Blind Submission To Authority Is Caused By Bad Parenting

June 18, 2026

Blind Submission To Authority Is Caused By Bad Parenting

JUN 08, 2026

Blind submission to authority is the result of propaganda and indoctrination, but it’s also the result of bad parenting. Raising kids who aren’t allowed to say no to you is raising adults who don’t think anyone should be allowed to oppose their rulers.

That’s mainly what you’re seeing in the comments section of any viral police brutality video with people defending the cop’s actions and saying the victim should have complied with commands more perfectly. All they’re really saying is “Don’t disobey Daddy and you won’t get smacked!”

You can see their parenting in their faces when conversing about politics and news in person. Discuss the latest act of war or abuse with someone who’s been trained to reflexively obey authority and you can watch them running calculations trying to find excuses to justify why the powerful are correct in this given instance, even if you’re presenting them with brand new information. They never pause to reflect on whether their apologia is grounded in facts or morality; they begin with the assumption that the authority figure must be correct and work backward from there.

All the worst things that have ever happened were the result of people obeying authority when they should have disobeyed. Genocides. Wars. Slavery. Tyranny. Injustice. They were all made possible by obedience, not disobedience. And that remains the case today.

If you want to raise kids who’ll help make the world a better place when they grow up, then you’ve got to put your ego in the back seat and let them say no and walk their own path, because you are teaching them how to relate to authority in a world where the authority figures are the villains causing all our problems.

Obviously you can’t let your kid do things that will cause actual concrete harm to themselves, but most of the limits parents set on their children from day to day have nothing to do with protecting them from harm. If they don’t want to kiss Grandpa then don’t make them kiss Grandpa. If they don’t want to eat this or that food then don’t force them. If they reject you or hurt your feelings, don’t put the needs of your ego in that moment ahead of your desire to raise a citizen who can defy authority when that is what’s called for. The real material harm they cause by defying this or that social convention or going against your personal wishes is basically nothing, especially when compared to the harm that would be caused by training them to blindly obey authority in a world that is ruled by psychopaths.

It is absolutely necessary to set boundaries with your children at times, because you need to be modeling what healthy boundary-setting looks like, and because you don’t want to raise a malignant narcissist who thinks the world revolves around them and their desires. But it is equally necessary to show them that their own boundaries are legitimate and permissible, because otherwise they won’t set them in their own lives.

So many abusive dynamics arise from the erosion of people’s healthy “no”. That’s how people wind up joining cults and getting trapped in abusive marriages, and it’s how they wind up consenting to the rule of abusive governments who should have been overthrown long ago. Their healthy “no” was gradually worn down, first by their parenting and then by the psychological manipulation of the abuser.

“No” is an essential skill. Giving your child a healthy “no” is as important as teaching them how to meet any other developmental milestone like walking, speaking, reading or preparing food. That’s how you keep them free from abusive relationships, and that’s how you keep their minds free from the propaganda of the powerful.

_________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I publish is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Feature image via Adobe Stock.

Last Light

June 18, 2026

[facebook.com/markprior.images]

face mite life

June 18, 2026

#1739

June 18, 2026

Celebrating Denman Island Cross Trail

June 11, 2026

Celebrating Denman Island Cross Trail

June 9, 2026

Denman Island, BC – The Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) celebrated the official completion of a 3.5 km portion of the Denman Cross Island Trail from Owl Crescent to Gravelly Bay, and a 180-metre portion in downtown Denman Island.

Photo Caption: Doug DeMarzo ( General Manager of Community Services), Chris Danks, Daniel May (CVRD Senior Parks Technician), Stirling Fraser (DIRA Co-President), Laura Pope (Chair DIRA Parks Committee), Jan Jansen (Chair DIRA Trails Committee), Graeme Johnston (DIRA Parks and Trails Committee), Kasian Russel (DIRA Trails Committee)

“Completion of these two sections provide improved safety and connectivity in the Graham Lake and Gravelly Bay ferry area,” explains CVRD Electoral Area Director Daniel Arbour. “This investment in the Denman Cross Island Trail by the Province of BC, and supported by our local MLA Josie Osborne, shows what we can accomplish through collaboration and perseverance.”

