Something remarkable happened in Ottawa this past weekend. More than 3,000 Canadians came together under the Liberal banner to insist on a reasonable, pragmatic, and socially progressive option to the Conservative machine. And we came to the Liberal convention to make that happen because the Liberal Party, for all its flaws, is still the only party in Canada that strives to reflect the values and ideals of Canadians rather than alter their values and ideals. And none of us, even those who may sometimes vote for other parties, can afford to lose that option.
Many delegates at this convention, like me, were first-time participants. They came from diverse political backgrounds. I met former NDPers, former Conservatives, even a one-time founder of the Marijuana Party. More than anything I met younger or previously silent supporters of the Liberal Party who woke up this year and realized that we can no longer stand by and trust other Canadians who share our values to drive the political discourse. We realized that we had all become more than a little complacent in the expectation that decency and common sense would win out in the end. But if that was going to happen this year, or any time soon, it would be our job to make it happen.
Canadians responded to this challenge. They came from coast to coast. More than a third of the delegates were under 30. They spent money they couldn’t easily spare on flights, hotels, and convention fees. And yet many, like myself, came mainly out of a sense of obligation. We all knew we had to try to turn things around and revive the Liberal Party. But did we really believe it was possible when we arrived? I know I had my doubts. Then we started talking and listening to one another. More and more we realized we all wanted the same things from the Liberal Party. Real change. Policies that speak to ordinary Canadians and to core Canadian values. A return to popular, broad-based politics that empower the widest number of people and trust in their decency, common sense, and good intentions.
Then, even more surprisingly, those of us come newly to the party found that we weren’t alone in our hopes and aspirations. The biggest names in the Liberal Party – those still standing after everything else was swept aside – also faced the need for real and even radical change. They put courageous proposals and policy options on the table and we responded.
Nothing important went down easy or without opposition. There are still a lot of long-term members of the party who like their politics small, simple, and tightly controlled. They showed up at the convention talking about the need for renewal and all the while fought hard against almost every proposal for tangible change. But in the end, we simply overwhelmed them. In an unlikely and unplanned alliance, the brightest minds of the party offered up the opportunity to do something dramatic, and a great mass of Canadians who had no investment in the old way of doing things showed up to make it happen.
So what is the result? We adopted policies that put our party at the forefront of contemporary issues. Most obvious is the legalization of marijuana. We also decided to back a simple and practical option for electoral reform, that of preferential balloting, as a pragmatic route towards improvement of our antiquated first-past-the-post system. We made structural changes to our party that are going to resonate for years to come. We opened participation to anyone who may choose, for free, to simply declare their support for our party and our goals. We gave them the chance to help choose our leader by popular vote. We voted to stop protecting incumbent MPs from challenge in their nominations. We voted to significantly restrict the ability to parachute in candidates. And more besides. The net effect is to open up the party dramatically to new influences, to new participants, and to new ideas. And the folks who have become comfortable with the idea that they are somehow entitled to drive the party agenda as a reward for long service have been put on notice. Either get with the renewal or get out of the way.
Going into this convention, Shelia Copps was the runaway favorite for President of the Liberal Party. But riding on the wave of change, and speaking to younger and newer members of the party, Mike Crawley swept in and won the day. He won by a small margin, but for a guy who was “Mike who?” mere weeks ago the momentum is staggering. While others are talking about renewal as though it’s a gimmick that can lure a new generation of Canadians into old style politics, Mike is talking about broad, wholesale innovation. The goal is to restore a fundamental notion to Canadian politics – the notion that if only enough people come to the table and talk things through, we can govern this nation well.
The Conservatives, the NDP, and even the Greens and the Bloc have one thing in common. They are built around trying to convince people to buy into their agendas. They are always trying to move public debate and shift the values of the Canadian population. At their core, these parties believe that a small number of Canadians know what’s right, that the great mass of Canadians are wrong, and that it’s the job of the few to convince and lead the many.
