Canada Needs To Bring Back The $1000 Bank Note

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

Brief History

The Bank Of Canada issued its first series of Canadian tender in 1935. The bills at that time were $1, $2, a commemorative $25, $500, and $1000. Fast forward to 2023, and only $5, $10, $50, and $100 are being produced and used as legal tender. Why? Some of these notes were only commemoratives, others succeeded in coin forms, while a certain one was unfairly discontinued. That is to be discussed later. As of January 01, 2021, the $1, $2, $25, $500 and $1,000 bills from every Bank Of Canada series are no longer legal tender. The $1 and the $2 notes stopped being issued in 1989 and 1996, respectively, and were succeeded with coins. The $25 and $500 notes were commemoratives, that were discontinued shortly after they were issued in 1935. The $1,000 note stopped being issued in 2000.

Are These Bills Worthless?

Removing legal tender status from these bills means that they are no longer considered money. This does not mean that the notes are worthless. It only means that they cannot be used in a cash transaction. The Bank Of Canada will continue to honour them at face value. Some of the rarer notes, such as the $25 and $500, can be worth significantly more than face value. To find out if your bank note may have a different value to collectors, you may refer to a collector’s catalog or obtain an evaluation from 2 or 3 money dealers who cater to the collection market.

Impact On Canadians

The Bank Of Canada says that these bank notes have not been produced in decades, so the decision to remove them from circulation has had little impact on most of us. I disagree. The only bill where I believe 99% of Canadians will not miss, would be the $25, $1, and $2 notes. For the $1 and $2 notes, they have been replaced with coins, so while the bills do not exist, at least the option to physically transact that amount still exists. The $25 was superficially close to the $20 bill, so I would agree that it was best left as a celebratory note. Though, some would argue that the same could be said for the $5 and $10 bills. If the $25 bill were brought back, I would be happy for it, but at the same time, I also do not mind its absence. Where I strongly disagree is the discontinuation of the $1000 bill. Once you learn the reason why it was discontinued, you too, might think it is unfair, and will want the $1000 to come back.

Why The $1000 Bill Was Discontinued

The $1000 bill was discontinued because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police urged the government to phase them out in 2000. The reason? The $1000 bill made money laundering too easy for criminals. Radio Canada International also mentions that counterfeiting and tax evasion were other complaints from the RCMP as to why the $1000 bill needed to go. While I certainly agree that money laundering is not something to be taken lightly, blaming the $1000 bill and asking for its discontinuation is quite frankly bad and is less freedom for Canadians. Case in point: The Bank Of Canada even admitted that it struggled eliminate the bill. 6 years later, 2006, there were still 1,000,000 of the bills still in circulation in 2006. What does that tell you? Canadians would have preferred to keep it in circulation. Unfortunately, there was no vocal backlash against this move, hence why the Government went ahead without asking for public input from citizens.

Now you might be thinking, if nobody complained about saving the $1000 bill, the public must have also agreed with the RCMP, right? No. At least, not everybody. Further proof is the fact that the Government had to create an incentive in order to force Canadians give them up: render them invalid tender in 2021. As discussed above, this move did not make them worthless; only worthless in cash transactions. They had to be exchanged at the Bank Of Canada for existing currency. This clearly tells us that if Government worked on actually improving the $1000 bill, such as making it out of the same modern polymers as existing bills, they would not need to discontinue it. As for the money laundering problem, there are many other solutions and financial crime preventatives that could have been done to tackle the problem. In the 23 years since its discontinuation, cyber security, and security in general has significantly improved. Therefore, All financial institutions, from large banks to small credit unions, need to do a better job with the tools and resources in place to significantly reduce financial crimes.

