Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - June 16, 2012, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A16 EDITORIALS WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 2012 Freedom of Trade Liberty of Religion Equality of Civil Rights A 16 COMMENT EDITOR: Gerald Flood 697- 7269 gerald. flood@ freepress. mb. ca winnipegfreepress. com EDITORIAL EDITORIAL C OURT of Queen's Bench Justice Lori Douglas has a good explanation for why she said " no" in 2004 on the judge application line where she was asked if there was anything in her past or present that could reflect negatively on her and should be disclosed. Simply, she says, she had done nothing wrong. But that was not what she was asked, precisely, and the wiser answer would have been " yes, with an explanation." This error now sees Judge Douglas before the Canadian Judicial Council, defending herself against allegations to be heard publicly later this month. But for the claims of a former client of her lawyer husband, Jack King, it seems next to no one has anything bad to say about Lori Douglas. In fact, there is wide and justified sympathy that she is the victim in all of this. Mr. King in 2003 approached his client Alex Chapman with pornographic photos he took of Ms. Douglas and asked him to have sex with her. He also posted the photos on the Internet. This sordid affair ended with a settlement, after Mr. Chapman alleged sexual harassment against Mr. King, took $ 25,000 from him and agreed to destroy the photos. Ms. Douglas, who learned of it at the settlement, had encouragement from legal colleagues, including judges, to apply to be a judge. But in answering " no" on the form that asks for full disclosure of one's past, she drew the attention of some of the local judicial appointments advisory committee who knew of the Chapman incident. After calling Ms. Douglas to discuss the past, the committee recommended her application, but flagged the Chapman issue for the review of the federal justice minister, who then appointed her to the Queen's Bench in Manitoba in 2005. Judge Douglas makes the case that what her husband did, and the consequences that flowed from it, are not relevant to her ability to be a judge. But the application process is very careful to canvass all possibilities that the candidate's character and history does not reflect badly on her or the judiciary. Even through no fault of her own, such a past could present a problem to a judge - something evident to the chief justice of the Queen's Bench in 2003, when he initially opposed her application, fearing the fact photos had been on the Internet made her a potential target of blackmail. He withdrew his objection in 2004. Although the council has decided to hear the allegation of Mr. Chapman that Ms. Douglas was party to the sexual harassment he alleged Mr. King carried out, it would appear that only bears weight because of Judge Douglas' own actions. In documents before the council, Judge Douglas admits to having changed an adjective scribbled into a diary on the day she met Mr. Chapman, and then, during investigation by the judicial council, she did not respond to questions about it accurately. She corrected the version of events shortly after. On the face of it, her actions, while wrong, seem unlikely to meet the threshold of the " manifestly and profoundly destructive" conduct required to be ousted from the bench. But the role of the judicial council is to represent the public interest in sustaining confidence in the judiciary. Judge Douglas will have her chance in her own words to put all the questions to rest, to show she can do the job fairly and with impartiality. But the council did the right thing in deciding to put that to this test. T HIS is the season of speeches as thousands of students graduate from high school or receive their university degrees. There have been many famous commencement addresses over the decades, from Winston Churchill's " Never give up" ( 1941) to Michael Bloomberg's observation that " we are all computer nerds now" ( 2012), but one of the more memorable may be the " Wear sunscreen" speech, made famous by the fact it was wrongly attributed to American novelist Kurt Vonnegut. One of the more controversial speeches, however, occurred this spring at Wellesley High School in Massachusetts, reportedly one of the best schools in the United States, where privileged kids go to study. " You are not special," they were told. " You are not exceptional." The words were uttered by David Mc- Cullough Jr., an English teacher at the school. He went on: " The fulfilling life, the distinctive life, the relevant life, is an achievement, not something that will fall into your lap because you're a nice person or Mommy ordered it from the caterer." Mr. McCullough was subsequently criticized and praised in the American media, illustrating that the debate about whether educators and parents are mollycoddling students is not confined to Canada. A teacher in Edmonton, for example, was recently suspended for violating the school's no- zero policy by handing out zeros to students who didn't complete the required assignments. The school board believed a mark of zero encouraged students to quit and it was better to make them finish the work. Fair- minded people can disagree on the policy, yet it seems the Wellesley English teacher was addressing broader issues, namely the so- called culture of entitlement and age of narcissism some critics say have infected the