50,17 by Spotlight Magazine

Photo credit Joan Bateman

SpotLight / Portrait Project 2017

feel envelops your senses. At first glance the tables are clad in traditional table cloth, and glass topped. It reminded me of lazy Italian lunches outside of Rome. I remember a tiny restaurant in the shadow of Vesuvius that was a mirror image of Cocoa Bean Cafe. It was there in that nostalgic atmosphere, a laughing Italian waiter, taught this tourist the proper way to eat spaghetti. All Cocoa Bean needs is some Dean Martin lyrics to transport customers to Italy.

“Chef Debbie,” (Clauss) as her loyal patrons affectionately address her, can be found most days in her bistro creating culinary master pieces. Tiny Redcliff Alberta is home to one of Canada’s finest eateries, Cocoa Bean Cafe. Upon entering, you immediately detect a different ambiance, a bit of a Mediterranean

Menu items provoke questions, due to the delightful descriptions. Nothing prepares you for the actual plate. Flavors explode on your palate as new taste sensations scream out in euphoria. Food here is nothing short of amazing! This is a dining experience produced by a real red seal chef. If you encourage her enough, she will relate her experiences on Canada’s “Chopped,” series. Debbie does not cook for a living, she lives to cook. As such, space here does not allow to itemize the numerous awards bestowed upon this remarkable chef. Make sure you leave room for desert! Debbie shines in the bakery as strong as on the grill. Her cinnamon buns are legendary. This out of the way, innocent

looking location is a perfect private place to fan flames of romance with someone new. Or maybe you need to remind your significant other that your relationship still needs a taste of mystery. Try just one more glass of wine. If you organize in advance, Debbie just may customize your meal based on your requests. Imagine the impression that would make on your loved one? Food and intimacy are closely related, almost inextricably. Great food and smooth conversation is the most powerful aphrodisiac. As a reviewer, I can guarantee Debbie will do her part, gentlemen the rest is up to you. Important dates involve alternate menu selections. These are not just on the holidays normally expected, and may include live music to augment the culinary experience. Cocoa Bean will cater your event. The drive to Redcliff is nothing in comparison to the value of the dining experience. This is one of the proverbial gems hidden in the prairies.

THIS ISSUES

CONTENTS 3 EDITORIAL Have We Learned From History Scott Cowan 7

The Fashion Files Gainsboro Spotlight

Golf

Play Better, Hit it Farther

Columnist Donald Crawley

14 Politics The Beginning of the End Columnist Brent Dunstan 16

Law Talking to the Police

Columnist Scott Stenbeck

18 Things, Theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a-Changing BMO Consultant - Dan Hein

EDITOR

SCOTT COWAN (403) 504-7092 ART DIRECTOR

JOAN BATEMAN joan@gainsboro. ca

scott-cowan@live. com

Is it time to be civilized? Learning from history should be so easy, yet seemingly the lessons remain ignored. Our cover is a metaphor for the USA. In the wild west everyone carried an equalizer. They said, " Mr. Colt and his 45 pistol Scott Cowan made all men equal." In those times most of the country was Editorial untamed. The stage coach and banks were routinely robbed. Justice many times was swift, and went to the faster draw. As the rule of law and society became increasingly civilized the need for armed protection of individuals came to a close. Many are questioning if the basic goodness and mentality of so the called millennial, who have slid so far back that once again, we need to be armed. The 45th president Donald J. Trump has stirred the political pot like no other politician in history. His enemies were discussing impeachment before he took office. But is there any justification? Are millions of Americans, mostly democrats, and some republicans all wrong? Is it the biggest case of sour grapes history has ever known? Trump's supporters say, "We won, get over it." A very strong case can be made for the President. He did win, and has arguably accomplished more in the short time in office than Obama did in eight years. The likes of George Soros, a globalist billionaire, has funded numerous organizations to pay protesters to riot in the streets. Our cover depicts a turn of the century, "Civilized woman." Yet, her red gloves suggest blood stained hands. Simultaneously, we see an antique plane and balloon crashing into the new Freedom Tower in New York, reminiscent of the 9/11 terrorist tragedy.

ADDRESS

Americans are screaming for Trump to resign, or be impeached. Yet millions 377 - 4 Street SE more love him. There is no doubt as to his Medicine Hat, AB gruff exterior, and lack of being civil when GRAPHICS T1A 0K4 confronted with political correctness. Is he right about the dangers of mass DIRECTOR immigration? Will the Mexican border For a complimentary HEATHER COONS Photo Credit Joan Bateman wall pay for itself by keeping out those subscription to Spotlight, Designer Marisol Henwho will live off social services, or a life of forward your email to: riquez from the 2012 Altr PHOTOGRAPHY info@spotlightmagazine. crime? Will a return to the gold standard Costura Collection ca and equalizing world currency be GAINSBORO Article By Scott Cowan effective? Is STUDIOS Published and dramatically lowering taxes and reviving the Printed by free enterprise system an answer to out of control PHONE Spotlight Magazine budgets and debt? His first few weeks in office clearly suggest this truth. The debt has been (403) 526-3054 trimmed down over $12,000,000,000.00 dollars after two terms of steady ten trillion dollar increase under Obama. An amount the average person would toil 200,000 years to pay back, not Disclaimer: No responsibility can be taken by Spotlight Magazine for any errors or considering 300 billion annual interest payments. omissions contained herein. Furthermore, responsibility for any losses, damages or distress resulting from adherence to any information made available through this magazine is not the responsibility of Spotlight Magazine. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Spotlight Magazine. Comments are welcome.

