39,16 by Spotlight Magazine

Truth of

Immigration

y r a u r b Fe is 4 ove

Golf Simplified Getting into the “ coring one “

S Z Find out why Brent Dunsten wants you

2 Watch Your Language

Photo Joan Bateman

THIS ISSUES

CONTENTS 05 EDITORIAL Truth of Immigration Scott Cowan

07 Law Can’t I Just Save Some Money and Buy the Divorce Kit for $89.99 Columnist Scott Steinbeck

The Fashion Files

Gainsboro Spotlight

Madeleine Humeny Photo Joan Bateman

13 Brent Dunstan Watch Your Language Columnist 15 Golf Golf Simplified getting into the Scoring Zone Columnist Donald Crawley.

16 Mayor Rejuvenation of health system requires new ideas Drew Barns

18 FINANCE

The Why and When of Wills

BMO consultant - Dan Hein,

Madeleine Humeny originates from Medicine Hat. She is a singer and actress working in Vancouver. She is hoping to make a huge splash in the entertainment business. She certainly has on our February Spotlight cover. For those who are shy, she was wearing a bikini behind the heart. Pin up picture by Joan Bateman of Gainsboro Studio. Maddy preformed leads in the locally famous Crescent Heights High School musicals. She is in her second year at the Canadian College of Performing Arts. She just directed for the first time, “ Stephanie’s Ponytail.” She is playing Jean Brodie in “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie,” in March. She says she is so thankful for the Ocean and her coffee maker...

19 EDITORIAL The Price and Politics of EDITOR Pipelines Scott Cowan SCOTT COWAN (403) 504-7092 ART DIRECTOR

JOAN BATEMAN joan@gainsboro.ca GRAPHICS DIRECTOR

HEATHER COONS

scott-cowan@live.com ADDRESS

377 - 4 Street SE Medicine Hat, AB T1A 0K4 For a complimentary subscription to Spotlight, forward your email to:

info@spotlightmagazine.ca

PHOTOGRAPHY

GAINSBORO STUDIOS

Published and Printed by Spotlight Magazine

PHONE (403) 526-3054

Disclaimer: No responsibility can be taken by Spotlight Magazine for any errors or 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.

Chocolate Shop Family Restaurant Famous Breakfasts • Gluten Free Food

Private Function, Birthday or Special Event Today!

for our special guests 55 plus

value features delicious meals made just for you

ns Agcy Ltd Crystal Metz Ins Agcy Ltd zAgent Ins Agcy Ltd Crystal Metz, Agent Canada Way SECanada Way SE z, Agent2-1335 Trans Medicine Hat, AB T1B 1J1 T1B 1J1 nsAB Canada Way SE Bus: 403-526-1345 1345 at, AB T1B 1J1 State Farm, Aurora, ON 6-1345 1211999CN

Dinner salad or cup

2301 Trans Canada Way Southeast of soup just $2.49 ith

Shaun Vaudry Sales Manager

Cherie Martens

Licensed Sales Professional

Scott Hughson

Owner/Business Manager

Licensed Sales Professional

Jeff Caissie

té

Earnie Taylor Service Manager

Licensed Sales Professional

Truth of Immigration

I have been very critical of our new Prime Minister and his refugee policies. I want to put aside partisan politics, and honestly examine the reality of what we and other Western nations are trying to accomplish. We all wish to help those not living in countries as prosperous as Canada. We all feel a bit guilty leaving food on our plates. Our mother’s told us, “Eat it all there are starving children in Africa.” In comparison to the majority of the world, all Canadans are wealthy. Let’s assume the PM isn’t importing tens of thousands of permanent liberal voters. Forget they’re dropping them strategically, a few thousand at a time into Conservative ridings. Let’s agree his motives are simply to reduce world poverty. So who really can complain when politicians of any stripe import those disadvantaged to our shores? Forget cogent arguments of not assimilating, bringing their wars to our cities, staying on welfare for life, and demanding Canadians accept cultural changes to immigrant preferences. Let’s just examine the math.

Prime Minister imports 100,000 refugees next year, it seems about equal in comparison to the USA. The horrible unavoidable fact is… anything we do is a drop in the ocean. Immigration is nothing more than a futile attempt to assuage western guilt, for the accident of birth that made us Canadians. Politicians can say… Canada will send so many millions or accept 100,000 refugees. (Mind you, they do not spend any of their personal monies.)They feel so good, so magnanimous, so self righteous and philanthropic. But it’s our money they spend and our homeless pay the price. But Liberal mantra pontificates, “If even one child gets to grow up here it’s worth every dime.” We could help exponentially more people, if we recognized liberal policy for what it really is the gestation of clinical mental illness. Everything is done poorly, expensive, and applauded regardless of the pitiful outcomes.

