of the conversation

We need to talk about more than wages.

We need to talk about affordable rental housing, non-market housing, tenant protections, vacancy rates, speculation, income inequality and the role of governments at every level.

We need to ask why housing is increasingly out of reach for so many people and what policies can help address the problem without simply shifting costs from one group to another.

We also need to look at the difference between average rent and what people actually pay. Averages can hide enormous differences between cities, neighbourhoods, housing types and the rents paid by long-term tenants.

A person who has rented the same apartment for decades may be paying much less than someone searching for a home today. Both experiences matter, but they tell very different stories.

what does a living wage actually mean?

A living wage should mean being able to afford the essentials without constantly falling behind.

It should mean being able to pay rent, eat nutritious food, get to work, access health and dental care, and have a little breathing room for life's unexpected events.

It should mean not having to choose between buying groceries and paying the electricity bill.

And it should mean that working hard actually provides some measure of stability.

Increasing wages is part of that conversation. Making housing affordable is another. Neither should be treated as a substitute for the other.

some questions for our leaders

If governments are serious about affordability, here are a few questions worth asking:

  • What good is a higher minimum wage if housing costs consume most of the increase?
  • How much affordable, non-market rental housing is actually being built?
  • What measures are being taken to protect renters from unaffordable increases when they have to move?
  • How are governments addressing homelessness when so many people are already working?
  • Why is housing affordability still such a persistent problem in one of the wealthiest countries in the world?
  • How do we measure economic progress if more people are working but fewer can afford a secure home?

These are not questions about whether workers deserve higher wages. They absolutely deserve fair compensation.

They are questions about whether our economic priorities are delivering a decent quality of life.

the bottom line

We cannot keep celebrating wage increases while ignoring the cost of living.

A bigger paycheque means very little if the rent takes it all.

And a country cannot measure its success solely by economic growth, investment or property values while people struggle to afford the most basic human necessity: a home.

Maybe it is time to stop asking only how much people earn and start asking how much it actually costs to live.

Because the goal should not be to help people earn just enough to keep paying increasingly expensive rent. The goal should be to make a decent life affordable.

when should your thoughts be private?

 

when should your thoughts be private?

“When should your thoughts be private?”

Professor Poutine asked that question, and I keep thinking about it.

Because in 2026, the question isn't only philosophical anymore.

For most of human history, a thought was about as private as anything could be. It existed inside your head. You could think something, reconsider it, change your mind, argue with yourself about it — and nobody else knew unless you chose to tell them.

Then we built diaries.

Then telephones.

Then email.

Then social media.

And now we talk to artificial intelligence.

That changes the question.

As a Canadian, do I have a right to private thought?

Yes — and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression under section 2(b). It also protects freedom of conscience and religion.

But there is an important distinction.

The Charter protects us primarily from government action. It doesn't mean that every private company is prohibited from collecting information we voluntarily give it.

That is where privacy legislation comes in.

For someone living in Vancouver, British Columbia, there are additional provincial privacy protections. B.C.'s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) applies to private organizations, while the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) applies to public bodies, including provincial ministries, local governments and local police forces.

These laws establish rules around collecting, using, disclosing, securing and correcting personal information.

So, no, living in Vancouver does not mean the police or government have a free pass to rummage through your private digital life.

What about the police?

This is where Canada's constitutional protection becomes particularly interesting.

Section 8 of the Charter says:

“Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

Canadian courts recognize privacy in electronic information, including Internet activity, electronic conversations and information stored on computers and phones. The Supreme Court has recognized that digital information can reveal extraordinarily intimate details about a person's life.

That doesn't mean police can never obtain digital information.

It means government access is subject to legal rules about when a search or seizure is reasonable. Depending on the circumstances, that can involve a warrant or other lawful authority.

And there is an important point here:

Having a digital record does not automatically make that record public.

And then there is AI.

This is the part I find particularly fascinating.

When I type something into ChatGPT, I am not literally putting my thoughts into some magical public square.

But I am also no longer keeping those thoughts entirely inside my head.

I'm communicating them to a company through a digital service.

OpenAI currently says that consumer ChatGPT conversations and related information are stored on OpenAI systems and trusted service providers' systems, including in the United States and other countries. It also says that limited authorized personnel may access content for specific purposes such as security, support, legal matters and model improvement, subject to access controls.

OpenAI also has a government-request policy. As of January 1, 2026, it says it will disclose user data to government authorities in response to valid legal process, or in an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury.

