The commonest birthdays in Canada

Here's a fun thing, for a change: a graphic of the most common birthdays in Canada, based on data from the last 30 years.

Unsurprisingly, February 29th is the least common followed by dates on or around Christmas and New Year - no-one wants to be in labour on Christmas Day or New Year's Eve, and hospital staff definitely don't want them to be.

The most popular birthday is 20th September, for no good reason that I can see. In fact, 9 of the 10 most popular days are in September.

In broader terms, the summer months (lighter colours on the chart) are the period of the most common birthdays, while the winter months (darker colours) are the least common. And it's a pretty stark dichotomy; the only real exceptions are July 1st and 2nd (Canada Day, go figure!)

The other nine questions

We've heard a lot about the independence question in Alberta's upcoming referendum (October 19th). We've heard relatively little about the other nine questions on the ballot. What are they, and what do people need to know about them?

Question 1: Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration, and giving Albertans first priority on new employmemt opportunities?

This four-part question is one of the more confusing ones. Are people voting on the first part, all of the parts, any of the parts? I guess they are (deliberately) leaving their options open. Alberta is trying to achieve what Quebec already has, although Quebec's circumstances were (and are) quite different. In particular, it's not clear what "sustainable" means in this context, nor even who would qualify as an "Albertan". This also comes at a time when immigration into Alberta is nose-diving after a surge from 2022-2024.

Question 2: Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services?

What does "Alberta-approved" mean here? What criteria will be set for "approval"? This could represent a drastic change, as currently all temporary residents are eligible for these services. 

Question 3: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support services?

Which social support programs will be off-limits to new temporary residents? All of them? The government's explanatory website suggests that this actually means childcare subsidies, student aid, income supports and other benefits, but not health care or education - this is far from clear. Premier Smith has previously indicated that temporary residents cost the public system $1 billion for health care and education, but this is disputed by some experts, and ignores the fact that many immigrants actually arrive in Canada healthier than many Canadian-born residents, and use fewer health resources.

Question 4: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family's use of the health care and immigration systems?

Yet another question aimed at making temporary residents unwelcome in Alberta, this question, as with the others, does not make it clear whether it applies to current temporary residents or just future ones. And what exactly does "a reasonable fee or premium" mean? (A figure of $1,900 for healthcare alone has been posited, although who knows where that came from. Also, when would this (and any other potential changes) come into force? Again, rumour has it that it might only start after the next election, which is scheduled for October 2027 (and presumably only if the UCP actually wins that election).

Question 5: Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta election?

This one presumably WOULD come into force before the next election! Elections Alberta already requires proof of address and accepts any of 50 different forms of identification, so it's not clear what problem this measure is supposed to address. The electoral agency has reported only four instances of ineligible voters in the last ten years, and it already verifies voters' citizenship when individuals are added to the electoral roll. Anything more seems redundant.

Question 6: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King's Bench and Appeal courts?

Ms. Smith seems to think that Alberta has "distinct legal traditions", even though they are really just the same as those of other provinces. As with all other provinces, the current system appoints judges through a judicial advisory committee, which has representatives from the province as well as from the federal government. Plus, any change to the Canadian Constitution would require the agreement of at least seven provincial legislatures covering at least 50% of the country's population, not just "other willing provinces". So, not going to happen.

Question 7: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?

The allocation of Senate seats between provinces is admittedly unrepresentative for historical reasons, and the western provinces (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) are under-represented. The solution to this, however, is not to abolish the Senate but to reform it. In addition to the same requirement to even open the Constitution noted above, the Senate could not be abolished without the  agreement of all ten provinces. Not going to happen.

Question 8: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?

Essentially, Alberta to have its cake and eat it. It wants to continue to receive the billions of dollars in federal funding to help run its programs, but is unwilling to accept the strings attached (e.g. complying with federal laws). If a province is not willing to accept the terms of the transfers, then why should they get the transfers? It's a bit like taking out a bank loan and refusing to pay the interest. Plus, to even open the Canadian Constitution ... yada, yada.

Question 9: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province's laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province's and federal laws conflict?

This would be a dramatic reshaping of the country's constitutional order, and is an extension, or a "rephrasing", of Smith's signature Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act of 2022, much of which remains to be tested for legality and constitutuonality. Federal legislation applies around the country, almost by definition, and that is unlikely to ever change (nor should it). The Constitution is very clear on what is federal jurisdiction and what is provincial. In practice, the occasions on which federal and provincial laws clash are few and far between, and that is especially so with the current federal administration. Plus, to even open ... yada, yada.

So, lots of long, wordy, confusing questions about immigration and constitutionality, all stemming from Alberta's constant feelings of insecurity, grievance and victimization. 