This isn't the wild west democrats say, but try spending the weekend in the south side of Chicago.

Chocolate Shop Family Restaurant Famous Breakfasts • Gluten Free Food

for our special guests 55 plus

value features delicious meals made just for you

Crystal Metz Ins Agcy Ltd Crystal Metz Ins Agcy Ltd Crystal Metz, Crystal MetzAgent Ins Agcy Ltd Crystal Metz, Agent 2-1335 Trans Canada WayTrans SECanada Way SE Crystal Metz, Agent2-1335 Medicine Hat, AB T1B 1J1 Medicine T1B 1J1 2-1335 Hat, TransAB Canada SE Bus: Way 403-526-1345 Bus: 403-526-1345 Medicine Hat, AB T1B 1J1 State Farm, Aurora, ON Bus: 403-526-1345 1211999CN State Farm, Aurora, ON 1211999CN State Farm, Aurora, ON 1211999CN

Dinner salad or cup

2301 Trans Canada Way Southeast of soup just $2.49 ith

té

The High Cost of ‘Free’ Health Care Author: Todd Gabel

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) the quality of health insurance plans in the United States has gone down, while premiums have gone way up. This month it was revealed that UnitedHealthcare is leaving the Obamacare exchanges, the online marketplaces for health insurance, after losing $1 billion over the last two years. At the same time, Health Care Service Corp lost some $2 billion—this despite private insurers having received billions in government subsidies. When these subsidies end this year, premiums are expected to rise 26 per cent. Many would suggest these developments highlight a cold reality: health care is just inherently costly and will often cause tremendous economic hardship without government help. A closer look at what’s going on suggests otherwise, however. Today, the U.S. consumer pays about 11 cents on the dollar for health-care expenses—the other 89 cents are paid by somebody else, typically the government, and to a lesser extent, private insurance companies. While this government "help" is well-intentioned, these subsidies for health-care consumers have dramatically reduced the incentives to shop around on prices, with many paying a zero price at the point of purchase. This perennial "89 per cent off sale" encourages Americans to over-consume, which in turn reduces the incentives of health-care providers to publish prices and for firms to compete and contain costs. The end result: high (hidden) health-care prices that no one has to pay... so long as they have good health insurance. The market for health care in the U.S. is, effectively, dysfunctional. The government "help" under Obamacare has added to this dysfunctional environment: firms are prevented from pricing insurance according to risk, and low-income/high-risk health-care insurance consumers are heavily subsidized—a practice known as community rating. While one can argue community rating may help spread access to certain visible groups, what it doesn't do is lower health-care prices—somebody has to pay for these regulations. This means higher taxes and higher prices for everybody else. This spells another problem: community rating may inadvertently serve to reduce access by pricing young and low-risk individuals out of the market. Rather than

pay high premiums, these low-cost groups may prefer to stay on their parents’ insurance plan—extended to 26 years of age under Obamacare—or opt out of the market entirely by paying a penalty. This process of adverse selection leaves health insurance markets with a disproportionately high-cost/ high-risk clientele. In response to this highcost/low competitive environment, insurers are increasingly providing health insurance "coverage" that doesn't really cover much. Yes, consumers should bear more responsibility for their health-care expenses to economize on cost, but not when the prices have been artificially inflated to bankrupting levels by poorly devised public policy. Government "help" has produced a perfect storm necessary to get the public behind universal coverage. In fact, Colorado policymakers recently began pushing for universal health-care coverage. Why? The market for health care doesn't work, they say. They should check again. Before government decided to "help" people, the market for health care was functional and low cost: health-care services were relatively cheap and insurance was not even necessary for many people. According to Social Security documents, if you were over 65 in 1962, a

typical married couple paid $442 for medical care for an entire year; singles paid about $270. To put that in perspective, imagine today the average married senior paying about $10 a day in inflation-adjusted dollars for all their medical expenses. Keep in mind, this low sum is for the highest risk, highest cost demographic. Younger and healthy Americans ended up paying even less. But don't consumers get so much more in terms of health-care quality today compared to 1962? Most goods we consume nowadays have improved tremendously in quality—that's true. But in most cases, prices have actually gone down not up. For instance, a typical 21-inch colour television in 1956 cost about $4,300 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Today, for a few hundred dollars consumers get double the size, lower weight, and greater durability and picture quality. A 1965 Mustang—with 101 horsepower and minimal features—cost about $17,500 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Today, a Mustang is almost an exotic car by comparison, with the base model having 300 horsepower, better gas mileage, air conditioning, and dozens of electronic features and conveniences. The price? A modest $23,800. In terms of other health-care services, conventional LASIK in 1999 cost Continued on pg 17

NEED A MORTGAGE? If you own a home and were turned down by the Banks, If you have bad credit ? Lost hope? You need

Scott Cowan,

Dominion Lending (Mortgage Agent)