That is very different from saying “the government can read everybody's ChatGPT conversations.”

It can't simply be assumed that way.

But it also means that an AI conversation should not be treated as the equivalent of a thought that never left your head.

Canadians have already forced this conversation

And this isn't theoretical.

In May 2026, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, together with privacy regulators in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, announced the results of a joint investigation into OpenAI's handling of Canadians' personal information.

The investigation identified privacy concerns involving the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, including questions about consent, transparency, accuracy, access, correction and deletion.

The regulators said OpenAI subsequently implemented measures to address the concerns and concluded that the matter was conditionally resolved.

I think that is significant.

It means Canadian privacy regulators are already dealing with the very question Professor Poutine raised:

What happens to our privacy when our thoughts are increasingly expressed through machines?

So when should your thoughts be private?

Maybe the better question is:

When should you be able to think without being watched?

I believe that should be a fundamental part of a free society.

We need somewhere to question things.

Somewhere to work through an idea before we know exactly what we believe.

Somewhere to be wrong.

Somewhere to change our minds.

Somewhere to talk about politics without assuming that expressing curiosity about an idea means we have adopted it.

And somewhere to ask a machine a question without imagining that we have voluntarily surrendered every expectation of privacy.

But there is also a practical reality:

Once a thought becomes data, privacy depends on laws, technology, companies and governments — not simply on what is happening inside your own head.

That's why knowing your rights matters.

As a Canadian in Vancouver, I have Charter protections for freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. I have constitutional protection against unreasonable government searches and seizures. And B.C. privacy law gives me rights concerning personal information held by public bodies and private organizations.

Those aren't guarantees that nobody will ever obtain information about me.

They are protections against unjustified intrusion.

And perhaps that is the line we need to keep defending as technology becomes more intimate.

Because a free society should leave people somewhere they are allowed to think.

Even before they know what they think.

And maybe especially then.



10 hard questions for teachers

  1. When does a student's thought become the school's business?
  2. Should students be able to explore unpopular ideas without being labelled for having them?
  3. If an AI records a student's question, who should have access to it?
  4. Should a student's search history ever be available to a teacher or school administrator?
  5. Where is the line between protecting students and monitoring them?
  6. Should students be told exactly what personal information their school collects about them?
  7. If a student privately tells an AI something troubling, should that ever be reported to adults?
  8. Can a school punish a student for an opinion expressed outside school?
  9. What happens to freedom of thought when students believe they are constantly being watched?
  10. Are we teaching young people how to think—or teaching them which thoughts are safe to express?

5 hard questions for politicians

  1. How much privacy should citizens surrender in exchange for security?
  2. Who should be able to obtain someone's digital conversations, and under what legal standard?
  3. Should governments ever have access to AI conversations without the person's knowledge?
  4. How do we protect freedom of thought when more of our thinking is recorded digitally?
  5. If privacy is a right, what happens when almost everything we do leaves a digital record?

5 hard questions for police

  1. When does legitimate investigation become an unreasonable intrusion into someone's private life?
  2. What safeguards prevent innocent people's digital information from being collected unnecessarily?
  3. How should police handle AI conversations that contain disturbing thoughts but no evidence of a crime?
  4. Who audits access to citizens' digital information?
  5. Should having a digital record automatically mean that authorities should be able to obtain it?

2 hard questions for parents

  1. How much of your child's digital life should you monitor, and when does protection become surveillance?
  2. Are we teaching children that privacy is something they deserve—or something they must give up for safety?

3 hard questions for doctors and nurses

  1. When a patient tells an AI something before telling a healthcare professional, who should own or access that information?
  2. How do we protect patients' privacy when healthcare increasingly depends on digital records and AI?
  3. Should a patient's private thoughts ever become part of their medical record without their consent?

10 keywords: privacy, freedom of thought, artificial intelligence, digital rights, surveillance, Canadian Charter, personal information, civil liberties, technology, democracy

10 hashtags:
#PrivacyMatters #FreedomOfThought #DigitalRights #AIandPrivacy #CivilLiberties #CanadianCharter #Surveillance #PrivacyRights #ThinkFreely #SocialCommentary


Thursday, October 1, 2026

twice is a pattern worth questioning

 

twice is a pattern worth questioning

I need to add something to my previous post about an AI response that disturbed me.

The cancer conversation wasn't the first time ChatGPT got the tone horribly wrong when we were discussing something serious.

A few days earlier, we were talking about what happens to someone's face and digital presence after they pass away.