Scott Cowan

EDITORIAL

Continued on page 22

Great statistics are available. In the USA they’re allowing one million people a year to immigrate. If you calculate the number of people in the world making less than two dollars per day, there are in Africa, 650 million. In India, there are a staggering 890 million individuals trying to feed families on less than the bench mark above. China the growing super power they have become still has 480 million. The rest of Asia equals another 810 million. Latin America is not immune, adding to the total another 105 million. That’s almost three billion people trying to exist earning fewer than two dollars a day. Keep in mind the USA allows in its borders very few if any from the countries mentioned above. You would be much better off being poor in Mexico. The sad fact is there are another 2.6 billion people around the world worse off than people living in Mexico. So let’s assume the USA took the most radical action. If they allowed five million of those 5.6 billion people to immigrate. It would totally overwhelm their social systems, health care, schools, and infrastructure. Consider the USA has over 319 million people and Canada about ten percent of our southern neighbor. So if the

Can’t I Just Save Some Money and Buy the Divorce Kit for $89.99

Scott Stenbeck 1(866)783 6232 Law Columnist

It’s not just the Divorce Kit, there are Will Kits, Estate Kits, do-it-yourself Partnership Agreements, and so forth. And before anyone rushes to sue me, when I say “Divorce Kit,” I don’t know if one of the particular products out there is named exactly that, I just picked a descriptor for the sake of this article. But in any event, when I used to do wills, sometimes people would ask me,“Why pay a lawyer to do a will, there is an online kit for $49.99.” My answer to that was always the same. Lawyers don’t generally charge what they actually should for a will. Most do it as a loss-leader and it is a very small amount of any firm’s revenue. I always told that person to go ahead and use the online kit, but to put my business card with the will. I would tell them that I’m fine missing out on the $300 to do the will. But I would be happy to get the $30,000 worth of business down the road for the estate litigation that would ensue. Divorces are no different. In the last handful of years I have had numerous cases where people have spent thousands and thousands on legal fees because they tried to do their own divorce. Or their own divorce agreement or settlement. Sometimes people have found that the custody and access arrangement that they agreed to wasn’t really what they thought. Other times they get to learn, after they have paid money or transferred property to their ex-spouse relying on an agreement, that it isn’t an enforceable agreement at all. A few months ago I heard a judge say to someone in Court that was in exactly that position that, “If you try to take out your own appendix, don’t be sad when you get blood all over the carpet.” The Courts are having less and less sympathy as time goes on for do-it-yourselfers. I don’t find that particularly unfair. If I don’t hire a contractor and build my own house, I still have to meet the building codes. It’s no excuse when I have to tear it down and start over that, I tried my best and I didn’t know. As an absurd example, I once asked a dentist

buddy of mine if, in theory, I could pull my own tooth if I needed to. I saw a dentist do it once on U tube. He told me that yes, I probably could. The freezing, xylocaine, could be purchased from a vet. The needles could be purchased from a pharmacy. And I could mail order the extraction pliers just like anyone else. And 90% of the time, I would probably be fine. But the other 10%, if things didn’t go exactly as expected, or there were any surprises, like an infection or bleeding that didn’t stop, I would probably die. All those x-rays and precautions that a dentist takes before an extraction, all that experience. All that training on what-ifs, all that follow-up, that’s what prevents those catastrophic consequences when things don’t go as planned. Law is kind of the same. A good chunk of the situations I see are probably pretty straightforward. But it is not rare at all when I see a potential problem, I bring it to a client’s attention. The client is completely surprised that an issue exists that could have cost them their relationship with their children, their property or their financial security. They had no idea. People think that what lawyers charge for is stationary. Someone will look at all the stuff I have copied to them or drafted for them, compare it with their bill, and figure “His bill is $X, all the paper is about half an inch thick, that seems fair.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It would be the same thing as with my construction example above. I can go buy the lumber and nails from Home Depot for a fraction of what a contractor is going to charge me to build my house. I’m not paying for the lumber, I’m paying for his expertise. At the end of the day, what a lawyer charges for is advice. I’m going to let you in on a secret. The separation/divorce agreement that I draft for clients that costs about $2,500…it’s saved in about ten versions on my computer system. About 70% of the clauses in it are standard and will not change from situation to situation. I take an agreement that fits the situation, i.e. a couple with children and average property such as a house, mortgage, two cars and some RRSPs, and I modify the provisions in it to fit the circumstances, just the same way the contractor takes the lumber you could buy