The Liberal Party believes the overwhelming majority of Canadians are decent, trustworthy, well-intentioned people who can and will do the right thing when they are given a chance. They only need a political party that can express the values they already hold in a responsive and relevant way. And yes, that means centrist politics. But centrist, popular politics in a nation of decent people will produce decent government.
The radical change embraced by the Liberal Party this past weekend is nothing more and nothing less than giving this party back to the whole nation and trusting them to make something of it that we can be proud of once again. I believe Canadians are ready to receive it. And I truly believe that we’re going to change history together.
A recent article in the Globe about Niki Ashton’s entry into the leadership race for the federal NDP caught my attention. Ms. Ashton is young, at 29. That isn’t to say she’s inexperienced, and she is fact in her second term as a MP. But rather than rely on this fact alone to back up her credentials, the Globe mentioned that “politics is in her blood” – almost as though this is some additional qualification. Her father, you see, is a provincial cabinet minister. Which presumably suggests that his daughter is more qualified than the next Canadian to hold high elected office.
I don’t mean to pick on Ms. Ashton in particular. This isn’t an issue that’s especially about her and it isn’t a topic that’s confined to the NDP. We often talk about how politics “runs in the blood” or maybe we refer to a “political gene.” We are in regular need of some way to explain or discuss the fact that so many families share the habit of occupying our elected offices. Whether it’s children succeeding their parents or siblings following one another or spousal power couples (the genetic explanation has less force here) we’re regularly confronted with this topic. Examples are so common that picking a few seems arbitrary. Mike Layton is now on Toronto City Council, replacing his father. Doug Ford followed his brother there. Dalton McGuinty’s brother, David, is in federal politics representing the same riding. Justin Trudeau is famously regarded as his father’s successor as a potential leader of the Liberal Party. And I looked into Helena Guergis, to see about when her involvement with Rahim Jaffer started (turns out they were both in office already) but I stumbled over a long history of her family’s involvement in municipal politics. There – now I’ve at least picked on every major party.
In all seriousness, the point I’m making hardly needs examples. In fact, it’s most badly in need of counter-examples. Dig into the family history of any successful politician and the odds of hitting prior family involvement are shockingly high. Which comes right around to the point I started with. We talk about politics in the blood and the political gene because there’s no way to avoid the idea. We need an explanation.
Yet it’s a bald-faced lie to imagine that any family has a genetic predisposition to the traits required for public office. We’d never accept that explanation as a qualification for any other job. Imagine the applications to medical school … because my mother was a doctor you should presume in my favour that I’d be a good doctor as well, and accept my application over the son of an auto mechanic. How can we possibly imagine this reflects our values as Canadians?
The real and much more obvious explanation is that politics is a game of connections and privilege. Those who are already in have a vast advantage over those who are not. And we all bloody well know this already, it’s just considered tacky to admit it. There’s a certain pragmatism to it, certainly, from a party perspective. Every party wants, first and foremost, electable candidates. So those who already come with name recognition and connections are considered safer bets than those without. And beyond simple pragmatism, there’s still the advantage of money and connections. It takes cash to get elected. It takes friends to make it happen. And we all know that too.
Certainly there are children (and siblings, and spouses) who follow the examples of their families and loved ones into the occupation of politics. It’s a career, like any other, and it isn’t the only career that may be susceptible to becoming a family trade of sorts. I don’t mean to disparage the presumably sincere motivations of the many politicians who may come from family histories of public service. But the frequency which with this happens in politics must be greeted with extreme skepticism. And the public trust vested in our elected officials suggests this career, in particular, should not and cannot be passed down like the neighbourhood grocery store. We must be vigilant to ensure that our elected offices remain occupied by the best and the most qualified individuals – not simply by the best connected and most pedigreed.
Canada’s system is still better than many. I don’t mean to indict the whole or claim that it would ever be easy or even possible to remove entrenched political advantage entirely. But one thing we can all do – and the one thing we should do at minimum – is at least admit to ourselves what’s really happening. This “politics in the blood” nonsense has got to stop. We all know it’s a lie, and it’s just embarrassing that we repeat it so readily in order to maintain the myth that public office is equally accessible to all.
