All posts by Chris Tindal

Day of Action

aboriginal peoples, peace

Let’s start with a confession. On the right-hand side of this blog there’s a list of all the categories I’ve written about over the past year, and beside each category is the number of posts I’ve made. Every time I look at it, I’m a little ashamed of the number “2” that sits beside the first item on the alphabetized list: aboriginal peoples. There’s a strong argument to be made that of all political issues, none is more deserving of attention yet receives so little then the plight of Canada’s First Nations.

My learning and understanding of Aboriginal affairs has largely come through my work with the United Church of Canada, mostly at the General Council level. Due to what is hauntingly called “the legacy of residential schools,” for years this national governance body has struggled with questions of apology, reconciliation, and compensation. One of the most common mental-roadblocks that people come up against (including, initially, myself) is this idea that what’s done is done, what’s past is past, and that everyone should just move on. If only it were that simple; learning otherwise is a long, painful, and emotional process. Ultimately, however, if we are to take credit for the accomplishments of our ancestors, we must also take responsibility for their sins.

For context, a government report that applied the United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI) and Community Well-Being Index (CWB) to Canadians using census data from 1981-2001 found large discrepancies between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. Life expectancy for Aboriginal men and women is lower than the rest of Canada, while the rate of infant mortality is higher. Education is significantly less accessible, and suicide is significantly more frequent. The gap in real average annual income between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals widened between 1981 and 2001. The UN itself has stated that if Canada were “judged solely on the economic and social well-being of its First Nations” peoples, our human development ranking would drop from 7th to 48th out of 174 countries. This is an international made in Canada shame.

In 1996 the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) was released after five years of study. The five-volume, four thousand page report began with a simple statement: “there cannot be peace or harmony unless there is justice.” Now, over 10 years later, the report’s hundreds of recommendations remain ignored.

A quick run-down of the headlines regarding yesterday’s Day of Action (Day of Action stops traffic, Blockades snarl traffic across Ontario, Canada Indians Protest Delays Travelers) demonstrates that we still don’t get it. When faced with so much injustice, our main concern is how we’re going to keep moving our cars around. Here in Ontario, (Progressive?) Conservative leader John Tory keeps spouting nonsense about “illegal occupations” and the need for Aboriginals to respect “the law,” as if the governments of Canada and Ontario had never violated legal agreements with our First Nations. As if we’ve never been accused of being illegal occupiers.

I think one of the main reasons I haven’t written about this as much as I’d like is that it’s easy to be overwhelmed by the scope of the problem. And yet, there sits the RCAP, full of solutions, just waiting to be dusted off. Just as yesterday’s day of action followed years of inaction by us and our leaders, it will take years of action by our governments and our society to find justice. Yet, like so many crises, the longer we avoid taking action, the more difficult and costly the solutions become.

One final thought. The fact that yesterday’s demonstrations were almost completely peaceful is remarkable, and can’t be taken for granted. We know from international and domestic examples that oppressed, poor nations of people within nations of relative wealth rarely stay peaceful for long.

Oh Come On!

climate crisis, liberal party

From the Star:

TORONTO – Ontario’s environment minister is under attack from neighbours over plans to build a two-storey garage.

A complaint was filed with the Ontario Municipal Board arguing the garage would dwarf neighbouring properties and could damage a large tree.

But Laurel Broten says the plans call for the garage to be built without harming that tree.

Broten says her family has four cars – a hybrid, a fuel-efficient SUV and two sports cars belonging to her husband.

I’m holding Broten personally responsible for the red palm-shaped mark on my forehead. Feel free to add your own snaky comment/punch line to the comments section. Of all the possibilities, I can’t decide which one’s my favourite.

Also, I’ m pretty sure we can safely add “fuel-efficient SUV” to the oxymoron list.

This Is The Question

democracy and good government, ontario referendum on mmp

The question Ontarians will be asked in the October 10th referendum is: “Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?” Voters will then indicate a choice between the First Past the Post system and the Mixed Member Proportional system.

This question seems designed to favour the status quo. We didn’t need that; with a (possibly unconstitutional) 60% threshold required for a “yes to MMP” victory, votes for the status quo are already being weighted more heavily than votes for change. The Ontario government should have used a question following the format of the British Colombian referendum, which was “Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform? Yes/No.”

It’s important for voters to understand that this new voting system was designed and recommended by their peers, just as sub-committees typically report recommendations to their parent committees.

So here’s the real question: why are the people in power so afraid of giving Ontarians a democratic, simple majority yes/no vote on such a fundamental issue?

UPDATE (June 22nd, 2007): The way the two options are worded addresses my primary concern. Apologies, that wasn’t in the original news report I read. Thanks to Saul for pointing it out.

Time To Make A Choice

democracy and good government, economy, green party

The Conference Board of Canada, which last week came out in support of implementing a carbon tax, has released a new report condemning Canada’s “culture of complacency” which has caused a “mediocrity that is hampering what we can do and what we can be.” The report graded Canada in six categories: economy, innovation, environment, education, health and society, and called the results “stunningly poor.”

The Globe and Mail reports that the report also says that “since Canada’s health-care system is geared toward resolving urgent needs, little innovative thinking is done on how to prevent illness.” (Where have I heard that before?)

Few of us will be surprised by the report’s conclusion. This apparent reality represents a failure of political leadership. As Christopher Waddell observed during the last election campaign, the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP all “seem struck by a collective crisis of imagination.” What’s worse, politics has become more about what we can’t do than what we’re capable of doing. There was a time when Stephen Harper accused others of defeatism. Look who’s defeatist now.

The report compares Canada unfavourably to other OECD countries, but lack of vision is also a global problem. At almost the exact moment as the G8 wrapped up their meeting that Susan Riley says failed the planet–and I am not making this up–my computer produced, without warning or provocation, an error message that I have never seen before:

Catastrophic Failure

Seriously. Actually. No foolin’. Reminds me of the timing of lightening during the recent Republican presidential debate. (BTW, have you ever tried taking a screen-grab of a computer during a catastrophic failure? It isn’t easy.)

I suspect the reason that we elect leaders who make only minimal, vague, flabby promises, is that we’re afraid of getting burned (and/or because we’ve been burned too often in the past). If you don’t fall in love, you can’t get hurt. Same goes for getting excited about a politician’s potential. However, the moral about it being better to have loved and lost applies here equally as well. Especially in a time of crisis, when strong leadership is critical.

The next platform of the Green Party of Canada will make bold commitments, and outline an extremely ambitious vision for Canada. It will be easy to dismiss this vision as idealistic or unrealistic, but that’s also the easiest way to ensure we don’t get there. It’s time for us, as a nation, to choose between mediocrity or greatness, between success or failure. What’s it going to be?