Getting ready for the Fall Session
The government has anounced that the Legislature will resume on August 25 with a Speech From the Throne, followed by a Budget Speech on September 1. This is an unusually early start to the session and will undoubtedly be a very challenging one as the government seeks to address the current economic situation.
The new session is also an exciting one for us as a ministry as this is the first time that we have been in place when a new Parlaiment has come together. We've been successful in laying a stable ministry foundation over the last two years and are able to move forward with some exciting ministry plans.
We are currently preparing to launch a regularly scheduled devotional meeting for members at their request. In general this will simply be a gathering for those who would like to receive spiritual encouragement and pray together on an ongoing basis. As with everything we do, it will be non-partisan and designed to be supportive and encouraging for those who will come. This comes at the request of several members and represents a major step forward for us.
Our second initiative is in it's infancy but also represents some exciting steps forward. Several members of our core prayer team have developed what we are calling a 'Prayer Tour' of the Legislative Precinct. The vision is to use the points of interest as catalysts to prayer along specific themes. I'm very excited about what they have put together and think it will pay tremendous dividends as we begin to use the ministry tool. Soon, we will be able to invite teams to Victoria to visit the Legislature, go on a prayer tour and spend a day or two with us. Our plans are still in development, but we wanted you to know about what we are doing so that you can make plans to join us at some point in the future.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
NB Paper Apologizes to PM
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the PM taking communion at Romeo Leblanc's funeral. It turns out that the story originally published by the Saint John Telegraph Journal was inaccurate. Here's the story on the apology from the same paper in today's Victoria Times Colonist. Hopefully the apologies will reach the same level of zeal as those who were telling the story the first time around.
A New Brunswick daily newspaper issued a front-page apology Tuesday for a July 8 story that claimed the prime minister pocketed a communion wafer during the state funeral for former governor general Romeo LeBlanc.
The Saint John Telegraph-Journal apologized to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the story which the newspaper said “was inaccurate and should not have been published.”
The story created a national controversy that lasted for several days while Harper was attending a G8 gathering in Italy and preparing to meet the Pope.
“There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now,” said the apology. “The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the prime minister for the harm that this inaccurate story has caused.”
The newspaper also apologized to the two reporters whose bylines appeared above the story.
“Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them,” said the apology.
The story said that a senior Roman Catholic priest had demanded that Harper's office explain what happened to the communion wafer which was handed to the prime minister during the state funeral. The story also described video footage that showed the prime minister taking the wafer, but cut away before Harper was seen consuming it.
A Telegraph-Journal newsroom employee who answered the phone said “no one will be talking” about the issue.
An aide to publisher Jamie Irving said there would be “no comment.”
A New Brunswick daily newspaper issued a front-page apology Tuesday for a July 8 story that claimed the prime minister pocketed a communion wafer during the state funeral for former governor general Romeo LeBlanc.
The Saint John Telegraph-Journal apologized to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the story which the newspaper said “was inaccurate and should not have been published.”
The story created a national controversy that lasted for several days while Harper was attending a G8 gathering in Italy and preparing to meet the Pope.
“There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now,” said the apology. “The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the prime minister for the harm that this inaccurate story has caused.”
The newspaper also apologized to the two reporters whose bylines appeared above the story.
“Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them,” said the apology.
The story said that a senior Roman Catholic priest had demanded that Harper's office explain what happened to the communion wafer which was handed to the prime minister during the state funeral. The story also described video footage that showed the prime minister taking the wafer, but cut away before Harper was seen consuming it.
A Telegraph-Journal newsroom employee who answered the phone said “no one will be talking” about the issue.
An aide to publisher Jamie Irving said there would be “no comment.”
Monday, July 27, 2009
Responding to the Giants - Part 4
David was unique to everyone else in all of Israel, even though most people didn't recognize it. David was the anointed successor to the throne of Israel. He was the person God had chosen to serve, lead and deliver Israel. The interesting thing is that unlike Saul, David walked in humility. The anointing had not gone to his head and so it remained on his life. Because he had been anointed king, David was the only person with the authority and responsibility to deal with Goliath. While he had yet to take his place on the throne, David knew WHO he was and WHAT God had called him to do. It was this confidence in his anointing and subsequent identity that caused him to respond the way he did. David knew that the destiny of the nation was at stake and that God would use him to defeat Goliath.
We can only deal effectively with the giants in our lives, our homes, cities and nation when we are confident in our identity, mission and and anointing. When we are unsure of who we are in Christ and where we stand we become subject to the taunting and intimidation of the giants.
I love David's question to the army and his brothers. "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of God?" David is not being cocky or arrogant. He is speaking with a clear understanding of his identity and his role. His question came from a place of authority. It's no different than what you might say if you came home and found an intruder in your house.
What happens next is fascinating. David is quickly taken to Saul where he makes the same statement. Saul, who is desperate for a soldier does his best to convince his only willing candidate to avoid going to battle. David's response is very revealing. Your servant has been caring for his father's sheep ... It seems to me that the little things are always very important in God's eyes. Doing a good job as a shepherd qualifies you for giant killing. It's because God uses the small things to prepare us for big things.
David's second statement is equally interesting. 'Whenever a lion or bear steals one of the lambs, I go after it with a club, grab it by the jaw and kill it. The Lord has protected me from the lion and the bear and He will help me defeat this uncircumcised Philistine. (paraphrase mine...) David had confidence in God's ability to help him and protect him. Again, God uses the little things to teach us about the big things.
Think about what David said about the lion and the bear. 'I go after it with a club.' I think it's interesting that he doesn't use a sling, spear or bow and arrow. The club requires close contact. After he hits it and rescues the lamb he proceeds to grab the lion or bear by the jaw. For those of you who live in bear country, my advice is 'DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!' Yet, this is part of what qualified him to defeat Goliath. He learned to go to the most vulnerable place of the predator and defeat him there. I think there's a powerful lesson of faith here. The most dangerous place for us is also the most vulnerable place for the enemy because it's where our faith is put to work. I'm convinced that God is more interested in our daring steps in response to His promises than He is in our multiple safety nets designed to ensure that our assets are always protected. It might be that we don't know how to slay giants because we aren't very good at going after the lion and the bear.
We can only deal effectively with the giants in our lives, our homes, cities and nation when we are confident in our identity, mission and and anointing. When we are unsure of who we are in Christ and where we stand we become subject to the taunting and intimidation of the giants.
I love David's question to the army and his brothers. "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of God?" David is not being cocky or arrogant. He is speaking with a clear understanding of his identity and his role. His question came from a place of authority. It's no different than what you might say if you came home and found an intruder in your house.
What happens next is fascinating. David is quickly taken to Saul where he makes the same statement. Saul, who is desperate for a soldier does his best to convince his only willing candidate to avoid going to battle. David's response is very revealing. Your servant has been caring for his father's sheep ... It seems to me that the little things are always very important in God's eyes. Doing a good job as a shepherd qualifies you for giant killing. It's because God uses the small things to prepare us for big things.
David's second statement is equally interesting. 'Whenever a lion or bear steals one of the lambs, I go after it with a club, grab it by the jaw and kill it. The Lord has protected me from the lion and the bear and He will help me defeat this uncircumcised Philistine. (paraphrase mine...) David had confidence in God's ability to help him and protect him. Again, God uses the little things to teach us about the big things.
Think about what David said about the lion and the bear. 'I go after it with a club.' I think it's interesting that he doesn't use a sling, spear or bow and arrow. The club requires close contact. After he hits it and rescues the lamb he proceeds to grab the lion or bear by the jaw. For those of you who live in bear country, my advice is 'DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!' Yet, this is part of what qualified him to defeat Goliath. He learned to go to the most vulnerable place of the predator and defeat him there. I think there's a powerful lesson of faith here. The most dangerous place for us is also the most vulnerable place for the enemy because it's where our faith is put to work. I'm convinced that God is more interested in our daring steps in response to His promises than He is in our multiple safety nets designed to ensure that our assets are always protected. It might be that we don't know how to slay giants because we aren't very good at going after the lion and the bear.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Responding to the Giants - 3
The third person in the scenario is Saul. Saul is the person who should have gone to confront Goliath. He was tallest in the kingdom, he had weapons and armour and in theory should have been a skilled warrior by that time.
Saul in fact had become 'Mr. Dithers'. When the nation needed leadership Saul was nowhere to be found. His only plan to defeat Goliath was to offer his daughter and tax free living to the family of the man who would defeat Goliath. Creative on the one hand, tremendously disappointing on the other. This could have been Saul's greatest moment but Saul had lost 'it' and so it became his undoing.
If you were to flip back a few chapters, you would see the moment Saul lost 'it'. Saul's life is a study in leadership gone wrong. It's a picture of a man called to the top but lacking the character and discipline to stay there. What should have been the begining of a dynasty became a one throne disaster. Saul's problem was pride and independence. Saul would not follow God's instructions or meet his expectations. He did not understand roles and responsibilities. He couldn't figure out where he should be and where he shouldn't be. At the end of the day it cost him the kingdom (position) and more importantly God's presence and power (ore the anointing) in his life.
Saul was anointed as the king of Israel but the anoiniting went to his head and resulted in a train wreck. It's not uncommon today either. When the anointing moves from your heart to your head, a disaster always follows. When the anointing goes to your head, your perspectives change and you begin to function from the place of entitlement and privilege rather than from the place of a servant.
Lost anointing leads to indecisiveness and incompotence and eventually it catches up to you. Saul was so lost in himself that even after 6 weeks of daily challenge from Goliath, he couldn't figure out what to do next.
Pride and independence make it impossible to rise to the challenge of the giants. I've finally begun to understand that the reason God hates our pride and independence is because it comes between Him and us. It also causes us to live at a level far lower than what God intended for us. Jesus said that apart from Him, we can do nothing. I'm not sure how it works for out for you, but I know that every time I do it my way when I know I could do it God's way, a mess always results.
Saul's pride cost him everything. What does yours cost you?
Saul in fact had become 'Mr. Dithers'. When the nation needed leadership Saul was nowhere to be found. His only plan to defeat Goliath was to offer his daughter and tax free living to the family of the man who would defeat Goliath. Creative on the one hand, tremendously disappointing on the other. This could have been Saul's greatest moment but Saul had lost 'it' and so it became his undoing.
If you were to flip back a few chapters, you would see the moment Saul lost 'it'. Saul's life is a study in leadership gone wrong. It's a picture of a man called to the top but lacking the character and discipline to stay there. What should have been the begining of a dynasty became a one throne disaster. Saul's problem was pride and independence. Saul would not follow God's instructions or meet his expectations. He did not understand roles and responsibilities. He couldn't figure out where he should be and where he shouldn't be. At the end of the day it cost him the kingdom (position) and more importantly God's presence and power (ore the anointing) in his life.
Saul was anointed as the king of Israel but the anoiniting went to his head and resulted in a train wreck. It's not uncommon today either. When the anointing moves from your heart to your head, a disaster always follows. When the anointing goes to your head, your perspectives change and you begin to function from the place of entitlement and privilege rather than from the place of a servant.
Lost anointing leads to indecisiveness and incompotence and eventually it catches up to you. Saul was so lost in himself that even after 6 weeks of daily challenge from Goliath, he couldn't figure out what to do next.