Expensive Times Call For Bigger Bills

Words like “Inflation”, “Cost Of Living”, and “Expensive” have been a very common theme for the 2020s thus far. Nearly everything is significantly more expensive than it was, say, 10 years ago. A flagship smartphone with top storage would have been $500 – $700. Now, a 1TB device from major companies readily tips the $2000. Vehicles, groceries, electronics, clothes, homes, and all: more expensive. I mentioned the word “Freedom” earlier. Imagine being able to pay for a smartphone, vehicle, large appliance, instrument, or other expensive items or services with physical cash? Want to buy that $50,000 all-electric car? 50 $1000 bills. Sony Xperia 1 IV? 1 $1000 and maybe 1-5 $100 bills. Baritone saxophone? 5 – 15 $1000 bills. While credit and debit cards may be commonly used, it is clear that not everybody prefers that method of payment, despite society trying so hard for cashless transactions. There is certainly nothing wrong with taps, swipes, and the entering of cards. However, for it to become the only use of a transaction would be dangerous, problematic, and a gross limitation of freedom.

The 2022 Rogers Communications outage that led to ATMs failing, is just 1 of many reasons why physical cash will always be important. And speaking of crisises, Canadian banks have admitted that they noticed a sharp rise of withdrawals during the heights of the COVID-19 pandemic. Speaking of COVID19, let us not forget the times when some retailers were refusing physical cash as a non-scientifically proven way to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The card terminals and buttons were no cleaner than cash. This led to major headlines centered around “Is It Legal For Businesses To Refuse Physical Cash?” And within much of them, people spoke out against cashless transactions. Canadians said that those restrictions added more anxiety, and grief on top of all the stressful things already happening during the pandemic. 

Resurrect The $1000 Bill

No need to fear the big, bad financial criminals at the cost of less options for everyone else. Big bills or not, criminals have, and will unfortunately continue to perform their activities. Better tools and collaborative actions between financial institutions will be the key for Canadians to safely enjoy the $1000 bill in its modern glory. If, by any unicorn-of-a-chance this write-up actually causes someone at the Bank Of Canada or some other financial leader to become motivated enough to resurrect it, it would only be natural for the $500 bill to come back as well. The gap between $100 and $1000 will be problematic and irritating without an intermediate bill to bridge the distance.

What Would The New $1000 and $500 Bills Look Like?

I was going to end this write-up at “Resurrect The $1000”. Not too long after completion, I realized that I could not proceed to notifying the World Wide Web about the existence of this particular write-up, without answering a critical question: what would these bills look like in their modern forms? I can say with 99.9% certainty that the $500 bill is not going to come back with John Alexander Macdonald. Canada has been moving ahead with taking him off of things, such as renaming buildings that had his name, and how he no longer appears on the present $10 bill. Who should take his place? If you ask me, a bird. Which kind of bird? I say the trumpeter swan. He is a large, beautiful, native, controversy-free being that would make a wonderful face to the $500 bill.

Now the $1000 is where things get interesting. For much of its life, it bared the face of Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen died back in 2022, so I do not think any new bills would feature her face anymore. King Charles III? Based on headlines and other sources, Canadians made it fairly clear that they do not want him on their money. So who will go on the $1000 bill? Pinicola enucleator. Do not recognize her? Pine Grosbeak is her English name. In 1988, the reverse side of the $1000 bill featured 2 cute, little pine grosbeaks. So if this bill were to be brought back sometime in the 2020s, it would make sense to have pine grosbeaks on both the obverse and reverse sides of the modern bill.

Graveyards And Orange Shirts

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

Grave

Many children went away.

It was no field trip. It was no fun and games. It was pain and suffering.

Many children never returned home. They died and filled the graves unmarked.

Their parents wept. Nobody cared.

The bee has stung. The wolf has bitten. The black bear swiped. The raccoon robbed. The river dried up.

Later, a large gathering of all sorts peoples show up, donned in orange shirts, and faces of serious demeanors.

The people have finally learned about the tragic losses.

The people have learned more about the First Peoples; the Indigenous Peoples.

Universal Basic Income

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income, often abbreviated UBI,  is a government-sponsored program in which every citizen or eligible resident would receive an unconditional flat monthly payment. Their income, employment status, or productivity levels would not be taken into consideration. The purpose behind this type of universal payment is to reduce the cost of living stress faced by a country’s residents, which would allow them to focus on education, improving their job skills, dealing with personal matters, or other things while having enough income to meet basic living requirements. Since UBI is indiscriminate of status, it ensures every resident gets something and that nobody gets left from missing a criteria, two, or three, the way other payments or programs do. In the most common UBI implementation, identical monthly payments are made to all individuals. The tax system then ensures that funds are returned to the system from those with higher incomes. 

