A question of sovereignty

With summer now here, the hot humid weather is acting as a natural tranquilizer on my cerebral processes. The lazy days of summer are meant to be spent in the garden, with a cool, tall lemonade, watching the tomato vines grow, reading the newspaper or a good book, and just taking each hour as it comes. Here in New York City, unless you're wealthy enough to afford a house in the Hamptons or a chalet in the Catskills or Berkshires, your garden is Central Park. I prefer the confines of my keyboard to the freak show on unashamed public display there -- I'll keep my freak show to myself.

This past week, thanks to the magic of satellite radio, I've been following with some concern a growing insurrection among the Mohawks in Akwesasne. The barricades and lawlessness, and the heightened rhetoric from Mohawk leaders, foretell of the attempt to establish a small sovereign land sandwiched between Canada and the United States.

On the one hand, I see the Akwesasne situation as somewhat parallel to the FLQ crisis in 1970. A small band of men and women, brought together in common cause, fighting for something they believe in. I suppose that with native Canadians, the situation is much more complicated. They have been the most oppressed, ignored, abused and forgotten people throughout this country's history. They have been made promises in bad faith again and again. We have left them at the mercy of missionaries and churches who abused them, and provided them limited recourse opportunities and the necessary tools to get back on their feet. The scars run very, very deep and, whether we like it or not, native Canadians are the only true inhabitants of this land who have not benefited from it in the last 400 years.

On the other hand, I see it the situation in very much the same way Trudeau saw the Front de Libération du Québec -- as a terrorist group that challenged the tenets of Canadian democracy and the will of a greater majority through violence.

We no longer live in 1709, and there are mechanisms by which voices can be heard and changes made in a non-violent way. Ignorance of those mechanisms is not an excuse to turn to armed insurrection, intimidation and extortion, flouting the law or making demands at gunpoint. This is intolerable and there is no room to set such a dangerous precedent. Admittedly, the problem is compounded by the fact that the Canadian government has, for such a long time, ignored the importance of providing greater access to democratic institutions for natives, opting instead to acknowledge the special status of "nations" of people within Canada without providing the necessary education of the responsibility that accompanies "nationhood." Any distinct recognition of nations must only take place under the purview of the Canadian constitution but not to the detriment, exclusion, or weakening of all other Canadians or their rights and freedoms.

We cannot undo history. We cannot go back to the way things were, or reverse the ravages or encumbrances of history. Europeans colonized and conquered this continent and were disingenuous in their words and actions with natives. There is no doubt about that.

What our generation must do, immediately, is put a stop to that history. We must communicate and negotiate in good faith. We must give natives the tools they need to at once protect their culture, protect their ways, protect their heritage and end the dysfunctional relationship that defines our interaction. If necessary, we should develop a language that allows both parties to articulate their ideas and concepts towards finding a common solution. While that language may well have been guns and violence at a point in history, that point has come and gone.

Indigenous North Americans have a very strong tradition of collective government, of communal decision-making, and of federations and alliances amongst tribes. The destiny of native people in Canada must be returned to them, as best as possible, and in full recognition of the wrongdoings of the past by all parties. Aboriginals were never passive participants in their destiny. Now, more than ever, they must act responsibly in the context of the day and age and should expect the same in return. We owe that to them, at the very least.

(Piled) High and stinky

It’s been three weeks since the garbage strike in Toronto started – a fact pointed out to me by my family on a quick visit this weekend to celebrate grandma’s 87th birthday.

From a safe distance in my suburban cocoon, it wasn’t much of a bother. But as I started looking at the pictures from newspaper clippings, and noting just how quickly the rubbish had piled up, I thought it appropriate to propose changing Toronto’s nickname from the 'Big Smoke' to the 'Big Stink'.