Pride and independence make it impossible to rise to the challenge of the giants. I've finally begun to understand that the reason God hates our pride and independence is because it comes between Him and us. It also causes us to live at a level far lower than what God intended for us. Jesus said that apart from Him, we can do nothing. I'm not sure how it works for out for you, but I know that every time I do it my way when I know I could do it God's way, a mess always results.
Saul's pride cost him everything. What does yours cost you?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Responding to the Giants - 2
Any parent will tell you that even though children are raised by the same parents in the same household, they all turn our different. You might want to think that they should all be the same, but they are all unique. There's a great example of that when you consider David and his brothers.
The only reason that David was at the battle front was because his father had sent him to deliver food and supplies for his brothers. Upon his arrival, Goliath is in full roar and David hears the taunt for the first time. David is indignant. He's also stunned at what's happening. He starts to ask questions and find out what's going on. It's at that point that you get a snapshot of the family dynamics at Jesse's house. Eliab is the eldest, David is the youngest. Sibling rivalry is in full swing. Eliab passes judgment on David's motives. "You're just a kid... a pest and 'punk'. Go home and leave this for the men....
That might make sense except for one tiny detail that I have never noticed before...
If you remember back to when Samuel (the prophet) went to Jesse's house to anoint a new king, Eliab was the first one he saw. Samuel thought he must be the guy. He's tall, good looking and strong and yet God said that he had rejected him. It's the familiar verse where God says that man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart. God had seem something in Eliab that caused him to reject him as a potential king. Maybe it was jealousy, a sharp tongue or a quick temper. Maybe it was something else.... The point is that Eliab would not be king because he had disqualified himself.
There are times that the giants intimidate and have their way with us because we have disqualified ourselves from the right to rid ourselves of them. Maybe it's our sin, our attitudes, our judgements or assumptions. Whatever the case, we disqualify ourselves from the promise of victory and deliverance. And so when the giants roar, we retreat to our tents and nothing ever changes.
Qualifying for giant slaying isn't difficult and yet it often remains undone. Qualifying requires repentance that leads to transformation. While we certainly need to repent for the sin that so easily entangles, we also need to repent for our attitudes, perspectives and assumptions about God, ourselves and others. Genuine repentance always leads to transformation. You won't kill the giant before your heart is changed.
The only reason that David was at the battle front was because his father had sent him to deliver food and supplies for his brothers. Upon his arrival, Goliath is in full roar and David hears the taunt for the first time. David is indignant. He's also stunned at what's happening. He starts to ask questions and find out what's going on. It's at that point that you get a snapshot of the family dynamics at Jesse's house. Eliab is the eldest, David is the youngest. Sibling rivalry is in full swing. Eliab passes judgment on David's motives. "You're just a kid... a pest and 'punk'. Go home and leave this for the men....
That might make sense except for one tiny detail that I have never noticed before...
If you remember back to when Samuel (the prophet) went to Jesse's house to anoint a new king, Eliab was the first one he saw. Samuel thought he must be the guy. He's tall, good looking and strong and yet God said that he had rejected him. It's the familiar verse where God says that man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart. God had seem something in Eliab that caused him to reject him as a potential king. Maybe it was jealousy, a sharp tongue or a quick temper. Maybe it was something else.... The point is that Eliab would not be king because he had disqualified himself.
There are times that the giants intimidate and have their way with us because we have disqualified ourselves from the right to rid ourselves of them. Maybe it's our sin, our attitudes, our judgements or assumptions. Whatever the case, we disqualify ourselves from the promise of victory and deliverance. And so when the giants roar, we retreat to our tents and nothing ever changes.
Qualifying for giant slaying isn't difficult and yet it often remains undone. Qualifying requires repentance that leads to transformation. While we certainly need to repent for the sin that so easily entangles, we also need to repent for our attitudes, perspectives and assumptions about God, ourselves and others. Genuine repentance always leads to transformation. You won't kill the giant before your heart is changed.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Responding To The Giants - Part 1
When I think about David and Goliath, I'm usually thinking about David's faith, the battle, the takedown and the ulitmate victory. I love the way the story plays out and it never fails to inspire me to live and dream largely. That said, I've been thinking about something very different lately. I'm convinced that while we don't have literal 10 foot giants challenging us to fight on a daily basis, we all face giants in our lives. They appear as problems, challenges, threats and obstacles in our lives. Sometimes they are financial, physical, emotional or psychological. Like Goliath, they roar and bellow, daring us to engage them in a life and death struggle.
There are 4 different kinds of people in the story of David and Goliath. Each one responded very differently. Consider the army with me. David refers to them as the Armies of God. These were people with a shared heritage, history and tradition. God was central to their culture and society but when faced with a threat, they retreated to their tents in fear. For 40 days the same scene repeated itself. They ran and hid in their tents when Goliath challenged them. You have to wonder why....
I believe that their fear was based on a lack of the knowledge of God. It's not that they were ignorant of their history as much as that they were unaffected by it. God was a part of their past but absent in their present. In the midst of their crisis, they had no confidence in the only One who could save them and were left trusting in their own resources and abilities. It's no wonder that they ran....
I confess that there are times that I run from the giants. Sometimes they intimidate me tremendously. It's in those times that I remind myself that God needs to be in my present as much as He has been in my past. When I take time to remember, when I take time to remind myself, when I take time to feed my spirit with His Word, my faith is rekindled and I am able to face the giants without fear. So can you!
There are 4 different kinds of people in the story of David and Goliath. Each one responded very differently. Consider the army with me. David refers to them as the Armies of God. These were people with a shared heritage, history and tradition. God was central to their culture and society but when faced with a threat, they retreated to their tents in fear. For 40 days the same scene repeated itself. They ran and hid in their tents when Goliath challenged them. You have to wonder why....
I believe that their fear was based on a lack of the knowledge of God. It's not that they were ignorant of their history as much as that they were unaffected by it. God was a part of their past but absent in their present. In the midst of their crisis, they had no confidence in the only One who could save them and were left trusting in their own resources and abilities. It's no wonder that they ran....
I confess that there are times that I run from the giants. Sometimes they intimidate me tremendously. It's in those times that I remind myself that God needs to be in my present as much as He has been in my past. When I take time to remember, when I take time to remind myself, when I take time to feed my spirit with His Word, my faith is rekindled and I am able to face the giants without fear. So can you!
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The PM and The Communion Wafer
There are times when no matter what you do, you do the wrong thing. That's exactly what happened to Prime Minister Harper last weekend. You've really got to feel sorry for the Prime Minister. As you probably know, he attended the funeral for former Govenor General Romeo LeBlanc last weekend. The service was in a Catholic Church and he was appropriately sitting on the front row.
Part of a Catholic funeral includes communion. Normally, people who want to receive communion in a Catholic service get up from their seats and move to the altar area where the host and the wine are administered by the priest. In this particular case, the priest chose to approach the front row and offer communion to those seated there. I think it was a classy way of handling things and applaud the priest's decision.
Here's where things get sticky.... The PM is a protestant which means that he really doesn't qualify to take communion in a Catholic service. His options are as follows:
1. He can cross his arms to indicate that he is not a Catholic and ask for a blessing instead. I've been ordained for almost 25 years and I didn't know that was the appropriate response. It's hardly fair to expect the PM to know that's what he should do. I can only wonder how the theological giants in the media would have reported that response.... PM REFUSES COMMUNION AT FORMER GG's FUNERAL.
2. He can put the wafer in his pocket. It's certainly a better option than crossing his arms, except for the fact that Catholics believe that the host (the wafer) actually becomes the body of Jesus during the service, which makes it holy. Having Jesus close by on a daily basis is something evangelicals believe in, but putting the wafer in your pocket is a bad idea, just in case the Catholics are right on this one....
3. He can take communion. It's probably the best option and the one that he followed, BUT.... only Catholics truly qualify to receive communion in a Catholic setting. The priest who served said that it's probably okay if you do it once in a while, but that it shouldn't become a regular practice. I say that it's lucky for the PM that he's visiting with Pope in a few weeks where he can either confess and get it sorted out or the Pope can set him straight on what the best response might be. Note to His Holiness... if you want to have a bit of fun with our PM, offer him communion and see what he does....
Here's the part of this story that I find really strange. I've done a few funerals over the years and I've never seen anyone video tape the participants to see what they are doing. I guess it's one thing if the funeral is for Michael Jackson (although I confess I couldn't help but think of the hypocrisy of the media and the masses who a week earlier would have mocked him relentlessly...) but we are talking about a State Funeral for the Governor General. This isn't cousin Sally's wedding where you want a shot of the bride's mother smiling, crying, glaring or glowing. Who in their right mind would video tape the serving of communion anyway? More importantly, who would think this was a viable news story that Canadians really wanted to hear about?
Part of a Catholic funeral includes communion. Normally, people who want to receive communion in a Catholic service get up from their seats and move to the altar area where the host and the wine are administered by the priest. In this particular case, the priest chose to approach the front row and offer communion to those seated there. I think it was a classy way of handling things and applaud the priest's decision.
Here's where things get sticky.... The PM is a protestant which means that he really doesn't qualify to take communion in a Catholic service. His options are as follows:
1. He can cross his arms to indicate that he is not a Catholic and ask for a blessing instead. I've been ordained for almost 25 years and I didn't know that was the appropriate response. It's hardly fair to expect the PM to know that's what he should do. I can only wonder how the theological giants in the media would have reported that response.... PM REFUSES COMMUNION AT FORMER GG's FUNERAL.
2. He can put the wafer in his pocket. It's certainly a better option than crossing his arms, except for the fact that Catholics believe that the host (the wafer) actually becomes the body of Jesus during the service, which makes it holy. Having Jesus close by on a daily basis is something evangelicals believe in, but putting the wafer in your pocket is a bad idea, just in case the Catholics are right on this one....
3. He can take communion. It's probably the best option and the one that he followed, BUT.... only Catholics truly qualify to receive communion in a Catholic setting. The priest who served said that it's probably okay if you do it once in a while, but that it shouldn't become a regular practice. I say that it's lucky for the PM that he's visiting with Pope in a few weeks where he can either confess and get it sorted out or the Pope can set him straight on what the best response might be. Note to His Holiness... if you want to have a bit of fun with our PM, offer him communion and see what he does....
Here's the part of this story that I find really strange. I've done a few funerals over the years and I've never seen anyone video tape the participants to see what they are doing. I guess it's one thing if the funeral is for Michael Jackson (although I confess I couldn't help but think of the hypocrisy of the media and the masses who a week earlier would have mocked him relentlessly...) but we are talking about a State Funeral for the Governor General. This isn't cousin Sally's wedding where you want a shot of the bride's mother smiling, crying, glaring or glowing. Who in their right mind would video tape the serving of communion anyway? More importantly, who would think this was a viable news story that Canadians really wanted to hear about?
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Happy Canada Day
Happy Canada Day!
I know it's belated and it's not as though I had forgotten, but I wasn't sure what I would write today until the fireworks show at the Inner Harbour last night. We enjoyed an amazing Canada Day. We used the day to complete some house projects and then enjoyed a wonderful Canada Day dinner party with friends from Africa and Austrailia. It was absolutely incredible. After dinner we went downtown to watch the fireworks with our new friends from Austrailia.