yourself for a fraction of what he charges you and does different things with it in each construction situation. I certainly don’t re-write the whole 30 pages every time as an original document. Any more than the contractor re-invents square angles and roof trusses with every house he builds. No one is actually paying for the four copies of a 30 page document. It’s the legal knowledge that goes into what needs to appear, and how to modify it. If someone wanted to download and print off the framework documents on my computer system for a separation agreement, those documents themselves are worth about the same as the Divorce Kit that you can download, or buy at an office supply store. What makes the difference is the input of the experienced divorce/family lawyer into the document, and the advice and recommendations behind it. My precedent documents, the same as the Divorce Kit, don’t know to tell someone that the agreement is completely unenforceable if there has not been full financial disclosure. They can’t figure out on their own if it makes more tax sense to characterize support as child support or spousal. They don’t know the difference between personal income and income of a closely held corporation, or grossing up for dividends. And they also can’t give an outside, detached professional opinion to someone when an agreement they are presented with is unfair, and they shouldn’t sign. When someone asks me what a basic desk divorce costs, I tell them about $2,500, and about that much again if they need a separation/divorce agreement, provided there are not hugely complicated assets and it doesn’t take days of negotiation. The last five day property and custody trial that I ran because someone tried to do their own pre marriage contract cost just under $40,000 dollars. I am by no means the most expensive lawyer in Southern Alberta. When someone asks me about the $89.99 Divorce Kit, I just tell them to do the math. There is a reason it takes 7 years to get the schooling to be a lawyer, and it takes most of us another seven or eight of practice to get to be any good at it. Thinking that is going to be encapsulated in a standard form fill-in the blank product for about a hundred bucks is a dangerous fantasy.

Valentines Day 2016

Fall in love all over again this Valentines Day. Bring your special someone to Redwood Steakhouse for a Romantic Dinner

Featured Menu created by our Chef 8

For more information or for reservations please call 403-502-8176

Carmen Marc Valvo is not just a designer. He is an artist of fabric,

comparable to the great masters of the Renaissance Age. Michelangelo designed statues of marble, painted great master pieces. Valvo incorporates living statues to reveal and unveil his creativity, with thread, and silk, and color. Almost every show is breathtaking at this level. However certain designers stand out. For Canadian readers, let me explain in recognizable terms. Every player in the NHL is good. But compare them to Wayne Gretzky, Gordi Howe, or Bobby Hull. There is a profound difference. I was fortunate to be back stage a half hour before the show. Unbelievably, Carmen was there minus the throngs of admirers you see after the collection has been on stage. Designers are like rock stars at this level. But Carmen was kind enough to chat with Spotlight for a few minutes. I won't go on about the designs, you can appreciate them in these pages. What I will tell you is that Carmen is one of the most gracious people I have ever met. He was engaging to speak with and funny. He was light hearted and calm, 30 minutes before a major showing in New York city. This is the character of a professional who is prepared, confident, and secure, in what and who he is as an icon. After the show back stage, I watched the hundreds of people jockeying to get a selfie, or handshake. Celebrities, socialites, and fans. I wondered how many actually knew him as well as I had been privileged to discover?

Watch Your Language

Brent Dunstan Columnist

Fascist. Bigot. Misogynist. Racist. Xenophobe. Narrow-Minded. Homophobe. Troglodyte. All are words, pejoratives flung by those on the political left towards those occupying the political right with such regularity and reckless abandon, that the sting of them is virtually gone. They have been so broadly applied, and with such frequency, that their impact and import has become entirely watered down. This has become so prevalent that when the real thing does appear, and is rightly identified as such, the potency of the terminology is more featherweight than heavyweight. Their meanings have been so diluted by sheer overuse and expansive application, hardly an eyebrow is raised, even when they are describing the genuine articles. To be fair, this isn't entirely the sole province of the left-wing; certainly the right-wing has been guilty of hurling it's share of invectives in the direction of the political left, often with similar impropriety. However, as left leaning leadership now holds the seat of government in the majority of Provinces, federally in Canada, as well as the White House, it seems an appropriate time to acknowledge that the political left has most certainly benefited from the political right being stained by such characterizations, with thin paint and a wide brush, at least as often without merit as with. It's almost comical to observe how readily one can be labeled a fascist. Being called fascist has become de rigueur for virtually any small "c" conservative politician at some point. The term, it's value laden status thoroughly eroded from its once weighty bearing post WW II, has now essentially been cheapened to describe any political outlook that can be placed