As Mark Carney said, just yesterday, "No to the Nine!"

OCC oversteps its authority in trying to force banks to take on controversial customers

A US banking regulator that glories in the splendidly anachronistic name the of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has ruled that nine banks, including two Canadian banks, are guilty of practices and policies that denied or limited access to financial services because of political or religious beliefs. 

Canada's Toronto Dominion Bank and the Bank of Montreal were among the nine, which also included many of the heavy hitters in American banking like JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, US Bancorp and Capital One.

The review was demanded, predictably enough, by Donald Trump, and, predictably enough, he received the answer he wanted. No penalties were announced for the perceived transgressions, but the OCC say they are "assessing further regulatory and supervisory changes" to prevent these issues from happening again.

So, what kind of thing are we talking about here? Who is being discriminated against and denied access to their rights? 

Well, as you might imagine, they are almost all on the right fringes of the Republican Party. Examples include a non-profit espousing extreme anti-abortion views, a company producing MAGA merchandise, that kind of thing. In some cases, particular industry sectors are involved, like oil and gas exploration, coal mining and coal-powered plants, firearms and ammunition manufacturing, digital asset activities, etc, which contravene the banks' own ethical policies. It apparently amounts to a tiny number of individuals and companies ("a limited number of historical interactions") out of the many millions of accounts the banks maintain.

From the banks' point of view, though, in distancing themselves from some of the more controversial loan applicants, they are just trying to manage their legal, financial and reputational risk, which they are well within their rights to do.

The OCC's "irrefutable evidence" that the banks have "denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses", then, seems to tar the banks with a very broad brush, and ignores their own right to pick their customers and protect their own corporate brands. If anything, you could argue that the report merely reflects the political stance of the OCC (or maybe Mr. Trump).

The OCC contends that banks are using the concept of reputational risk as a shield to deny services to customers based on subjective, non-financial criteria. The banks, on the other hand, argue that managing reputational risk is a critical part of safe and sound operations. A potential client's public persona or controversial industry ties can lead to concrete legal, compliance and financial liabilities. Banks should not be forced to take on relationships with risky or controversial customers they do not trust.

Increase in Ontario electricity costs driven by nuclear power

Ontario's electricity rates are going up again after the latest agreement with ratepayer and industry groups. This time there is no hiding the fact that it is expensive nuclear power that is driving the increases.

For years, the Ontario government has maintained the convenient fiction that it has been renewable energy that has driven costs up. As renewables - whether hydro, wind or solar - are now among the cheapest electricity generation options, that is no longer going to fly.

Refurbishment of outdated nuclear plants and additional maintenance costs on others are the main drivers for this latest increase. Nuclear costs from 2027 to 2031 are projected to be almost double those from 2022 to 2026. A much smaller increase will result from refurbishment to some hydro dams. The report notes, however, that hydro costs are less than a quarter of nuclear costs per megawatt of power produced.

The nuclear lobby is still very powerful [sic] in Ontario, exemplified by all those full-page ads in major newspapers. But it is, and has always been, an expensive option. I doubt many people will be paying attention to news reports like this one, but if they were, they would have a better understanding of just how expensive.

Did America withold missile warnings from Ukraine?

As Russia's illegal war in Ukraine approaches the five year mark, it continues to hit hapless Ukraine with a nightly barrage of drone and missile attacks. It also continues to hit Ukrainian energy and infrastructure targets, despite President Trump's claims of the existence of an "energy ceasefire", which no-one else seems to know anything about.

Even more worrying, the latest strikes arrived before any early warning alarms were enabled, as it appears that no early warning was received by Ukraine from its "partners", which essentially means the USA in this context. Ukraine has various partnerships with European countries for weapons production and missile defence, but for ballistic missile warnings and defence it is apparently almost entirely dependent on the USA.

This is not a situation I was aware of - I naively assumed that Ukraine had its own early warning system - and it immediately raises a bunch of questions: Did Trump order warnings to be deliberately withheld (consistent with his recent diatribes against Ukraine and Zelenskyy, and his renewed support of the aggressor, Russia)? Why does Ukraine not have its own early warning system? Is this not something that the "coalition of the willing" could help fund? Why are British and European warnings not available to Ukraine? Surely they have the technical know-how?

This comes hard on the heels of unexplained restrictions on Ukraine's battlefield use of Elon Musk-owned and US-made Starlink communication terminals, which are essential to Ukraine's drone missions. And, of course, hard on the heels of Trump's recent controversial phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Coincidence?

Trump insists that the US did not withold any warnings, and the official Ukrainian response is that it was just a "failure", suggesting it was due to weather conditions or some sort of miscommunication, rather than a deliberate decision not to share an alert. 