403 504 7092 If nobody else can get you a mortgage, Call me. 5

Fraser Institute Global Petroleum Survey, 2016 by Taylor Jackson, Kenneth P. Green, and Kyle Sholes This report presents the results of the Fraser Institute’s 10th annual survey of petroleum industry executives and managers regarding barriers to investment in oil and gas exploration and production facilities in various jurisdictions around the globe. The survey responses have been tallied to rank provinces, states, other geographical regions (e.g. offshore areas), and countries according to the extent of such barriers. Those barriers, as assessed by the survey respondents, include high tax rates, costly regulatory obligations, uncertainty over environmental regulations and the interpretation and administration of regulations governing the “upstream” petroleum industry, and concerns with regard to the political stability and security of personnel and equipment. A total of 381 respondents participated in the survey this year, providing sufficient data to evaluate 96 jurisdictions, which hold 66 percent of proved global oil and gas reserves and account for 75 percent of global oil and gas production. The evaluated jurisdictions are assigned scores on each of 16 questions pertaining to factors known to affect investment decisions. These scores are then used to generate a “Policy Perception Index” for each jurisdiction that reflects the perceived extent of the barriers to invesment. The jurisdictions are then sorted into clusters based on the size of their proved reserves, allowing for an apples-to-apples policy perception comparison of the resources that are available for commercialization. Of the 12 jurisdictions with the largest petroleum reserves, Texas, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Alberta, and China are the five most likely to attract, or least likely to deter, investment. The five large-reserve jurisdictions least likely to attract investment on the basis of their Policy Perception Index scores (Venezuela, Libya, Russia, Indonesia, and Nigeria) account for 45 percent of the proved oil and gas reserves of all the jurisdictions included in the survey. Alberta is the only Canadian jurisdiction in the group of

jurisdictions with large reserve holdings. In the group of 36 jurisdictions with medium-sized reserves, the 10 that are the most attractive for investment are: Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota, Norway—North Sea, the Netherlands, Arkansas, Norway—Other, Louisiana, United Kingdom—North Sea, and West Virginia. The only Canadian jurisdictions in this group are Newfoundland & Labrador (12th of 36) and British Columbia (18th of 36).

jurisdictions assessed by the survey, are almost all located in Canada, the United States, and Europe. According to this year’s survey, the 10 most attractive jurisdictions for investment worldwide are Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Saskatchewan, Wyoming, North Dakota, Norway—North Sea, Mississippi, Utah, and Montana. All but three of these jurisdictions—Wyoming, Utah, and Montana— ranked in the worldwide top 10 in the 2015 survey.

Of the 45 jurisdictions with relatively small proved oil and gas reserves, the top 10 performers are Kansas, Saskatchewan, Mississippi, Utah, Montana, Alabama, United Kingdom— Other, Manitoba, New Zealand, and Morocco. Nova Scotia, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories rank near the middle to the bottom of the smallreserve-holder group. New Brunswick was the least attractive jurisdiction in this group due to its poor Policy Perception Index scores on a number of survey questions.

The 10 jurisdictions that are least attractive for investment are (starting with the worst): Venezuela, Quebec, Libya, Bolivia, New Brunswick, California, New South Wales, Ecuador, Ukraine, and Russia.

When the attractiveness for investment is considered independently from the reserve size of jurisdictions (historically the primary focus of this survey), we find that jurisdictions with first quintile Policy Perception Index scores, suggesting that obstacles to investment are lower than in all other

Our analysis of the 2016 petroleum survey results indicates that the extent of negative sentiment regarding key factors driving petroleum investment decisions has increased somewhat in many of the world’s regions. The United States continues to remain as the most attractive region for investment, followed by Australia, which moved ahead of Canada this year. Canada’s fall to the third most attractive region in the world for investment is reflective of Alberta’s continued deterioration, as investors continue to view the province as less attractive for investment.

Photo credit Bruce Herlitschek

Fashion is always in flux. Designers are constantly seeking new ways to enhance the presentation of their creations. This season was a spectacular show in a unique venue. The Chi Zhand A/W 2017 Runway Show was showcased in the hanger of the decommissioned USS Enterprise. An aircraft carrier is not the first choice when thinking fashion but in this case proved one of the most sought after tickets in town. The show was choreographed with dance moves of a more expressive manner, that beautifully accented the overall sensory expression of the collection. The heavier fabrics and texture of the clothing seemed perfectly placed in the ambiance created by the military setting.

All Photos: Bruce Herlitschek

Models adorned in gas masks and bright colors lent itself to the performance fashion experience. An entirely new viewing sensation was generated by the audience free standing over the traditional chair and runway tradition. Additionally, the darker atmosphere with over hundreds of lights cascading the runway, was a risk that paid huge dividends. Wisely, an extended catwalk gave patrons a better viewing time and chance to enjoy each model and the overall collection. Opulent hotels may assuage certain types, but it is the designs people come to see. Be they in a warehouse or Navy vessel, the creativity and beauty that is indicative of fashion will always prevail.

