Food Security Is Canada’s Next National Imperative

Canada has long built its agri-food reputation on food safety and quality. Rigorous inspection systems, traceability protocols, and high sanitation standards have made Canadian products trusted both domestically and on the global market. But while these strengths remain critical, they are no longer sufficient. In an era of accelerating climate disruption, geopolitical instability, supply chain fragility, and rising inequality, Canada must now turn its focus to food security – the guarantee that all people, at all times, have reliable access to enough affordable, nutritious food.

Food safety ensures that the food we consume is free from contamination. Food quality ensures it meets certain standards of freshness, nutrition, and presentation. These are the cornerstones of consumer trust. Yet, neither concept addresses the structural risks facing our food system today. Food security asks a different set of questions: Can Canadian households afford the food they need? Can our food system withstand climate shocks, trade disputes, and infrastructure breakdowns? Are our supply chains inclusive, decentralized, and flexible enough to adapt to major disruptions?

Recent events have underscored the fragility of our current system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions to cross-border trucking and meat processing plants exposed just how centralized and brittle key segments of Canada’s food supply have become. In British Columbia, floods in 2021 cut off rail and road access to Vancouver, leading to supermarket shortages within days. In the North and many Indigenous communities, chronic underinvestment has made access to affordable, fresh food unreliable at the best of times, and catastrophic during crises.

Moreover, food insecurity is rising, not falling. In 2023, over 18 percent of Canadian households reported some level of food insecurity, with that number climbing higher among single mothers, racialized Canadians, and people on fixed incomes. Food banks, once seen as emergency stopgaps, are now regular institutions in Canadian life. This is not a failure of food safety or quality. It is a failure of access and equity – core dimensions of food security.

Part of the problem lies in how Canada conceptualizes its agri-food system. At the federal level, agriculture is still often framed as an export sector rather than a foundational pillar of domestic well-being. Policy is shaped by trade metrics, not food sovereignty. We excel at producing wheat, pork, and canola for overseas markets, but remain heavily reliant on imports for fruits, vegetables, and processed goods. Controlled-environment agriculture remains underdeveloped in most provinces, leaving the country vulnerable to droughts, supply chain blockages, and foreign policy flare-ups.

To move toward food security, Canada must first reframe its priorities. This means investing in local and regional food systems that shorten supply chains and embed resilience close to where people live. It means modernizing food infrastructure: cold storage, processing capacity, and distribution networks, particularly in underserved rural and northern communities. It means supporting small and medium-scale producers who can provide diversified, adaptive supply within regional ecosystems. It also means integrating food policy with social policy. Income supports, housing, health, and food access are intertwined. Any serious food security strategy must address affordability alongside production.

Several provinces have begun to lead. Quebec has developed a coordinated framework focused on food autonomy, greenhouse expansion, regional processing, and public education. British Columbia is experimenting with local procurement strategies and urban farming initiatives. But the federal government has not yet articulated a cohesive national food security agenda. The 2019 Food Policy for Canada set out promising goals, but lacked the legislative weight and funding to shift the structure of the system itself.

Now is the time to act. Climate events will increase in frequency and severity. Global trade dynamics are growing more volatile. Technological transformation and consumer expectations are evolving rapidly. A resilient, secure food system cannot be improvised in moments of crisis. It must be designed, invested in, and governed intentionally.

Canada’s record on food safety and quality is a strength to build on. But it is not enough. Food security is the challenge of this decade. Meeting it will require a new policy imagination, one that centres equity, redundancy, and sustainability as the foundations of a food system truly built to serve all Canadians.

On Grown Men and Their Troubling Aversion to Female Heroes

Welcome to the 21st century, where on one hand we have space travel, near-instant communication across the globe, and AI that can write essays about gladiators (I think, based on context). On the other hand, there exists an astonishing subset of adult human males who loudly complain whenever a TV show or movie gives a sword, a spotlight, or even a gladiator’s loincloth to a woman. Yes women leading stories – how utterly terrifying.