As you may know, I’m on the Board of YouthLink. We do important work out in Scarborough, where there ain’t a lot of money to go around.
Aviva is giving away money through their community fund and we want some of it to support our programs. They’ve got a simple and tested system. You sign in and give them your attention for a second, and they let you vote for something you support. Then at the end of it they divvy up $1,000,000. Our program is located here.
I know – signing into a website just to endorse something isn’t anyone’s idea of a good time. But it’s a truly worthwhile cause. You can vote every day for the next two weeks. So literally this time – vote early and vote often.
Please spread the word. I know they’re bribing our eyeballs with money, but the money goes to a good cause, and you really can spare a second right? You won’t even be hit with advertising. Aviva just wants you to know they’re supporting our communities. And since they really are, it isn’t asking so much to take note of that fact.
I very recently joined the board of YouthLink for a three year term. I will additionally be serving on the Governance Committee.
YouthLink is a fantastic organization that serves young people in a broad sense, focusing on challenges they face and providing services to help them meet those challenges. It was founded in 1914 by The Big Sister Association of Metropolitan Toronto and at the time was concerned with helping young women and girls caught up in the court system who lacked family support and guidance. Since that time the organization has expanded greatly and its mandate widened, but the central mission remains – to find young people who are struggling with problems and who have no other support, and to help them.
In 2004, YouthLink made the decision to focus on Scarborough as a community in particular need of its services. After some period of transition, it is now based from main offices located on Warden Avenue between Eglinton and St. Clair.
This new role certainly fills up my dance card. Three boards is my limit. But I was very flattered to be described as an “expert” in not-for-profit governance at the AGM just past and I suppose I am gaining some expertise as the years go by. I’m very glad to help provide that to such a worthy organization. Also, I’m pleased that the three organizations I participate in all serve Scarborough, and particularly the community of Scarborough Southwest.
Jack Layton’s legacy has not yet been measured. He served three decades in office but it’s only in the last few months that he turned Canadian politics on its ear. At the height of his success, and the NDP’s improbable ascendancy, he suddenly died. It’s almost the tale of a rock and roll legend, only transposed into politics. We’ll be learning from him long after his time, and wondering what else he would have done if things had turned out differently.
Jack’s remarkable deadbed letter may be the most significant artifact left from his career. The sentiments aren’t unique but the timing and the wide exposure of these lines will magnify their impact. Anyone interested in politics should read the original in full, and almost certainly has. But the conclusion runs as follows:
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.
It would be easy to imagine, reading those lines, Jack’s essential thesis is that the NDP is the party of love, hope, and optimism. But Jack was smarter than that. He gave the NDP more than enough partisan attention in his letter, and asked that Canadians give them a “careful hearing.” We certainly should do that. But in the end he turned his attention to a wider topic, and that deserves some acknowledgment also.
At its finest, left wing politics strives to build a better, fairer, more inclusive world for everyone. The vision of a party founded on those principles helped carry Jack and the NDP quite far. But the broad left and the NDP also include a lot of people who blindly demonize industry and distrust “the establishment” and anything mainstream. They divide the world between people who agree with them and people who are simply mean and badly intentioned.
Centrist politics can be optimistic and hopeful too. At its finest, centrist politics trusts ordinary Canadians and believes that bridging our differences is better than seeing one side win and the other lose. It balances compromise with a moral core that doesn’t shift. Centrist politics can also be cynical and opportunistic. It may try to be everything to everyone and end up standing for nothing other than the most convenient route to power.
Even right wing politics can be loving and hopeful. Tough fiscal policy says we’ll conserve today to build a better future tomorrow. Holding fast to the valuable lessons we learned from our parents and grandparents … that isn’t always wrong. At its worst, right wing politics becomes unbearably selfish and fearful. People convinced that the future looks dark simply hoard and protect what they have rather than invest in their neighbours. They want higher walls and bigger prisons to protect their families from imagined threats.