On a regular day, New York produces considerable garbage. The sheer concentration of different types of garbage – construction materials, food, packaging, plate scrapings, dog feces – combined with the high summer temperatures makes for an odourific medley to challenge the most seasoned of nostrils. Also, because of the premium of space and volume of trash, the City is somewhat more obvious with its garbage – there are no back alleys or hidden dumpsters. It’s out there on the streets and you can smell it.

As I remember the garbage scene in Toronto (though admittedly, I’m no expert), it’s quite orderly and tidy in a typically Canadian way, hidden in back alleys and firmly shut dumpsters until pick up time. That means it’s conveniently out of our consciousness – once our Tim Horton’s cup or plastic salad container ends up in a garbage can, it’s no longer our problem. Unfortunately, it is our problem, and there’s no denying it now that we’ve hung our garbage out for all the world to see.

That’s a good thing. The sooner we come to terms with the fact that our garbage has to go somewhere, the sooner we can deal with the important question of how we force manufacturers to reduce packaging, reduce waste, improve product design and demand reusability. The sooner we can also focus on the individual responsibility of choosing products that respect the environment. Consumerism is part of the world we live in, but if we cannot immediately change the consumer concept, we must at least use its levers to influence positive change.

A quick trip to the local Fortinos was telling. One man had brilliantly brought his ‘green’ reusable bags with him, but decided that the single lemon he was going to purchase required a clear produce bag. It’s two steps forward, one step back… but it’s not his fault. For such a long time, we have simply accepted waste as part of our lifestyle – it was a convenient behaviour. In fact, it has been default behaviour for us in North America; to ‘de-program’ ourselves and the culture we have built around it, takes constant, concerted effort.

Only recently did I notice that for every bag of garbage created in my tiny New York apartment, there are three bags of recycling. Is this necessary? The next course of action is determining how to change my behaviour: Cheerios only comes in a box and I can’t go down to the local vigneron to fill my reusable 5 litre jug with wine. What to do?

If we give some serious thought to the ways in which man survived for thousands of years without raspberries in a clear plastic pint container, or Ziploc sandwich bags, or even Saran wrap, this is not an insurmountable challenge. For inspiration, or perhaps a kickstart, surf over to Say No to Trash, a blog written by Torontonian Sarah McGaughey. She was recently interviewed on CBC Radio 1 about her attempts to live trash-free for 31 days. She succeeded, but only with some slight flexibility in her self-imposed rules.

Living 100 per cent trash free may be impossible given the structure of our society, but the smallest possible footprint is what we should all aspire to. Take it up as a personal challenge – start a compost as a first step to cutting back on the amount of garbage you create. Or post a comment with your own clever ideas!

A paucity of frankness

Forgive me for indulging in a little extra pragmatism this week. Chalk it up to an impromptu ode to America playing on the stereo at Brother Jimmy's B-B-Q yesterday. It was the same old culprits: Neil Diamond's 'Coming to America' and Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the USA' and I think I even heard a rendition of 'America' from West Side Story. Everything good in America!

Not quite. Everywhere I turn these days, there's a lot of talk about 'hope'. There's talk of economic 'green shoots' and even murmurs of 'recovery' in full swing. It would seem that hope and optimism have replaced religion as the new mass opiate of choice.

Returning home from a Budweiser and baby-back ribs at Brother Jimmy's (I couldn't think of anything more apropos for 4 July), I walked down First Avenue for 20 blocks. I was absolutely flabbergasted. On every block, on either side of the street, for what seemed like the entire walk home, stores that were there just four or six weeks ago had closed up. Restaurants, corner bodegas, clothing stores shuttered, with for rent or "DINER IS CLOSED" in the window. Even New York City, the home of unbridled capitalism, can't escape the invisible and ever-tightening hand of the market.

As I see the US government continue its spending to prop up banks, insurance companies and car companies -- 52 US banks have failed thus far in 2009 -- and, at the same time, call for massive reforms to health care, I can't help but wonder where the frank voices have gone. Can the US afford, at this juncture, to reform health insurance? Can the government, to use a metaphor, continue to use its credit card to spend beyond its means in the hopes of an economic turnaround? And to further the metaphor, isn't wild credit card debt one of the key reasons the global economy is on life support in the first place?