Let’s be clear: The House of Ashur is thriving with critics praising its storytelling and performances. Yet its fan numbers are being dragged down by vote-bombing campaigns from folks who apparently believe that Achilla (a fierce female gladiator protagonist) is too much to handle. That reaction isn’t just silly, it’s fish-slapping-ridiculous. These are people who, given a choice between a well-written lead and…..well, literally nothing else, somehow pick nothing elsejust because they don’t want it to be a woman. Really.

You might remember a certain Captain Marvel movie that suffered a similar fate before it was even in theaters. Hundreds of thousands of online ratings were dumped on the film before anyone had seen it, not because the plot was bad, but because the lead was female and some men (yes, mostly male) just couldn’t abide the idea that a woman could be “the big one” for a change. Review bombing became so bad that Rotten Tomatoes had to change their rating rules to stop it.  

Now, it’s easy to laugh – and we should – because the idea of voting against something simply because a woman is at the center is like refusing to eat soup because the spoon is pink. It’s arbitrary. If the story’s good, the gender of the lead doesn’t matter for most people. Ask yourself: would you care if Indiana Jones were a woman if the script were fire? What about James Bond? Samus Aran? Sarah Connor? The answer for most fans is no – those characters are beloved precisely because they’re compelling, not because they fit some old “male lead only” checklist.

When critics sneer at female leads in genre stories, they often don’t realize how absurd it looks from the outside. Complaining that female heroes “ruin” a franchise is like saying new toppings on pizza ruin Italian cuisine. Spoiler alert: there’s pizza with pineapple and it still exists. And it sells! Some people love it, some hate it, and the world keeps spinning.

Part of the “backlash” is rooted in fandom tradition resisting change – a legacy of decades when the default hero was male, yet media evolves. Women commanding the screen is not a threat to masculinity any more than men playing with dolls was a threat to toy sales. And when the backlash is so loud it drowns out the actual audience? That’s not fandom, it’s performance art disguised as insecurity.

Here’s the real kicker: many stories with female protagonists already succeedwithout complaint. Wonder Woman kicked ass at the box office, Xena ruled the ’90s, and modern audiences adore characters like Buffy, Rey, and Furiosa. They weren’t treated like novelty, they were embraced for what they were: interesting heroes with stories worth telling.  

So to the gentlemen (and keyboard gladiators) who can’t stomach a woman front and center: relax. Pop some popcorn, enjoy the spectacle, and if it’s not your cup of tea, fine. But don’t pretend that a female lead is a threat, it’s just a story, not an invasion force. Unless she actually is an invasion force, in which case….. alright, fair. That would be awesome.

In the end, if a story is good, its hero – male, female, gladiator, intergalactic space slug – deserves to be celebrated. Voting against something because of its protagonist’s gender isn’t just outdated, it’s downright comedic. And frankly, Achilla deserves better.

The Ferry That Would Not Settle: Wolfe Island and the Cost of Getting It Wrong

For generations, the Wolfe Island ferry was a quiet, functional piece of public infrastructure. It was not glamorous, and it did not promise innovation. It simply worked often enough that island life could organize itself around its rhythms. That unspoken reliability ended not with a single breakdown, but with a cascade of decisions that treated a critical transportation link as a technology showcase rather than a lifeline.

The roots of the current crisis reach back to the decision to replace the Wolfe Islander III, a vessel launched in 1976 that, despite its age, delivered consistent service. In 2017, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation committed to a new, larger hybrid-electric ferry, the Wolfe Islander IV, built overseas and marketed as a modern, higher-capacity, lower-emissions solution. On paper, it was progress. In practice, it was a project that outran its own ecosystem.