All Photos: Bruce Herlitschek

Socialism of the Spirit by Karen Selick Obesity is approaching epidemic proportions in Canada, studies tell us. Predictably, some busybodies have started promoting the idea of a "fat tax" on snack foods such as chips and cookies, comparable to the "sin taxes" currently imposed on alcohol and tobacco. A surprising percentage of the population seems willing to entertain this idea. According to The Globe and Mail, 48 percent of the respondents polled agreed either "strongly" or "somewhat" with it. Coincidentally, 48 is exactly the same percentage of the population that experts classify as overweight or obese. Unfortunately, the pollsters didn't correlate respondents' opinions with their waist measurements, so we don't know whether it was only thin people who voted yes to the tax, or perhaps even only fat people—both within the realm of possibility. My guess, though, is that the numbers didn't break down quite so neatly—that there was probably a mix of fat and thin people on both sides of the issue. That's always the way it is with "morality" laws like this. There are plenty of smokers who say they're glad the government forces them to look at hideous pictures on their cigarette packages. Take a poll at a casino or racetrack and you're sure to find some patrons who think gambling should be outlawed. Many drinkers think taxing booze is wise public policy, and plenty of men who've patronized hookers think prostitution should be severely punished. I can understand to some degree the mentality of those who don't indulge in a particular vice and want to legislate others out of doing so. In this day and age, when we're all chained together through the tax system and socialized medicine, we have an interest in preventing our fellow chain-gang crew from self-destructing and burdening us even further. However, I'm skeptical about whether this can be accomplished by taxing vices. Most vices already have their own form of punishment built in. I mean, if the possibility of a heart attack or the humiliation of not being able to fit your enormous bulk into a bus seat isn't enough to scare you away from overeating, are a couple of extra dollars a week in tax going to do the trick? Are financial incentives really the only form of reward and punishment that human beings respond to? What I really can't understand is the mentality of those who do engage in a particular vice but nevertheless tell pollsters that they'd like to see their vice either heavily taxed or completely outlawed. What happens to these

people the moment they get off the phone with the pollster? Do their backbones instantly turn to jelly? If overeaters really think a tax on fatty foods is a good idea, they can stick a piggy bank in the kitchen and deposit a loony or two every time they open the refrigerator and sin. When the bank is full, they can donate the money to their local hospital. Why involve the rest of us in this scheme? Of course, the answer is that it's easy to muster enough willpower for a one-time telephone poll, or a one-time vote for a politician who promises to punish you later for your own good. It's a lot harder to muster the willpower to discipline yourself each and every time you feel the urge to sin. So what these people would really like to do is borrow a little backbone from other people. They're like Ulysses, asking to be lashed to the mast so they'll be able to resist temptation later on. If they would only confine themselves to borrowing backbone from willing lenders, there'd be no problem. Borrowing backbone is what people do in self-help groups like Alcoholics Anonymous. When they're tempted to sin, they call up another member who lends them the willpower to resist. In return, they commit themselves to do the same for their fellows. It's voluntary and it's reciprocal —a great system. But asking for new taxes or restrictive laws to help you control your vices is equivalent to

trying to steal backbone, not borrow it. New laws would affect everybody—thin and fat, occasional drinkers and chronic alcoholics, the disciplined and the undisciplined. Someone who likes the occasional cookie, the occasional drink, or the occasional evening's entertainment at the casino would get punished for the sake of others who recklessly and habitually overindulge. Canadians as a society have become so accustomed to the idea of redistributing wealth that we don't utter a peep—indeed, we may not even recognize what's happening—when we are confronted with a proposal to redistribute an intangible form of wealth: strength of character. We're willing to impose laws on those who don't need them—in effect, expropriating the sense of virtue that their behavior should rightfully earn them—in order to dole out a phony sense of accomplishment to those who haven't earned it. I call this socialism of the spirit. To paraphrase Karl Marx, it's: "From each according to his strengths, to each to indulge his weaknesses." And just as material socialism undermines a country's material productivity, so does spiritual socialism sap its production of character. Karen Selick is a former lawyer now working in the financial industry.

Play Better, Hit it Farther

Donald Crawley Golf Columnist TOP 100 Teacher Director of Instruction Boulders Golf Academy 480 488 9028 Donald.crawley@theboulders.com www.theboulders.com www.golfsimplified.com

Club head speed is usually the first topic of conversation when we talk about ‘driving it long’; ‘taking it deep’;’ letting the big dog eat’. But club head speed alone won’t get the job done. Club head speed must be correctly applied; the face needs to be square to the path, the path needs to swing along target-line at impact, and most importantly on a level angle of attack. So, you need a solid, repetitive swing action- i: e good technique. To achieve maximum club head speed with a good swing, a requirement is that you are in good physical shape both in strength and flexibility. And last but not least, choose a driver that fits you with the optimum loft and shaft to produce a high boring trajectory with minimum spin (experts say 2300 rpm on a 12 degree launch angle). Some better driving points; Play the ball forward in your stance opposite your front foot. Line up your shoulders square, parallel to target, with your head behind the ball. Weight 50/50, balanced between your feet. Make a full backswing by turning your core, upper body, whilst your legs hold you stable.

Cock your wrists but support the club at the top of the backswing. Unwind your core in the downswing Don’t be frightened to swing your arms and “swish’ the club head at the bottom of your swing, through impact. You want your swing to maximize speed at the bottom of your swing. Don’t throw the club at the ball! You also need the club approaching level to the ground, not chopping down (big loss of distance) or bouncing the club off the ground, hitting up on the ball (miss hits). Finish facing (both hips and chest) the target, and balanced with weight on your front foot.