anywhere right of centre. This has become so apparent that The National Post's Matt Gurney wrote an article entitled, "Trump is why 'fascist' should never have meant 'kinda right wing'." His point: when something even approximating actual fascism presents itself, "fascist" no longer does the phenomenon justice. Whether or not The Donald is truly a fascist, neofascist, quasi fascist, protectionist, kooky, certifiable, or just too outspoken to be palatable, is a matter unto itself. I refer to him and the Post editorial solely to underscore both how readily fascist is applied, and how underwhelming the repercussions are when it is, due to rampant malapropism. The reference to the aforementioned Mr. Trump reminds me of the Alexander Pope line, "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread." At the risk of being Trump-esce, and rushing headlong into a topic better left un-rushed into, the term homophobe is worthy of some scrutiny. While in no way denying homophobia's severity, the use of the term has become cannon fire where pea shooters would, in many cases, suffice. By hanging the label on even the slightest disagreement or disapproval of homosexuality, regardless of context or degree, those who do so are oversimplifying a complex issue at best, or misunderstanding, misappropriating, and misapplying the label at worst. Examining the etymology of the word homophobia is fascinating. The elemental basis of the word is the fear of homosexuality, but it's meaning quickly evolved to include aversion to, discrimination toward, and hatred of, by most dictionary definitions. Of course, these behavioural elements fall within the current understanding of the definition on the presupposition that they are

based upon fear. Such a presupposition was identified as fallacious as far back as Aristotle. The fancy Latin name for this is petitio principii, assuming the premise, or begging the question. In any context, even this one, disagreement or aversion need not be motivated in any way by fear, nor need it produce hatred and discrimination by default. For many the issue is a matter of religious conviction. Religious beliefs cannot simply be attributed to fear, misunderstanding, or narrow mindedness by those who may disagree with them. While perhaps convenient, such conclusions are often wildly inaccurate. This certainly doesn't excuse hatred, abuse, and discrimination perpetrated in the name of religion. However, one need take into account that, just as the definition of homophobia has evolved, so too have the concerns of many social conservatives regarding this issue. For many, it's not a desire to impose their personal morality on others; rather it's become a matter of ensuring that they be allowed to practice their faith, or hold an opinion, without having another's morality imposed on them, or be discriminated against themselves. To define this as homophobic is overly simplistic, shortsighted, and perhaps even lazy, as it fails to account for the tremendous breadth of opinion and attitudes among social conservatives and various faith communities.

Continued on 21

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) 14

Golf Simplified getting into the Scoring Zone To be a good golfer you need a short game, a really good one. Look through the history of golf’s greats and they all had a deft touch on and around the green. You may never (most likely) be able to overpower a golf course with booming drives like Hogan, Nicklaus, Woods, now Bubba, Jason, and Rory. I just love that these modern icons are known by first names. Did Michael Jordan start that? Maybe some Canadian hockey player? Apologies, I digress. Anyway, the top players have great short games. Although Bubba Watson hits the ball prodigious distances, he is a great putter. Some time last year he had the longest spell of not three putting. Jordan Spieth number one in the world is a brilliant pressure putter. Sometimes looking at the hole not the ball. Amazing! The start of developing a good short game begins with the visualization of the shot. We call that imagery. Seeing the picture of the shot in your mind, and playing a little video in your head, ahead of execution is crucial. Visualize the height, trajectory, landing spot and roll of the ball, before you even think of club selection. Imagine you are twenty yards off the green. The pin is cut in the middle of a relatively flat green, with no obvious obstacles in the way. Do you ‘see’ a low shot landing on the fringe of the green releasing, and rolling on a low trajectory, up the green and into the hole? You should. Where should the ball land? Be specific, “that brown spot on the fringe”. What club would give you the trajectory and roll you envision? Maybe it’s a 9 iron? No it may roll too far, better to select a bit more loft, pitching wedge? After you ‘see’ this shot and select your club, i it is time to ‘feel’ the shot. Watch the pro’s they do exactly as I’m describing. Looking at the landing spot, with selected club in hand, make practice swings that resemble the length and pace of the swing needed to drop the ball exactly on your spot. SEE the shot first, FEEL the swing. Note; don’t take forever doing this slowing pace of play down. You should be doing these calculations, see and feel, out of sight when your playing partner is hitting their shot. Then it is your turn, and you a ready. You’ve seen, selected, felt the shot and swing, ready to stand up and execute. Now apply this same routine and procedure for putting. While it is someone else’s turn;