The new vessel arrived in Ontario in 2021, years before the docks, charging infrastructure, and staffing capacity required to operate it were fully in place. This mismatch created an immediate limbo. A ferry designed to function as part of an integrated electric system instead sat idle while shore-side systems lagged behind. Training shortages and labour constraints compounded the delay, turning what should have been a transitional period into a prolonged absence from service.

When the Wolfe Islander IV finally entered full-time operation in August 2024, expectations were high and patience already thin. Those expectations were quickly tested. Within months, the vessel suffered a grounding incident that damaged its hull and propulsion components. What was initially described as minor damage resulted in the ferry being removed from service for an extended period and sent to a Hamilton shipyard for repairs. The older Wolfe Islander III was pressed back into duty, once again carrying the weight of continuity.

The mechanical troubles did not end with that incident. The hybrid-electric design depended on shore-based charging infrastructure that was still incomplete, forcing the vessel to rely heavily on onboard diesel generators. Those generators, never intended for sustained primary operation, became a point of failure. By mid-2025, generator problems again sidelined the ferry. Brief returns to service were followed by further outages, including power system failures that left residents relying on temporary passenger shuttles and improvised arrangements.

These technical failures had predictable human consequences. The Wolfe Islander IV operates on a longer round-trip schedule than its predecessor, reducing the number of daily crossings. For island residents, this change reshaped daily life. Commutes grew longer and less predictable. Medical appointments, school schedules, supply deliveries, and emergency response planning all became more fragile. What had once been an inconvenience during rare outages became a chronic uncertainty.

Concerns around emergency access have been particularly acute. Wolfe Island relies on ferry access for ambulance transport to mainland hospitals. Longer crossing times and unreliable service are not abstract inconveniences in that context. They are measurable risks. Community petitions and advocacy groups emerged not out of nostalgia for the old ferry, but out of a clear understanding that transportation reliability is a public safety issue, not merely a service quality metric.

The deeper problem is not that a new ferry experienced teething issues. Complex infrastructure projects often do. The problem lies in the sequencing of decisions. The vessel was delivered before its supporting systems were ready. Operational assumptions were made about staffing and training capacity that did not hold. A technology-forward design was deployed into an environment that could not yet support it. Each of these choices transferred risk from the project plan onto the community it was meant to serve.

What has unfolded at Wolfe Island is a familiar Canadian infrastructure story. Ambition was not matched by coordination. Procurement timelines were allowed to drift out of alignment with construction and commissioning realities. Accountability became diffuse as responsibility spread across contractors, ministries, and timelines. Meanwhile, residents were left to absorb the consequences of decisions made far from the dock.

The Wolfe Island ferry saga is not primarily about electric propulsion or shipbuilding quality. It is about governance. It is about whether essential public services are designed around the lived realities of the communities that depend on them, or around abstract models of innovation and efficiency. Reliability, once lost, is difficult to regain. Trust follows the same rule.

Until the ferry system is treated first as critical infrastructure and only second as a demonstration project, Wolfe Island will continue to pay the price for a transition that was promised as an improvement and delivered as a disruption. The lesson is not that modernization is a mistake. The lesson is that modernization without readiness is not progress at all.

Sources

U.S. Border Rules: Security Theater at the Expense of the Economy

The United States is poised to implement border-crossing rules that threaten to strangle tourism and business travel under the guise of national security. Under a proposal from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, travelers from Visa Waiver Program countries could soon be required to disclose five years of social media activity, all phone numbers and email addresses used in the past decade, family details, and an array of biometric data including fingerprints, facial scans, iris scans, and potentially DNA. The stated purpose is to prevent threats before travelers set foot on American soil. The practical effect, however, is more likely to be economic self-sabotage than enhanced security.

Officials argue that social media monitoring can identify links to extremist networks and that biometric verification prevents identity fraud. Yet in reality, these measures are deeply flawed. Social media is ambiguous, easily manipulated, and prone to false positives. Connections to flagged accounts are not proof of malicious intent, and online behavior is rarely a reliable predictor of future actions. Biometric data can confirm identity, but it cannot reveal intent, and DNA collection provides little actionable intelligence for border security. What is billed as a comprehensive safety net is, in practice, security theater: a show of vigilance with limited ability to prevent genuine threats.