The truth is that the NDP are no more naturally loving, optimistic, or hopeful than any other party. Jack tried to guide them in that direction, and he deserves a mountain of credit for doing so, but all of us can and must learn from his example. If every party were to embrace his approach to politics we could indeed be proud of our leaders again. And that, even more than the remarkable breakthrough of the NDP, may be the legacy he leaves to Canadian politics.
Last week Jack Layon announced his temporary leave of absence as Leader of the Official Opposition, and named Nycole Trumel as his interim replacement. Looking frail and vulnerable, with a new and as yet unrevealed form of cancer, Jack struck a chord across all political lines. He was even featured positively on the front page of the Toronto Sun – probably a first in all his decades of public service, initially in Toronto and later federally. Politicians of every creed stepped up to declare their support for him and their admiration of his service. And the glow lasted for about three days.
Then the news broke that Ms. Turmel had formerly been a member of the Bloc Quebecois. And now it’s no holds barred again. Since the first news of her past membership, there’s been endless back and forth on the degree of her participation and nature of her affiliation. It would be easy to get into that topic, but in truth it’s just one big distraction. No matter how deep her connection with the Bloc, there is no reason at all that anyone should care. Save, of course, to score cheap points in political theatre.
Our Prime Minister, and current leader of the Conservative Party, was once involved with another party too. In fact, he was the leader of that party, during his time with the Canadian Alliance. The present leader of the federal Liberal Party, Bob Rae, was once a member of the NDP, and became Premier of Ontario under that banner. Is there any level of participation Ms. Turmel could possibly have had, in the Bloc, that would exceed these prior affiliations?
Yes, I know. It isn’t that it’s another party, it’s the fact that it’s a separatist party. Or that’s what folks will say, anyway. But the Bloc is also a party that enjoyed widespread support in Quebec and was, inevitably, elected by many people who are not separatists. In a nation with only a few political parties, it is the height of ignorance to suggest that when someone joins or votes for a party it means they support every aspect of that party’s platform. In order for this to be true it would need to mean that either (a) there are only a few possible opinions on every topic, and they come packaged in tight sets, or else (b) only people whose ideas are party orthodox on every topic can or should participate in any political party.
Of all the party’s that have taken shots at Nycole Turmel about this, I’m most disappointed in the Liberal Party. This isn’t worthy of us. Never mind that it’s hypocritical. It undermines the very notion of centrist politics. If we don’t uphold the belief that Canadians of various backgrounds and opinions can participate in our politics, and can move from one party to another that better represents them, then what in the world do we stand for? I expect ideological suspicion from parties on the left and on the right. The one thing both the NDP and the Conservatives share (whether they admit it or not) is a “with us or against us” mentality. It’s exactly that attitude that’s tearing apart the U.S. right now. And the greatest strength of the Liberal Party is that we can offer an alternative to that kind of short-sighted, uncompromising suspicion of people who hold different views.
I respect everyone who belongs to a political party. I respect everyone who participates in Canadian democracy. The outpouring of love and support for Jack Layton was based on that very notion – that we admire his contribution to our nation even if we don’t agree with his goals. Still, our commitment to that view is only paper thin if we immediately turn on his successor for having the nerve to participate in some other political party.
What worries me most is the message we send to people who already do participate in another party, or who have in the past. If we treat them with suspicion, or as second-class participants in our party should they become interested in it, then how can we ever call ourselves a popular, centrist party? Why would we ever expect people to come to the table and engage with us? How can we say in one breath “she can’t be a real NDPer if she used to belong to the Bloc” and at the same time say that every Canadian can be a Liberal?
Putting the interim leader of the NDP on the immediate defensive may be good strategy but it’s cheap politics. It isn’t worthy of any political party – much less a party that seeks to uphold centrist principles. The sooner the Liberal Party retakes the moral high ground on issues of this nature, and stops treating the political center as ideological turf to be defended as irrationally as the left and the right, the sooner we’ll regain our credibility as the natural governing party of Canada.
