Mayoral debate: time to focus on the good?

I knew it would be painful to watch. The vacuous "youth-oriented" reporters with half a thought between them, the moderator who wasn't up to the job, questions that fell flat and answers that couldn't be heard as candidates hectored one another: Thank you CP24 for further dumbing down what might have been a useful exchange of ideas.

Pot shots, cheap shots, predictable and demeaning to all involved. Though we did get a preview of what a Toronto under Rob Ford might be like, what powers he's prepared to assume during the great fiscal dismantling, as he spoke of how he'd have asked the police chief to "move in" on protesters. It's black and white, he claimed, support for the cops or support for the demonstrators. Why he hasn't completely self-destructed is beyond me. His red-faced blustering, his reduction of the only female candidate to "nice lady", his heavy footed dance around the two full-time jobs he holds, and the two salaries. Tick tock tick tock, Mr. Ford.

George Smitherman has started to move, literally and figuratively, walking the streets of our city last week, appealing for votes, talking to real people, and that is all to the good. He can't refuse to participate in these ridiculous televised debates, but it's much better to see him on his own, he takes on more stature when he loses the ballast of the other candidates. He looks more like a real challenger for the office, maybe the only one in the field.

It might be useful for Smitherman to highlight some of the good that city hall does for its citizens, to counter the accusations of fiscal irresponsibility. There are, in the bureaucracy, some very intelligent, very effective people with great ideas, Rocco Rossi may concentrate on their salaries, but viewing some of the initiatives out there, some of the ways Toronto really makes a difference in the lives of its people, from public health to social services, would go a long way to renewing some faith in our local government.

Things like micro loans for youth: brilliant.

Poverty is such a huge problem in many neighbourhoods, encouraging local entrepreneurs is one way to ensure ways out. I have been part of a committee delivering a similar type program, one started by the sons of Dr. Reva Gerstein, who donated $10,000 a year for 10 years to psychiatric survivors with big ideas and empty pockets. Amounts from $500 to a few thousand have supported dozens and resulted in: foster parents for pets when people need to go to hospital, an on-line magazine for and by the poor, a documentary on emergency departments and their treatment of the mentally ill, even paid tuition for survivors wanting to continue their education.

Poverty is about lack of opportunity: given a chance, people really shine. So I hope that Smitherman will focus on the good that can be done, Ford and Rossi have enough to say on the bad.

About Pat Capponi

Open doors for persons with disabilities

I've noticed a lot about disability lately. I notice disability on a daily basis  - of course, since I have one  - but I think about it differently when it's in the public arena and people are open to new ideas.

At the end of June, a number of organizations jointly sponsored a mayoral debate about disability issues. One issue discussed was jobs, which is a huge issue for youth (and all people) with disabilities like myself. Some ideas proposed at the debate were to provide financial incentives to companies to hire people with disabilities and use new technologies to create telecommuting-type jobs for them.

Telecommuting may very well have a time and place, but it can be isolating and you don't always get the full working experience.  Whatever the solutions, they must be flexible and put individual needs first, as opposed to making people with disabilities fit into one homogeneous mold.

The things I needed most when I was job hunting were encouragement and opportunities.  My experience of trying to find a job really challenged my confidence. First of all, I didn't know what I could do physically.  I don't have fine motor control in my hands, and my speech is unclear. Would I be able, for example, to work a cash register or stock shelves? It would have been helpful for me to be able to work at different places (for example, stores) for a couple of days on a trial basis to get a sense of my abilities. 

As well, I was getting mixed messages from people supporting me regarding whether I could work with the public because of my speech. (Eventually, I got a great job as a fundraiser, talking to people all day).

I went to a couple of agencies that assist people with disabilities to find jobs, and some of them required me to take their job skills course.  I had done co-op in high school, as well as other courses, and so I found these courses to be repetitive and elementary.

I agree that we do need money to help people with disabilities to find work, but there has to be more. In this competitive job market, it has to be about encouraging all people that they can be contributing members of society.

About Sarah Evans

The perfect G20 summit location

As the dust settles from the G20 summit in Toronto, a number of people have complained that Toronto was the wrong place to hold the summit meetings.