The economic consequences are far more immediate and measurable. Tourism generates hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the United States, and even modest deterrence can ripple across hotels, restaurants, retail, and transportation. Business travel and conferences may shift overseas to avoid intrusive vetting, while students and skilled professionals may choose alternative destinations for study and employment. The timing is particularly ill-advised: the 2026 FIFA World Cup, expected to bring millions of international visitors, risks diminished attendance and reduced economic activity due to privacy-invading entry requirements.

Beyond lost revenue, the proposal risks damaging the U.S.’s international reputation. Heavy-handed border rules signal that openness and hospitality are subordinate to bureaucratic procedures, potentially discouraging cultural exchange, foreign investment, and global collaboration. In balancing national security and economic vitality, policymakers appear to have prioritized symbolism over substance.

Ultimately, the proposed rules expose a stark imbalance: symbolic security at the expense of tangible economic and diplomatic costs. Public commentary over the next 60 days is the last line of defense against a policy that could chill travel, weaken industries reliant on foreign visitors, and tarnish America’s global image. National security is crucial, but when it comes at the cost of economic self-harm, it ceases to be protection and becomes self-inflicted damage.

🗓️ Five Things We Learned This Week

Week of December 20–26, 2025

Each week, we step back from the churn of daily headlines and look at five developments that help frame what is actually happening in the world. Even in the quiet stretch between holidays, global events continue to unfold across security, economics, climate, and sport.

✈️ 🇺🇸 1. U.S. conducts airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Nigeria

The United States carried out coordinated airstrikes against Islamic State-linked militants in northwest Nigeria on December 25, working alongside Nigerian forces to target insurgent camps. Officials described the operation as part of broader counterterrorism cooperation in West Africa.

Why it matters: The strikes mark a notable escalation of U.S. involvement in regional security efforts and reflect growing concern over extremist expansion in the Sahel and surrounding regions.

⚖️ 📉 2. U.S. stock markets remain resilient through holiday trading

Despite shortened trading weeks around Christmas, U.S. markets remained near record highs between December 24 and 26. Investors continued to focus on artificial intelligence investment, corporate earnings outlooks, and expectations of future interest-rate cuts.

Why it matters: Sustained market confidence during thin holiday trading suggests investors are looking past short-term uncertainty and positioning for longer-term structural growth themes.

🌨️ ❄️ 3. Major winter storm disrupts travel and power across North America

A powerful winter storm swept across eastern Canada and the northeastern United States over Christmas weekend, bringing heavy snow, freezing rain, flight cancellations, and widespread power outages. Several regions declared states of emergency as infrastructure strained under extreme conditions.

Why it matters: Severe winter weather continues to test transportation systems, energy grids, and emergency preparedness, reinforcing concerns about infrastructure resilience in a changing climate.

🏆 🏅 4. Women’s Handball World Championship concludes in Europe

The 2025 Women’s Handball World Championship wrapped up during the holiday week, following weeks of competition hosted jointly by Germany and the Netherlands. Thirty-two national teams participated, drawing growing international attention to the sport.

Why it matters: The tournament highlights the continued rise of women’s international sport and the expanding audience for competitions beyond the traditional global sports calendar.

🏟️ 🎯 5. World Darts Championship advances through holiday rounds

The 2025–26 World Darts Championship continued through its early rounds between December 20 and 26, featuring a 128-player field and a multi-million-pound prize fund. The event remains one of the most watched and commercially successful competitions in the sport.

Why it matters: Darts illustrates how so-called niche sports can build massive global followings, blending entertainment, professionalism, and evolving athlete careers.