“I hope you well consider coming to see me, an experienced golf instructor ranked as top 100 teachers in America”

Whew, sounds a lot, but it’s not. Here’s what you can do before you venture south to sunny Scottsdale, AZ, for your winter golf vacation. 1: Stay in shape. Get to the gym or basement at least three times a week and develop a workout routine balanced in core strength, some weights and stretching. As a rule of thumb men need more flexibility especially around the hips, glutes, lower back. Ladies usually have the flexibility but could use a little more upper body strength so I recommend some light weight work. 2: Try to swing the club, hit balls even indoors if you have to. Rig up a mat/net in the basement. Keep the golfing muscles toned and loose. 3: Get a golf lesson with a qualified coach to help you with your technique. If you can’t do that at home, do it on your first arrival date on your trip, so that you are working on the correct points. Ask for a ‘simplified swing fix’ (my specialty), not a total swing revamp! 4: Get fit for a driver. Your swing speed and angle of attack will influence which loft and shaft weight and flex will fit you best. It is best to go to a fitting center or specialist if you can, rather than just buy on what’s hot or is just a good ‘deal’. The FIT is important. 5; Make reservations for your winter golf vacation. Plan ahead. October is still warm days with evenings start to cool down. Beware of the over seeding season in the southern climes. That is when the native Bermuda grass is shaved down and winter rye grass is planted to thrive in the cooler winter temperatures. Come at the end of the month when most over seeding is complete. November offers good temperature, and winter newly seeded fairways, to keep the grass bright and green for the winter visitors. December is a quieter but cooler month, with short days, dark by 5PM. January is similar to December. Make tee times after 9 am. February through April is the high season so get your tee time reservations booked in

advance. 6: I hope you will consider coming to see me, an experienced golf instructor, ranked as a TOP 100 Teacher in America, and PGA member of both the U.S and Britain. The most popular packages that golfers enjoy the most are a 3 day Scoring School or a Foursome Fix, that include some instruction, even one lesson on the golf course, and three rounds of golf play. I am based at the beautiful Boulders, a 36 hole award winning golf resort located in sunny Scottsdale, 40 minute north of the Phoenix, AZ airport. www.golfsimplified.com Look for You Tube video clips to give you some free instruction before you get down to see me. clipshttps://www.youtube.com/ channel/UCa5F85vr1TXhjruh-wRZGsA And www.theboulders.com Donald Crawley is Director of Instruction at the Boulders Golf Resort and President of GolfSimplified Inc. He is ranked as a TOP 100 Teacher by GOLF Magazine and Best Teachers in State by Golf Digest, a past PGA Teacher of the Year, and a member of both U.S and British PGA. He has 40 years teaching experience to golfers from brand new to veteran tournament players. He specializes in ‘resort golfers’ who just want to play better. He can be reached at donald.crawley@ theboulders.com

The Beginning Of The End? Then Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died, and gave impetus to the first of a series of "What was he thinking?" episodes on the part of the PM - and thus began the depletion of his banked good will. History will refer back to the Prime Minister's imprudent statement of admiration on behalf of Canadians toward Castro as the first chink in the PM's previously impenetrable armour of popularity. Even the most Liberal/Trudeau friendly media roundly criticized his statement as an indication of questionable judgement, and this was a merely a harbinger of things to come.

Brent Dunstan Columnist

Think of it a bit like an account. Every Prime Minister, upon taking office, is granted a measure of the public's good will; some in greater amounts than others, but all with a limit, although one that is difficult to quantify at the outset. The currency of this account comes in denominations such as popularity, trust, respect, and even affection. In the case of our current Prime Minister, his account included a weightier than usual quota of celebrity. But rest assured, every account has a fixed amount. Eventually much of it's balance is spent, until such time as an opponent appears on the scene, flush with a newer and more abundant account upon which his/her election win is built. Of course, even at the beginning, a Prime Minister has unconvinced detractors, just as at the end, there are unwavering supporters. This is what sets the upper limit of the account, and prevents the balance from ever totally reaching zero. For Prime Minister Trudeau, it was apparent that his time in office began with a substantial sum in his cache of public support, and for a while, it appeared that it's erosion would never begin the account remained unassailable. In spite of a year defined by style over substance, heavy on photo-ops and light on promises fulfilled with a nearly stalled pace to his legislative agenda, by his 1st anniversary in office, the Prime Minister enjoyed remarkably buoyant personal popularity. The honeymoon was definitely not over, and it was evident that Canadians were still quite prepared to overlook evidence of shortcomings. Sunny ways overcame all.