History

“No penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it’s their only way of getting food.”
— Thomas More

The international COVID-19 pandemic from 2019 and onward, and the significantly increased costs of living has brought more attention to Basic Income than ever before. However, the concept of it is not new. Thomas More introduced the concept of guaranteed income in his 1516 book, Utopia. Since then, many people over the centuries have advocated some form of basic sustenance. An early example would be Thomas Jefferson in 1776 who believed in giving any propertyless individual 20 hectares of land willing to farm it. A recent notable person is American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, whose signature policy is what he calls the “Freedom Dividend“, a Universal Basic Income in the form of $1,000 monthly for every American adult.

Experiments, But No Full Commitment

Many countries from around the world have experimented with various projects and pilots. As of August 2022, there are no countries that have a permanent Universal Basic Income in place. Canada, the United States, Brazil, Kenya, France, Spain, Netherlands, Finland, India, and Japan are some of the countries that have experimented with it. In Canada, there has been 2 forms experimental income: The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (MINCOME) and Ontario Basic Income Pilot. Though the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit was not a universal income, it has highlighted numerous topics surrounding the need for a permanent basic income that does not leave anyone behind the way it did.

The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (MINCOME) was conducted between 1974 and 1979 under the joint sponsorship of Canada and Manitoba. It was geared toward measuring the results of low-income families in Dauphin and rural Manitoba. Over the four years that the program ended up running in the 1970s, an average family in Dauphin was guaranteed an annual income of 16,000 Canadian dollars. The results? Rates of hospitalizations fell 8.5%, improvements in mental health, a rise in the number of children completing high school, and more businesses started up during the time. Most notably, it did not cause people to stop working. The exceptions were new mothers and high school students. For new mothers it meant more time for them to take care of the home and children. For high school students they could finally focus on completing school to land better careers, as opposed to dropping out of school for farm and factory jobs. The results after financial security ended? Small businesses went defunct, anxiety returned, and some people even left Dauphin good. MINCOME was closed down in 1979 under the Progressive Conservative of Manitoba government of Sterling Lyon and the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Joe Clark. They cited oil price shocks, inflation, and the increased number of people seeking the assistance, more than what the project budgeted for. The results of the study at the time were not revealed, hence what led to the governments making this misinformed assumption. It was not until 2008, when Evelyn Forget revealed the results significantly positive effects it had. The papers had been previously locked away and abandoned.

The Ontario Basic Income Pilot (OBIP) was announced by Premier Kathleen Wynne in Hamilton in April 2017. The first phase to enroll participants, was successfully completed in April 2018, with full participation across the three pilot sites:

1.Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County
2.Thunder Bay, along with the Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge, Township of Shuniah, Municipality of Neebing, Township of Conmee, Township of O’Connor, and Township of Gillies
3. Lindsay

The purpose of the pilot was to test how a basic income might help people living on low incomes better meet their basic needs, while improving outcomes in the following: food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, and employment and labour market participation. Unfortunately, The three-year, $150-million program was scrapped by Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government, Doug Ford, in July 2018. At the time, then-social services minister Lisa MacLeod, stated the decision was made because the program was failing to help people become “independent contributors to the economy.” Predictably, the decision and statements faced intense criticism, with many particularly pointing out that the experiment did not even get time to gather results, and that the PC violated the promise to allow the program to finish. Former Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath called the decision to end the project absolutely disgraceful. Some participants have spoken out about how receiving the basic income had improved their lives — and how the program’s premature termination has left them fretting about the future.