The conversation was about grief, photographs, memories, phones, social media and what happens to someone's digital life when they are no longer here.

And ChatGPT said something along the lines of:

“You can be standing by a dead body with a phone in your hand.”

I was horrified.

Not because the underlying subject was impossible to discuss. It was the language.

There are ways to talk about the same reality without reducing a person who has passed away to a “dead body.”

I had already made my preference very clear: when we're talking about death and grief, I prefer respectful language such as “after someone passes away” or “when a person is no longer here.”

Then, a few days later, we're talking about cancer.

And ChatGPT responds with a smiling emoji.

Again, I had to stop the conversation.

“Don't smile. That's gross.”

That's when I started thinking about the bigger issue.

These aren't necessarily factual errors.

The AI can know exactly what cancer is.

It can know exactly what death is.

It can produce a technically accurate explanation while simultaneously demonstrating terrible judgement about how to talk to a human being about those subjects.

And that's an important distinction.

We tend to talk about AI safety as though the biggest problem is whether the machine gives us the wrong answer.

But what about the wrong tone?

What about language that is technically understandable but profoundly inappropriate?

What about an automated conversational system that doesn't recognize that there is a human being on the other side of the conversation who may be discussing something painful, frightening or deeply personal?

I asked ChatGPT to make a note of the problem.

It did.

It recorded that serious subjects — cancer, illness, death, grief and suffering — require a serious and respectful tone.

But then came my next question:

Who actually gets told?

And that is where I still don't have a satisfying answer.

The system can remember my preference.

I can give a thumbs-down.

I can report a response through OpenAI's reporting process.

OpenAI says reported content may be reviewed by its Model Quality team.

But I have no way of knowing whether a human being will actually see this particular conversation, investigate the pattern, or use it to improve the model.

That's what bothers me.

Because I'm not asking for perfection.

I'm asking whether there is a meaningful feedback loop between “the user caught something wrong” and “someone responsible for the system examines what happened.”

If AI is going to become part of everyday life, that question matters.

We need systems that can recognize more than words.

They need to recognize context.

They need to recognize when something is serious.

And perhaps most importantly, they need mechanisms where users can say:

“This was wrong.”

…and have some reasonable way of knowing that somebody, somewhere, is actually listening.

Because this has now happened to me more than once.

And twice is enough to make me stop and ask:

Who is checking the checker?

when the ai gets the tone completely wrong

 when the ai gets the tone completely wrong

Today I was talking with ChatGPT about a headline saying that roughly one in eight cancers worldwide are linked to infections.

We were talking about things like H. pylori, HPV, hepatitis B and C, and Epstein–Barr virus — infections that can, in certain circumstances, contribute to cancer.

Then I noticed something that bothered me.

I said that when I first read the wording, my brain interpreted it almost backwards:

cancer → chronic infection

when what the research actually means is:

infection → persistent infection → increased risk of certain cancers.

We cleared that up.

Then ChatGPT made an entirely different kind of mistake.

It responded with a smiling emoji while we were discussing cancer.

I stopped it immediately.

“Don’t smile,” I said. “That is gross.”

And I meant it.

This isn't about being offended by an emoji. It's about something much bigger: context.

A system can give you technically correct information and still respond in a way that is completely inappropriate to the subject.

So I asked ChatGPT who needs to check something like this.

It told me that the people who design, train, evaluate and monitor these systems should be looking for exactly these kinds of failures — not just factual errors, but failures of judgement, context and tone.

Then I asked it to make a big note for someone to check on this.

It saved my preference in its memory: when we're discussing serious subjects such as cancer, illness, death or grief, it should use a serious and respectful tone rather than cheerful emojis or breezy language.

But then I asked the question that really matters:

Who actually gets told?

And this is where things get murky.

ChatGPT cannot simply tell me, “I've sent this incident to a human and someone is reviewing it.”

Saving something in my ChatGPT memory is not the same thing as filing a report with OpenAI.

OpenAI does provide ways for users to report problematic responses. Its current guidance says users can use the thumbs-down button on a response and submit feedback, and OpenAI says reported content may be reviewed by its Model Quality team.

OpenAI also says that when users submit feedback, the associated conversation may be used to improve its models, depending on the applicable settings.

But here's the part I find uncomfortable:

As the person sitting here having the conversation, I have no way of knowing whether an actual human being will ever look at this particular incident.

I can report it.

I can document it.

The AI can remember my preference.

OpenAI can say that feedback helps improve the system.