If truth be told, there was foreshadowing of such ill-advised comments before the PM took office; even before he became Liberal Leader. In a sense he began to borrow against his good will account before it was granted to him. His assertion during a French language radio interview in Quebec that "Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda" when former Prime Minister Harper was in power, provides a backdrop to more recent verbal missteps. So too does his previous profession of admiration for the Chinese political system, repressive as it may be. These statements didn't cost at the time, but they may stimulate renewed interest in light of current events. The Castro comments proved to be a watershed moment in the relationship between the Prime Minister and both friend and foe alike. It was as if it suddenly became fair game to point out that not everything was rainbows and ponies, and a significant amount of the new found frustration and criticism came from previously friendly forces. Veterans, aboriginal peoples, civil servants, and environmentalists, to name but a few formerly

sympathetic folk, almost simultaneously seemed to notice that a Government elected under the banner of "real change" hadn't delivered much of it to date. Marijuana appears no closer to being legal than it was on Election Day past, just as electoral reform has proven a tough nut to crack. However, each of these pales in comparison to the the abject failure to adhere to the promise of modest budget deficits in the short term, and a balanced budget by 2019. The current annual deficit is triple what was promised, and the Government's own finance department estimates that it will be past mid-century before we see a balanced budget. It is estimated that the national debt will exceed $1.5 Trillion by then, and interest alone will be over $80 Billion annually, a number that represents about 20% more than what the Federal Government currently transfers to all other levels of government (i.e. the provinces and territories) combined. Continued on pg 22

APEXLUXE Luxury Logistics, providing WORLDWIDE Jet Charter Services, Elite Concierge and Executive ground transportation. New York, Los Angeles, Miami

Our dedicated services will make your request a reality!!!

APEXLUXE Luxury

Logistics

Brad@apexluxe.com

+1-305-308-8770 (Brad)

Talking to the Police

Scott Stenbeck

1(866)783 6232 Law Columnist

I want to say that I respect the police and the work that they do. I don’t want anyone construing this article in any way to justify being difficult or ignorant with a police officer. However, I felt it was time to write on this subject, I find that most of the time when someone needs me to assist them with a criminal charge - they have already put themselves in a disadvantageous position by talking to the police. I will now share for free, what I write on the back of my business card. When someone calls me and is concerned that they have received a call from the police wanting to “talk” to them about “something.” Or they ask you to come down to the station to “clear a couple things up”. My card says, “My lawyer tells me that it’s not in my best interests to talk to you.” There is literally no good that can come from talking to the police, if you are suspected of a crime. Whatever you say can be taken down and used later. When I say “don’t talk to the police”, that is often interpreted as “don’t give a statement”. No, what it means is, “don’t talk to the police.” Because even verbal exchanges that are not reduced to a statement, and signed, are still taken down by an officer in his or her notes. Identify yourself, accept whatever process they are going to serve you with, and leave it at that. Now, even when someone talks to me first, and is later questioned or arrested, even after me giving the above advice, why do most people still talk to the police? Well, I believe it is because most of us in the end are actually moral people. That is what is used to get someone to talk. Most of us want people to understand why we did what we did, and that we had a justification for acting the way we

did. Say, for example, I decide that I am going to steal from my boss. (This probably won’t get me ahead much since I’m self-employed!). Then, say eventually my boss gets suspicious and calls the police. They interview me. Being a basically moral person, I don’t want someone to think that I am someone that just goes and steals for no reason. I want to justify myself and my behaviour. So I tell the police officer “My boss makes me work weekends a lot of times. He makes me come in really early sometimes. On days where there is a lot of work, I have to stay late and he doesn’t pay me overtime! He says that we want to give the best service so he makes me carry a cell phone. I take calls from clients in the evenings, on holidays, and during personal time! (All true, I do make myself do all those things) So of course I took some money! I figure it evens out for all the extra time I give him that he doesn’t pay me for!” So, even though I feel better for justifying why I behaved this way. A natural human tendency, I have now done the police officer’s

job for him. He doesn’t care what a jerk my boss is, he only cares that I admitted to what they are investigating. Now he hardly needs any evidence at all, I have given a voluntary confession, case closed. This natural human tendency to want others to think well of us, and to explain ourselves, can also be pushed along by a good police officer. They say things like “Look, I know you’re basically a good guy, and you wouldn’t have done it without a good reason.” Or “hey, I know you have never been in trouble before, I know you must have been having a real tough time, why don’t you tell me about it?” Another reason that people talk to the police is that they think that somehow it will result in a more lenient punishment. A police officer is not allowed to threaten a greater punishment or promise a reward for a confession, but they don’t have to in most cases. Most of us are intimidated by the surroundings in the situation, and we are uncomfortable. We think that things will go better if we just confess. Sometimes officers do urge this Continued on pg 22

If you would like a complementary subscription delivered to your email every month email us at spotlightmagazine@shaw.ca

The High Cost of ‘Free’ Health Care

Author: Todd Gabel

Continued From pg 5

about $3,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Today, it's about $1,700. In dental care, an industry likely closest to modern medicine in advances and ability, orthodontic braces in 1970 cost about $12,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars, which is more than double the price paid today. For plastic surgery, the price reductions are even more significant. The difference in all of these goods? They're not subsidized or heavily regulated by the government. In effect, government "help" such as Medicare, Medicaid in 1965, and now the Affordable Care Act has made health care unaffordable for many Americans. Canadians know that adding more government to the mix and imposing price controls—"free" health-care coverage through a single payer—comes with a high cost, including longer wait times, fewer doctors, and inferior health-care technology. If the U.S. wants truly world-class health care, the government needs to get out of the way: allow entrepreneurs seeking profits to find new and low-cost ways of delivering services, open up new medical schools, and reduce regulatory barriers to entry and restrictions on pricecutting. Until then, Americans will be hostage to the high cost of free health care.