Fireworks are always impressive and last night was no exception. Just as the fireworks were ending the crowd began to sing 'O Canada'. I've never watched the fireworks from that particular spot, so maybe it happens every year, but just to hear people sing our anthem without anyone telling them to do it was tremendously inspiring.
As we sang it together, I just couldn't help but feel a tremendous sense of pride in being a Canadian. We live in an incredible nation. We are a diverse and magnificent people with a strong spirit and quiet confidence. We are the the True North, Strong and Free.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
What a Week!
I am constantly amazed at the way God is working through Leading Influence Ministries and the doors that He continues to open. I’m tempted to say that this is perhaps the most exciting week of ministry that we had since coming to Victoria, but it’s so hard to say that because of the many other things we’ve seen God do through the ministry. I do think it’s safe to say that this week marks a significant coming of age for the ministry and that we are moving into some new and exciting territory.
Monday marked the return of MLA’s to the Legislature for the Swearing in Ceremony for both caucuses. I was privileged to be a guest at both events. It was exciting to see the many that have become friends take the oath of office and begin a 4 year term of service as an MLA. I attended the receptions following each event and found myself being greeted with warm hugs and handshakes and being introduced to new MLA’s as ‘Tim, our chaplain.’ I also met new MLA’s who are already Christians. One told me that when he took the oath, he held his father’s bible. His father was a pastor. I met another member who is a former Youth Pastor and is passionate about his faith. I’m thrilled that God has sent us believers to serve our Province as they serve Him on both sides of the Legislature.
Yesterday, I was invited to attend the Swearing In ceremony for the new Cabinet and Exectutive Council. It was so exciting to see people that we have prayed for and have encouraged in a variety of ways being named to serve in a leadership capacity in our province. Those who have been named will work hard and sacrifice many hours on behalf of the many people who are affected by the ministries they lead. We believe that God has prepared each minister and the staff that surround them to be effective as they serve together. Our role must be to continue to pray for them as they assume new responsibilities.
While I didn't participate or expect that I would, I was reminded again that God has always been interested in leaders. Leaders shape the agenda, direct the nation and set a course for the future. That's why historically, God has surrounded leaders with those who carry His presence to be a source of encouragement and blessing to them. While many strive for political agendas and action, I'm convinced that what matters more is to see our political leaders experience a spiritual transformation that is based on God's love and grace for them.
This was also my first visit to Government House. If you come to Victoria, you really should visit the grounds that are always open to the public. It's a beautiful and peaceful spot. If you ever get the chance to be invited to Government House for a function, you should go. You won't be disappointed.
Thanks for praying for us. You are making a difference as we move forward!
Monday marked the return of MLA’s to the Legislature for the Swearing in Ceremony for both caucuses. I was privileged to be a guest at both events. It was exciting to see the many that have become friends take the oath of office and begin a 4 year term of service as an MLA. I attended the receptions following each event and found myself being greeted with warm hugs and handshakes and being introduced to new MLA’s as ‘Tim, our chaplain.’ I also met new MLA’s who are already Christians. One told me that when he took the oath, he held his father’s bible. His father was a pastor. I met another member who is a former Youth Pastor and is passionate about his faith. I’m thrilled that God has sent us believers to serve our Province as they serve Him on both sides of the Legislature.
Yesterday, I was invited to attend the Swearing In ceremony for the new Cabinet and Exectutive Council. It was so exciting to see people that we have prayed for and have encouraged in a variety of ways being named to serve in a leadership capacity in our province. Those who have been named will work hard and sacrifice many hours on behalf of the many people who are affected by the ministries they lead. We believe that God has prepared each minister and the staff that surround them to be effective as they serve together. Our role must be to continue to pray for them as they assume new responsibilities.
While I didn't participate or expect that I would, I was reminded again that God has always been interested in leaders. Leaders shape the agenda, direct the nation and set a course for the future. That's why historically, God has surrounded leaders with those who carry His presence to be a source of encouragement and blessing to them. While many strive for political agendas and action, I'm convinced that what matters more is to see our political leaders experience a spiritual transformation that is based on God's love and grace for them.
This was also my first visit to Government House. If you come to Victoria, you really should visit the grounds that are always open to the public. It's a beautiful and peaceful spot. If you ever get the chance to be invited to Government House for a function, you should go. You won't be disappointed.
Thanks for praying for us. You are making a difference as we move forward!
Saturday, June 06, 2009
I Can Do All Things ...
One day, a son asks his dad "Daddy, would you like to run a marathon with me?". The father says "yes". And they run their first marathon together.
Another time, the son asks his dad again "Daddy, would you like to run a marathon with me?". The father says "yes son".
One day, the son asks his father " Daddy, would you run the Ironman with me? " The Ironman is the most difficult triathlon ever (4 kms swimming, 180 kms bikin, 42 km running?)
And the dad says "yes". The story looks simple until you watch the following clip. Just amazing…
Another time, the son asks his dad again "Daddy, would you like to run a marathon with me?". The father says "yes son".
One day, the son asks his father " Daddy, would you run the Ironman with me? " The Ironman is the most difficult triathlon ever (4 kms swimming, 180 kms bikin, 42 km running?)
And the dad says "yes". The story looks simple until you watch the following clip. Just amazing…
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Ringing The Bell
My office is in the oldest church building in Victoria. It is a beautiful heritiage building complete with a pipe organ, stained glass, steeple and ... a bell. The bell is orginal to the building. That said, the neighbourhood around the church has changed considerably since the bell was installed. What used to be open spaces, farming and later bus parking lots has become densely populated. In the two years since I've been here 3 condo developments have been completed with 50 M of the building and that doesn't include the 2 more that are only a few years older.
When I arrived this morning, the bell was ringing as a reminder and invitation to those in the area that the mid week morning prayer and communion service was about to begin. The bell is effective, but it is not necessarily melodious. It's sound is not nearly is melodious as the Carillon around the corner or the ferry horn that sounds on entrance to the harbour.
The sound of the bell bounces of the newly constructed building to create something of an 'alarm clock' resonnance. As I gathered my things from the car, I couldn't help but wonder what the people in new condos thought of the ringing bell. As that thought went through my mind, something occurred to me that I think is profound. The first is obvious. This church has been standing for 135 years. When it was built, there wasn't much else here. The Empress, the Crystal Garden and the Legislature didn't even exist on paper when it was established. Emily Carr and her family attended here as did many other Victoria pioneers. In my mind, the church and it's ringing bell have the benefit of being here first and so the bell should continue to ring as often as necessary.
My second thought is that this church serves as a metaphor for our changing world. So much has changed in our world and yet the message and values of the church must remain constant and the ringing of the bell, melodious or otherwise must continue to be heard. The ringing must be an invitation to the discovery or re-discovery of spiritual foundations that never falter or fail, to hope that is eternal and to the promises of love, joy and grace.
When I arrived this morning, the bell was ringing as a reminder and invitation to those in the area that the mid week morning prayer and communion service was about to begin. The bell is effective, but it is not necessarily melodious. It's sound is not nearly is melodious as the Carillon around the corner or the ferry horn that sounds on entrance to the harbour.
The sound of the bell bounces of the newly constructed building to create something of an 'alarm clock' resonnance. As I gathered my things from the car, I couldn't help but wonder what the people in new condos thought of the ringing bell. As that thought went through my mind, something occurred to me that I think is profound. The first is obvious. This church has been standing for 135 years. When it was built, there wasn't much else here. The Empress, the Crystal Garden and the Legislature didn't even exist on paper when it was established. Emily Carr and her family attended here as did many other Victoria pioneers. In my mind, the church and it's ringing bell have the benefit of being here first and so the bell should continue to ring as often as necessary.
My second thought is that this church serves as a metaphor for our changing world. So much has changed in our world and yet the message and values of the church must remain constant and the ringing of the bell, melodious or otherwise must continue to be heard. The ringing must be an invitation to the discovery or re-discovery of spiritual foundations that never falter or fail, to hope that is eternal and to the promises of love, joy and grace.
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Right Place at the Right Time
Just before the last session ended I met an MLA at the bottom of the stairs. He apologized that he wasn’t able to attend our prayer breakfast and then shared that his father had recently passed away. Combined with the normal hectic pace for MLA’s, plus preparing for an election campaign, it wasn’t hard to see that he was tired and in need of some rest and strength. We chatted for a few minutes and I was able to pray for him in the hallway. It was all about being at the right place at the right time.
The recent election has created a new chapter for us as a ministry. We’ve spent the last two years laying a foundation, building relationships, establishing credibility and gaining trust.
Most MLA’s know who we are and have received regular invitations to our events. The daily PrayBC blog posts have caught the attention of support staff on both sides of the House as well.
The security staff understand that they need not be concerned about the devout loiterer in the rotunda or gallery and some have shared their own prayer needs and burdens which I consider a real privilege.
I believe that we are really in the right place at the right time in terms of being able to expand the ministry in some very significant ways. With the next election 4 years away, the atmosphere will be somewhat less partisan than it has been in the last year which will make it easier to bring people together.
Another exciting development is that we are at a place where our relationships are strong enough (particularly after our ministry to candidates during the campaign) that we will be able to move into more ’normal’ types of ministry with small groups, etc, which is something I’m really looking forward to doing.
Can I ask you to pray for us as we move forward. We are charting new territory and every day is an adventure as we move forward towards the fulfillment of what God has put in our hearts.
Thanks for remembering us!
The recent election has created a new chapter for us as a ministry. We’ve spent the last two years laying a foundation, building relationships, establishing credibility and gaining trust.
Most MLA’s know who we are and have received regular invitations to our events. The daily PrayBC blog posts have caught the attention of support staff on both sides of the House as well.
The security staff understand that they need not be concerned about the devout loiterer in the rotunda or gallery and some have shared their own prayer needs and burdens which I consider a real privilege.
I believe that we are really in the right place at the right time in terms of being able to expand the ministry in some very significant ways. With the next election 4 years away, the atmosphere will be somewhat less partisan than it has been in the last year which will make it easier to bring people together.
Another exciting development is that we are at a place where our relationships are strong enough (particularly after our ministry to candidates during the campaign) that we will be able to move into more ’normal’ types of ministry with small groups, etc, which is something I’m really looking forward to doing.
Can I ask you to pray for us as we move forward. We are charting new territory and every day is an adventure as we move forward towards the fulfillment of what God has put in our hearts.
Thanks for remembering us!
Monday, May 04, 2009
Some Political Humour
My mom called me over the weekend to say that it was time to update my blog. I've been pretty busy with PrayBC, but she's right, it's way past time for an update. So.... here's a joke that someone sent me. If your skin is thin, take it with a grain of salt ...
While walking down the street one day a "Member of Parliament" is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter. 'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the MP. 'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?'
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were campaigning.. .. Today you voted.'
While walking down the street one day a "Member of Parliament" is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter. 'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the MP. 'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?'
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were campaigning.. .. Today you voted.'
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Skeletons in the Closet...
The election campaign is showing some interesting signs. On Monday, NDP candidate Ray Lam withdrew from the race after some online racy photos appeared on Facebook. Yesterday, Solicitor General John van Dongen had to surrender his drivers license because of too many speeding tickets and it was discovered that a third candidate, Liberal Jesse McClinton was charged with some serious traffic offenses several years ago.