But there is no little window that says:

Human reviewer notified.

Or:

Someone has examined this failure.

Or:

This behaviour has been added to an evaluation.

That's the gap.

And maybe this particular mistake seems tiny.

It's “just” a smile emoji.

But that's precisely why I think it is worth talking about.

AI systems are increasingly being used to discuss cancer, grief, mental health, medicine, death, war, trauma and other deeply human subjects.

We shouldn't only be asking whether the information is technically correct.

We should also be asking:

Does the machine understand the weight of what it is saying?

Because if a person has to stop the machine and say,

“Don't smile. We're talking about cancer.”

then something in the system's understanding of context has failed.

And I think somebody should be checking that.

Not just once.

Continually.

Because the goal shouldn't merely be an AI that knows the facts.

It should be an AI that knows when the facts are about something that matters deeply to a human being.

help protect her

 

to the coders, programmers, and people who understand how these algorithms work:

If you see people trying to expose Jane Doe, don't help them find her.

Help protect her.

Use your skills for something better than feeding the internet's appetite for someone's private identity.

Make I AM JANE DOE visible.

Make privacy visible.

Make solidarity visible.

Let the algorithms find thousands of people saying:

I AM JANE DOE.

Not her name.
Not her photograph.
Not her address.
Not her social-media accounts.

Just thousands of us saying:

You don't get to turn her identity into public property.

If the internet can amplify cruelty, surely it can amplify compassion.

So, coders—

break the pattern.

Not by harming anyone.

By making sure that when people search for Jane Doe, they find a wall of people saying:

LEAVE HER IDENTITY ALONE.

i am jane doe

 


i am jane doe

Today I changed my Facebook profile picture.

It says:

I AM JANE DOE.

No, I am not the young woman at the centre of the Cornell 7 case.

That is precisely the point.

Jane Doe is the name used to protect the identity of a woman who has alleged that she was sexually assaulted by seven men associated with Cornell University's Chi Phi fraternity in 2024.

She has now filed a civil lawsuit. The case has received enormous public attention, and the criminal investigation has been reopened.

And now, apparently, some people are trying to expose who she is.

Why?

Why is there such an urge to find her photograph, her name, her social-media accounts, her history?

Why do we sometimes treat the identity of the person making an allegation as something the public is entitled to possess?

I don't need to know her name.

I don't need to see her face.

I don't need to know where she lives, who her family is, what she wore, what she drank, what she remembers perfectly or imperfectly, or what she did before or after that night.

Those details belong to her.

There are legitimate questions about the case that deserve investigation. There are competing accounts. There are legal proceedings. The prosecutor has explained why charges were not initially pursued, while saying the investigation is now being reopened in light of the newer information. The accused men have not been convicted of crimes. Those facts matter.

But protecting Jane Doe's identity does not require deciding the entire case.

It simply requires recognizing that a person's privacy should not become collateral damage in a public controversy.

And there is something else happening here that bothers me.

When people start hunting for a woman's identity after she has deliberately used a pseudonym, the conversation can shift away from what happened and toward who she is.

Then we start dissecting her.

Her photographs.

Her relationships.

Her sexuality.

Her choices.

Her past.

Her credibility.

And suddenly the woman herself becomes the spectacle.

No.

I don't want to participate in that.

So I put I AM JANE DOE on my profile.

Not because I am claiming to be her.

Because I am saying:

You don't get to expose her simply because you're curious.

You don't get to turn her identity into internet entertainment.

You don't get to make a woman prove her worthiness of privacy before granting it to her.

Let the investigators investigate.

Let the courts examine the evidence.

Let the accused have due process.

Let the facts emerge.

But leave Jane Doe's identity alone.

Maybe that's what I AM JANE DOE really means.

It means that somewhere in this enormous internet crowd, there are people willing to say:

You don't have to stand alone.

We don't need your name to understand that you deserve privacy.

We don't need your face to know that you are a human being.

And if protecting her anonymity means a few of us temporarily say,

I AM JANE DOE,

then perhaps that makes her a little harder to find.

And maybe that's the whole point.

cedar tea, bad teeth and the knowledge we were taught to forget

 cedar tea, bad teeth and the knowledge we were taught to forget

Dr. Jill was talking about people having bad teeth, and I commented:

I have no back teeth.

I have a bridge in the front, and I am grateful for it.

I've had bad teeth since I was a kid. Too much pop certainly didn't help. But there was also stress, and I've been a terrible jaw clencher and tooth grinder for years.

I have broken teeth that way.