Photo Caption: Bridge and commemorative plaque in recognition of Allan Danks, DIRA Trails Committee Chair 2008-2024 (passed in 2024). In picture: Chris Danks (Allan’s wife), Graeme Johnston (DIRA Parks and Trails Committee), Stirling Fraser (DIRA Co-President), Laura Pope (Chair DIRA Parks Committee), Kasian Russell (DIRA Trails Committee), Jan Jansen (Chair of DIRA Trails Committee)

This trail construction project was made possible because of funding from a B.C. Active Transportation Infrastructure grant and Community Works funding.

To find more information about the Denman Cross Island Trail, visit https://www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/denmanCIT

The Comox Valley Regional District is a partnership of three electoral areas and three municipalities operating on the unceded traditional territory of the K’ómoks First Nation, the traditional keepers of the land. The members of the regional district work collaboratively on providing sustainable services for the benefit of the diverse urban and rural areas of the Comox Valley.

Why I recommend proceeding with the Graham Lake Water Project

June 11, 2026

Why I recommend proceeding with the Graham Lake Water Project

I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to ask questions and engage in the discussion about the future of the Graham Lake Water Service to date. Residents deserve clear information and respectful dialogue, particularly when significant costs are involved. As of now, residents of Graham Lake have received the petition form to proceed with the project in their mailbox, and they have until July 10^th to return it to the CVRD. Instructions are on the form.

There is no question that the proposed project represents a substantial investment, which, combined with regular operations costs, will result in a total bill of about $3,000 per year for water per home. However, it is important to understand what residents are being asked to consider.

At its core, this is a drinking water project. The Graham Lake Water System has not met provincial and federal drinking water treatment requirements for many years, and that issue has been identified through engineering work, pilot testing, and regulatory review. Whether residents are in favor of proceeding or not, the need for a compliant water treatment solution remains. In other water or sewer systems that fail to comply, the Province eventually starts to threaten and levy fines on operators for persistent non-compliance, and those fines can be passed unto homeowners until the system is compliant. There is some history on this the Comox Valley, with the large water system, and in Cumberland with sewage. This statement is not meant to be fear mongering – it is simply a fact.

Some have suggested that this project lacks engineering analysis or a defined scope. In fact, multiple professional studies, assessments, treatment evaluations, lake hydrology, and dam reviews have been completed over several years, many of which incorporated advice or feedback from Graham Lake residents. While some residents may disagree with the recommended solution, it is not accurate to suggest that the project has been developed without extensive technical and options analysis, and community engagement.

Questions have also been raised about fire protection. Fire protection is important, and some residents would have liked to see operational hydrants restored throughout the subdivision. However, I would note that the current borrowing proposal is focused on drinking water treatment, and that the Denman Island Fire Department and CVRD Fire Chief do not see the necessity of the hydrants to meet modern fire response standards in the Graham Lake neighbourhood. Following recent public feedback from Graham Lake residents, the CVRD removed borrowing related to fire suppression upgrades in an effort to reduce overall costs to residents and focus on the regulatory drinking water requirements that must be addressed.

Residents should carefully evaluate claims regarding future costs, treatment technologies, or operational requirements. Accurate information and all background documents and reports can be found at www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/grahamlake

Ultimately, this is not a choice between spending money and spending nothing for Graham Lake residents. The Graham Lake community faces a tough choice between proceeding with a funding plan that includes $1.8 million in secured grants on a $4.4 million project for a compliant and upgraded drinking water system, or delaying the project while continuing to face the same regulatory and infrastructure challenges, and having a good likelihood of losing the grants. It is a hard place to be, but that is the junction we find ourselves at.

Reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions. My view is that decisions should be based on the best available information, and weighting of risks and opportunities. The question before Graham Lake residents is whether the proposed borrowing and grants-in-hand provide a responsible path toward a safe, reliable, and compliant drinking water system for the Graham Lake community. It is my belief that under the circumstances and pressure from regulatory requirements, proceeding with the borrowing far outweighs the alternatives.

Over the coming weeks, I will go door-to-door in the Graham Lake neighbourhood to provide more detailed information, hear feedback and suggestions, and field questions from residents. I will canvas Graham Lake door to door from 10am to 1pm on Sunday June 7^th, Saturday June 20^th, Sunday June 21^st, and will have a lemonade stand on Saturday July 4^th at the “Mailbox” Beach.

Residents of Graham Lake can also contact me at anytime with questions or concerns at reachme@danielarbour.ca, and if I can’t answer I will loop in CVRD staff.

Best, Daniel Arbour, CVRD Area A Director

Fines, Fear, Failures & Future?

June 11, 2026

Fines, Fear, Failures & Future?

Hi Folks,

Again, thanx to the taxpayers, homeowners and residents (both in and outside of the Graham Lake subdivision – GLID) who remain interested, are concerned and offer input and questions about the handling of the subdivision’s water treatment solution and egregious fire protection water situation by the CVRD. Bigger debt doesn’t ensure a better solution.

This week’s article is a follow up to previous article titled FOMO.

CVRD’s FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) campaign continues with CVRD Representative Daniel Arbour’s upcoming political sales pitch tour. Despite how kind, calm and safe the message will be YOU WILL PAY $4,000 and more a year for water and without subdivision fire protection whether you like it or not. The CVRD is not your friend?

This is an outrageous water cost and after eight years it’s still an unexplained and limitless upgrade (scope-less, unspecified, budget-less). High average water costs across Canada are $1,200 per year typically in Alberta & Saskatchewan. By definition a boondoggle, not a project.

The CVRD with this engineering failure wants us to pay their way out. The lack of focus, lack of cooperation, lack of transparent engagement, eight years of squandering engineering time and the construction process window, does have consequences. Any expiring “grant” money and or delay “fines” assessed to the CVRD are just another indicator of egregious CVRD failure.

Your “yes” vote is your signature on a blank cheque to continue this trajectory. Where did the $250,000 GLID capital monies go? The CVRD is not your friend?

The last two farcical community interactions show that that the CVRD finds it’s extremely difficult to transparently communicate. A Steering Committee needs to be in place before proceeding any further.

One resident provided a thought-provoking observation; Why aren’t fixed income pensioners and working people running around in support of CVRD’s bidding and petitioning? Interesting point.

Another resident commented on some of the hysteria surrounding the expiring “grant”; “Intelligent and responsible people don’t SPEND multiple millions to save a million”. Good point.

Is this about serving the tax paying people of this subdivision community or rather CVRD and friends? One thing is for sure this isn’t about addressing the Surface Water Treatment Objectives (SWTO) and Fire Hydrants in a cost effective, market bearing manner. The SWTO does not require water meters. Graham Lake is a FREE 63-million-gallon storage tank. Let’s get back to satisfying what is required and utilizing existing assets. The Superior Shuttle system is not designed for subdivisions and the literature says so. Fire Hydrants and Firesmart equipment are.

One person said, “I know we need an upgrade, but CVRD has done nothing and shown nothing for eight years. I’m just NOT voting yes until they do”. Fair point.

A NO VOTE or NON-VOTE is a message for CVRD to stop, pause and reconsider their upgrade approach. Exactly what SWTO specifications need to be met? There are cost effective solution options. Superficial engineering is not one of them. The CVRD is not your friend?

Ship’s Point Improvement District is a good upgrade case study of value, water cost and more.

The CVRD is supposed to be looking out for us and it’s time they start to demonstrate that.