There is no doubting the need for swift, meaningful social and economic reform. There is also no question -- at least in my mind -- that the juncture for that change is now. But I can't help but see the window slowly closing, the clock ticking away and yet more of the same cast of characters responsible for the current state of affairs, busy building up the house of cards, using taxpayer money, manipulating the media and basically taking advantage of a majority of people too hurt -- or too dazed -- to notice.

I don't pretend to have a full grasp of exactly what Tyler Durden and his team at Zero Hedge are talking about, but the site's amazing access to confidential economic information, insider legal documents and frank criticism of the state of the economy never cease to amaze me. It is my antidote for the pervasive "green shoot" hype that seems to feed into the collective daze. One video he posted last week, from Bloomberg TV, contained a level of frankness I really appreciated. Here, Joe Saluzzi from Themis Trading, talks about the reality of the numbers and intentional manipulation of the markets:



Are we any better off in Canada? Doubtful. For starters, the integration of the Canadian and American economies thanks to NAFTA is undeniable. This is disastrous when combined with a spineless government that harbours an ideological bent -- be it Harper's Conservatives or Ignatieff's Liberals (who, I suspect, might handle the current situation in a similar manner). I would also add that, much like Saudi Arabia, Canada is seen in strictly realpolitik terms -- a source of stable, easily accessible resources to continue to power a bleeding empire heavily reliant on cheap oil. Until alternatives are found, the pollution of our rivers and destruction of land, and the poisoning of our native inhabitants, will undoubtedly continue. It's shortsighted and unsustainable, but I guess it's the best our myopic politicians can do in Ottawa.

Unfortunately, we are in an even more frail situation in Canada, with our smaller population and less diversified economy. We spent 15 long, hard years balancing the budget and paying down debt. That was quickly and irresponsibly reversed in the last six months. Now, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates debt to grow by $3.9 billion in 2008-2009, and by $50.2 billion 2009-2010. The speed of the debt clock on the federation's homepage really hits the point home.

I ask again: Is this really the direction we Canadians want to head, having our federal government bail out bankers, encouraging unsustainable urban sprawl in all our major cities, increasing reliance on industrialized production of food and vegetables, and continuing to trick ourselves into believing that the future, as we have already lived it in the past, is just a few market corrections and stimulus packages away?

It's time to end the charade, wake up from our collective sleepwalk and acknowledge that it's OK to be realistic -- in fact, it's the responsible thing to do. We're not going back to the way things were and, if we do go back, it will be to the detriment of our environment, quality of life and future generations. We must demand of whoever sits in government to engage in sensible priority-setting; that has nothing to do with senate reform, or bailing out private broadcasters, or generating fractious and dirty politics on Parliament Hill. The time to come together and develop a holistic, inclusive national plan is now: re-localizing cities; funding new sustainable infrastructure; incubating technological innovation; creating greater opportunities for young Canadians; encouraging a spirit of entrepreneurship across the country; and the list goes on. Let the paucity of frankness end here, and continue with you. Go on, tell it like it is.

Happy 142nd Birthday, Canada!

To my friends in cyberspace, Happy Canada Day - Bonne Fête du Canada!
Let's all take a moment to recognize just how lucky we are as Canadians... and enjoy some ruminations from Canadians fated to life in America, just like me.

------------------------------

LITTLE BRITAIN, BIG PLANS

Canadians think of Canada as being a multicultural nation. But having spent a whole week pounding the pavement in London, England -- from Kensington to Westminster, Little Venice to Piccadilly Circus -- I saw incredible diversity on display. It seemed that London has a lock on a new approach to multiculturalism.