Am I guilty of conspiracy theories to suggest deliberate American actions? I know I'm not the only one, and I know that Trump is definitely capable of much worse.

How much of the world's problems are attributable to Trump?

It occurred to me to wonder just how much of the current global economic malaise affecting the world can be attributed directly to just one man. 

That man, of course, is Donald Trump. His misguided ideas and policies have clearly had a negative effect, not just on the USA, but, because the US is such a big player in the global economy (nothing to do with Trump - he inherited the globe's strongest economy) on the whole world. In order to squeeze a little bit more wealth for what is already by far the wealthiest country in the world, Trump has been willing to bazooka the economies of almost every other country, not realizing that the hit to globalized trade will come around to bite the US too.

It's hard to pin down figures, although many organizations have tried. These figures are quite old now, but Bloomberg is projecting a $2 trillion hit to the global economy by 2027 as a result of Trump's tariffs: the OECD has pared its initial projections for 2026 global growth by 0.2% (which might not sound like much, but over a $100 trillion worldwide economy, it is quite substantial); the WTO has cut its growth projections by as much a 0.6%.

It's not just about GDP, though. Massive job losses are underway; major supply chains have been disrupted; the stock markets are only being kept aloft by (probably ill-advised) AI fever; inflation is creeping up in many countries (including the US); business confidence has been shaken, with a direct effect on investment; and on it goes. 

And it's not just about tariffs, either. Trump's unnecessary and ill-advised war against  has done more to increase the price of oil than Putin's war in Ukraine ever did, bringing with it negative effects on global trade, inflation, etc, to say nothing of the increased instability in energy markets caused by Trump's invasion of Venezuela, his apparently personal vendetta against Canada, his shot in the arm for Russia's oil industry (against his own official US policy and all international efforts), etc, etc.

And it doesn't even end there. Global climate change initiatives have foundered, partly because of the economic pressure countries are feeling, and partly because of America's pull-back from climate action of any kind, and its boosting of the environmentally-damaging oil and gas industries. Democracy has also taken a hit worldwide, as right-wing populists across the globe see the "success" of Trump's anti-democratic push in the USA, which has fueled and emboldened their own dictatorial aspirations.

There's much more and NONE of it is good. All of this will take many years, probably decades, to fix.

USA goes out on a limb over ICC

The 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has been won, not by Donald Trump (shock! horror!), but by the South African judge Navi Pillay, for her indefatigable work with the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and as a staunch defender of the international rule of law.

The Trump administration is, of course, apopeplectic, not just for the snub to their Glorious Leader, but also because of Ms. Pillay's and the ICC's votes against best American buddy Israel, and its characterization the Israeli war in Gaza as genocide and accusing it of multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

Just hours after the Nobel announcement, Marco Rubio announced sanctions on the ICC, preventing American companies from providing services to it (a largely symbolic gesture), calling it a "rogue court". He says, "we will dismantle the ICC - brick by brick, if necessary", and went further to threaten other countries (i.e. most of the world) that continue to support the organization: "Nations that refuse to reject the ICC's false authority while relying on US assistance are likely to come under increased scrutiny".

A fiesty Ms. Pillay clapped back in no uncertain terms: "Clearly, the fact that he [Trump] never got the Nobel Prize, and never will, is an indictment agaist him ... He doesn't like someone or their ideas, then he goes out to sanction, punish, forcibly deport, wrongfully invade, and arrest leaders of other countries. These are threats to international law." Ouch.

Ms. Pillay has the wholehearted backing of most of the civilized world, with the notable exception of the United States, Israel and a few other maverick states that have been the victims of the ICC and ICJ's decisions over the years, and which have therefore never been official member of the international courts (the US signed the Rome Statute establishing the court, but has never ratified it). 

But then, of course, it depends on your definition of "civilized". The USA is now so far from civilized norms, and has lost so much respect in international circles, that it's hard to see a way back. They are so far out on a limb there's no limb there any more.

The second Chow - is he a plant?

There's a second Chow on the ballot form for the upcoming Toronto mayoralty election.

Braeden is an unknown guy off the street, with no real platform or campaign, one of 53 names on the busy ballot. Because Toronto lists the candidates in alphabetical order (unlike many jurisductions, which list the names in random order or include thumbnail pictures to avoid any confusion), he actually appears just above incumbent Mayor Olivia Chow, who is in a tight race for re-election.

My theory is that the guy is a plant or a decoy installed by Ms. Chow's main rival, Brad Bradford, in the hopes of syphoning off a few of Chow's votes by inattentive voters. (The race is close enough that it could make the difference.) I figure that Bradford, who was our local councillor for four years, would not be above that kind of stunt: I would not trust the guy even if I could throw him. 

It will be interesting to know if my theory is correct, or if we ever find out.