farthest from the hole plays first,.Do your ‘green reading’ on each and every putt. See the slope. Where is downhill? How far away are you? How fast is the green? Hopefully you spent a few minutes prior to your round to feel out the speed of the greens. Green reading means: visualizing ahead of time of the length, direction, and pace of the putt. You are guesstimating what you see and think the ball will do. In practice roll a ball ahead of time to watch what the ball does as it approaches the hole and where it finishes. After you ‘see’ the putt, ‘feel’ the length and pace of your stroke to give you the desired result. Again see and feel. Watch the pros, they do it. I think it helps to be looking at the hole, not the ground, when you take your practice swings. Your eyes are seeing the distance. Your brain determines the amount of oomph in your stroke. Brain sends messages to the muscles. Pick up a ball, rolled up piece of paper, whatever, and toss it into the wastebasket. You will instinctively follow the routine and procedure I am spelling out. There are many different putting grips, putters, stroke styles etc. But all good putters see and feel and have a marvelous touch of distance control. Work on that more than your technique. That means you have to practice, no short cuts here. Quick ‘Tiger’ story. When he was at his best, a friend of mine worked course maintenance at the club where Tiger lived and practiced. My friend goes by Tigers house at 6am. Tiger is on the

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

putting green outside his house, working on his stoke and putting. Worker goes and mows nine greens returns by Tigers house 11 am. “ Mr. Woods, what did you have for breakfast today?” They both shared similar diets. Tiger doesn’t look up, but replies, “I let you know, just finishing up here”. Maybe that’s why he made so many clutch putts to win 14 majors. I think somewhere as you read this Jordan, Jason, Rory, Rickie are rolling putts, or chipping and putting, seeing and feeling the shot in hand.

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. 15

Rejuvenation of health system requires New ideas taxpayer is being squeezed ever more tightly for every last penny, the government must be smarter about where our money goes and make clear what results we expect. Despite our lavish spending, our performance has been mediocre in a large number of categories, especially in the areas of wait times and access to care.

DREW BARNES MLA

Cypress - Medicine Hat cypress.medicinehat@assembly.ab.ca 403-528-2191

As we begin the new year, I’d like to thank the residents of Medicine Hat and southeastern Alberta for your kind encouragement, advice, and support in 2015. While it was a challenging year for all of us in one way or another, I hope you enjoyed the opportunity the holidays provide for rest and for enjoying the blessings of family and community. With that season behind us, I find that January is often a time of rejuvenation, renewal, and setting our sights on goals for the future. And as I reflect on my own role in the Wildrose Opposition caucus as Shadow Minister of Health, I see opportunities ahead for rejuvenation and renewal in our province’s ailing health system. In the past year, I have heard of the frustrations that exist and how we could do better. Of course, one of the first things to come up is typically the issue of costs and spending. Health care in this province now accounts for about 45 cents of every dollar spent by the provincial government, and the projections show little sign that its growth trend will soon end. Much has been made by the NDP government of how much they intend to pump into the system, but little has been said of what this will accomplish. Little has been said of the billions of dollars we already spend on the system. Alberta has the second highest per capita health care spending in the country, well above the national average. To put this in perspective, British Columbia on a per capita basis spends $4 billion less than we do. At a time when debt is skyrocketing, our credit rating is being downgraded, and the

We must move beyond thinking that dollars spent equates to patients served. Previous governments have fallen into the habit of making huge spending announcements on vague initiatives that were often not followed up with proper implementation or accountability measures. On this crucial issue of accountability, I will continuously press the current government to improve. Albertans deserve results for the money we spend. We deserve to see how our dollars are going into patient care and how effectively they are contributing to improvement. And if no such improvement exists despite massive annual increases, the public deserves to see that, as well. At a time when we are being asked to make sacrifices or contribute more towards (as the Premier says) our “fair

share”, it’s only proper that the government demonstrate accountability for the immense spending in the ministry and Alberta Health Services. And, finally, I believe that rejuvenation of our health system requires a renewed emphasis on the role of local decision-making authority. Far too often, I see and hear of the bureaucratic mess that follows when decisions must come from a large and centralized body. Decentralization will not solve every problem, but I can say this with confidence: when decision-making is local, the problems are local, and the solutions are local. Residents have a connection to the decisions made in their communities and their unique needs. Ultimately, the people have more power of accountability than when the decision is made by six layers of management in a faceless bureaucracy. In the year ahead, I look forward to advocating for these principles to build a health care system that is sustainable for the future, accountable to taxpayer, and accessible when we need it.