Presently, your cheque will be for a $4,000+ a year water bill to infinity without fire water fire hydrant subdivision protection.

Are you ready for that?

The CVRD is our friend?

Have a good summer and may your god be with you!

Shucking Oysters: Soccer to You

June 11, 2026

Shucking Oysters: Soccer to You

By Alex Allen

I can think of many places that I would avoid visiting these days. Barcelona, Rome, Bangkok, Paris – pretty much any place in the world that has that tourist cachet. Another place, closer to home, is Vancouver, with an estimated 350,000 FIFA soccer fans descending on the city this weekend. For those who visit, oh, so exciting. For those who live in Greater Vancouver, oh, so disruptive. While hosting large sporting events appears to be great for communities, research suggests the actual financial rewards are often much less than anticipated. And yet, many politicians remain eager to host them.

Let’s unpack FIFA in Vancouver. The cost is projected to be up to $729 million from the $624 million estimated last year, with an average price of $104 million per game. Revenues are estimated at $615 million, which includes a $216 million contribution from the federal government. Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim claimed that the city’s seven World Cup matches would be “the equivalent of 30 to 40 Super Bowls.”

The hotel tax is another area of revenue projected at $260 million. The irony is that hotel bookings are down 20%. Despite initial predictions of a 200% surge, rooms at downtown properties are sitting between $900 and $2,000 a night, with many accommodations heavily discounted. What didn’t help was FIFA returning roughly 75% of its reserved hotel room blocks (about 15,000 room nights) to the general inventory.

Security and safety of course, are the biggest expense at $242 million, a figure that could rise well above that. By comparison, the final security bill for the 2010 Winter Olympics was $900 million, five times more than the original $175 million estimate. Another major expense was upgrading BC Place at $185 million. But how the costs break down is not something the BC government is willing to provide until after the games are over. In contrast, host city Toronto, has posted budget documents on its website that break down safety and security costs.

Is FIFA worth it? Politicians say the global spotlight on Vancouver, as well as the economic boost, present “opportunities to create a lasting legacy.” “Hosting FIFA World Cup matches will drive tourism and bring significant economic benefits as soccer fans from around the globe discover why our beautiful province is such a great place to visit and invest,” said Premier David Eby. Like Hornby Island, I don’t think Vancouver needs help with tourism.

Moshe Lander, an economist at Montreal’s Concordia University, said: “It’s always the case that ego and vanity-driven politicians will always underestimate the cost of large-scale sporting events, and they will always overestimate the benefits.” And the only way the provincial government could have avoided high security costs would have been to say No to hosting, Lander said.

Perhaps the biggest headache will be going from A to B, with major road closures and local-traffic only zones throughout downtown Vancouver. As well, around 200 surveillance cameras have gone up around the stadium and other parts of Vancouver, including Commercial Drive and training sites. If you look at the photos, downtown Vancouver looks like it’s in lockdown not hosting a sports event.

Another disruption. No criminal trials or civil jury trials will be able to take place during the tournament, because of the heavy reliance on police services for public safety, traffic, and crowd management. “The full extent of the impacts is uncertain and will remain so for some time,” the Supreme Court of British Columbia noted obliquely.

A coalition of housing advocates, labour organizers, and civil liberties groups say there is another story unfolding, one they argue deserves equal attention. “The presentation of a ‘clean’ and ‘welcoming’ environment for tourists depends on an organized campaign of displacement and criminalization,” said Laura Macintyre, staff lawyer at Pivot Legal Society. “Vancouver’s residents are being kicked out of already precarious housing on Granville Street, told they can’t shelter in the two-kilometre radius surrounding BC Place, and consistently displaced by police … all to try to sanitize the city’s image.”

What’s more, unionized hotel workers say that while hotels may see increased revenue during the tournament, workers worry that the benefits will not extend to them. Cristina Figueroa, of UNITE HERE Local 40, said: “FIFA will be raking in billions and billions of dollars. Some hotels will be charging over $1,000 a night for a room during the games. But too many hospitality workers can’t afford to live in the city. Will FIFA share their wealth and give a cut of their earnings to help working people in Vancouver? No.”