I started by asking where all the Brits had gone? Whether at the airport, on the tube, or just walking the streets, London is no longer a city of bad teeth, warm beer and Routemasters. Traditional "Brits" have been replaced by "new Brits" from every corner of the globe, a large majority seeming to come from Africa and the Middle East and bringing with them their cuisine, culture and work ethic. When they arrive in the UK, some are provided with "Council Flats" -- essentially subsidized housing for those who qualify based on need. In an effort to resist "ghettoization" of the city into rich and poor areas, these flats are widely dispersed such that, even in rather "posh" buildings in "posh" neighbourhoods, the Council can assign a refugee family or a family in need. It's a proactive approach, I think, to creating a balanced society where diversity becomes a normal part of everyday life.

Of course, there are those who resist it. I happened to be visiting some people who were less-than-keen to see the full spectrum of veiled women (including those wearing naquib and full burkha), claiming instead that this was a sign of oppression and male domination. They were supportive of the recent ban on Islamic head covering declared by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. Needless to say, I was scandalized -- just as the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, so too should it stay out of the closets of the nation. Worse, this kind of universal declaration by a government creates a dangerous, slippery slope; do we stop sikhs from wearing turbans, or orthodox jews from their traditional black hats or Indian women from covering their heads with saris? Can we judge whether culture or male domination is the reason for head covering? It was a bit ludicrous.

Don't misunderstand me, though. Sharia Law, for example, is not necessarily compatible in the context of a Western justice system, with its fundamentally different tenets. In that sense, establishing parallel justice systems in a country like Canada would not only create a dangerous precedent, I believe it would undermine critical principles of national identity, citizenship and building a balanced multicultural society. I know that we have had these debates in Canada before, which is probably why my mind kept coming back to try and understand how we can learn from other countries seemingly farther along on the path to multiculturalism.

One night, at dinner with different friends, I asked why there wasn't a closer relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. George, who served with the Queen's Royal Hussars in Bosnia and had experience with Canadian troops while serving there, posited that the French (Quebec) question may be a factor that has kept our two nations from working more closely together. It was an interesting theory. My motivation for asking stemmed from the idea that it would be a natural first step for Canada to move beyond our addiction to America -- important, I think, if Canada is to remain independent and vibrant. But also because the United Kingdom is a natural ally; France much less so, not because of what happened on the Plains of Abraham, but because we have few common symbols between our nations. For the record, I see Quebec as an absolutely essential pillar of Canadian identity and culture.

But I was reminded that, for the same reasons the United Nations is a tricky place to work on account of multiple cultures and multiple languages, so too is building a multicultural society that, at once, respects sensitivities but also continues to build the necessary symbolism and commonality required for a national identity. Lessons learned from years working in an international organization suggest that, the secret to forward momentum in a multicultural organization is to work hard at listening, resist the natural urge to jump to conclusions, conduct frank and open discussions, but also have the spine to be decisive and make informed decisions. Bearing the last point in mind, we are more likely to learn from the United Kingdom experience than from anything going on in the United Nations... or the United States, for that matter!

Slipping through the 'net

In a recent chat with MD, we lamented the lack of a national effort to make high-speed “wi-fi” a free public utility across Canada. And we chastised the current approach taken by Ottawa to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on dying, 19th-century businesses like General Motors.

I think about it all the time – someone born in 1985 would have grown up not knowing a world with rabbit ears on a UHF/VHF television, or rotary dial telephones, or even pinball. It’s no shock that the new economy is embodied in the Internet – and we’re not just talking about replacing bricks and mortar stores. It’s developing new business concepts to connect knowledge from different parts of the world, it’s selling local/specialized goods to a global market; it’s replacing the need for travel with new ways to meet virtually – the possibilities are endless.

Michael Geist – a law professor from University of Ottawa – recently appeared before a Canadian Senate committee to brief them on Canadian broadband and wireless, and its rather miserable state. Actually, miserable is an understatement – deplorable is probably better. Let me lay it out for you because, like our leadership in high-speed trains or peacekeeping, here is another example of Canada slipping to the point where we are now trounced by other countries.