Closing thought:
From counterterrorism operations and market confidence to winter storms and international sport, this week reminds us that the world does not slow down for the holidays. The forces shaping 2026 are already in motion — sometimes quietly, sometimes dramatically — even as the calendar turns.

Five Things is a weekly Rowanwood Chronicles feature tracking global developments from Saturday to Friday.

Fantasy as Memory: The Historical Imagination of Guy Gavriel Kay

One of my favourite fiction authors, Guy Gavriel Kay has shaped my reading life from his debut series “The Fionavar Tapestry”, published in the mid-1980s, to his most recent novel “Written on the Dark”, released earlier this year.

Kay does not write fantasy as spectacle or escape, but as remembrance. His work is concerned less with heroes than with consequence, asking what endures after ambition, love, and loss. That focus, and his habit of listening closely to history rather than reshaping it for comfort, is what sets his writing apart from others in the genre.

Guy Gavriel Kay’s writing style is often described as lyrical, restrained, and morally attentive, and that combination is very Canadian in the best sense of the word. His prose is elegant without being ornamental, emotionally resonant without tipping into melodrama, and deeply concerned with how history presses on individual lives.

Lyrical clarity rather than baroque fantasy
Kay’s sentences are musical, but they are rarely flashy. He favours cadence, balance, and carefully chosen imagery over density or excess. Unlike much epic fantasy, he does not bury the reader in invented terminology or ornate description. The beauty of the prose comes from rhythm and precision, not spectacle. This gives his work a reflective, almost classical feel, closer to historical fiction than to high fantasy in the Tolkienian tradition.

History refracted, not replicated
One of Kay’s defining stylistic traits is his use of “quarter-turn” history. His worlds are clearly inspired by specific historical periods and places, Byzantium, medieval Iberia, Tang-era China, Renaissance Italy, but they are never direct analogues. Stylistically, this allows him to write with the emotional authority of history without being constrained by factual retelling. The prose carries a sense of inevitability, consequence, and loss that feels historical, even when the setting is invented.

Melancholy as a narrative tone
Kay’s work is suffused with a quiet melancholy. Triumphs are provisional. Victories are costly. Even moments of joy are shadowed by what will be lost. Stylistically, this appears in his frequent use of memory, foreknowledge, and reflective distance. Characters often understand, sometimes too late, what a moment meant. This gives the writing a sense of adult seriousness and emotional depth that distinguishes him from more action-driven fantasy authors.

Moral complexity without cynicism
Kay is interested in moral ambiguity, but he is not cynical. His style allows multiple perspectives to coexist without collapsing into relativism. Characters act from loyalty, love, fear, faith, and ambition, often all at once. The prose is careful to see people rather than judge them. Even antagonists are given interiority and dignity. This ethical attentiveness is part of what makes his work feel humane and grounded.

Dialogue as character and culture
His dialogue is formal without being stiff, shaped by the social worlds his characters inhabit. People speak with restraint, implication, and subtext. Emotion is often conveyed by what is not said. This stylistic choice reinforces themes of honour, obligation, and social constraint, particularly in courtly or religious settings.

A Canadian sensibility
Although Kay’s settings are global and historical, his sensibility feels distinctly Canadian. There is a preference for understatement, for listening rather than declaring, for complexity over absolutes. Power is treated warily. Empire is examined with sadness rather than nostalgia. The writing resists grand national mythmaking and instead focuses on human cost, compromise, and quiet endurance.

Guy Gavriel Kay writes fantasy for readers who care about language, history, and moral weight. His style is not about escape so much as reflection. He invites the reader to slow down, to attend to memory and consequence, and to sit with beauty that is inseparable from loss. That combination, lyrical restraint, historical gravity, and ethical seriousness, is what makes his voice unmistakable and enduring.