A lot has been said about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist, and we’ll surely be learning more for months to come. We are only just beginning to learn about who he is, where he came from, and why he acted as he did. His motives are inevitably so twisted they’ll never be fully understood. But so far we know this much. He targeted the ruling Labour Party of Norway, and their youth and their children, because of their social-democratic ideals. He acted in what he calls “self defense” against their promotion of a free, liberal, and democratic society.
I’ve just come back from the Provincial Liberal Council in Ontario and I can’t help but see the faces of our Liberal youth in this tragedy. They were there as volunteers and participants as they always are. Most come from political families but some find their way into the party on their own. Their motives are various. Some are deeply committed. Some are just doing what their family does. Some view it as a hobby. They could just as easily be in the scouts or in a sports league or in a choir, except what they happen to do is participate in a political party.
The sad truth is that being involved in a liberal, democratic party isn’t as safe as it once was. Whether it’s Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords gunned down in the U.S. along with a dozen and a half supporters, or this horrible tragedy in Norway, or the threats faced daily by progressive politicians – we can’t pretend this isn’t part of a trend. When was the last time you heard about a right wing politician suffering violence at the hands of a lefty? A pie in the face, maybe. Even some chaos and destruction in the streets as anarchists make whatever sort of point they think they’re making. But the cold, deliberate killing of politically involved people merely for their beliefs? Right now, that’s the province of conservative, right wing politics.
Before I go too far, let me say that violence isn’t always the hallmark of the right and alien to the left. “Revolutions of the people” have been equally dark and violent, at times. The distinguishing feature isn’t necessarily political agenda. Rather, it’s the basis on which the agenda is advanced. When politics of any stripe are driven by fear and anger and hatred of others violence is sure to result. And that is the true danger that we all face, right now. Today’s conservatism is laced with a toxic vein of hatred. That isn’t to say all conservatives are violent or promote the politics of anger. Most surely do not. But there’s enough of an undertone that we all feel it. And eventually, somewhere, someone acts on it.
It seems to me that a right wing conservative extremist is willing to kill for his or her views while a left wing, socially democratic extremist is willing to die for his or hers. The result of this equation should be obvious, shouldn’t it? The first should kill the second and somehow “win.” But it doesn’t seem to work out that way. The politics of anger and violence are like a snake that eats its own tail. No matter how much damage they do in the short term, they end up extinguishing themselves. And those with social ideals may pay a heavy price in the moment. They may be killed, maimed, or worse yet see their children targeted. But somehow their ideals spread in spite of the cost, and more stand up for every one who falls.
It would be cheap and easy to paint the Conservative Party in Canada as aligned with right-wing violence. It isn’t, really. And it would be equally trite to suggest that the Liberal Party is the proper comparison for the Norwegian Labour Party. It could just as easily be the NDP. But I am sure of one thing. Conservative politics in Canada and most especially in Ontario have taken a turn for the nasty.
Conservative politics in Canada are exploiting our fears and our dislikes of people who are different from ourselves. People who cost the system money. People who aren’t “really” Canadian. People who have made mistakes and don’t deserve access to health care, education, and social systems. People who should be locked up. People who have too many children and don’t deserve our help. People who get paid too much for the jobs they do. People who think we should pay for the things that make our society great for everyone, instead of keeping what’s ours, because we earned it, and damn any government that wants to tax us for it
I’m proud as hell to be a part of the Liberal Party (and NDPers can hold their heads up too!) because at least we’re fighting cynicism with hope, hatred with tolerance, and promoting inclusion rather than pitting the interests of one Canadian against the next one. It frightens me, sometimes, to see how much people can hate us for that. We say it can’t happen here but then that’s what they said about Norway. It has a far lower rate of gun violence than Canada … or at least it used to.
The sad truth is that liberal democratic ideals are sometimes dangerous, in the face of right-wing anger. But we can’t back down, despite this fact. We can’t even hide our children from it. Because if we do, the society they’ll inherit won’t be worth living in.