It’s a real shame. Geist says it best:

Our Failing System
“Last year the World Economic Forum pointed to problems in the wireless market as a key reason for Canada's slipping global ranking for "network readiness." We moved from 6th worldwide in 2005 to 13th today. Canada ranks 75th in terms of the number of mobile subscribers, trailing countries such as El Salvador, Kazakhstan and Libya. It lags behind countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, Italy, Sweden and Norway on mobile pricing.”

Once a Leader
“We should recognize that Canada was once a leader in the area. In the late 1990s, we became the first country in the world to ensure that every school from coast to coast to coast was connected to the Internet. Soon after that we launched the National Broadband Task Force committed to developing a strategy to ensure that all Canadians had access to high-speed networks.”

No Longer Ahead
“The Telecommunications Policy Review Panel from a couple of years ago undertook a detailed analysis of the Canadian marketplace with the goal of identifying whether the market could be relied upon to ensure that all Canadians would have access to broadband. Their conclusion was that it would not be relied upon. The panel concluded that at least 5 per cent of Canadians — hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens — will be without broadband access without public involvement.”

The Cost of Speed
“Last week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), released its latest report on global broadband, and the results should be mandatory reading for anyone concerned with these issues… Canada is relatively expensive, ranking 14th for monthly subscription costs at $45.65. By comparison, Japan costs $30.46 cents and the U.K. is $30.63. Second, the Canadian Internet is slow, ranking 24th out of the 30 OECD countries. It is truly a different Internet experience for people in Japan, Korea and France, where the speed allows for applications and opportunities that we do not have.”

Fibre, None
“Moreover, Canada lags behind in fibre connections direct to home fibre with 0 per cent penetration, according to the OECD. By comparison, Japan sits at 48 per cent, Korea at 43 per cent, Sweden at 20 per cent and the United States, which has been slow in this area, is at 4 per cent.”

“…[W]hen you combine speed and pricing, Canada drops to 28th out of the 30 OECD countries for price per megabyte. In other words, as consumers, we pay more for less — higher prices, slower speeds.”

A Lack of Choice
“Canada is one of only four OECD countries where consumers have no alternative but to take a service with bit caps. That means the service provider caps the amount of bandwidth that the consumer can use each month. In almost every other OECD country, consumers at least have a choice between providers that use bit caps and those that do not.”

Moving Towards a Solution
“We need a firm commitment to universal broadband access akin to the same type of commitment that we once had to universal telephone service. As I say, it is the price of admission for much that the Internet has to offer. All Canadians should have access to reliable, high-speed networks. In addition, we need a strategy for faster networks because it is clear that we cannot rely on our existing networks as we slip further and further behind. This might mean more competition, market-based incentives and potentially community-based networks as local communities take this issue into their own hands.”

Time to take action. This is a competitive disadvantage for our entire country and frankly, if the government is spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor, they should spend it on increasing our access to technology instead of wasting it on unsustainable peddling of Dodge Ram pickup trucks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN UPDATE FROM LONDON, UK

Londoners, knowing the state of Canadian internet access and our declining economic productivity, have taken to random acts of kindness. Here, some benevolent soul has left us a bite or two of a smoked salmon and cucumber sandwich. Cheers, London! And God Save the Queen!

Vouloir, c'est Pouvoir!

I’m late in posting this week, but there’s a good reason:

Good day,
This is to inform you that the Screening Board has completed its review of the applications received for the Communication Officer appointment process and we are pleased to inform you that your application is being retained.

The next step in this selection process will be the Second Language Evaluation (SLE) and you will be assessed for Reading and/or Writing. However, if you already have valid results received from either the Public Service Commission or from the House of Commons, please submit a copy to us by June 11, 2009.