Enough Already: Greenland, American Strategy, and an Envoy That Makes No Sense

In December 2025, President Donald Trump announced that he would appoint Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as the United States special envoy to Greenland. The announcement came with Trump’s customary social-media flourish, framing Greenland as “essential to our national security” and praising Landry’s willingness to advance U.S. interests in the Arctic. Landry himself declared that it was an “honor … to make Greenland a part of the U.S.” even as he would remain governor of Louisiana concurrently. Reuters

1. It’s a Diplomatic Stunt, Not Strategy

Appointing a U.S. special envoy to a territory that is not a U.S. partner or diplomatic interlocutor is, by definition, an odd choice. Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, and sovereignty over Greenland rests with Copenhagen under international law. Even if Greenland exercises home rule over many internal matters, Denmark retains foreign-affairs authority. Euronews

Denmark reacted accordingly. Its foreign minister denounced the move and summoned the U.S. ambassador in protest, asserting that territorial integrity must be respected. Danish and Greenlandic leaders jointly declared that “you cannot annex another country,” and reinforced that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” Euronews

2. The People of Greenland Have Spoken—Loudly

Trump and his allies have repeatedly hinted that Greenlanders might welcome U.S. affiliation or even statehood. Yet public opinion data tell a different story: 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States, with only about 6% in favor. A News AMERICAS poll

Ignoring the expressed will of the local population while proclaiming sovereign ambitions isn’t strategic leadership. It’s symbolic posturing that weakens U.S. credibility with the very audiences that Washington claims to want on its side.

3. National Security Strategy vs. Tactical Execution

To be fair, Greenland does matter in the Arctic geostrategic environment. Its geographic position gives control over approaches to North America, and U.S. military assets like Pituffik Space Base have long been elements of continental defense. There is also growing global competition in the Arctic amid climate change and resource access. These realities are consistent with core themes in the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS): maintaining technological edge, reinforcing alliance structures, and securing critical supply chains. Associated Press

But that strategic framework does not justify appointing a governor as envoy with public remarks about making another country part of the United States. That is a conflation of long-term objectives (strengthening U.S. strategic position in the Arctic) with short-term theatrics that have real diplomatic and legal consequences.

4. Why This Matters Beyond Headlines

A smart Arctic strategy might include genuine cooperative defense partnerships with Greenland and Denmark, investment in shared security infrastructure, climate resilience, and economic collaboration that respects sovereignty. Instead, the current approach:

  • Undermines alliance trust with a NATO member whose cooperation is critical in Europe and the Arctic.
  • Misreads local sentiment, dismissing Greenlanders’ clear preference to determine their own future.
  • Reduces U.S. policy to rhetorical brinkmanship, distracting from substantive cooperation where it matters.

If the NSS is a roadmap for how the U.S. secures its interests in an increasingly competitive world, this envoy appointment reads like a sideshow detour driven by personality rather than policy.

Sources

When Interview Styles Collide: Why Some Political Conversations Feel Like Car Crashes

Every few years, Canadian audiences rediscover the same irritation: a high-profile interview that feels less like an exchange of ideas and more like a verbal wrestling match. The questions may be legitimate, even necessary, but the delivery leaves viewers tense, unsatisfied, and oddly unenlightened. The repeated clashes between Rosemary Barton and Mark Carney are a useful case study, not because either is acting in bad faith, but because they embody two very different traditions of public communication that were never designed to coexist comfortably.

The first tradition is the parliamentary press-gallery style that dominates Canadian political journalism. It is adversarial by design. It emerged in an era when access was limited, answers were evasive, and power was something to be pried open rather than invited to speak. In this model, interruption is not rudeness; it is a tool. The journalist asserts control of the frame, resists narrative-setting by the interviewee, and signals independence to both the audience and their peers. Toughness must be visible. Silence or patience can be misread as deference.

The second tradition is technocratic communication, exemplified by figures like Carney. This style evolved in central banks, international institutions, and policy forums where precision matters more than punch. Answers are layered, contextual, and carefully sequenced. The speaker often builds a framework before arriving at a conclusion, because conclusions without context are seen as irresponsible. This approach assumes the listener is willing to follow a longer arc in exchange for accuracy.