The Ontario Liberal Council is still underway but I’m psyched about one strategy we discussed and I wanted to do something about it immediately. It’s just about encouraging everyone in the party, from the government officials on down to the frontline volunteers, to tell their own honest stories about how they came to be involved in the Liberal Party and why the policies of the party matter to them. So here’s mine.
I started university at 27 years old. I was a self-supporting adult, working in low wage service jobs, and I finally decided that enough was enough. That isn’t to say I regret the time I spent doing other things (see my writing on post-secondary education) but I wanted to attend university. And I was essentially broke.
I won’t pretend that our system of post-secondary education in Ontario is perfect or that the Liberal Party deserves the credit for every positive feature in it. But I do know that it works. Accessing a variety of loans, bursaries, work study, and eventually a few scholarships I was able to pay my way entirely through undergrad, a MA in English, and law school. People tend to say that I did it “on my own” but that isn’t entirely true. I did it with the help of generous public support. Importantly, however, I did it with public support that’s available to everyone. Access to education, for me, didn’t depend on the financial position of my family.
At the same time, I’m glad to say I had a quality education. But man, sometimes it was close to the edge. At U of T Scarborough where I did my undergrad, especially, space was tight and budgets were tighter. When I started there in 2002 the campus had barely more than 60% of the NASMs (Net Assignable Square Meters) per student that it should have had, and every dollar was being squeezed to death. Things started improving, however, with major provincial investment in infrastructure and base funding. You wouldn’t believe the changes that have taken place on the campus if you didn’t see it happen. Literally one or more new buildings every year. And there are similar stories on campuses across Ontario.
The truth is that higher education is a tough problem to solve. More and more students are attending post-secondary institutions. They are being asked to take on major debt just to acquire entry level qualifications. Our institutions are experiencing major shifts in their role and function in society. Academics are unsure of their role and identity; administrators are struggling to adapt. We’ll be dealing with the fall out from this shift for a very long time. And no one has complete solutions.
Among the political parties, however, I’ve become convinced that only the Liberal Party has a pragmatic, functional approach to higher education. The NDP panders to students by constantly insisting that education costs too much but aside from promises to freeze and reduce tuition they have no vision. There’s no discussion of how they’ll continue to fund the neediest students adequately while they reduce the ticket price for even the wealthiest, and there’s no ideas for how to guarantee quality with less money to go around. Conservatives, by contrast, are perfectly happy to see market forces step in and insist that everyone should pay closer to the full costs of their education regardless of their resources. Maybe with the right partnerships, and the academic curriculum for sale, private industry would be willing to help close some of that gap…
The problems aren’t easy but the Liberal Party is the only party in Ontario that I’ve seen grapple honestly and productively with this challenge. In 2002 I started university as a 27 year-old frosh with no financial resources to speak of. In 2011 I’ve got three degrees, a fledgling career in law, and I now lecture part-time at U of T Scarborough where the whole thing began. I’ve still got considerable debt but the investment was worth it and I’m paying it down at a good clip.
I’m working with the Ontario Liberal Party, in Scarborough Southwest, to ensure that similar opportunities are available to future generations of students.
Since I became involved with the riding of Scarborough Southwest, I’ve been asked several times where I stand on the topic of bike lanes. Bike lanes were installed on Pharmacy Ave. and Birchmount Road in 2008 and since then have become a flash point in the riding, with Michelle Berardinetti championing their removal and winning her election to Toronto City Council partly on the popularity of that position. Two days ago, Toronto City Council voted to remove those lanes. It was a side note to the more heavily reported debate on the Jarvis bike lane, but infinitely more significant to the residents of Scarborough Southwest.
As a cycling advocate, I’m a bit torn here. I know what it’s like to ride a bike in Toronto. I’ve been completely taken out by a car door while riding on Bloor and entirely within my right of way. I was immediately accosted by drivers in the aftermath, with the mistaken impression that I didn’t belong where I was – riding to the right of the road, beside a row of parked cars. I didn’t even have time to recover from shock or regain my wits before I was defending myself. Fortunately I was doored almost right in front of Bike Pirates and there were also a couple of cycling advocates there to help me out a moment later. That meant a lot to me.