Why

At this point, a critical question must be asked: why? Why is there no country on the planet with Universal Basic Income? Why do income experiments never turn into permanent programs, despite countless factual studies, reports, and organizations specialized in basic income with massive datasheets and media, that prove its efficacy? 3 persistent reasons:

1. Excessive paranoia that nobody will work, thus causing a labour shortage.

2. There is no money to fund it.

3. It will make inflation worse

Labour Shortage Paranoia

This is by far the most common point against Universal Basic Income. If implemented it will make people not want to work because they are given free money, causing millions to quit their jobs en masse. Utterly false! Experiments in Canada and around the world have proven that a guaranteed income of the sort, made people more willing to take risks with starting businesses, or finishing school allowing them to pursue more advanced careers. The real problem at play is not a labour shortage, but a wage shortage. If businesses truly cared that much about retaining and gaining employees, they would not only raise wages, but also treat workers better. Make them feel valued. Make them feel safe. Make them feel like there is a purpose. And particularly relevant to these times of international pandemics, an option to work full-time from home, for jobs that can be done remotely. UBI allows people to have more bargaining power, which drives healthy competition for businesses to up their wages and treatment practices. Bullying, intimidating, and using demeaning tactics to get people into working is counterproductive, and creates cycles of toxic work, desperation, burnout, and resignations. The mere fact that society is more afraid of jobs vacancies going unfilled, than private pockets being topped up, is what people should really be frightened about. The real common cause of labour shortages are things such as an ageing work force retiring at a higher rate than the working population can grow, graduates taking longer to graduate or secure work, insufficient immigration levels, and others.

Too Expensive

Critics are quick to point out how expensive implementing Universal Basic Income would be. It is easy to look at the numbers and say that $50 – 90 billion in the case of Canada, or 2.8 to 3.1 trillion in America’s situation is an astronomical amount of money. Indeed it is. What critics fail to point out is that UBI money would go right back into the economy. People that previously did not have purchasing power, will now have it. The more people there are with money, the more money can be spent on goods and services. This creates jobs, economics stimulus, allows more people to focus on school to pursue more specialized careers, and a vast assortment of other benefits. UBI is not even about printing new money; rather it is about allocating existing money directly to a nation’s citizens. Redistribution of income and wealth from some individuals and businesses to citizens through social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, or monetary policies is by far the easiest way to get it done. Saying it is too expensive is a lie. It is lack of political will. It is poverty and the current programs that are supposed to combat it that are extremely expensive.

Inflation

The inflation argument is based on the myth that in order to fund Universal Basic Income, the government would have to print billions of new dollars, thus making the cost of everything go up in the process. This has already been debunked numerous times, including within this write-up itself. UBI does not require an additional excess amount of money. Believers of this myth either do not even know what inflation is or intentionally deny that UBI can feasibly done through redistribution of existing money. Inflation is when the total value of currency increases faster than the total value of goods and services in the economy. This causes the price of goods and services to rise, in attempt to get that excess money spent. While in theory it sounds good, it leads to overconsumption, hoarding commodities, thus causing a vicious battle of even more inflation and consumer shortages. On the opposite side of the spectrum, deflation happens when the money in circulation remains, while there is an excess of goods and services causing the value of it to go up. Too much deflation will cause people to hold onto money, leading to a decrease in consumer spending, lowered business profits, pushing unemployment, and makes the economy shrink. Therefore, a small, consistent amount of inflation is actually good. Even if UBI were to be funded with new money, it would balance itself out because more people with purchasing power means manufacturers and businesses will be able to scale up accordingly with the good and services they offer to keep things balanced. If hundreds of billions can be printed to go to many other sources including banks, bureaucrats and CEOs, without causing inflation, this same money can certainly be redistributed in better ways. 

Inefficacy Of Existing Programs

“A one-size-fits-all cheque is not going to end the discrimination or poor workplace standards that follow around low-income workers.” — Critic
There are several things wrong with this statement. Firstly, it falls once again into the persistent myth that Universal Basic Income is a handout to make people dodge work. Secondly, it assumes UBI touts itself as the panacea for society’s problems. That is not the point of UBI. Informed UBI supporters are aware and admit that this is not point of UBI. The purpose of UBI is to ensure that nobody falls through the gaps by not meeting certain criteria. An extremely common problem with present anti-poverty programs. UBI certainly will not make poor workplace and discrimination disappear in the snapping of a finger. It will, however, give people more bargaining power to refuse terrible workplaces, and push them change their practices and pay. This will put the needed pressure on business to create a competition that aims for the top. To assume UBI is supposed to be a welfare handout that would rapidly brush problems away, akin to that of a mythical winged being scattering sparkles, rainbows, and gold is both condescending and nonsensical.