When these two traditions meet on live television, friction is inevitable. The journalist hears preamble and assumes evasion. The interviewee hears interruption and assumes misunderstanding. Each responds rationally within their own professional culture, and the conversation degrades anyway.

What makes this especially grating for audiences is that modern broadcast incentives amplify the worst aspects of the collision. Political interviews are no longer just about extracting information. They are performances of accountability. The interviewer must appear relentless, particularly when questioning elite figures who are widely discussed as potential leaders. Interruptions become proof of vigilance, even if they interrupt substance as much as spin.

At the same time, viewers are more sophisticated than broadcasters often assume. Many can tell the difference between a non-answer and a complex answer. When an interviewee remains calm and methodical while being repeatedly cut off, the aggression reads less like accountability and more like impatience. The audience senses that something useful is being lost, not exposed.

This is why these interviews linger unpleasantly after they end. It is not that hard questions are unwelcome. It is that hardness has been mistaken for haste. A genuinely rigorous interview would often benefit from letting a full answer land, then dissecting it carefully. Precision, not interruption, is what exposes weak arguments. Control of the conversation is not the same thing as control of the truth.

None of this requires villains. Barton is doing what her professional ecosystem rewards. Carney is speaking in the register his career trained him to use. The problem is structural, not personal.

If public broadcasting is meant to inform rather than merely provoke, it may be time to rethink whether visible combat is the best proxy for journalistic seriousness. Sometimes the most incisive move is not to interrupt, but to listen long enough to know exactly where to press next.

That, in the end, is why these moments grate. They remind us that we are watching two competent professionals speaking past one another, while the audience pays the price in lost clarity.

🧩 Messy Lists, Veto Power, and What We’re Actually Talking About

Polyamory has a funny habit of turning emotional work into policy debates. Messy lists and veto power are classic examples.

On the surface, they’re about rules. Underneath, they’re about fear, trust, and responsibility.


📋 What a Messy List Is (When It Works)

A messy list is usually an agreement not to date people whose involvement would have outsized impact on shared lives.

Common examples include:

  • Close friends
  • Coworkers
  • Family members
  • People deeply embedded in shared community spaces

At their best, messy lists are risk management, not control.

Healthy messy lists tend to be:

  • Short and specific
  • Based on foreseeable harm, not insecurity
  • Open to discussion and revision
  • Grounded in context, not categories

🚩 When Messy Lists Become a Problem

Messy lists stop being useful when they quietly turn into enforcement.

Red flags include:

  • Long or vague lists
  • Whole categories of people instead of specific situations
  • Rules that expand every time discomfort appears
  • Agreements that can’t be questioned

At that point, the list isn’t about safety. It’s about control.


🛑 Veto Power and Why It Feels Bad (Even When Unused)

Veto power is the ability, explicit or implied, for one partner to end or forbid another relationship.

Even if it’s “only for emergencies,” its existence shapes behavior:

  • People self-censor
  • New partners feel disposable
  • Emotional investment becomes conditional

The core issue isn’t hierarchy. It’s externalizing emotional regulation.

Instead of asking “What do I need?”, vetoes ask “What do you need to stop doing?”


🔄 Where the Two Blur Together

A messy list becomes a veto when:

  • Breaking it automatically ends a relationship
  • Context doesn’t matter
  • Growth doesn’t matter
  • Discomfort alone justifies enforcement

The language may say agreement.
The structure says control.


🧭 A More Functional Approach

Many people move away from vetoes and rigid lists toward boundaries and consequences.

Examples:

  • “I won’t stay in relationships that destabilize my closest friendships.”
  • “I need advance discussion if something affects my work or housing.”
  • “I’ll limit my access to shared spaces if I feel unsafe.”

These don’t forbid choice.
They clarify impact.