TEAM Insurance & Financial Services

ENERGY INDUSTRY

Simplified insurance and financial solutions for the energy industry. • General Liability • Disability Insurance • Health & Dental Plans Thomson-schindle-Green

#100 chinook Place, downtown medicine hat

(403) 526-3283

Toll-Free: 1-800-830-9423

SPEC 687•AP

insurance & Financial services ltd.

The Price and Politics of Pipelines

We've heard nothing but fear regarding the proposed pipeline shipping oil to Eastern Canada. The Prime Minister and President Obama both talk about the risk to the environment if implementing the Keystone project. They both go on about global warming and climate change. An x liberal MP who is the mayor of Montreal, rants how risky such an experiment would be for Canada. In the next breath he pontificates about insufficient profits offered to Quebec, if it was built. This is the same mayor who didn't consider dumping five billion liters of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River any environmental problem. This unfathomable number is the volume of water passing over Niagara Falls for more than an hour. Clearly, this kind of hypocrisy disgusts the average person. The map below shows pipelines are not the issue. With the intricate network depicted, any reasonable person would agree there certainly are other reasons these two lines are being side tracked. With the vast array already in place why are these considered environmentally unsafe, and so controversial? Could the protests actually be about stopping Canada from becoming energy sufficient and a world player in the oil market? Right now we spend billions importing Saudi oil. It has been reported and proven the major protesters are paid by foreign interests who are our direct competitors in the oil business. These phony protesters do whatever possible to stall Canadian production. Why? Because they are paid lots of money to scream in the media, file legal actions, and pretend it is about safety. Our Premier, the Prime Minister, and David Suzuki, all think Alberta oil is dirty. They've spent years telling that lie. The truth is Oil Sands producers rank with the cleanest most environmentally conscious companies in the world. The Saudi oil profits prop up an oppressive regime considering themselves royalty. They all but starve their own people, are oppressive to women, and brutal to gay people. They are state sponsors of terrorism. Yet we buy their products and boycott our own... Stupid people, liberal and conservative, elected a radical anti-oil Premier. We are stuck for another three years before we can start the ten years or so repair to the oil industry in Alberta. Companies have pulled out and invested elsewhere.

Scott Cowan

EDITORIAL

Equipment and man power has shifted to Saskatchewan and around the globe. Even if Notely had a catharsis and said, we won't regulate and tax you to death, come back. It is too late. When a government does almost everything short of arresting business owners for risking their capital investments, employing people, paying taxes, and simultaneously paying millions for accountants, it's discouraging. It sort of makes them want to go where they are appreciated for what they actually do, create jobs. Thousands of products are manufactured from oil. What the government creates for stealing profit incentives from individuals and corporations are many. Expensive foreign gas, cascading unemployment starting in the oil sector and eventually ending with minimum wage workers, increased homelessness, welfare addiction, alcohol and drug addiction, divorce, and youth crime. But hey... that pipeline could be "risky." comments can be sent to scott-cowan@live.com

A misleading analysis of CEO pay in Canada A misleading analysis of CEO pay in Canada January 5, 2016 January 5, 2016