Depending on your perspective, the indiscretions that have caused this attention for the candidates may be relatively minor and almost 'incidental' or these could be matters that you find beyond the realm of acceptable conduct for candidates for public office. The Opposition is calling for Mr. van Dongen's resignation as Solicitor General this afternoon. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I confess that the temptation to offer my thoughts on what should happen is nearly overwhelming and I've hit the delete button multiple times as I've written this post, but here's what I'd really like to say.
I think we are fascinated by the misdeeds of others. I think that knowing that others have fallen and made poor choices along the way somehow satisfies our own sense of guilt and regret. When their sins are deemed worse than how we may see ours, we are empowered with a sense of self-righteousness that allows us to pass judgement and demand resignation, pennance or withdrawal. It's usually only when our sins are caught in the spotlight that we are driven by a desire for mercy over justice.
I'm reminded of the words of Jesus when he was confronted with the woman caught in adultery. 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...' I think it was probably one of those moments where the silence that followed thundered so loudly that it surpassed the normal chatter of everyday life. It had the intended effect and soon it was just Jesus and the woman standing alone on the street. His response to her was one of grace and direction. 'I don't condemn you either. Go and sin no more.'
I wonder what Jesus might say to the three men who have had their sins exposed to British Columbians over the past week? I wonder what response He might require of them and I wonder what He requires of us.
Depending on your perspective, the indiscretions that have caused this attention for the candidates may be relatively minor and almost 'incidental' or these could be matters that you find beyond the realm of acceptable conduct for candidates for public office. The Opposition is calling for Mr. van Dongen's resignation as Solicitor General this afternoon. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I confess that the temptation to offer my thoughts on what should happen is nearly overwhelming and I've hit the delete button multiple times as I've written this post, but here's what I'd really like to say.
I think we are fascinated by the misdeeds of others. I think that knowing that others have fallen and made poor choices along the way somehow satisfies our own sense of guilt and regret. When their sins are deemed worse than how we may see ours, we are empowered with a sense of self-righteousness that allows us to pass judgement and demand resignation, pennance or withdrawal. It's usually only when our sins are caught in the spotlight that we are driven by a desire for mercy over justice.
I'm reminded of the words of Jesus when he was confronted with the woman caught in adultery. 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...' I think it was probably one of those moments where the silence that followed thundered so loudly that it surpassed the normal chatter of everyday life. It had the intended effect and soon it was just Jesus and the woman standing alone on the street. His response to her was one of grace and direction. 'I don't condemn you either. Go and sin no more.'
I wonder what Jesus might say to the three men who have had their sins exposed to British Columbians over the past week? I wonder what response He might require of them and I wonder what He requires of us.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Prime Minister's Easter Greeting
ListenUp TV received a call from the Prime Minister asking if he could share an Easter Greeting with Canadians. They willingly obliged and I've uploaded it for you here. Many thanks to Richard Long and our friends at the National House of Prayer (NHOP) for this information.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Ready, Set ....
After a session that went longer than some expected that it would, the Legislature recessed today. The Premier will call the election on April 14 and British Columbians will go to the polls on May 12. While every election is important, in light of the current global economic challenges, this election is more important than most.
For most of the past 6 months, we have been working hard to develop a province wide prayer network that we've called PrayBC. The vision is to simply ask God to use the election to accomplish His purposes for our province. We know that prayer is the key that releases God's power on the earth. We also know that as the Church assumes it's appropriate priestly role within our society, God is always eager to respond.
Here's what it looks like and how you can be a part of this exciting opportunity to shape the future of our province:
1. Join our email network. For each day of the campaign, we will send an email to each member of the PrayBC network. The email will contain a specific prayer focus, scripture verse and written prayer. The email will be scheduled to come to your inbox by about 10 AM, or about the same time that most people get a coffee break. You'll be able to pray along with us right at work or wherever you might be. You can join our network by clicking here. For more information on PrayBC watch our promo video.
2. Participate in an event. We have scheduled 4 prayer events for this campaign.
April 14 - Election Campaign Kick Off Prayer Meeting
Sidney Pentecostal Assembly - 7 PM
April 15 - Province Wide Conference Call 7 PM PST
click here to register for this call. Please use 'April 15' in the subject line.
May 3 - Victoria Election Prayer Rally - 7 PM
Church of Our Lord - 626 Blanshard St, Victoria, BC
May 6 - Day Of Prayer and Fasting for the Election - Watch for an outline that will be posted here.
Province Wide Conference Call - 7 PM PST
Click here to register for this call. Please use 'May 6' in the subject line.
3. Share this with as many people as possible. Our goal is for 10,000 people to join our network before the campaign concludes. We need your help to get there. Can we count on you?
For most of the past 6 months, we have been working hard to develop a province wide prayer network that we've called PrayBC. The vision is to simply ask God to use the election to accomplish His purposes for our province. We know that prayer is the key that releases God's power on the earth. We also know that as the Church assumes it's appropriate priestly role within our society, God is always eager to respond.
Here's what it looks like and how you can be a part of this exciting opportunity to shape the future of our province:
1. Join our email network. For each day of the campaign, we will send an email to each member of the PrayBC network. The email will contain a specific prayer focus, scripture verse and written prayer. The email will be scheduled to come to your inbox by about 10 AM, or about the same time that most people get a coffee break. You'll be able to pray along with us right at work or wherever you might be. You can join our network by clicking here. For more information on PrayBC watch our promo video.
2. Participate in an event. We have scheduled 4 prayer events for this campaign.
April 14 - Election Campaign Kick Off Prayer Meeting
Sidney Pentecostal Assembly - 7 PM
April 15 - Province Wide Conference Call 7 PM PST
click here to register for this call. Please use 'April 15' in the subject line.
May 3 - Victoria Election Prayer Rally - 7 PM
Church of Our Lord - 626 Blanshard St, Victoria, BC
May 6 - Day Of Prayer and Fasting for the Election - Watch for an outline that will be posted here.
Province Wide Conference Call - 7 PM PST
Click here to register for this call. Please use 'May 6' in the subject line.
3. Share this with as many people as possible. Our goal is for 10,000 people to join our network before the campaign concludes. We need your help to get there. Can we count on you?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Where is the Church Led Economic Recovery?
Click here for original article
March 20, 2009
By Lorna Dueck CBC News
There was a time when Canadian churches knew how to help you face the worst that economic storms could wreak. In the Great Depression, for example, there were pockets of faith-based activists who launched social change on such a scale that much of it is still with us today.
The 1930s was a period — like today? — when the public expected religious groups to both provide for desperate people and encourage their spirit. At the peak of the Depression, 27 per cent of Canadians and 25 per cent of Americans were out of work.
The strongest example of this probably came out of Atlantic Canada, which was hit hard early in the Depression. The dire poverty, unjust "cod lords," and rock-bottom prices for fish, wood and farm products brought the Catholic church thundering to the rescue with what would become the co-operative movement and the genesis of credit union banking.
Today at the Coady International Institute at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, N.S., you will discover the words of its late founder, Rev. Moses Coady still branding its website with his motivational style: "You are poor enough to want it and smart enough to do it."
This social entrepreneurship, however, wasn't what most expected from clergy at the time, allows Mary Coyle, the current director of the Coady Institute. But it grew out of the Catholic board of governors at St FX who asked Coady to establish an Extension Department fuelled by clerical thoughts on work and the dignity of people.
Birth of a movement
"His idea was to bring people together in schools, study clubs and kitchen meetings and let's do two things: help people understand what's going on and mobilize people to do what they want to do practically," said Coyle.
"There was a study club to start up your own credit union, your own co-operative canning factory for your lobster, how to establish a dairy co-operative, a housing co-operative. Today we'd call them social entrepreneurs."
Coady's visionary book, Masters of Their Own Destiny, summed up his approach: people in poverty have the capacity to be masters of their own lives if they are supported through education and expertise. He leveraged that vision with a little economic help from on high when American industrialist Andrew Carnegie became one of the earliest funders of the study groups. The project is still known as the Antigonish Movement and still trains leaders from around the world on a people-based approach with deep theological underpinnings.
Prairie fire
In Western Canada, Protestants had their own social gospel study groups launched by Alberta's evangelical radio preacher, William "Bible Bill" Aberhart, and his assistant, Ernest Manning. Saskatchwan premier and former Baptist minister T.C. Douglas, the pioneer of medicare. Aberhart's Prophetic Bible Institute found that its soup kitchens needed more nourishment than just a refillable bowl. Their study groups began organizing for political office.
By 1935, preacher Aberhart had become a reluctant premier swept into power with his new Social Credit Party. It would hold office for the next 36 years, one of the astounding feats of Canadian political life.
Meanwhile, next door in Saskatchewan, Baptist preacher Tommy Douglas was taking Christianity into a different form of frenetic activism. He described the church in the early thirties as "dumb as an oyster to the poverty and misery all around" and pushed for fresh interpretations of old faith that organized the unemployed, created job agencies to shovel snow and shipped B.C.'s excess fruit and Ontario's leftover clothes to those in need.
He also launched study groups to train new leaders and inspire hope. And he fought against the tendency of preachers to "get back to nice generalities" so that, eventually, ministers — not of politics but of the cloth — tackled tariffs, grain trading and railway rates.
Douglas would have to resign the pastorate to become Saskatchewan premier and then the first federal leader of the NDP.
Good neighbours
Today in Canada we seem to have built high walls around faith in public life. Canada has secularized social activism and the church is in a long recovery for past sins. Problems at residential schools and sex abuse by small but not insignificant numbers of clergy will likely take a century or so to heal.
Religious fundamentalism is undergoing massive revision at the moment and yet we still we have large numbers of people going to church. In fact, there's anecdotal evidence to suggest there is an increase in the number of Canadians attending church each week, which brings us to wonder how our ubiquitous places of worship may be of help in this economic downtown?
Nationally, church groups are well organized and sophisticated in their approach to asking governments to deal with such important issues as poverty reduction. In May, the Canadian Council of Churches will hold an Ottawa forum on "Faith and a Sustainable Economy." Part of its ongoing concern is the estimated 750,000 children in this country who are "limited by conditions of poverty."
Every preacher I know has brought the issues of this economic meltdown into Sunday sermons but it is not clear at all at this juncture if these spiritual teachings — or the national organizations — are making a difference.
Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning (the son of Ernest, Aberhart's successor as Alberta premier) wonders if faith leadership is not caught up in a bad 2009 rewrite of the Good Samaritan story.
"Today, they leave the guy lying on the road because they're going to a government meeting to find out what to do with improving the Jericho road conditions when in fact the state can't be the good neighbour on social services. People have to do this for themselves. Look after themselves," says Manning, whose life bridges past and present church activism.
He challenges today's church to use spiritual truth to teach that "man will not live by bread, oil or auto parts alone in this economy," but with a resurgence in the relationship with God that will sustain and instruct, particularly when it comes to how-to.
March 20, 2009
By Lorna Dueck CBC News
There was a time when Canadian churches knew how to help you face the worst that economic storms could wreak. In the Great Depression, for example, there were pockets of faith-based activists who launched social change on such a scale that much of it is still with us today.
The 1930s was a period — like today? — when the public expected religious groups to both provide for desperate people and encourage their spirit. At the peak of the Depression, 27 per cent of Canadians and 25 per cent of Americans were out of work.