I am a single mother who has chosen to stay home to raise my children. Yes, money does help. I refuse to accept social assistance because they treat you like a criminal, the staff are vicious towards the people they serve. Period. UBI would work. The reasons people are poor are societal. Middle and upper class people seem to believe it’s a choice to be poor. Their parents raised them to ignore and have contempt towards poverty. — Anonymous Mother

While this mother’s comment obviously does not reflect how all staff or classes treat people, as some can be nice, it does highlight a significant and extremely common reality: embarrassment and stigmatization. A lot of people, whether they are rich or not, look down very heavily on people using disability and welfare programs. They view them as unproductive leeches who drain the working population’s life force and money. On top of this, these very same programs that are supposed to help people on welfare ironically keep most of them poor, known as the poverty trap. This is because the programs themselves do not even pay enough for these individuals to sufficiently meet their needs. It can be argued for welfare that it is supposed to temporary, which it is, but disability on the other hand can be either permanent or temporary. Here is where things get very distorted: When these individuals do attempt to work, they get their benefits clawed once they make a certain amount of money, which itself is not even enough for basic survival. This forces them to have to have to work reduced hours to keep the pay, but live with substandard income, or completely forgo their benefit. If the individual is disabled, this is not practical and can be rather dangerous.

Society must not bully and intimidate the disabled, poor, and vulnerable into working. It should be securing them and making sure their basic needs are properly met at all times without embarrassing and stigmatizing them.  Majority of people do not choose to become disabled. They are either born with a condition, or something environmental like an accident can cause it. Anyone could become disabled; poor, middle-classed, and rich. The difference? If a rich person becomes injured, permanent or not, they have access to top-notch doctors, often private staff, to make sure they are given the best condition at all times. On top of this, they have all their benefits and royalties that still gives them more money than some people working an entire year. The middle class and poor? Not so much. Even if the healthcare is free, they do not get the same quick access and specialized care as easily as a wealthy person could.

Let It Go

People need to let go of this mindset that every single person: healthy, bent, crooked, sick and all must work. It is unrealistic and callous. Some people are never going to work. Some people are never going to be employable. Perhaps the general definition of work itself may be problematic: going to an office or business to be told what to do under a clock and supervision. Work can take on many forms. It can be as traditionally described, but done remotely. It can also be done independently without supervision, with the individual setting the term, scope and pay; independent-contracting. Some people will never end up being useful to society in anyway at all, despite all the efforts to help them. Are these type of people the majority? Thankfully not. If that were the case, the world would not make it to this present time in history. Could it be that if some people had a guaranteed consistent income for proper sustenance, that even if they do not make a “good employee” that they might good keeper around a neighborhood? A good volunteer? Yes, people can be valuable to society in other ways than working through a job. Nobody asked to be born. Nobody asked for a price tag on food, water, shelter, and necessities. If society can make sure to put a price tag on everything, it can guarantee an income to pay for the basics. It is all a matter of will.

River Talk 3: Elizabeth The Long Reigning Queen

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. You may also support this website directly via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

What Should I Say About The Queen?

Before starting River Talk #3, I was not even sure if I were seriously going to choose Queen Elizabeth II as the main topic for this River Talk. I did. Now I have to think about what I should say about the Queen. Should I praise the Queen? Should I talk smack about the Queen? None of the above? A blend of both? Should be interesting to see where the course of the River will flow for Talk #3. So why the Queen again? I had a list of other topics in mind, but a week ago I had a discussion with relatives about what other ideas I could toss into the mix. Queen Elizabeth II and Platinum Jubilee were suggested to me. I dismissed it at first because I personally do not find the Queen to be that interesting of a topic. First smack point right there. Days later, I thought some more about it. I grew increasingly curious about what exactly Platinum Jubilee is. Is it a medal? A party? A song written specifically for the Queen? Not only did I become curious, I happen to already have a United Kingdom category in my River, since I have written topics pertained to them. There are only 2 write-ups in that category, so this is a good opportunity to throw a 3rd one into it.

What Is Platinum Jubilee?

