Happy Canada Day

I was originally going to take the day off from blogging, but then, after reading the editorial in today's Star along with some letters reflecting what people would wish for Canada, I decided to briefly add my own thoughts.

Certainly, there are a number of challenges we face both as a country and as a society; traditional values of inclusiveness, consultation, negotiation, and compromise have all suffered badly under the Harper regime. But perhaps the gravest consequence of that cabal's rule is our aspirations as a nation; once grand in scope and vision (think, for example, of the nation-building involved in consturcting a rail system linking all parts of Canada, or the development of a national health-care system) they have grown muted, mercenary and small-minded. (Think, for example of Martha-Hall Findlay's recent sad assertion that building pipelines is a nation-building exercise.)

My own life-experience has taught me that we are at our best, both individually and collectively, when we have a deep sense of purpose; indeed, as we get older, no longer encumbered by the structure that defines so much of our lives during the working years, maintaining or rediscovering that sense of purpose is vital to the continuance of a meaningful life. The same is true, I believe, with nations. Under our current government, of course, there is no such purpose, unless you think it noble and worthwhile to despoil the environment, contribute to the growing catastrophe of climate change, or pay as little income tax as possible. Such cribbed conceptions reflect the souls of bean-counters, not leaders of society.

There is no dearth of projects to which Canada could aspire to, and in the process inspire the hearts and minds of the people. A national pharmacare program is eminently doable. Responsibly building a green economy would be another. A national housing strategy, a national childcare program, perhaps even a guaranteed annual income - all are within our reach.

We are approaching a turning point in our evolution as a nation. The upcoming election in 2015 will likely have far-reaching consequences for our future. Which vision will prevail, 'business as usual' or a bold rediscovery of our potential as a people and as a nation?

I Shop, Therefore I Am

First and foremost, how do you see yourself? Are you a citizen more than a consumer, or vice-versa? Are high-minded principles and vision your defining characteristic, or is how to get the best value for your money what drives you?

The questions that I just posed are, of course, on one level ludicrous, inasmuch as they suggest an either/or answer. Realistically, or at least ideally, we can be both. Yet to examine the rhetoric of our political 'leaders', our lives are defined by angst over cable selection, gasoline prices, and cellphone bills, and little else.

One of the books I am currently reading is Susan Delacourt's Shopping For Votes: How Politicians Choose Us And We Choose Them, which examines the kind of 'retail politics' that has been shaping the political landscape for decades. Beginning in the 1950s with early polling and focus groups, the process has become so refined that groups are now targeted in political campaigns with their 'issues' at the forefront.

Here is an excerpt from the inside cover of Delacourt's book:

Inside the political backrooms of Ottawa, the Mad Men of Canadian politics are planning their next consumer-friendly pitch. Where once politics was seen as a public service, increasingly it is seen a a business, with citizens as the customers. But its unadvertised products are voter apathy and gutless public policy.

One needn't look far to see egregious evidence of political debasement. As recently noted by The Mound of Sound, neither Justin Trudeau nor Thomas Mulcair offer any distinct difference to Harper, other than perhaps in style. Neither has the political integrity to question the tarsands, nor, to my knowledge, are they heard to ever offer an opinion on or strategy for dealing with climate change. In answer to Mound's question of why either of them wants to be Prime Minister, I opined that they perhaps just think they should be. No passion, no vision, just the politics of expedience seems to be their political raison d'être.

In his piece today in The Toronto Star about the upcoming federal budget, Les Whittington says it will be consumer-oriented:

The government says it wants to take aim at cable-TV packages that don’t allow consumers to pick and choose, payday loan companies, lack of competition among wireless providers and price differentials on the same goods between this country and the U.S.

And while Justin Trudeau sings an amorphous tune about the middle class struggling, Thomas Mulcair has this to offer:

He says the Harper government raises consumer issues but hasn’t followed through with action.

“So we’re going to talk to Canadians about how we can end the rip-offs at ATM machines, at the gas pump, and how we can ensure more Canadians have access to a low-interest credit card”.

Not a word about climate change. Not a word about carbon. Not a word about poverty. Not a word that reflects the semblance of a vision.

I'll close on a note that I hope demonstrates I am not some sort of ethereal idealogue. Yes, I think we get ripped off on cable, and I don't like it. Yes, more should be done to ensure fair business practices. But those concerns do not exclude larger ones, like growing inequality, the plight of the working poor, and a world in real climatic peril. No amount of political legerdemain can alter some larger, very inconvenient truths.

The Problem With The Police Starts At The Top

Leadership is a word that evokes many associations; strength, vision, determination and resolve are a few of the positive ones. Selfishness, careerism, expediency and cowardice are but a few of many negative associations. In my own working life, I had perhaps three administrators I looked up to, the ones who put the good of education above personal ambition, pettiness and self-centreness. They were people I would have done anything for.

The rest I merely endured because I had no choice.

As I have often written in this blog, I see Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair as a failed leader, one who must bear a large portion of the responsibility for the democratic debacle of the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto and its aftermath, which saw virtually no consequences for the massive and widespread police abuse of charter rights. In my view, Blair should have been fired afterwards. Sadly, the effects of his failed leadership, like poison dropped in a reservoir, continues to ripple outward, affecting those he 'commands'.

An exceptionally well-crafted letter in today's Toronto Star by Rick Owens of Toronto explains why:

Re: SIU head blasts Toronto police chief for co-operation failures, Aug. 29

That Toronto police Chief Bill Blair is not directly accountable to the SIU is clear in law. But that is not the issue. What is at issue here is whether the chief ought to have the courtesy to respond directly to a legally mandated body that investigates matters involving the consequences of the use of force by his staff. Courtesy or rather the problem with discourtesy is the issue here.

I can recall no time in the last 40 years when regard for the police in Toronto was this low and widespread. Whether it’s the G20 fiasco, the series of charges and allegations about dishonesty in court or outrageous misjudgments such as the Sammy Yatim shooting, some police in Toronto have done much to undermine the credibility of and trust in the Toronto Police Service. And it is the sort of defiance and fundamental discourtesy that the chief demonstrated in this matter that seem to be the common theme across the past decade.

That Blair feels no need to be even remotely courteous to Ian Scott is akin to the disregard by some police to the rights of citizens or their own responsibility to abide by the law. One recent example of this disregard is the officer who parked his personal car illegally while on a paid duty assignment. All he had to do was put a police vest on his dash and he was exempt from paying the fees that every other private vehicle is required to pay. That was his expectation; it’s not the law. This is at best a discourtesy to those of us who abide by the law and pay the penalties when we don’t. At its worst, it is quite simply corruption. But why should that officer think he’s accountable to the rest of us if his chief doesn’t think he is?

The chief sets both the tone and example for the thousands of women and men in his (our) employ, and his response to Scott was most certainly the wrong one. The police service has a lot of work ahead of it in repairing its image and relationships with the people it serves and to whom it is accountable. This was a step back. It is my (admittedly distant) hope that the Police Services Board will hold him to account on this matter.