The strongest example of this probably came out of Atlantic Canada, which was hit hard early in the Depression. The dire poverty, unjust "cod lords," and rock-bottom prices for fish, wood and farm products brought the Catholic church thundering to the rescue with what would become the co-operative movement and the genesis of credit union banking.
Today at the Coady International Institute at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, N.S., you will discover the words of its late founder, Rev. Moses Coady still branding its website with his motivational style: "You are poor enough to want it and smart enough to do it."
This social entrepreneurship, however, wasn't what most expected from clergy at the time, allows Mary Coyle, the current director of the Coady Institute. But it grew out of the Catholic board of governors at St FX who asked Coady to establish an Extension Department fuelled by clerical thoughts on work and the dignity of people.
Birth of a movement
"His idea was to bring people together in schools, study clubs and kitchen meetings and let's do two things: help people understand what's going on and mobilize people to do what they want to do practically," said Coyle.
"There was a study club to start up your own credit union, your own co-operative canning factory for your lobster, how to establish a dairy co-operative, a housing co-operative. Today we'd call them social entrepreneurs."
Coady's visionary book, Masters of Their Own Destiny, summed up his approach: people in poverty have the capacity to be masters of their own lives if they are supported through education and expertise. He leveraged that vision with a little economic help from on high when American industrialist Andrew Carnegie became one of the earliest funders of the study groups. The project is still known as the Antigonish Movement and still trains leaders from around the world on a people-based approach with deep theological underpinnings.
Prairie fire
In Western Canada, Protestants had their own social gospel study groups launched by Alberta's evangelical radio preacher, William "Bible Bill" Aberhart, and his assistant, Ernest Manning. Saskatchwan premier and former Baptist minister T.C. Douglas, the pioneer of medicare. Aberhart's Prophetic Bible Institute found that its soup kitchens needed more nourishment than just a refillable bowl. Their study groups began organizing for political office.
By 1935, preacher Aberhart had become a reluctant premier swept into power with his new Social Credit Party. It would hold office for the next 36 years, one of the astounding feats of Canadian political life.
Meanwhile, next door in Saskatchewan, Baptist preacher Tommy Douglas was taking Christianity into a different form of frenetic activism. He described the church in the early thirties as "dumb as an oyster to the poverty and misery all around" and pushed for fresh interpretations of old faith that organized the unemployed, created job agencies to shovel snow and shipped B.C.'s excess fruit and Ontario's leftover clothes to those in need.
He also launched study groups to train new leaders and inspire hope. And he fought against the tendency of preachers to "get back to nice generalities" so that, eventually, ministers — not of politics but of the cloth — tackled tariffs, grain trading and railway rates.
Douglas would have to resign the pastorate to become Saskatchewan premier and then the first federal leader of the NDP.
Good neighbours
Today in Canada we seem to have built high walls around faith in public life. Canada has secularized social activism and the church is in a long recovery for past sins. Problems at residential schools and sex abuse by small but not insignificant numbers of clergy will likely take a century or so to heal.
Religious fundamentalism is undergoing massive revision at the moment and yet we still we have large numbers of people going to church. In fact, there's anecdotal evidence to suggest there is an increase in the number of Canadians attending church each week, which brings us to wonder how our ubiquitous places of worship may be of help in this economic downtown?
Nationally, church groups are well organized and sophisticated in their approach to asking governments to deal with such important issues as poverty reduction. In May, the Canadian Council of Churches will hold an Ottawa forum on "Faith and a Sustainable Economy." Part of its ongoing concern is the estimated 750,000 children in this country who are "limited by conditions of poverty."
Every preacher I know has brought the issues of this economic meltdown into Sunday sermons but it is not clear at all at this juncture if these spiritual teachings — or the national organizations — are making a difference.
Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning (the son of Ernest, Aberhart's successor as Alberta premier) wonders if faith leadership is not caught up in a bad 2009 rewrite of the Good Samaritan story.
"Today, they leave the guy lying on the road because they're going to a government meeting to find out what to do with improving the Jericho road conditions when in fact the state can't be the good neighbour on social services. People have to do this for themselves. Look after themselves," says Manning, whose life bridges past and present church activism.
He challenges today's church to use spiritual truth to teach that "man will not live by bread, oil or auto parts alone in this economy," but with a resurgence in the relationship with God that will sustain and instruct, particularly when it comes to how-to.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Corky Evans' Last Speech In The Legislature
This is a copy of Corky Evans last speech in the Legislature. I wasn't able to be there, but would have changed my schedule had I known. Corky Evans is an amazing man in my mind. Politics aside, he's someone who really cares about his constituents and our province. He also really believes in the process of debate and speaks about the importance of what happens in the Legislature regularly. I think he's the kind of guy who could give a speech of the back of a pickup truck to 25 loggers and speak their language and capture their hearts. I can't help but admire his humility in admitting his failures and respect the advice he shares with incoming MLA's. I'm sorry to see him go.
I’m pleased to rise to speak on the budget for the year 2009. In truth, though, that’s really only a context, sort of a procedural rationale, to allow me to speak on the eve of leaving this place in the spring of this year.
I want to start by saying it has been a great honour to serve. I want to thank the New Democrats of Nelson-Creston for being brave enough to nominate me 23 years ago. I know it was then a great leap of faith on their part to think they might make me into a credible MLA, and I’d like to thank the citizens of Nelson-Creston for sending me here on three occasions over two decades.
I want to thank all the wonderful people who taught me to do this work, starting with Anne Fraser-Mall, who had the tough job of trying to make me look credible; then Lone Jones, Christine Hunt, Jane Hertig, Ken MacLaren, Pradik Moda and on and on; and most recently, Lucy Mears. To list all the good people I was lucky enough to share this work with would take over an hour.
Lastly, I’d like to say that for every moment of the time I did this job, I did it as partner with my co-worker and friend, Sandy Korman. It is a truism of this job that somebody gets the credit, somebody’s name is in the newspapers and on all those lawn signs every time there’s an election, but that person is rarely responsible for whatever it is that they are credited with having achieved. In my case, none of what I might have achieved was done by me; it was all done by the great collective us.
I also want to thank my neighbours at home, who looked after me for the last 20 years when I was mostly unable to look after myself, and my family, who put up with this particular career choice and all that it has meant for all of us.
I want to thank the people who make this building and this job happen here at the Legislature — the folks who feed us, those who sustain the building and the men and women who manage to provide security and yet a welcoming ambiance at the same time. Almost nobody in the world gets to work every day in such a beautiful place as those of us who work here. Thank you to all of you who make it possible.
I made my first speech in this room on March 25, 1992. In that speech I tried to explain some of the raison d’être for my seeking office and some of the things I hoped to achieve here. I reread that speech recently to try and figure out what had worked and what hadn’t.
My rationale for running, as described in that presentation, pretty much came down to an argument for local control and against the idea of centralized decision-making. I thought then and, as a matter of fact, I still think that we run this province pretty much on a colonial model and that my time here ought to concentrate on trying to find ways to devolve power away from the Legislature or to share power with the people who live in the regions.
There was a bit of a list of objectives in that speech too. In the 1980s life was pretty tough in the Kootenays, and we had some serious issues to resolve. The Columbia River Treaty topped that list of issues. The elders who sent me here asked for some form of recompense to deal with their sense of plunder that the treaty had visited on our people and our land. Plunder of the region was really the theme of that speech.
I suggested that we might resolve our land use disputes with a comprehensive land use plan; replace the Kootenay School of the Arts, which had been closed by previous government; stop the slow death of the orchard industry and try to learn to feed ourselves again; save the railroads and keep our highways from becoming subsidized industrial corridors; and try to bring an end to the parochial abuse of both our people and our land that the mountains had hidden for so long.
Some of that has actually come to pass. We rebuilt the Kootenay School of the Arts. We funded women’s centres. We doubled the parks system. We invented a partnership with the Crown to share the resource wealth of the great Columbia River, called the Columbia Basin Trust.
Then we took that partnership model, applied it to forest stewardship and created community forests in Revelstoke, Harrop, Creston, Kaslo and most recently Slocan and Nakusp — all of it in an attempt to invent a decentralized decision-making and marketing and wealth-generating model to replace the colonial style of management from here.
Selling the idea of decentralization and local control has not always been easy, regardless of who governed. I remember once when we governed and some of us were trying to convince the cabinet of the day to accept the idea that later became the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation.
I was in an argument with the minister of the Crown who did not, at the time, support the concept, and I asked the minister why she stood in the way. She answered: “Because, Corky, we differ on our understanding of the nature of this job, you and I. I think” — said the minister — “we were sent here to govern, and you think, on the other hand, that we were sent here to devolve governance.” That minister’s analysis was right on. That is what I thought, and 14 years later, leaving, that is what I still think.
In those days the notion of local control was just an experimental construct. It was untried and distrusted by both the capitalist right and the socialist left. Capitalists didn’t like it because it flew in the face of their idea of efficiency. They said: “Obviously, it is more efficient to manage everything from one office and one staff and one minister than to try to replicate management around the province.”
Socialists didn’t like it because the idea of the Crown, to them, was the way to ensure that all resources were always used to benefit the greatest good for the greatest number. They argued: “Who are some local people somewhere to say what happens to the wealth of the people?”
Now, though, the idea of local control and management of resources can no longer be said to constitute an experiment or a risk. Here’s the part I’m most proud of. Now we can say that it works.
It works not just from the standpoint of making healthy and sustainable decisions about land and water. It works from an economic and wealth generation point of view too. This is what the present government — the people who designed the present budget that ostensibly, at least, we are here to debate — have yet to learn.
Let me give you some examples. The government desires to create new electrical power for the province. That’s a good idea, and it has pretty much always been a good idea. So who is it that has produced the most green, utterly defensible and controversy-free electric power in the province over the last ten years?
Well, it’s the Columbia Power Corporation. That partnership between the Crown and local people that is Columbia Power has built the Keenleyside power plant on time and on budget, rebuilt the Brilliant dam and power project on time and on budget, and are about to start the Waneta project — and in every case produced union jobs, community stability, wealth and green electricity without flooding a single acre of land.
In forestry, too, it has been proven to work. Something like 21,000 people have been laid off in logging and sawmilling in British Columbia in the last two years, and mills keep closing that may never reopen again.
We in the Kootenays, of course, are having our troubles too, but in my constituency when I came here, we started out 15 years ago with seven sawmills. After reductions to the allowable cut in the interest of sustainability, after doubling the parks system from 6 percent to 13 percent of the land base and after making five community forests in the area, we still have today seven sawmills running in Nelson-Creston.
Why is that? I submit that it is, at least in part, because we have not fallen victim to the absolutely deregulated “Let ‘em go do anything they want” crazy analysis behind the consolidation agenda of the present government. We have maintained a large degree of local ownership and free enterprise competition for logs, and we do not have monopoly control by anybody over our land base.
My thoughts on how we organize an economy and the risks of allowing monopoly capital in any region are not new. In 1948, the year I was born, Tommy Douglas said: “Political freedom by itself can mean being free to go hungry and without a job.” He said: “It can mean being free to produce commodities below the cost of production. Until we add economic freedom to the political freedom we already have, we will never be entirely free as men and women.”