So I get it. Cycling on the road can be dangerous and cyclists shouldn’t take their lives into their hands every time they want to go somewhere. At the same time, Scarborough Southwest isn’t downtown Toronto. We can’t expect that what works in the core is going to work out where we are and there are still one heck of a lot more cars on Pharmacy and Birchmount than bikes. Cycling advocates point out that daily cycling traffic has increased from 300 to 900 since they were installed, but that’s still a pittance compared to car traffic. And that has to mean something.
In related discussion at City Hall, there’s currently a proposal backed by Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam to turn a major section of Yonge Street into a pedestrian only mall. I’m certain Rob Ford – likely backed by Councillor Michelle Berardinetti – will dismiss the idea out of hand and declare it part of the “war on cars” that he aims to end. But hold on a second – this same study finds that there are far more pedestrians using this area than there are cars. And in fact local businesses, recognizing the importance of pedestrian traffic to their fortunes, are overwhelmingly in favour of the idea.
The contrast between these two topics illustrates, to my mind, exactly what’s wrong with Toronto municipal planning. Every decision seems based in ideology rather than practical realities. Under the prior administration cycling was advanced as an end unto itself and bike lanes were placed on a “build it and they might come” basis. Meanwhile, the current administration isn’t any better. Even the downtown core needs to make way for the almighty car. Nevermind the fact that huge numbers of people are willfully using other means to travel into the core and the obstinate drivers who insist on bringing their vehicles right down Yonge Street are the minority. Nevermind that many of the pedestrians who are trying to walk around there are just drivers who have left their cars elsewhere. The car still wins on ideology alone.
So here’s what I think about bike lanes, street traffic, pedestrian malls, and municipal planning in general. I think that infrastructure and the accommodation of traffic of all sorts must embrace and enable what people are already doing. I think that bike lanes belong where people are already cycling in large numbers and this analysis must take into account patterns in the area as a whole. Cyclists might move one street over, for example, if that’s where a lane can best be built. Just as cars may be redirected.
And in turn, heavily developed urban areas become, over time, less friendly to car traffic. When those who aren’t driving begin to outnumber those who are the natural conclusion is that cars don’t belong there anymore. Driving right up to the doors of the Eaton’s Centre is not some kind of cherished, constitutional right.
Urban planning must be based around practical realities and not around ideology. A little bit of foresight never hurt anyone either. It’s fine to take a longer view and try to imagine where things are going in ten and twenty years. But the goal must always be to plan in advance of change, not to simply apply wishful thinking and build what you hope people will use.
I’m pleased, for Scarborough Southwest, that we’ve elected municipal leadership that’s corrected an error in our riding. But I’m very concerned that this same leadership will make more mistakes elsewhere. This isn’t about cars vs. bikes vs. pedestrians. We’re all residents of this city who choose to travel in different ways at different times. It’s only common sense, and decent behaviour, to realize that those in the minority have to make way for those in the over-whelming majority. At the same time the majority still bends as much as is practical. Ordinary people understand as much, even if our leaders seem to have forgotten it.
I’m a bit late with this news, but I’ve joined the board of Harmony Hall. We provide transportation and recreation services to seniors in the East York and Scarborough areas. Specifically, we offer Bengali, Chinese, English and Tamil programming. These communities also intermingle at the hall and share in combined activities.
I’ve been on the board since June 16th, when we had a fantastic volunteer recognition day and annual general meeting. I was very pleased to see how our members and clients are genuinely interested in the service we provide and that they take an active role. We were sponsored by RBC, and local MPP Michael Prue and a rep for MP Matthew Kellway (Beeches East York) were on hand. Not surprisingly, local politicians seem to love what we do. A mixed group of seniors sang in all four languages, led by local artist Amanta Scott.
In any case, it’s a wonderful organization, and one that I’m very pleased to support and to be a part of.