Things, They’re a-Changing Retirement Income programs provided by the Government of Canada Government retirement income programs are changing – we need to adjust our retirement plans accordingly. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefit is determined by how much you contributed, and for how long. In recent years the federal Government added the Child-Rearing Provision to CPP. This can increase benefits for parents who stopped working or worked fewer hours for less pay, while raising children born after December 31, 1958. This provision covers the period until the child reached 7 years of age. Many qualifying Canadians have not yet received this increase and need to request this adjustment - Contact Service Canada for details. We have seen cases where this resulted in both a modest rise in monthly benefit, as well as a back-pay settlement. If this applies to someone you know, see to it that they apply. Old Age Security (OAS) provides a benefit set according to how long you lived in Canada after age 18. Because this program is not funded by our contributions, it is subject to“clawback” reductions for higher-income retirees. Benefits have traditionally begun at age 65, but recent changes will push this to as late as age 67, for Canadians currently under age 55. For those that have lived outside the country, you may have eligibility for Canada’s OAS & CPP, as well as entitlements from the country

you lived in – this could be well worth the investigative effort. Many of us can benefit greatly from the service of a qualified, experienced Advisor. It is worth the effort to build an outline of what all your income streams will do for you, throughout your retirement. This may show that you are on the right track and on schedule, or even ahead. It may also bring to light the need to re-double your efforts to plan, save and prepare for the years that ought to be “Golden”. For most of us, personal savings and investments form a central part of well-laid retirement income plans. Spend time to create and maintain a snapshot of your assets to be sure of how they can help fund your future. With proper planning, informed allocation and analysis, you can determine whether you should maximize Tax Free Savings Accounts, your RRSP, or non-registered investment accounts. The seasons of retirement have been called “Go-Go Years”, “Slow-Go Years” and finally “No-Go Years”. Most of us do more, travel more and therefore spend more in the early years. Then we settle into a slower routine, spending more time around home and with family. Later on we spend time thinking about our legacy and sometimes confront burdensome health and care-giving issues. All stages of retirement deserve proper attention, planning and regular review.

For more information, visit: www.bmo.com/nesbittburns

Dan Hein, BRE

Associate Investment Advisor, BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. Medicine Hat, AB

Phone: 403-528-6771 Email: Dan.Hein@nbpcd.com

The comments included in this article are not intended to be a definitive analysis of tax applicability or trust and estate law. The comments contained herein are general in nature and professional advice regarding an individual’s particular tax position should be obtained in respect of any person’s specific circumstances. ® “BMO (M-bar Roundel symbol)” and “Making Money Make Sense” are registered trade-marks of Bank of Montreal, used under licence. ® “Nesbitt Burns” is a registered trade-mark of BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. Opinions are those of the author and may not reflect those of BMO Nesbitt Burns. The information and opinions contained herein have been compiled from sources believed reliable but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to their accuracy or completeness.

Member-Canadian Investor Protection Fund

Rachel

Notley Special We have to slash our price. Keep our employees working! Only

$349.00 Monthly

FULL Page Spread $349.00

$1,242.00

1/2 Page

$249.00

$750.00

1/4 Page $434.00

$149.00

Business Cards

$99.00

Change Copy 9 times Choose size and when you want it to run (One Year Contract)

autiful collection 50 shades of Red-new Be ar of Jenkas Fashion by Evgenia Luzhina-Salaz

n Photography by Joan Batema

The Beginning Of The End? Continued From pg 14

And in the last few months, the Prime Minister has provided a fair amount of grist for his political opponents' mills as well. The federally mandated Carbon Tax has proven to be a thorn that has yet to lose it's sting, and the "cash for access" controversy proved quite prickly as well. The Prime Minister quite publicly established a code of conduct for his Government's Ministers that mandated not just the moral imperative to avoid instances of preferential access, but the moral ideal to avoid even the appearance of preferential access. One would think then, that he would wait for a few page flips of the calendar before shouldering his way to the trough of questionable private fund raisers. Evidently one would be wrong. That the PM would attend an intimate $1500 a person Liberal fundraising gathering in the Toronto home of a well-heeled Chinese Canadian businessman, an event also attended by Chinese banking investors seeking federal regulatory approval, pulls the train out of the station of avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest. That the guest list included a billionaire Chinese national with ties to the Chinese Government who also had matters before our Government, has that train taking some sharp curves at high speed. That this individual shortly thereafter made a seven figure contribution to the U of Montreal Faculty of Law including a donation to The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation in the amount of a Quarter of a Million Dollars, with $50K for a statue of PĂŠre Trudeau, has the train careening wildly. That the Prime Ministers description of the topic of discussion for the evening as his plans for middle class Canadians - well, the train jumped the tracks. So what to do when you're being criticized for placing yourself in a situation where a potential breach of ethics could occur with foreign billionaires possibly benefiting from access to, and largesse toward you as Prime Minister? Take a vacation of course! Go to a private island in the Caribbean as the guest of a foreign billionaire whose foundation has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the Canadian Government. (You couldn't make this up.) And, whatever you do, don't check with anyone ahead of time, to see if there might be some rules about this sort of thing, or even consider how this might look. Additionally, ensure that your office, when asked by the media where you are