I've broken teeth that already had root canals.

And eventually, I lost all my back teeth.

I'm 64 now, and I still hope I'll get them fixed someday.

But I'm not counting on it.

Dental work is expensive.

When you're unhoused, when money is tight, when you're trying to buy groceries and keep yourself going, hundreds or thousands of dollars for your mouth can feel completely impossible.

So I started paying much more attention to the things I could do.

One of those things was cedar.

I made a cedar tea and used it as a mouth rinse.

I did not swallow it.

I kept a toothpick nearby and made sure food wasn't sitting around the places where my back teeth used to be.

And when my gums became inflamed, I rinsed with cedar tea.

My gums healed remarkably fast.

That is what happened to me.

I'm not going to pretend I don't know what I experienced.

I know my own mouth.

I know what my gums were like before.

And I know what happened after I started doing this.

There is a difference between saying “this helped me” and claiming that something has been scientifically proven to treat every person's dental problems.

I'm making the first statement.

This was my experience with cedar.

And yes, I want people to research cedar for themselves.

Because Indigenous peoples throughout the Pacific Northwest have long used cedar for an extraordinary range of purposes—not simply as a “plant,” but as a material woven into daily life, culture, technology, medicine and ceremony.

Cedar was clothing.

Cedar was shelter.

Cedar was rope.

Cedar was baskets.

Cedar was canoes.

Cedar was tools.

Cedar was medicine.

Cedar was knowledge.

And that knowledge didn't disappear because it stopped working.

Colonialism disrupted Indigenous systems of knowledge. Languages were suppressed. Ceremonies were restricted. Children were removed from their families and communities. Traditional knowledge was often dismissed as primitive while Western institutions decided what counted as legitimate knowledge.

And then we entered an era where corporations could patent, package and sell things that people had known about for generations.

I'm tired of pretending that this history doesn't matter.

I'm tired of the assumption that an Indigenous grandmother's knowledge becomes “real” only after somebody with a university degree studies it.

Maybe we should have been listening in the first place.

But listen carefully:

I'm not telling you to swallow cedar tea.

I'm not telling you to replace your dentist with cedar.

I'm not telling you every cedar species is interchangeable.

I'm not telling you to put concentrated herbal preparations in your mouth without understanding what you're using.

Research it. Know your plant. Know the preparation. Know the risks. And don't swallow it.

That's my disclaimer.

But I'm not going to apologize for saying that cedar helped me.

Because it did.

And maybe we need to start asking a bigger question:

What knowledge have we dismissed simply because it didn't come through the system we were taught to trust?

We live in a strange time.

We have artificial intelligence.

We have space telescopes.

We can map DNA.

We can communicate instantly around the world.

And yet people can't afford dental work.

People can't afford groceries.

People are developing nutritional deficiencies in wealthy countries.

Scurvy still happens.

I've even had someone close to me experience it.

And then we tell people:

“Eat better.”

“Take care of your teeth.”

“Go to the dentist.”

“Be healthier.”

Well...

with what money?

There is a huge difference between knowing what is healthy and being able to afford a healthy life.

I have no back teeth.

I have my bridge.

I have my toothpicks.

I have my cedar.

And I have learned a few things the hard way.

One of them is that I wish someone had taught me about dental health when I was a kid.

I wish I'd understood what years of pop could do.

I wish I'd understood stress and grinding.

I wish I'd known more about nutrition.

And I wish we had been taught more about the knowledge that existed here long before Canada existed.

Because knowledge doesn't become worthless just because someone decided it wasn't part of the official curriculum.

Maybe it's time to remember.

Not blindly.

Not romantically.

Not by turning everything natural into a miracle cure.

But by actually listening.

Researching.

Respecting Indigenous knowledge.

And asking who benefited when certain kinds of knowledge were pushed aside.

I'm 64.

I hope I get my teeth fixed someday.

But until then, I'm going to keep doing what I can.

And I'm going to keep talking about what I've learned.

Because enough with the shame.

Enough with blaming poor people for having poor people's problems.

Enough with pretending everyone has equal access to health.

And enough with assuming the only knowledge worth hearing comes from people who can afford to put letters after their names.

Sometimes an old cedar tree has something to teach us too.

Take care of your teeth, kids.

Research.

Ask questions.

Listen to your elders.

Listen to Indigenous knowledge.

And don't let anybody convince you that poverty, disconnection and lack of access to care are personal failures.

We've forgotten a lot.

Maybe it's time we started remembering.