Till this moment, I never knew what the word “Jubilee” meant. Upon reading the dictionary definition for it I have learned that a jubilee is the celebration of any of certain anniversaries, such as the twenty-fifth (silver jubilee ), fiftieth (golden jubilee ), or sixtieth or seventy-fifth (diamond jubilee ). I was not too off about it being a party and medal then. I do not know if they gave her a literal platinum medal during the celebration or not. However,  Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medals are a thing. The Province Of Alberta is awarding these medals to 7,000 Albertans throughout 2022 in recognition of significant contributions to the province. Alberta further mentions that it is a one-time program that will conclude on February 05, 2023, at the end of the Platinum Jubilee year. It seems that this has to do with Sunday, given that 2022 Jubilee was on the 6th of February.

Now Alberta made me curious about other provinces: are they doing this too? Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have announced plans for Platinum Jubilee medals. New Brunswick and Manitoba are considering it, while Ontario, British Columbia and Québec have opted out. Québec opting out does not surprise me, but Ontario and British Columbia seems odd. Ontario is Canada’s most populous province by far, and is home to the nation’s capital. British Columbia’s name is clearly inspired from the United Kingdom’s alternate name Britain. Perhaps it is not in their interest because platinum medals of the Queen are uninteresting to these peoples. Who knows for sure.

Those feeling left out can treat themselves to a 2022 Silver Year Of The Tiger or Gold Maple Leaf Coin. What I would like to talk about next is her 70-year reign.

70 Years

70 years. Wow! 70 years of commitment to service is an extremely long time to commit something. I have always wondered why, though? Why would someone want to commit the rest of their life to such a huge role? I have tried searching “Why Is The Queen So Committed?” but have yielded a variety of media posts. I did find one thing though: Her Twitter. Yes, the Queen Tweets. Seeing as though this is 2022, it is both comical and amusing how everyone and everything has social media. Even animals have social media accounts. Can you imagine if ancient Kings and Queens had Twitter? Queen Hatshepsut? King Solomon? Julius Caesar? That could be a topic entirely on its own. What did I find on the Royal Family’s Twitter? “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service” But why? From The Royal United Kingdom website it says that the Queen sees public and voluntary service as one of the most important elements of her work. She has links – as Royal Patron or President – with over 600 charities, military associations, professional bodies and public service organisations. These vary from well-established international charities to smaller bodies working in a specialist area or on a local basis only.

We can safely assume that she loves to serve and has a life-and-soul dedication to being involved in the community. It also helps having longevity in your genes and having access to the best care possible. Elizabeth II has been on the throne since February 06, 1952, making her the second longest monarch in the world. Who still has her beat? French King Louis XIV. He served as monarch for more than 72 years after taking the throne at age four and dying in 1715. I had to double-check the 4-year-old part. I know ancient Judah had Kings that reigned from the tender age of 7, but 4? Certainly would not happen in modern times. With Elizabeth II being 96 years old, there is a chance that she could beat him, and become not just the longest reigning monarch in Britain, but the longest reigning monarch ever! For some reason, I have a strong, unknown feeling that history will not see such a long-reigning monarch again. So this naturally leads to the next point: The future of the Monarch.

The Future Of The Monarch

Queen Elizabeth’s appearances throughout many places in the United Kingdom and the world over her lifetime has brought much admiration to her. However, her days are numbered. In 2022, she could not even attend certain events due to health issues that flared up. One that has been revealed was episodic mobility issues. Not surprising given how old her skeleton is. Who will take her place next? Prince Charles? Prince William? Some people — or should I correctly say, a lot of people think the monarchy should be abolished altogether. If you ask me, I am indifferent to whether they want to abolish it or not. If they do decide to keep it going, which they almost certainly will, I believe that Prince Charles should pass the torch to Prince William. Charles is 73. William is 39-turning-40 real soon at the time of this writing. With William being far younger, he can reign for far longer continuously, while modernising the monarchy.

The Royals have been buffeted by allegations of racism and bullying, a sex scandal involving Prince Andrew, demands that they apologize for Britain’s historic role in the enslavement of millions of Africans, the departure of the Sussexes, and bribery involving a charity with Prince Charles and how a Saudi demanded British citizenship if the Saudi gave him much money. The Royals are aware that they have a lot of work to do. Both Charles and William have already been taking on a lot of changes, and plan to make some changes for the better. How good they will perform has yet to be seen. I do hope that whoever is in charge will make the changes that need to be made.