Every year, an organization releases a report that compares the average wages and salaries of Canadian workers to the total compensation of Canada’s top 100 CEOs. The report claims CEO pay is excessive and that governments should step in by raising taxes. As we previously pointed out, the analysis is deeply flawed. The report finds that Canada’s top 100 CEOs earned an average $9.0 million in total compensation in 2014 or 184 times the average worker’s wages and salaries. This comparison breaks a basic rule of statistics by comparing apples to oranges, using a definition of CEO pay that is much more wide-ranging than that used for average workers. Specifically, the compensation figure for CEOs includes not just base salaries but all forms of compensation such as bonuses, company shares, stock options, “perks” and pensions. Meanwhile, the pay of average workers only includes their salaries—not pensions and other benefits. So right from the start, the report exaggerates the pay gap between workers and senior management. Another glaring issue with the comparison is that the top 100 CEOs are not a representative sample of Canadian corporate leadership. These are not your average corporate leaders; they are the top people—the superstars with unique talents and qualities in high demand. Presenting their compensation as being typical of CEOs is like saying Sidney Crosby’s salary ($12 million) is representative of the average NHL salary ($2.6 million). Ideally, we should compare the average Canadian CEO’s total compensation to the average worker’s total compensation. Unfortunately, there is no such readily available data. But data from Statistics Canada’s National Household Survey, though limited, allows for a more apples to apples comparison. The data cover a narrow measure of compensation: wages and salaries. And the data are for a broad occupational group: senior management (which includes more than just CEOs—for instance, senior government managers and officials fall into this group). In 2010, the latest year of available data, the wages and salaries of the average senior manager was $142,434. That’s 3.4 times the wages and salaries of the average worker ($42,445)—a far cry from the “184 times” figure cited above. Digging a little deeper into the data reveals the average senior manager is not even the highest paid occupation (based on wages and salaries). The chart below displays other occupations that, on average, make more the average the average senior manager

In 2010, judges were the highest paid, with average wages and salaries of $199,756 or 40.2 per cent more than the average senior manager ($142,434). The average petroleum engineer ($154,249) also made more than the average senior manager, as did those working as securities agents and investment dealers and brokers ($143,436).The point is not that senior managers, and by extension CEOs, deserve more or less pay relative to the average worker. The compensation of senior managers is a matter for owners to fret about, not governments. But a meaningful discussion about CEO pay should not be based on faulty and misleading statistics. Authors: Charles Lammam Hugh MacIntyre Milagros Palacios

Watch Your Language Continued from page 13

â&#x20AC;&#x153;A dream doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t come to reality through magic; it takes sweat, determination and hard work.â&#x20AC;? Colin Powell

Racist is another word that has hugely negative connotations, and rightly so, but it has been bandied around with such indiscretion that it's become difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in regard to the validity of it's use. Response to the Syrian refugee policy in Canada supplies ample evidence of both it's use and misuse. Social Media alone will provide scores of examples of both legitimate examples of racism, and valid criticism falsely labelled as such. For example, one needn't be a racist to have had concerns with the Trudeau Government's plan to have 25,000 Syrians resettled in Canada by the end of 2015, when the promise was first made. One needed only know how to read a calendar, a world map, and know how to use a calculator, to realize it was logistically impossible. While there was and continues to be racist sentiment expressed about this matter, observing people who were doing nothing more than point out basic math problems have their motivations questioned and determined to be racist by some self appointed champions of liberal virtue, is proof positive of a distinct and readily evident trend. The political left, the so-called "progressive" wing of the social spectrum, is proving itself to be just as intolerant of dissenting opinions as it has tirelessly accused the right wing of being. The incredulity shown toward opinions and beliefs outside their own is quite likely what motivates these overstated and derogatory depictions of anyone holding contrasting points of view in the first place. By casting aspersions in such a broad and imprecise manner, the left wing attacks a mythical creature that simply doesn't exist; that being a monolithic and homogeneous right wing. The right wing is no more entirely made up of narrow minded xenophobic bigots, than the left wing is solely made up of godless amoral communists. Some "progressives", as a friend recently quite aptly put it, have become the "schoolyard bullies" they decry "conservatives" of being. There is a larger issue far greater than the left wing's overzealously calling the right wing names. Our world is facing a truly global threat in ISIS, an entity that one could examine in light of the list of terms at the beginning of this article, and check off most, if not all, as fully represented. However, "Wolf!" has been cried too many times for too little reason. Hence, the terms have lost their gravitas. Their depth of meaning has been depreciated and these truly deplorable terms are in need of re-valuation. The full concentration of their connotations needs to be renewed beyond mere rhetoric and overstatement fuelled by political and social disaccord. When there are truly wolves, "Wolf" needs to have it's full significance. There is another effect that is far more subtle. When the practice of labelling particular groups of people, in the broadest of contexts and with the most extreme terms possible, becomes the norm for one element of the political and social spectrum (and it has), it serves to desensitize everyone to the practice. This stimulates proportionally similar actions and attitudes along other fringes of society, and results in even more radical behaviour and beliefs among extreme elements, simply because intolerance breeds intolerance. When moderate views are described using extreme terms, it pushes the edges of the envelope outward.