Housing advocates also questioned the city’s priorities. Athena Pranteau of AYX Bus Community questioned why there is no money for housing. “Where are the priorities? This is Vancouver, BC, Canada. Mayor Ken Sim, where are your priorities?” Andrea Florence of Sports and Rights Alliance said, “Despite FIFA’s mantra that ‘football unites the world,’ a World Cup held under discriminatory and exclusionary policies risks deepening social divides rather than bridging them.”

In January, at the US National Conference of Mayors, the controversial president of FIFA, Gianni Infantino enthused: “We reach 1.6 billion people, thanks to the positive emotions that soccer triggers, FIFA is more influential than any country on Earth and any religion. We move masses. We want to use that to create more peace, justice and health in the world. For the first time in 250 years of history of the United States of America, you will not just be invaded but you will be conquered.” After a reaction of silence, Infantino clarified, “You will be conquered by soccer.”

Infantino won his role in 2016, in part by promising to restore FIFA’s reputation. The New Yorker reported that he did reform FIFA, just not in the way one might have imagined. “Tasked with changing a culture where money was passed under the table, he arguably got rid of the table. It’s all in the open now.” Infantino earns $6 million a year, flies on a jet provided by the state of Qatar and seems to be cut from the same entitled cloth as Trump. He even requested a “four-level escort” motorcade while attending the games in Vancouver, allowing his convoy to override red lights and deploy road blockages. Level-four protection is just one level below security given to the Pope and the prime minister. Despite his attempts to charm city officials into submission, Infantino’s requests were denied.

It didn’t help when Infantino sucked up to Trump, by creating a peace prize in December. Despite the growing backlash, Infantino defended his decision insisting that “objectively, he deserves it” – barely 24 hours after Trump carried out a deadly air strike in the Caribbean.

Referring to the Uruguayan forward who has been caught up in at least three biting incidents on the field throughout his career, football journalist Zach Lowy wrote, “Giving Donald Trump a prize for peace is like giving Luis Suarez a prize for not biting people’s ears off.”

FI-FA-Fo-Fum…is it worth it?

Groupthink: Public Consensus is Driven by Fear of Exclusion

June 11, 2026

Groupthink: Public Consensus is Driven by Fear of Exclusion

By Cylon2036 We/Us

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon, where the desire for conformity leads to prioritizing consensus over critical thinking, and the suppression of dissenting opinions.

The concept of groupthink takes on a particularly unsettling dimension when viewed through the ideas of Edward Bernays, the founder of modern public relations and one of the architects of mass persuasion in the twentieth century. Bernays did not merely observe the tendencies of crowds, he sought to organize and direct them. Drawing from the psychological theories of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays believed that human beings were driven less by critical thinking than by unconscious desires, fears, impulses, and social anxieties. Democracy, in his view, could not function through informed debate. Instead, public opinion had to be engineered.

Groupthink emerges in this framework not simply as a social accident, but as a manufactured condition. Bernays argued that modern society was too complex for ordinary citizens to meaningfully evaluate social, political, or economic issues independently. As a result, populations are made to rely on symbols, slogans, emotional cues, and perceived social consensus. The “invisible government,” as Bernays called it, consists of political strategists, news media institutions, corporations, advertisers, and cultural authorities who shape these perceptions behind the scenes. Individuals often come to believe they are acting freely and independently while unknowingly absorbing attitudes that have been carefully cultivated for them.

In conditions of groupthink, dissent becomes socially risky because people fear social exclusion more than they fear being wrong. Bernays understood that the desire for belonging could be weaponized. If enough authority figures, legacy news sources, experts, prominent citizens, and institutions repeat the same assumptions, individuals begin to internalize those assumptions as common sense. Consensus itself becomes evidence of “truth.” Following the publication of the Trilateral Commission’s “The Crisis of Democracy” in 1975, solicited by the governments of Europe, North America, and Japan, and where the “crisis” was described as a result of “too much democracy”, ever more sophisticated forms of narrative control have been employed.