❓ The Real Question

Instead of asking:

  • Do we allow vetoes?
  • What’s on the messy list?

Try asking:

What do we do when something genuinely threatens our shared life?

If the only answer is control, the structure is fragile.
If the answer includes communication, boundaries, and accountability, it has resilience.

Polyamory isn’t about avoiding mess.
It’s about learning how to handle it without taking away someone else’s autonomy.

Public Funding for Private Arenas: Economic Realities Behind the Ottawa Senators Proposal

The renewed push for a taxpayer supported arena at Ottawa’s LeBreton Flats arrives at a moment when the economic evidence is clear. Professional sports franchises continue to seek public subsidies while independent academic research demonstrates that taxpayer funded arenas provide little to no measurable economic return to host cities.

The current lobbying effort by Capital Sports Development Inc. mirrors a common strategy in North America: frame the project as an economic generator rather than a private entertainment investment. The empirical data provides a different assessment.

Economic research and city outcomes

Consensus across economic literature is stable. Major reviews and empirical studies show that sports arenas do not create net new economic activity. Spending at arenas typically reallocates existing entertainment consumption within a city. Construction jobs are temporary. Longer term measures such as regional GDP, employment, and household income do not show statistically significant improvement following arena construction.

Representative findings

StudyScopeFinding
Noll & ZimbalistMultiple stadium projectsEconomic effects extremely small or negative
Coates & HumphreysCross city panel analysesNo association between franchises and long term income growth
Bradbury, Coates & Humphreys (2023)Historical reviewLittle to no tangible economic impact from stadium subsidies
Journalist’s Resource (2024)Literature roundupPublic stadium funding rarely produces the projected economic returns

Comparative evidence from recent arena projects

Recent Canadian and North American arena projects reveal the scale of public exposure when municipal and provincial governments participate. The table below summarizes selected examples and a chart illustrates the variation in public contributions.

Arena ProjectApproximate Public Contribution (Millions CAD)Funding Notes
Calgary Event Centre537Municipal and provincial contributions for arena and district infrastructure
Rogers Place, Edmonton226Municipal funding combined with tax increment and CRL mechanisms
UBS Arena, New York0Privately financed on state land lease
T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas0Privately financed

Why public private partnerships often underperform

Public private partnerships are presented as compromise solutions but frequently shift long term fiscal risk onto taxpayers while securing stable private returns for franchise owners. Cost overruns, maintenance liabilities and revenue shortfalls commonly become municipal obligations. Promised spinoff benefits such as meaningful tourism increases or broad district revitalization are often overstated in proponent studies.

Opportunity cost

Public funds allocated to stadium projects carry opportunity costs. Funds used for an arena are not available for transit, housing, healthcare, climate adaptation or education. These alternatives typically deliver higher social and economic returns than subsidizing privately owned entertainment facilities. Private financing eliminates this trade off.

Policy conclusion

Evidence supports a default policy of requiring private financing for professional sports facilities. Public funds should be reserved for investments that yield broad-based returns and reduce systemic risk for residents. Where public contributions are proposed they should be subject to independent review, enforceable community benefits, strict caps on public exposure and, where appropriate, direct public approval through referendum or legislative vote.

Sources and further reading

  • Bradbury, J C, Coates, D and Humphreys, B R. The economics of stadium subsidies. Policy retrospective. 2023.
  • Coates, D and Humphreys, B R. Do subsidies for sports franchises, stadiums, and mega events work? Econ Journal Watch.
  • Noll, R G and Zimbalist, A. Sports, Jobs and Taxes. Review of economic impacts of sports teams and stadiums.
  • Journalist’s Resource. Public funding for sports stadiums: a primer and research roundup. 2024.
  • Reporting on Ottawa Senators lobbying activity and StrategyCorp engagement. SportsBusiness Journal and national coverage.

For readers seeking original reports and news coverage please consult academic databases and major news outlets for the documents cited above.