He said: “Whenever the principal assets of our country are in the hands of monopolies and cartels, we believe that they should be owned by the people themselves. We believe that when any economic activity controls the life of a people, it should be owned by the people.”
I think that what Tommy Douglas was talking about is a philosophy that we call social democracy, which was first explained to me by my friend and mentor, log truck driver Bob Cunningham.
Bob explained to me that capitalism was simply the very best way ever invented to make sure that people could find work and feed themselves and eat and trade goods back and forth and better themselves, and that he, a socialist — a democratic socialist — was just fine with that. The trouble, he said, was that capitalism is also a disease which, like cancer, can get out of control and multiply exponentially within the host and kill the very body that it lives within — in our case, the body politic, our society.
Social democracy, according to Bob, was the medicine that was required to make capitalism work without allowing it to get out of control. While I’m pretty happy with some of the things we have managed to achieve at home, boy, have we ever allowed the cancer to get out of control here in British Columbia.
There are special words that we need to describe this kind of capitalism gone crazy that we see today, special words that some of us never even heard before. I was talking to a rancher the other day, and he used the word “oligopoly” to describe the meat-processing industry and the centralization of control that has happened in that industry during the time of the present government. Oligopoly is not a word any of us heard growing up. I first learned that word in correspondence from the manager of a logging company, talking about the consolidation and centralization of control that has happened in his industry, too, in this century, the time of the present government.
The Liberal mindset in British Columbia has pretty well destroyed the old idea of free enterprise in B.C. It replaced free enterprise with monopolies and oligopolies and corporate strangleholds on wealth and land and communities in just about every sector you can name.
We have over the course of the last few years centralized the distribution of food to the point that producers cannot even get the product into the grocery store in the very town in which they live.
We created a corporate computer system that encourages transnational mining companies to buy up the mineral rights that used to go to British Columbia prospectors — who did real, physical work — and to buy those rights without even leaving their office in New York or Bonn or Tokyo.
We have destroyed the independent fishing industry, where men and women for decades thought of themselves as the last real economic adventurers, and replaced their right to fish with corporate armchair fishermen who never go on the water and rent out their licences like land barons of old used to use sharecroppers to farm their land.
I cannot think of a single land-based industry that the Liberals have not managed to turn into some kind of fiefdom. I grant you that this has been an accomplishment without the overt bloodshed that we saw when the same thing happened in Scotland with the clearances, but the outcome is the same and the out-migration is the same, and it will result in the same kind of control. The oligopolies will be the new London rich, running the land on which the people used to farm, fish, run sheep and log.
How in the world did we get into this mess? How did we take this province that we built and ran for a hundred years and turn it into somebody’s fiefdom? Why did our present government think it would be a really good idea to wipe out good, old, independent, competitive free enterprise–type businesses and replace them with monopolies?
Well, you can name the beginning of this kind of thinking anywhere you want. You could just say it started with Maggie Thatcher or the University of Chicago. I like to trace it back to 1989 and the dismantling of the Soviet empire and the fall of the Berlin Wall. When the Berlin Wall came down, instead of celebrating the end of the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, the whole world seemed to come to the wrong-headed conclusion that the market had defeated the centrally planned economy, and now the market was god and could do no wrong.
The new temples of this religion would be built in the name of the new god, and they would be called think tanks. Governments were then considered an impediment to the sanctity of the market, and the top ten economies of the world that used to be countries became private corporations.
Here in British Columbia the free enterprise party, called Social Credit, would die, and the globalist party, the Liberals, would get itself born. Direction would come down to that government like stone tablets from the temple called the Fraser Institute. The people’s work in this building and in this room would become a sideshow.
I don’t think this Legislature is a sideshow. I know I’m a bit of an anachronism in this regard. I know it’s been popular in Canada for the last 25 years or so for politicians, even, to denigrate politics and public service and legislatures and legal and regulatory measures intended to limit excess, and even to denigrate the public service.
All of us in this room, on both sides, have been living through a time when we learned to call the employees of the Crown by the pejorative term “bureaucrats” in order to dehumanize them and strip their work of the honour and dignity and pride that used to accompany managing this land and human well-being. It reminds me of when the American people learned to call the Vietnamese people gooks in order to justify making war in their country.
In short, it has become hip to belittle the idea of the Crown and the function of this place to generate discourse or to resolve issues. One minister that we all know has even been known to suggest that politicians have better things to do than to serve the people in public, on the record and in this room. I despise this trend, and I would like to see it end now.
I think that government has to exist. I think that government has to raise taxes to do the people’s work and use those taxes to buy civilization. I think parliament has to exist and even meet and use the public record as a way to express alternative ideas about what that civilization should look like and how it should function.
I think there has to be a free press and not a monopoly press. The people who own that press actually have to employ people to report what happens here and to tell the story to whomever wishes to know.
None of this would happen if it wasn’t for this place and if it wasn’t for two sides — or maybe three or six, which I happen to think might be better yet — working here. This present government has for years operated on the view that government is a wasteful indulgence and that capitalism can manage anything better than the people can do it for themselves.
Where I live, the Crown used to plow the snow. Remember that? Now a company does it for profit. We used to run our own ferries here in British Columbia. We owned and sailed more ships than the Canadian navy. Now a company we don’t understand runs them, and companies we don’t know build them in Germany. Governments here for decades managed forests and built roads, and they created electricity. Now all or most of that is done by corporations.
This whole idea that governance is better done by corporations than by the state reminds me of the concept of the invisible hand popularized by Adam Smith centuries ago. Only in its modern iteration, the intellectual construct of Adam Smith has taken on a kind of mythological power — some would say the status of a god — in that the hand is assumed to exist and yet cannot be seen and therefore cannot be questioned.
I would agree that in the relatively esoteric world of finance or in the utterly practical world of land-based business like logging and farming, mining or fishing, private interests are the appropriate interests to manage and to profit from the enterprise. That’s why Bob Cunningham said that capitalism is the best way to make jobs and money.
British Columbia, however, is neither invisible, nor is it an enterprise. Adam Smith used the excellent metaphor of the pin factory to prove his thesis. British Columbia is not a pin factory or some kind of human creation. It is a land mass bigger than Oregon and Washington and California put together, and it belongs to the people.
It belongs more to its citizens in the utterly practical sense of land-ownership than any Canadian province or American state. It is our patrimony, passed on to us by the previous generations of good people working in this room who chose, unlike almost every other jurisdiction in the world, not to capitalize their society by selling the land or the water or the ore or the coal or the trees or the fish. In the simplest sense, it’s the people’s farm, and it takes real, practical, visible human hands to manage and sustain, not the invisible and mythical ones provided by some marketplace in the sky.
I submit that we who work here are the caretakers of the most publicly owned land mass of any democracy anywhere on earth. That makes the people in this room more capable of public good and more capable of failure than our counterparts almost anywhere.
So where are we in the world in history? The speculators out there and the greed specialists have pretty well killed the golden goose, eh? And the transnationals are lined up at the gate to suckle at the public breast. Wow. That worked really well, didn’t it?
The great experiment in replacing government with deregulated and unfettered capitalism has failed all over the world. And here, in this budget, the people are running out of bread, but on the eve of the Olympics we are being reminded to look forward to the circus.
The failures of the Fraser Institute faith are legion, but I’m sorry to say they are not alone in failure. I, too, on this side have failed to achieve a good many of the objectives that I set forward for myself in this place, and it would be unfair of me to suggest that only Liberals are capable of failure.
I’ve been pretty hard on this administration in this, my last speech in this place, but it would be stupidity if those of us on this side made the mistake of imagining that we, in our turn, have not been capable of failure. Way back in that first speech 17 years ago I said I wanted to put ranger stations back into Lardeau and Kaslo and New Denver so the communities could know the forest workers and the forest workers could manage the land that they lived inside of. I failed in that endeavour, and we, too, became enamoured of centralized government and moving the workers to some cities.
As Minister of Highways I personally laid off 400 surveyors that used to work for the people to measure their progress, and that was wrong. As Minister of Agriculture I supervised the closure of offices in farming communities and further alienated government from the people, and that was wrong.
I failed as Minister of Highways to turn the ministry of blacktop into a real Ministry of Transportation, with concern for railroads and water transportation and the issues of public policy that matter still to my constituents. I failed, too, to sustain the wild fishery and personally held the fishery portfolio while the federal Liberals privatized our cherished common property resource.
I failed, except on one occasion, to have the people’s equity listed in the budget documents alongside the people’s debt. I failed, in spite of asking for years, to convince any government on either side to end the idiocy of using gross domestic product as the measurement of our well-being. And in what I think must have been my greatest personal failure, I have not managed ever to make food and farming a part of the political or electoral discourse in British Columbia. Under all governments, we remain last in Canada in support for food production.
What those failures — and actually so many others — suggest, of course, is that some of the stuff we do here works and some of it doesn’t. We are, on both sides, after all, just people. We work in a really pretty place and do work that to me is almost sacred, but we remain just people in really nice clothes.
And nothing is over, hon. Speaker. The stuff that we haven’t done yet, or haven’t done well, is just the work that falls to the next generation of leadership. There will be an election in a couple of months. A whole new group of MLAs, I hope, will work here, joined, I hope, by a younger generation. I have just a little bit of advice for that new group of MLAs.
(1) When you get here, love the building and respect the people who work here, regardless of their station or their beliefs. You came here to argue your ideas and for your constituents, not to assume that you are more right or more important than anybody else.
(2) Refuse flat out to make decisions about land you haven’t seen or communities you haven’t visited. Go there, and then decide.
(3) Sorry, fellas. Refuse to say words that are not your own. You are not an actor; an election is not a screen test. You wouldn’t let anybody else put you in a box, so don’t do it to yourself.
(4) Respect the other side. This place doesn’t work when there is only one point of view. We found that out from 2001 to 2005. If the other team didn’t exist, we would have to split in half and send a faction over there just to have somebody to bounce our ideas off.
(5) Find another way to measure the success or failure of the governments that work here in future than gross domestic product. That measurement belongs to an era that needs to be finished now for the sake of the earth.
(6) Listen up. What you cannot fix, leave alone. If you sell it or give it away, you foreclose the options of future generations.
I said all this because I think my generation’s idea — our very idea of leadership —needs to end right now. We thought, pretty much since World War II, that we could define our success and our failure by measurements of growth. We built a system to make ourselves comfortable by threatening the planet of our grandchildren. When new people come to work here, blame us old folks if you need a scapegoat. Ignore us if you can. Pretend that we just didn’t know any better.
You new people working here, on the other hand — those who work here after May 12…. They can’t help but know. The whole world knows now.
That generation will be the leadership elected into the moment of economic and environmental collapse. They will be the first generation of leadership elected with a mandate to change everything, because no party in these times would be so foolish as to try to run for office suggesting that they will maintain the disaster of the present status quo.
Here’s the good news about change. I think it’s happening already. Intellectually, you can read the demands for change in the pages of The Economist magazine and even in the speeches of the world’s super-elite in Davos, Switzerland, asking for re-regulation to save capitalism by limiting its capacity for excess.
Personally, I feel it happening inside myself. I was driving through Oliver a few weeks ago with a 45-gallon drum of fertilizer in the back of my truck, and I turned on the radio to hear the inauguration of the new President of the United States. Aretha Franklin started singing, and I found that I couldn’t drive. I couldn’t drive because I couldn’t see the road through my tears. When Aretha finished singing, I got back on to the road, and I made it as far as Osoyoos. Then the new President of the United States began to speak.