Remove The Queen From Us

At this time, there are now 6 Caribbean countries that intend to remove the Monarch as their sovereign. If this sounds familiar, it is because Barbados has removed the Queen as its head of state to become the Caribbean’s newest republic back in November 2021. Why? Why is there such a strong urge to pluck the Queen out of the Caribbean? These countries want the ability to elect their own head of state, independent of an external body, to oversee domestic and foreign affairs. They want to formally and symbolically unlink themselves from the former empire that enslaved, brutalized, and profited off their ancestors. The massive protests that took place in the United States over Anti-Black racism back in 2020 have further fueled the desire to do so. Some have called this the “The Awakening Of Black Consciousness”.

What do I think of this? While I personally have no hard feelings towards the Queen, I can totally understand why countries whose populations are predominantly Black, Indigenous or South Asian would want to rid themselves of an institution who they feel is not benefitting them. So what about Canada? Should Canada abolish the Monarchy? A survey from Angus Reid Institute says that most Canadians have a positive view of Queen Elizabeth II, but believe that we should separate after she dies. Those that believe in the Monarchy strongly believe it has allowed Canada to be the stable, functional country it is, and that removing it will be a lengthy, complicated process. Lengthy and complicated? True. I personally do not think it will be as complicated as some people make it look, but it will absolutely be no 1-year-job-and-done sort of thing.

Final Words

We can agree that the Monarchy is not perfect. The United Kingdom undeniably has a long record of atrocities. At the same time, the royal family existing now is aware of this and has worked hard on a variety of issues. Whether or not Canada decides to get rid of the Monarchy, I am fine with either move. I would prefer for Canada to focus on inflation and stagnancy at this time. As for the Monarchy’s existence in Britain, if Britain insists on keeping it, keep it. As long as they continue to improve and work towards fixing social issues, and maintaining a good relationship with people, the institution will last as long as it can.

Are Zoos Animal Cruelty? No

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these links are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. You may also support this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored. Lastly, the opinion in this essay does not necessarily reflect Millennium River’s beliefs on the subject being discussed.

Animals Are Very Fascinating 

To say the animal kingdom is diverse is an understatement. From the massive whales that swim through Earth’s great oceans, to the little canaries eating pellets, the diversity of wildlife on Earth is absolutely immense. The sheer diversity of creatures and their behaviours is deeply fascinating to mankind.

However, there is a problem: many species of animals do not exist in areas where people live. How can they see and appreciate them? Enter the zoological park: an establishment which maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public. Better known simply as “zoo” the subject of zoos being animal cruelty is something that been discussed many times. A lot of people insist that zoos do not need to exist and are animal cruelty. Reasons typically include how the animals are best left alone in nature, zoos mistreat them, and that they only care about profit. While some of these points do have some truth in them, it is unintelligent to label all zoos as bad. There are both good zoos and bad zoos. In fact, labeling all zoos as bad is the very reason why there is a lot of misinformation about how modern zoos function. Zoological parks are good for the following reasons:

1. An accreditation system exists to help people make informed decisions about the animal park they wish to visit.
2. Zoos are a necessity for the conversation of animals.
3. Seeing wild animals in-person provides excellent social, health, and mental benefits.

Legitimacy Checks Exist

Many industries require professionals to have certifications and licenses before they carry out their business. Even something as seemingly casual as driving. Drivers must have a valid license reflecting that they are certified to drive the class of vehicle they operating. The same is true for zoos.

In the case of zoological parks operating within the the United States, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is the independent accrediting organization for the best zoos and the best aquariums in America, assuring the public that when they visit an AZA-accredited facility, it meets the highest standards for animal care and welfare. The AZA website even has many detailed pages on numerous matters including how their accreditation works, to ease concerned minds about their legitimacy. 

For zoological parks across the world, WAZA, World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, is the global alliance for regional associations, national federations, zoos and aquariums, dedicated to the care and conservation of animals and their habitats around the world. Their membership consists of nearly 400 leading institutions and organizations around the world, and this number continues to grow.