However, if you do not have valid SLE results, please inform me as soon as possible in order for us to submit a request. Please note that evaluations will/may take place on the following days: June 16, and/or June 18, 2009.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you.
Human Resources assistant/ Adjointe en ressources humaines
Senate of Canada / Sénat du Canada

Damn. I’m only half-way through Level 5 of my UN language course – my attempt to reignite the French part of my brain! Worse, the language level for this job is C-C-C, that is the very highest levels of French reading, writing and speaking. I'm going to have to conjure up all the powers of my previous high school French teachers -- Mme. Taylor, Mme. Canham and M. Walsh -- don't fail me now.

J’ai passé le weekend avec des exercices français. Ce jeudi, je prendrai l’examen orale de deuxième langue officielle par téléphone. J’espère qui je réussirai.

Wish me luck... et, si vous pouvez, ecrivez quelques annotations en français pour m'aider!

Rail against the machine

I was in Vancouver this weekend, visiting Red Canuck, MD and family. But getting there wasn't without some weather-related tribulation, including an unplanned stop at the Ramada 'Mall of America' for an overnight stay and some full frontal stereotyping of North American native culture -- like the 'Smok'em Peace Pipe' gift shop in the lobby, or the gentle savagery summarized in a display case of collectible American Indian porcelain. I hope you enjoy the picture (left) of the laughing water ("minnehaha") sculpture as much as I did when I saw it in person. The icing on the cake was the classic car show of 1950s Chevrolets being held in the large parking lot behind the hotel -- Heartbeat of America, indeed!

The travel by air experience has been incredibly convenient for the better part of four decades with the ushering in of the modern jet. By the mid-1980s, flying was a routine part of how we all travelled, to the detriment of other forms of travel, particularly trains. We know the story of trains in North America, which is not unlike the plight of our native population -- discarded, disintegrating, essentially decimated.

But where it was once a pleasure to hop on a plane and get to a far off destination quickly and conveniently, air travel has become a complete pain; fighting traffic to get to the airport on time, weather delays, burdensome security procedures, baggage fees, a measly pack of peanuts and maybe the whole tin of soda, if you ask nicely. Could my travel from New York to Vancouver have been done by high-speed rail?

I was forwarded an excellent article from Walrus Magazine on how Canada was once in a position of leadership in the train business and, once again, I lamented the Canadian inability to fend off the seduction of following an American model. That's undoubtedly a simplistic statement, but at the very least, couldn't we be smarter and hedge our bets? We have a history of being easily seduced out of business (remember the Avro Arrow?) to the detriment of home-grown industries, associated research advances and ultimately, national interest.

The article's author, Monte Paulsen, rhymes off a list of countries working on, or planning, high-speed rail including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Morocco, and succinctly sums up the basic intelligence behind building high-speed rail in two paras:

Why are these countries planning and building high-speed rail lines? Because they’re a kind of insurance policy for the twenty-first century. High-speed rail ensures that cities remain connected the next time the price of oil rises, and in the event that $150-a-barrel oil returns for good. Because it is so much more fuel efficient, high-speed rail is far, far greener than flying, and in a century of dwindling oil it’s also far more economically sustainable — a fact Saudi Arabia seems to grasp, but Canada does not.

Canada possesses both the expertise to build high-speed rail systems — Bombardier is a global leader — and the population to support them, along routes such as the Quebec City–Windsor and Calgary–Edmonton corridors. What it lacks is the political will to act. As a result, Canada is failing to leverage the recent wave of infrastructure spending, let alone nourish its legacy as a nation built on the spine of its railroad.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Instead, I leave you with original video footage by Bill Morrison, of the Sikorsky-designed, Montreal Locomotive Works-built, 167 kilometer-per-hour capable Canadian National Turbo Train outside Montreal's Central Station in October 1982 in preparation for one of its last runs. This is, drolly, spliced together with video footage of the Rapido Train scale model, probably in someone's basement. And, if that's what building Canadian infrastructure has come to, we should all be a little sad.