I hid my face and my pickup truck in an alley behind the laundromat, and I sobbed for 17 minutes. Now, I’m 61 years old, and I’m a guy, and for a little while longer I’m an MLA. And we old MLA guys don’t hide in parking lots and sob in our pickup trucks. I kept thinking: “Why is this happening to me?”
The answer I came up with was simply this. We made it. We, my generation, the generation who watched the Berlin Wall come down and celebrated and then watched the whole world lose its collective mind and despaired, had maybe made it to the end of that terrible, shortsighted, speculator-driven, utterly selfish and self-serving pendulum swing.
Maybe now Bob Cunningham’s medicine might have a chance to save my grandchildren Madeline and Dawson and Sydney’s planet and invoke the economic freedom that Tommy Douglas so desired. Maybe that meant I could go home now.
I beg you, those of you who remain and those of you who watch and those of you who care: don’t let this moment pass you by.
I’m pleased to rise to speak on the budget for the year 2009. In truth, though, that’s really only a context, sort of a procedural rationale, to allow me to speak on the eve of leaving this place in the spring of this year.
I want to start by saying it has been a great honour to serve. I want to thank the New Democrats of Nelson-Creston for being brave enough to nominate me 23 years ago. I know it was then a great leap of faith on their part to think they might make me into a credible MLA, and I’d like to thank the citizens of Nelson-Creston for sending me here on three occasions over two decades.
I want to thank all the wonderful people who taught me to do this work, starting with Anne Fraser-Mall, who had the tough job of trying to make me look credible; then Lone Jones, Christine Hunt, Jane Hertig, Ken MacLaren, Pradik Moda and on and on; and most recently, Lucy Mears. To list all the good people I was lucky enough to share this work with would take over an hour.
Lastly, I’d like to say that for every moment of the time I did this job, I did it as partner with my co-worker and friend, Sandy Korman. It is a truism of this job that somebody gets the credit, somebody’s name is in the newspapers and on all those lawn signs every time there’s an election, but that person is rarely responsible for whatever it is that they are credited with having achieved. In my case, none of what I might have achieved was done by me; it was all done by the great collective us.
I also want to thank my neighbours at home, who looked after me for the last 20 years when I was mostly unable to look after myself, and my family, who put up with this particular career choice and all that it has meant for all of us.
I want to thank the people who make this building and this job happen here at the Legislature — the folks who feed us, those who sustain the building and the men and women who manage to provide security and yet a welcoming ambiance at the same time. Almost nobody in the world gets to work every day in such a beautiful place as those of us who work here. Thank you to all of you who make it possible.
I made my first speech in this room on March 25, 1992. In that speech I tried to explain some of the raison d’être for my seeking office and some of the things I hoped to achieve here. I reread that speech recently to try and figure out what had worked and what hadn’t.
My rationale for running, as described in that presentation, pretty much came down to an argument for local control and against the idea of centralized decision-making. I thought then and, as a matter of fact, I still think that we run this province pretty much on a colonial model and that my time here ought to concentrate on trying to find ways to devolve power away from the Legislature or to share power with the people who live in the regions.
There was a bit of a list of objectives in that speech too. In the 1980s life was pretty tough in the Kootenays, and we had some serious issues to resolve. The Columbia River Treaty topped that list of issues. The elders who sent me here asked for some form of recompense to deal with their sense of plunder that the treaty had visited on our people and our land. Plunder of the region was really the theme of that speech.
I suggested that we might resolve our land use disputes with a comprehensive land use plan; replace the Kootenay School of the Arts, which had been closed by previous government; stop the slow death of the orchard industry and try to learn to feed ourselves again; save the railroads and keep our highways from becoming subsidized industrial corridors; and try to bring an end to the parochial abuse of both our people and our land that the mountains had hidden for so long.
Some of that has actually come to pass. We rebuilt the Kootenay School of the Arts. We funded women’s centres. We doubled the parks system. We invented a partnership with the Crown to share the resource wealth of the great Columbia River, called the Columbia Basin Trust.
Then we took that partnership model, applied it to forest stewardship and created community forests in Revelstoke, Harrop, Creston, Kaslo and most recently Slocan and Nakusp — all of it in an attempt to invent a decentralized decision-making and marketing and wealth-generating model to replace the colonial style of management from here.
Selling the idea of decentralization and local control has not always been easy, regardless of who governed. I remember once when we governed and some of us were trying to convince the cabinet of the day to accept the idea that later became the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation.
I was in an argument with the minister of the Crown who did not, at the time, support the concept, and I asked the minister why she stood in the way. She answered: “Because, Corky, we differ on our understanding of the nature of this job, you and I. I think” — said the minister — “we were sent here to govern, and you think, on the other hand, that we were sent here to devolve governance.” That minister’s analysis was right on. That is what I thought, and 14 years later, leaving, that is what I still think.
In those days the notion of local control was just an experimental construct. It was untried and distrusted by both the capitalist right and the socialist left. Capitalists didn’t like it because it flew in the face of their idea of efficiency. They said: “Obviously, it is more efficient to manage everything from one office and one staff and one minister than to try to replicate management around the province.”
Socialists didn’t like it because the idea of the Crown, to them, was the way to ensure that all resources were always used to benefit the greatest good for the greatest number. They argued: “Who are some local people somewhere to say what happens to the wealth of the people?”
Now, though, the idea of local control and management of resources can no longer be said to constitute an experiment or a risk. Here’s the part I’m most proud of. Now we can say that it works.
It works not just from the standpoint of making healthy and sustainable decisions about land and water. It works from an economic and wealth generation point of view too. This is what the present government — the people who designed the present budget that ostensibly, at least, we are here to debate — have yet to learn.
Let me give you some examples. The government desires to create new electrical power for the province. That’s a good idea, and it has pretty much always been a good idea. So who is it that has produced the most green, utterly defensible and controversy-free electric power in the province over the last ten years?
Well, it’s the Columbia Power Corporation. That partnership between the Crown and local people that is Columbia Power has built the Keenleyside power plant on time and on budget, rebuilt the Brilliant dam and power project on time and on budget, and are about to start the Waneta project — and in every case produced union jobs, community stability, wealth and green electricity without flooding a single acre of land.
In forestry, too, it has been proven to work. Something like 21,000 people have been laid off in logging and sawmilling in British Columbia in the last two years, and mills keep closing that may never reopen again.
We in the Kootenays, of course, are having our troubles too, but in my constituency when I came here, we started out 15 years ago with seven sawmills. After reductions to the allowable cut in the interest of sustainability, after doubling the parks system from 6 percent to 13 percent of the land base and after making five community forests in the area, we still have today seven sawmills running in Nelson-Creston.
Why is that? I submit that it is, at least in part, because we have not fallen victim to the absolutely deregulated “Let ‘em go do anything they want” crazy analysis behind the consolidation agenda of the present government. We have maintained a large degree of local ownership and free enterprise competition for logs, and we do not have monopoly control by anybody over our land base.
My thoughts on how we organize an economy and the risks of allowing monopoly capital in any region are not new. In 1948, the year I was born, Tommy Douglas said: “Political freedom by itself can mean being free to go hungry and without a job.” He said: “It can mean being free to produce commodities below the cost of production. Until we add economic freedom to the political freedom we already have, we will never be entirely free as men and women.”
He said: “Whenever the principal assets of our country are in the hands of monopolies and cartels, we believe that they should be owned by the people themselves. We believe that when any economic activity controls the life of a people, it should be owned by the people.”
I think that what Tommy Douglas was talking about is a philosophy that we call social democracy, which was first explained to me by my friend and mentor, log truck driver Bob Cunningham.
Bob explained to me that capitalism was simply the very best way ever invented to make sure that people could find work and feed themselves and eat and trade goods back and forth and better themselves, and that he, a socialist — a democratic socialist — was just fine with that. The trouble, he said, was that capitalism is also a disease which, like cancer, can get out of control and multiply exponentially within the host and kill the very body that it lives within — in our case, the body politic, our society.
Social democracy, according to Bob, was the medicine that was required to make capitalism work without allowing it to get out of control. While I’m pretty happy with some of the things we have managed to achieve at home, boy, have we ever allowed the cancer to get out of control here in British Columbia.
There are special words that we need to describe this kind of capitalism gone crazy that we see today, special words that some of us never even heard before. I was talking to a rancher the other day, and he used the word “oligopoly” to describe the meat-processing industry and the centralization of control that has happened in that industry during the time of the present government. Oligopoly is not a word any of us heard growing up. I first learned that word in correspondence from the manager of a logging company, talking about the consolidation and centralization of control that has happened in his industry, too, in this century, the time of the present government.
The Liberal mindset in British Columbia has pretty well destroyed the old idea of free enterprise in B.C. It replaced free enterprise with monopolies and oligopolies and corporate strangleholds on wealth and land and communities in just about every sector you can name.
We have over the course of the last few years centralized the distribution of food to the point that producers cannot even get the product into the grocery store in the very town in which they live.
We created a corporate computer system that encourages transnational mining companies to buy up the mineral rights that used to go to British Columbia prospectors — who did real, physical work — and to buy those rights without even leaving their office in New York or Bonn or Tokyo.
We have destroyed the independent fishing industry, where men and women for decades thought of themselves as the last real economic adventurers, and replaced their right to fish with corporate armchair fishermen who never go on the water and rent out their licences like land barons of old used to use sharecroppers to farm their land.
I cannot think of a single land-based industry that the Liberals have not managed to turn into some kind of fiefdom. I grant you that this has been an accomplishment without the overt bloodshed that we saw when the same thing happened in Scotland with the clearances, but the outcome is the same and the out-migration is the same, and it will result in the same kind of control. The oligopolies will be the new London rich, running the land on which the people used to farm, fish, run sheep and log.
How in the world did we get into this mess? How did we take this province that we built and ran for a hundred years and turn it into somebody’s fiefdom? Why did our present government think it would be a really good idea to wipe out good, old, independent, competitive free enterprise–type businesses and replace them with monopolies?
Well, you can name the beginning of this kind of thinking anywhere you want. You could just say it started with Maggie Thatcher or the University of Chicago. I like to trace it back to 1989 and the dismantling of the Soviet empire and the fall of the Berlin Wall. When the Berlin Wall came down, instead of celebrating the end of the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, the whole world seemed to come to the wrong-headed conclusion that the market had defeated the centrally planned economy, and now the market was god and could do no wrong.
The new temples of this religion would be built in the name of the new god, and they would be called think tanks. Governments were then considered an impediment to the sanctity of the market, and the top ten economies of the world that used to be countries became private corporations.
Here in British Columbia the free enterprise party, called Social Credit, would die, and the globalist party, the Liberals, would get itself born. Direction would come down to that government like stone tablets from the temple called the Fraser Institute. The people’s work in this building and in this room would become a sideshow.
I don’t think this Legislature is a sideshow. I know I’m a bit of an anachronism in this regard. I know it’s been popular in Canada for the last 25 years or so for politicians, even, to denigrate politics and public service and legislatures and legal and regulatory measures intended to limit excess, and even to denigrate the public service.