Modern capitalist and establishment culture offers countless examples. Back in 1929, Bernays famously helped transform cigarette smoking among women into a symbol of liberation by branding cigarettes as “Torches of Freedom.” The product itself matters less than the emotional and social meaning attached to it. The same mechanisms operate in our current politics, where public relations campaigns manufacture enthusiasm, moral panic, patriotism, and fear through repetition and symbolic association. Groupthink flourishes when emotional identification replaces critical inquiry. Shallow and performative acts are weaponized to create a false consensus, where individuals reject ideas outside of their “tribe.”

The greatest danger of Bernays’ worldview is that it treats citizens less as autonomous thinkers than as manageable populations. Public opinion is engineered, and democracy is theatrical rather than participatory, a system where competing elites manipulate collective emotions while the public mistakes persuasion for independent judgment. Much of Western culture and its political narratives are indoctrinated into the population, and the fear and pressure to conform is internalized. In this sense, groupthink is not merely conformity among peers, it is the culmination of sophisticated psychological management operating through media, advertising, branding, and political communication.

Yet Bernays also unintentionally revealed an important truth, that modern Western societies are extraordinarily vulnerable to narrative control. The antidote to groupthink therefore requires more than individual intelligence. It demands skepticism toward the manufactured consensus that masquerades as objectivity. We desperately need increased independent media literacy, historical awareness, and a willingness to tolerate disagreement. Without these, populations drift even further toward conformity while still believing themselves uniquely informed and independent, which is perhaps the most effective form of persuasion ever devised.

Cable Ferry Unreliability Requires Clarification of BC Ferries’ Emergency Service Obligations

June 11, 2026

Cable Ferry Unreliability Requires Clarification of BC Ferries’ Emergency Service Obligations

Dear Minister Mike Farnworth and Commissioner Eva Hage,

The Baynes Sound Connector, the only cable ferry in BC Ferries’ fleet, is chronically dysfunctional and uniquely unreliable. Since its launch in 2016, the vessel logged 80 pages of mechanical failures in its first three years of service dismissed as teething issues.To date, BC Ferries has denied 34 Freedom of Information requests for current data on service cancellations— and counters islanders’ decade of complaints by publicly reporting that the vessel has a 99.9% service reliability consistent with all other vessels in the fleet. Most recently, however, it logged 54 cancellations due to mechanical breakdowns in Q2 2024–25—the highest in the fleet—and it has continued to break down frequently after its $15 million refit. No other vessel in the fleet is crippled also by frequent maintenance and replacing pulleys and cables from 11:00 pm to 5:00 am every night when it is unlikely to be able to respond to a fire evacuation.

When a cable fell off during the evening maintenance window on May 2, 2024, BC Ferries knew the night before that the vessel would be out of service for a prolonged period of time. Yet islanders were not alerted of cancellations until 6:30 am when already waiting to board the first sailing. No arrangements were made for backup water and land taxi service or landing assistance for those with emergencies or appointments that could not be postponed. Consequently, islanders were forced to arrange their own water taxi (around $500) and private boat transportation at considerable cost and anxiety—and arrange for private landing permission. BC Ferries denied docking permission, claiming liability issues.

In a CHEK News segment covering islanders’ outrage over the cable ferry’s predictable unreliability, Gracie McDonald described her harrowing experience when transporting her dying brother to hospital. Manoeuvring her acutely distressed brother in and out of a small boat from unstable docks and carrying him across an uneven surface to a waiting vehicle compounded his suffering and her anguish. He died shortly after arriving at hospital. To date, the corporation has not mitigated anxiety and fear during these systemic breakdowns, and has yet to guarantee future emergency transportation or docking assistance.