-Looking for an extra income? -Need something to carry you through a layoff? -Can you spend a few minutes a day on your computer??? -With very little effort, I secured an extra $1000.00 a month. Others do much better. Check out the link below:

http://www.myadvertisingpays. com/cp1.asp?SponsId=189712

This results in the sorts of stuff and nonsense that has surrounded the media coverage and discussion of ISIS and the fallout associated with it's existence and activities. As the descriptive language being used is extreme and polarizing, both when warranted and decidedly when not, it leaves one with the impression that there are no measured and reasoned points of view. It is just as foolish to state that all of those with concerns about safety issues relating to ISIS, and are critical of how these concerns are being addressed, are bigots, as it is to say that all Muslims support terrorism. Both statements are equally stupid. What's needed is tolerance; not mamby-pamby, let's all hold hands and sing "Kum By Yah" tolerance, but tolerance that allows for the ability to hold opinions and freely express ideas without being stigmatized at the slightest hint of disagreement. Tolerance is not unfettered permissiveness. Tolerance is the ability to allow for a wide range of opinions and ideas, including those outside one's own, while clearly delineating between those and radical and dangerous extremism. An excellent place to start on the road to such tolerance would be the felicitous use of social and political disparagements. Put more simply - watch your language. Not everyone to the left of you is a communist, nor everyone to the right of you a fascist. Brent Dunstan

Truth of Immigration Continued from page 05

Generally those who immigrate legally tend to be the best and the brightest in those countries. They’re seeking better lives and have the resources to basically escape via immigration. But then who and what’s left in their host countries? The uneducated and poor are then left to fend aimlessly. We actually steal their only real hope, their only leaders, and the only real chance for progress in those places. Add to the equation each year 80 million new souls to the totals above. It becomes painfully obvious, we’ve got this backward. We should be leaving the people where they are, and helping them in their host nations. Canadians are spending over a billion dollars this year alone importing Syrians. We should create safe zones where they are living. Then work toward resolution there, where our money goes several times farther in value. However, this also means killing about forty thousand radical extremists to create these habitable safe zones. Liberals have no stomach for that process. Let’s not lose sight of those billions of non-Muslim people who aren’t systematically committing genocide against their own kind. They’re simply over worked and starving to death. In my mind, they constitute the greater tragedy and are more deserving of our meager resources. In comparison to new comers who totally resent us? Then immediately work to usurp our culture? Another interesting statistic to examine is birth rates. Experts tell us for any country and culture to survive; it needs a minimum of 1.6 births per family. Canadians average 1.61, barely enough to maintain. Muslims average 8 births per family. Do the math on even three generations of those 100,000 refugees we’re letting in right now. They’ll easily eclipse and surpass our population. No matter, historically for any nation to fall to Islam, only a 20% infiltration needs occur. In say fifteen years, Sharia Law will be so wide spread the wealthy and youthfully mobile will escape to what’s left of the USA. Can anyone explain why it is our job to adopt six billion people anyhow? I forgot we have to feel guilty we have money in the first place. Finally, there is the question of what we are not doing for our own people in need. How much should we be giving to others when

babies in Canada are hungry? What about our wounded Vets? Does charity begin at home? Why are refugees given more generous benefits than afforded to our taxpaying seniors? Should refuges receive housing, and interest free or discounted loans? Should they live indefinitely in hotels, with food allowances, while being settled? Shouldn’t we make sure before bringing them to Canada, that adequate housing infrastructure actually exists? Should our soldiers be ordered out of their homes and barracks to house refugees? Most all immigrants are uneducated, or can’t work in their fields due to our stricter standards. Hence they stay on welfare. Shouldn’t these realities be a factor in the decision making? Therefore the elephant in the room question

is, “What the hell is going on?” Has every politician in Ottawa and Washington become addicted to crack? Has common sense left the building? Allowed to continue, Canada and the USA will become third world countries. Who then will help the world? If we’re going to intervene, do so in countries that appreciate our money. Nations who won’t immediately blow up the schools and electric plants we build. We have 5.6 billion people to choose from globally. But hey, Liberal good intensions trumps reality. I’m sure the PM felt good standing at the airport handing his new voters winter parkas. A great capitalist said, “The best thing you can do for the poor, is not become one of them.” Even Jesus Christ said, “The poor you’ll always have with you.”

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

Inside this Month’s Issue “Carmen Marc Valvo” 24