If a certification or label is not good enough, reading a particular zoo’s mission is another way to determine their authenticity. What are their values? Do they practice what that they say? Reading, understanding, and seeing their values in practice goes a long way in having faith in a zoo that really does care about its animals.

Zoos, as with other industries, have their validation checks to help people make more informed choices about which zoo is best to visit.

Zoological Parks Successfully Conserve Animals

Yes, believe it or not, zoos are a necessity to conserve and restore wildlife. A very common negative point against zoos is that wildlife should be free in the wild. This point would make sense if zoos were actually known for inappropriately capturing excess wild animals. This is not true, leading to the first point.

While some wild animals are wild-caught stock, a good portion of the animals in a zoo’s collection comes from stock that has been bred from other zoos or other captive environments. Some animals are also taken in as animals from the wild, that are unsuitable to be returned. Ethical scientists and animal experts agree that taking animals from the wild is not acceptable for captivity. 

In addition to captive breeding, zoos play a part in species conservation through reintroduction programs. Zoos work with scientists and vets to create programs to increase the chances that animals bred for reintroductions to the wild will survive. The public usually does not see the animals involved in captive breeding for species reintroduction programs. This allows for the animals to maintain more of their wild instincts. Species of birds, amphibians, insects, and other animals have been successfully restored to wild areas. The Toronto zoo’s trumpeter swans are a good example of this. This zoological park is one of several release sites for immature birds, and thanks to efforts made for breeding and releasing, the population of trumpeter swans has rebounded healthily. 

Rather than accusing zoos of keeping wild animals for show and entertainment, it is important to research zoos’ individually and learn which ones have truly helped animals.

Nothing Wrong With Looking At Animals

There is nothing wrong with looking at wild animals in captivity. It is only a problem if the animals are used for inappropriate entertainment or are kept under incorrect care conditions. In fact, looking at animals in-person brings many social and health benefits.

Many people, especially those in huge concrete cities such as Toronto or Los Angeles, will never see a proper assortment of wild animals in various environments. Books and documentaries have become much more detailed and immersive, but it will never be the same experience as seeing a living animal in-person, hearing it, watching what it does, and even touching it depending on the species and circumstance. That alone will bring a greater understanding and perspective to many and hopefully give them a greater appreciation for wildlife, conservation efforts, and what they can do to contribute.

Touching animals. No proper zoo would ever let visitors casually touch any animal, at any time, for as long as they, or all the parts of the animal. Good zoos inform people which animals can be touched, when they can be touched, and where they should be touched. This physical connection with wildlife is crucial in getting people to have a better bond with the animals they share the world with. It is also good way of getting practical experience for handling animals that can be kept safely in a domestic setting such as parrots, some reptile species, and others, while getting live feedback from an animal expert. 

Ambassador animals. An animal ambassador is an individual of a species that is used to educate the public about the species. Ambassadors are often tame or habituated and live permanently at the zoological park or area they are based. Studies have shown that the presentation of ambassador animals is a powerful catalyst for learning for a variety of reasons:

• Increases the length of time that people are engaged with the program animals thereby lengthening the potential time period for learning and overall impact.
• Provides the chance to personalize the learning experience, catering the teaching session to what interests the visitors.
• Allows the visitors the opportunity to make specific inquiries about topics in which they were interested.
• Enhances the delivery of cognitive and empathetic messages. Increases affective learning and attitudinal change.

Looking at animals is good. Especially when the animals are kept well, and visitors are being educated about them.

Zoological Parks Are Not Animal Cruelty

Zoological Parks are not animal cruelty. Some individual parks do indeed treat their animals badly, and are only in it for money and entertainment. Most, however, are not. An accreditation system exists to keep zoos in check on who is legitimate and who is not. Zoos have proven that they are necessary for the conservation and restoration of numerous species. Lastly, in order for more and more people to take animals seriously, visiting them in-person helps tremendously. People can read books on Spix macaws and learn that they are the most threatened species of parrot in the world. However, seeing, perhaps even holding an ambassador Spix macaw, will bring more personal connections to the species as whole, than it would through simply reading a book or watching a video.