replies, "None of your business" because that doesn't motivate reporters to go digging at all. And when you get back, shrug off formal ethics inquiries with a "We don't see this as a problem." Upon his return, someone, whether it be himself or his advisors, determined that it would be wise to embark on a thinly veiled attempt at image rehabilitation, a reacquaint the Prime Minister with typical Canadians tour. It was to be a demonstration that Prime Minister Trudeau was less Dom Perignon and private helicopters, and more Tim Hortons and mini vans; a roll up the sleeves, loosen the tie, maybe throw on some blue jeans on the prairies, listen to the people tour. You have to give him some credit - he had to foresee what he was going hear. Considering that most of the town hall meetings were followed the next day by some form of mea culpa, clarification, or excuse by either the PMO or the Prime Minister about something that he said, there may have been more ground lost than won. To the distressed woman in Ontario regarding her electricity bill, there was responsibility deflected to the Provincial Government, followed by the PMO's, "What the PM meant was...." To the gentleman criticizing pipeline construction, there was the "phase out the oil sands" chestnut. The explanation? "I misspoke." Both were poorly expressed at best, reflections of his true feelings at worst. Running neck and neck for the title of "best example of being out of touch and tone deaf" were two particularly cringe worthy responses by the Prime Minister. The insistence that his answer to a question about the challenge of obtaining English language mental health services in Quebec be given in French, "because we are in Quebec" bordered on mean spirited, akin to having someone complain about how hot it is, and then turning up the heat. The next day there came the admission "upon reflection" that the answer would have best been delivered in both English and French. However difficult it may be to imagine this could be topped on the head scratcher scale, the PM certainly appeared to try. His comments regarding aboriginal Chiefs wanting funding for youth centres for their communities being out of touch with their own youth were bewildering. Our Prime Minister claimed that based on his interactions with aboriginal youth, their actual desire is "for a place to store their canoes and paddles". I'll leave it to you the

reader to ponder the wisdom of that statement. With the exception of running massive deficits that will leave a legacy of crippling debt for all Canadians and future generations, if most of what has been said and done by the Prime Minister in the last few months were isolated incidents separated by months or years, it could be fairly easy to dismiss them as aberrations; exceptions, not the rule. However, when these incidents accumulate at the pace they have, in such a short period of time, a character trend becomes noticeable. Muskowekwan First Nation Chief Reginald Bellerose perhaps said it best. "He should learn to use his words more carefully." Between impertinent statements, actions that demonstrate questionable judgment, and undelivered upon promises, the Prime Minister's spending habits in regard to his public goodwill account have shifted from those of a miser to those of a drunken sailor. Unless he can perform a dramatic about-face, the Conservatives' and NDP's best strategy may be to do nothing more than let the Prime Minister be his own undoing. Brent

Talking to the Police Continued From pg 16

misconception along by saying something like, “We already know what happened, you might as well just tell us.” Again, even if they already know everything, the case against an accused is just made that much more airtight with a confession. I do hear from time to time in the courtroom on a guilty plea something like “my client was fully co-operative with the police and confessed immediately”, but I don’t know that such a situation is what helps mitigate the seriousness of the matter as opposed to just the early guilty plea. The Crown prosecutor is certainly not allowed to do the reverse as say “the accused would not confess to the police, so he deserves a more serious punishment”. So again, I don’t really think the confession buys much, if anything, in terms of an easier punishment, and I have had plenty of clients that have been sentence to jail even after confessing. So, here is the irony in all the above. The explanation to the person reading this who just said “Hey, aren’t you giving criminals the information they need to avoid

punishment?” A serious and career criminal already knows what I set out above. Further, a serious criminal sociopath (someone who doesn’t care about the difference between right and wrong) isn’t concerned with what others think and doesn’t feel as much pressure when under investigation. So they are unlikely to confess to justify what they have done to an officer. They don’t care what that officer or anyone else thinks about what they have done. Most of my criminal practices are clients that have never been in trouble with the law. They have just made a mistake, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most are immediately intimidated and afraid when contacted by police. Often clients end up giving full confessions. Most criminal cases are disposed of by way of some kind of plea bargain or joint submission or agreement reached between the defence and the Crown prosecutor. The ins and outs of the deal making, depends in part on the likelihood of the Crown getting a conviction. When a full and voluntary confession has

been given, the Crown is in a very strong position. I don’t have as much to negotiate with, so I have more difficulty getting a sentence reduced with a plea bargain. On the other hand, the person who doesn’t talk to the police, everything else being equal, has a greater chance of being acquitted. So the Crown has a greater risk of losing that I can use to bargain with and get a better deal. So, ironically, the good person that makes one mistake, gets charged and immediately spills the beans actually fares worse than the sociopath that just keeps his mouth shut. The sociopath has a greater chance of being acquitted, and it is thus more likely that he will get a favourable deal. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a chance for a person accused to explain why they did what they did, or to own up to their mistake if they so choose. If that is what they want to do. It just means that they should wait and let me do it on their behalf later, when the discussions I have with the Crown prosecutor can’t be used against them.

See Inside “CHI ZHANG A/W 2017 RUNWAY SHOW” 24