All of us in this room, on both sides, have been living through a time when we learned to call the employees of the Crown by the pejorative term “bureaucrats” in order to dehumanize them and strip their work of the honour and dignity and pride that used to accompany managing this land and human well-being. It reminds me of when the American people learned to call the Vietnamese people gooks in order to justify making war in their country.
In short, it has become hip to belittle the idea of the Crown and the function of this place to generate discourse or to resolve issues. One minister that we all know has even been known to suggest that politicians have better things to do than to serve the people in public, on the record and in this room. I despise this trend, and I would like to see it end now.
I think that government has to exist. I think that government has to raise taxes to do the people’s work and use those taxes to buy civilization. I think parliament has to exist and even meet and use the public record as a way to express alternative ideas about what that civilization should look like and how it should function.
I think there has to be a free press and not a monopoly press. The people who own that press actually have to employ people to report what happens here and to tell the story to whomever wishes to know.
None of this would happen if it wasn’t for this place and if it wasn’t for two sides — or maybe three or six, which I happen to think might be better yet — working here. This present government has for years operated on the view that government is a wasteful indulgence and that capitalism can manage anything better than the people can do it for themselves.
Where I live, the Crown used to plow the snow. Remember that? Now a company does it for profit. We used to run our own ferries here in British Columbia. We owned and sailed more ships than the Canadian navy. Now a company we don’t understand runs them, and companies we don’t know build them in Germany. Governments here for decades managed forests and built roads, and they created electricity. Now all or most of that is done by corporations.
This whole idea that governance is better done by corporations than by the state reminds me of the concept of the invisible hand popularized by Adam Smith centuries ago. Only in its modern iteration, the intellectual construct of Adam Smith has taken on a kind of mythological power — some would say the status of a god — in that the hand is assumed to exist and yet cannot be seen and therefore cannot be questioned.
I would agree that in the relatively esoteric world of finance or in the utterly practical world of land-based business like logging and farming, mining or fishing, private interests are the appropriate interests to manage and to profit from the enterprise. That’s why Bob Cunningham said that capitalism is the best way to make jobs and money.
British Columbia, however, is neither invisible, nor is it an enterprise. Adam Smith used the excellent metaphor of the pin factory to prove his thesis. British Columbia is not a pin factory or some kind of human creation. It is a land mass bigger than Oregon and Washington and California put together, and it belongs to the people.
It belongs more to its citizens in the utterly practical sense of land-ownership than any Canadian province or American state. It is our patrimony, passed on to us by the previous generations of good people working in this room who chose, unlike almost every other jurisdiction in the world, not to capitalize their society by selling the land or the water or the ore or the coal or the trees or the fish. In the simplest sense, it’s the people’s farm, and it takes real, practical, visible human hands to manage and sustain, not the invisible and mythical ones provided by some marketplace in the sky.
I submit that we who work here are the caretakers of the most publicly owned land mass of any democracy anywhere on earth. That makes the people in this room more capable of public good and more capable of failure than our counterparts almost anywhere.
So where are we in the world in history? The speculators out there and the greed specialists have pretty well killed the golden goose, eh? And the transnationals are lined up at the gate to suckle at the public breast. Wow. That worked really well, didn’t it?
The great experiment in replacing government with deregulated and unfettered capitalism has failed all over the world. And here, in this budget, the people are running out of bread, but on the eve of the Olympics we are being reminded to look forward to the circus.
The failures of the Fraser Institute faith are legion, but I’m sorry to say they are not alone in failure. I, too, on this side have failed to achieve a good many of the objectives that I set forward for myself in this place, and it would be unfair of me to suggest that only Liberals are capable of failure.
I’ve been pretty hard on this administration in this, my last speech in this place, but it would be stupidity if those of us on this side made the mistake of imagining that we, in our turn, have not been capable of failure. Way back in that first speech 17 years ago I said I wanted to put ranger stations back into Lardeau and Kaslo and New Denver so the communities could know the forest workers and the forest workers could manage the land that they lived inside of. I failed in that endeavour, and we, too, became enamoured of centralized government and moving the workers to some cities.
As Minister of Highways I personally laid off 400 surveyors that used to work for the people to measure their progress, and that was wrong. As Minister of Agriculture I supervised the closure of offices in farming communities and further alienated government from the people, and that was wrong.
I failed as Minister of Highways to turn the ministry of blacktop into a real Ministry of Transportation, with concern for railroads and water transportation and the issues of public policy that matter still to my constituents. I failed, too, to sustain the wild fishery and personally held the fishery portfolio while the federal Liberals privatized our cherished common property resource.
I failed, except on one occasion, to have the people’s equity listed in the budget documents alongside the people’s debt. I failed, in spite of asking for years, to convince any government on either side to end the idiocy of using gross domestic product as the measurement of our well-being. And in what I think must have been my greatest personal failure, I have not managed ever to make food and farming a part of the political or electoral discourse in British Columbia. Under all governments, we remain last in Canada in support for food production.
What those failures — and actually so many others — suggest, of course, is that some of the stuff we do here works and some of it doesn’t. We are, on both sides, after all, just people. We work in a really pretty place and do work that to me is almost sacred, but we remain just people in really nice clothes.
And nothing is over, hon. Speaker. The stuff that we haven’t done yet, or haven’t done well, is just the work that falls to the next generation of leadership. There will be an election in a couple of months. A whole new group of MLAs, I hope, will work here, joined, I hope, by a younger generation. I have just a little bit of advice for that new group of MLAs.
(1) When you get here, love the building and respect the people who work here, regardless of their station or their beliefs. You came here to argue your ideas and for your constituents, not to assume that you are more right or more important than anybody else.
(2) Refuse flat out to make decisions about land you haven’t seen or communities you haven’t visited. Go there, and then decide.
(3) Sorry, fellas. Refuse to say words that are not your own. You are not an actor; an election is not a screen test. You wouldn’t let anybody else put you in a box, so don’t do it to yourself.
(4) Respect the other side. This place doesn’t work when there is only one point of view. We found that out from 2001 to 2005. If the other team didn’t exist, we would have to split in half and send a faction over there just to have somebody to bounce our ideas off.
(5) Find another way to measure the success or failure of the governments that work here in future than gross domestic product. That measurement belongs to an era that needs to be finished now for the sake of the earth.
(6) Listen up. What you cannot fix, leave alone. If you sell it or give it away, you foreclose the options of future generations.
I said all this because I think my generation’s idea — our very idea of leadership —needs to end right now. We thought, pretty much since World War II, that we could define our success and our failure by measurements of growth. We built a system to make ourselves comfortable by threatening the planet of our grandchildren. When new people come to work here, blame us old folks if you need a scapegoat. Ignore us if you can. Pretend that we just didn’t know any better.
You new people working here, on the other hand — those who work here after May 12…. They can’t help but know. The whole world knows now.
That generation will be the leadership elected into the moment of economic and environmental collapse. They will be the first generation of leadership elected with a mandate to change everything, because no party in these times would be so foolish as to try to run for office suggesting that they will maintain the disaster of the present status quo.
Here’s the good news about change. I think it’s happening already. Intellectually, you can read the demands for change in the pages of The Economist magazine and even in the speeches of the world’s super-elite in Davos, Switzerland, asking for re-regulation to save capitalism by limiting its capacity for excess.
Personally, I feel it happening inside myself. I was driving through Oliver a few weeks ago with a 45-gallon drum of fertilizer in the back of my truck, and I turned on the radio to hear the inauguration of the new President of the United States. Aretha Franklin started singing, and I found that I couldn’t drive. I couldn’t drive because I couldn’t see the road through my tears. When Aretha finished singing, I got back on to the road, and I made it as far as Osoyoos. Then the new President of the United States began to speak.
I hid my face and my pickup truck in an alley behind the laundromat, and I sobbed for 17 minutes. Now, I’m 61 years old, and I’m a guy, and for a little while longer I’m an MLA. And we old MLA guys don’t hide in parking lots and sob in our pickup trucks. I kept thinking: “Why is this happening to me?”
The answer I came up with was simply this. We made it. We, my generation, the generation who watched the Berlin Wall come down and celebrated and then watched the whole world lose its collective mind and despaired, had maybe made it to the end of that terrible, shortsighted, speculator-driven, utterly selfish and self-serving pendulum swing.
Maybe now Bob Cunningham’s medicine might have a chance to save my grandchildren Madeline and Dawson and Sydney’s planet and invoke the economic freedom that Tommy Douglas so desired. Maybe that meant I could go home now.
I beg you, those of you who remain and those of you who watch and those of you who care: don’t let this moment pass you by.
Friday, March 13, 2009
On a Personal Note
It was a proud day at our house yesterday when we all went to watch Zack's final basketball game of the season. The Spencer Wildcats Gr. 7 team had won a berth in the City Finals. They were undefeated for the entire year and had beaten the Montery Storm in the regular season.
Unfortunately.... our guys discovered that there's a difference between the regular season and the playoffs and came up short yesterday afternoon. 2nd place in the city isn't a bad place to be either and we are very proud of the team and Zack. He has really developed his skills and has become a strong defensive player who scores the occasional basket to help his team offensively as well.
We celebrated his great season at Red Robins where it was birthday night all around us. It seemed that everyone was celebrating their 8th birthday. I suggested I could do the same but the kids didn't think they wanted me to stand on the chair while everyone sang. I'm thinking .... why not.... being 8 would be fun, at least until someone sent me to bed at 8:30....
Unfortunately.... our guys discovered that there's a difference between the regular season and the playoffs and came up short yesterday afternoon. 2nd place in the city isn't a bad place to be either and we are very proud of the team and Zack. He has really developed his skills and has become a strong defensive player who scores the occasional basket to help his team offensively as well.
We celebrated his great season at Red Robins where it was birthday night all around us. It seemed that everyone was celebrating their 8th birthday. I suggested I could do the same but the kids didn't think they wanted me to stand on the chair while everyone sang. I'm thinking .... why not.... being 8 would be fun, at least until someone sent me to bed at 8:30....
Friday, March 06, 2009
Finally... .the Prayer Breakfast Photos....
Here are some photo's from our 3rd Annual MLA Prayer Breakfast. Many thanks to Sharon Jones who braved ice and snow to be with us for the morning. Sharon is an artist and photographer. We are also pleased that she is our friend. Please visit Sharon's website to see some of her amazing work.
Tim Schindel welcoming the guests and MLA's as we started the morning. This was our best response ever. (We actually sold out the event which is a first for us.) We were so happy with the excellent response from MLA's and our partners and ministry friends.
A crowd shot during breakfast. You can see that we had a full house that morning which was very exciting for us. We are already making plans for next year and anticipate an even bigger event.
Leonard Krog (Nanaimo) and Pastor Mark Buchanan (our speaker)
Nicholas Simons and Barb Schindel preparing to provide some pre-breakfast music as well as their beautiful presentation of Amazing Grace.
The Hon. Shirley Bond (Deputy Premier and Minister of Education visiting with Pastor Gordon Patteson from Gateway Baptist.
Rachael Smith, who led us in prayer on behalf of the MLA's, (see Rachael's Prayer), Hon. Shirley Bond and Pastor Mark Buchanan.
Michelle Jones and Brittany Schindel. Approximately 10% of our attendees were under 20. We think that's important for our future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)