education system, as well as parental values. The idea that young people are special, even when they are not, and that they can achieve anything they want in life is well- intentioned ( think of little Johnny's self- esteem), but people like Mr. McCullough believe it has led to false expectations that can lead to great disappointment and emotional injury. As he told the Wellesley graduating class, young people need to set goals they want to achieve for their own sake and not because they want a ribbon, a trophy or public recognition. " Climb the mountain," Mr. McCullough said, " so you can see the world, not so the world can see you." A H! Summer and the chance to escape to " the lake." And it's been a fine lake for most of my years. The family built the cottage in the 1950s on the shores of Falcon Lake, and we've had four generations step through the doors. It's not much but it's enough. We are at the lake to experience the outdoors - swimming, fishing, hiking, boating, canoeing, kayaking. We need a place to gather the family and to eat and sleep and stay warm and dry when it's cold or rainy. Several years ago, the lake experience started to change with the construction of the first summer homes and the trend now appears to be irreversible. Older ( and some newer) lakeshore cottages that are selling for $ 500,000 are being torn down and massive houses are constructed on the sites. Construction of twostorey homes, two- storey garages and guest cottages is not uncommon on modestly sized lots. With the adjacent boathouses, decks, docks and boat- lift systems, there is little left of natural shoreline along many stretches of lakefront. The suburbanization of Falcon Lake is well underway. I don't fault the individuals constructing the vacation homes of their dreams - unless they are deliberately ignoring building restrictions and rules and getting away with it due to lax enforcement. I fault the provincial Parks and Natural Areas branch, which presumably controls parkland. Falcon Lake is in a provincial park, not in a municipality. It is not freehold land. Four years ago, I contacted the director of Parks and Natural Areas ( with a copy to the minister of conservation and water stewardship) to question the enforcement of rules stated in the Cottager's Handbook, which is still on the government web pages, though with a banner that states " Under Review." The handbook states " the maximum aggregate size ( the ' footprint') of the vacation home and all accessory buildings on a lot including buildings on the adjacent Crown reserve, is 20 per cent of the total area of the lot up to a maximum of 3,000 square feet ( 278 square metres) on one level. The maximum development on all levels, including the basement, main floor and second storey of the main cottage, and all floors of any accessory buildings, is 6,000 square feet ( 557 square metres)." I have no problem believing many of the new cottages and accessory buildings are in the range of 6,000 square feet. I find it very hard to believe the footprint of many of the new homes and their accessory buildings is 20 per cent or less of the lot. Four years ago, I received a response that did not answer the question I asked, but which basically stated people are purchasing cottage sites for high dollars and to maximize their investment, they are constructing ever larger buildings. The director did not confirm or deny standards noted in the handbook were being enforced. The use of natural lands for recreation is always a balancing act. How much development is appropriate before natural lands are no longer natural? Could it be when the shoreline of a lake like Falcon resembles a lake in the suburbs of Winnipeg? As a lifelong summer resident of the Whiteshell, I believe it is a Manitoba treasure that should be treated as such. Areas such as Falcon Lake and West Hawk Lake have turned into desirable cottage country because of the natural beauty, the deep, clean water and the proximity to Winnipeg. I sometimes think about what has been lost - not only in terms of what Falcon Lake once was, but in terms of what " going to the lake" once was. It was about experiencing the outdoors - the forest, the wind, the hot days spent in the water, the rain that drives down onto the lake, birdsong and wildlife. It wasn't about bringing all the amenities of the city to the lake. It was about leaving those things in the city and discovering a different world and a different pace. I know there are cottagers like me out there. I am sure there are also casual visitors and campers in provincial parks who are observing the rapid changes in cottage areas. If you feel the provincial Conservation and Water Stewardship division needs to give priority and assign resources to a review of its policies and procedures for cottage development in the Whiteshell, contact the director of Parks and Natural Areas and the minister. In my opinion, Falcon Lake has already passed the tipping point toward suburbanization. Others are sure to follow. Brenda Miller, a lifelong resident of Winnipeg whose parents built a cottage on the south shore of Falcon Lake in 1956, is an administrator and student adviser in geological sciences at the University of Manitoba. The suburbanization of Falcon Lake BRENDA MILLER BRENT FOSTER / POSTMEDIA NEWS ARCHIVES Monster cottages are a threat to parks areas. Commencement speech for the age Tests put to judge appropriate A_ 16_ Jun- 16- 12_ FP_ 01. indd A16 6/ 15/ 12 8: 19: 30 PM ;