The May 2, 2024 event exposed a glaring failure in basic coordination between BC Ferries and emergency services. Because there is no nearby public dock and BC Ferries denies landing access, emergency patients are conveyed either by air or water vessel to Comox — a minimum one hour away from Denman or Hornby. Permission to dock at Buckley Bay would significantly decrease the time to get to hospital and reduce patient discomfort. A contracted BC Ambulance water taxi departing from Comox takes two hours round trip and a half hour longer if it departed from Campbell River — or more given adverse weather and tides — before a patient is picked up by an ambulance. At low tide, an unstable patient must also be navigated down a steep ramp and across an uneven surface to reach the vessel or land. Five dedicated water taxis, fully equipped as ambulances, serve the southern islands and remote communities, but Denman and Hornby’s population is too small to guarantee priority service. According to BC Emergency Health Services, from 2016 to 2025, 156 islanders needing emergency medical assistance were conveyed by water and 10 by air. There is no data on the effect on patient recovery of prolonged stress and time to get to the ER.

Not one of the 18 amendments to the Coastal Ferry Services Contract clarifies the docking issue or ambiguities and gaps in Sections 4.01 and 4.02 addressing BC Ferries emergency service obligations. In order that BC Ferries complies with its over-arching Coastal Ferry Act mandate to provide safe and reliable service, this ambiguity demands clarification. Section 4.01 states BC Ferries use reasonable efforts to provide alternate ferry services during a Temporary Service Disruption. Aside from being vague, this obligation appears to contradict BC Ferries’ claim that providing emergency service is a courtesy and not a contractual obligation. Also, Section 4.01 does not address the corporation’s obligation to assist islanders who have off-island emergencies and cannot wait for service to resume after a predictable Temporary Service Disruption, or BC Ferries’ obligation to provide medical emergency service at night.

Section 4.02 states BC Ferries provides emergency evacuation such as fire at the request of the province. To date there is no protocol for initiating a provincial approval when faced with a fire crisis requiring prompt action. Given the likelihood that the cable ferry is immobilized during the maintenance window and after a Temporary Service Disruption, islanders are concerned they will not be evacuated. The following questions address the vagueness of Sections 4.01 and 4.02. To ensure islanders are provided with safe and reliable service during an Emergency Evacuation or Temporary Service Disruption, please answer the following questions promptly given the heightened risk of a fire evacuation and increased unreliability of the cable ferry since its refit:

What is the protocol for initiating a provincial request for an Emergency Evacuation?
What specifically is BC Ferries obligated to provide if an Emergency Evacuation is initiated while the cable ferry is immobilized during its 11:00 pm to 5:00 am maintenance window or after a Temporary Service Disruption—before a replacement vessel arrives?

What medical emergency service is BC Ferries obligated to provide when the cable ferry is likely to be immobilized during the 11:00 pm to 5:00 am maintenance window?

What reasonable efforts should BC Ferries make to arrange for a replacement vessel?

What service is BC Ferries obligated to provide to customers who cannot wait for a replacement vessel after a Temporary Service Disruption and before service is resumed—to avoid another May 2, 2024 fiasco?

Who bears legal liability in the event of a death or injury attributed to a documented unsafe and unreliable cable ferry during a Temporary Service Disruption or a delayed Emergency Evacuation due to the nightly maintenance window?

If amendments to Sections 4.01 and 4.02 are required to answer the above questions, when will they be implemented and communicated to Denman and Hornby islanders?

Denman and Hornby island emergency fire and medical service groups and residents anxiously await these answers to safely plan responses. Islanders are marooned whenever Route 21 is predictably cut off by a vessel that cannot be relied upon either during the evening maintenance window or when it breaks down during the day.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon Small,

Denman Island.

cc: Hon. David Eby, Premier of British Columbia

cc: BC Ferries Authority

cc: Nicolas Jimenez, President and CEO BC Ferries