I disagree.

I can’t think of a better place to have held the G20 summit this year than in Toronto. Toronto is the economic heartland of Canada, and home to the Canadian banking sector: one of the largest employers in the country, and one of the principal reasons why our Canada did not fall into the same economic crisis that other G8 and G20 countries fell into during the recession . What better place to show Canada’s strength amongst its peers than to have the meetings in the financial capital of Canada.

It’s also important to note that the City of Toronto is partially responsible for the federal government’s decision to hold the summit in Toronto. For years, the Toronto government has been justifiably boasting its prowess to the federal and provincial government, constantly complaining that they are not treated like the mature city that they have become.

Take a look at any media release from the city and you will read in its tag line: “Canada's largest city and sixth largest government, and home to a diverse population of about 2.6 million people. It is the economic engine of Canada and one of the greenest and most creative cities in North America.” If that is not a compelling missive for having the G20 here, I don’t know what is...

Other critics have complained that holding the meetings in the downtown core was just asking for the kind of violence and damage that we experienced.

I disagree.

The damage that occurred downtown was the result of a minority of misguided criminals who took advantage of legitimate peaceful protesters who were there for a cause that they believed in. Those peaceful protesters were able to get their message across without resorting to the violence and damage that some criminals decided to engage in.

As Canada Day fast approaches, this summit is one of the many reasons why I am proud to be Canadian: to live in a country that provides one of the strongest and stable economies in the world for individuals to pursue and achieve wealth. It is also a place where legitimate, peaceful protest is permitted and actually encouraged by our government.

About Dan Bordonali

The left has done enough for Toronto

I’ve read with interest the last two articles from Tonika Morgan and Marit Stiles, and while I enjoy and highly respect their opinions, they highlight part of the problem with this city. 

Apparently “progressives” don’t speak up enough. I must not have noticed the 30 or so, left-of-centre councillors that sit in City Hall and run the city, some of the major mayoral candidates, countless people representing left-of-centre organizations that appear on TV nightly, this newspaper at times and countless other ones across the city. These voices are speaking loudly.

If anything, this opinion is never silent and is not progressive at all. 

The cynic in me thinks this attitude in the city needs to change. I’ve always been fascinated by how a lot of people I’ve come across who are willing to label themselves as progressive are so one-sided and narrow in their thinking they will not consider or entertain a differing opinion. 

They are also quick to criticize and use old and worn-out labels like “redneck” and “hidden agenda” to denounce and condemn anything remotely to the right.

As far as I am concerned, these same people that have been labelled as “silent” have done enough for the City of Toronto and it’s time someone else with a different opinion takes over the reins at City Hall. For once it would be nice to hear and see how the “unprogressive” side would run the city. 

A city like Toronto says it welcomes all people from all backgrounds, orientations and experiences, and for the most part this is true, but if say you are conservative it’s like you have the plague and you need to be shunned. My opinion matters just as much as anyone on the left.

People will bring up the same old cliches when talking about those who have damaged Toronto: Mel Lastman, Mike Harris and Stephen Harper. 

People are quick to forget that there have been progressive right-of-centre candidates who have done, or could have done, some good - John Tory, Torontonians almost made him Mayor and Premier; Bill Davis who made transit a priority and killed highway projects in Toronto; the much hated Brian Mulroney won seats in Toronto and was once picked as Canada’s “greenest” Prime Minister.

Now, to be fair, some people on the right need to be more flexible on issues. The federal and provincial Tories would probably make greater headway in the city in their next elections if they came up with a detailed and comprehensible transit plan and restored funding to Transit City and then stopped playing this foolish political game of playing off rural and urban voters.

But people, and candidates, on the left need to realize that there are some issues the city could benefit from if implemented. 

Having a balanced budget would be a good start, we all benefit from that. Spend our tax money like it’s yours. Cutting back on services the city really shouldn’t be providing but feels it must. Building a subway on important streets like Eglinton instead of a light-rail line. Building a smart and useful bike network instead of putting one in for the sake of putting one in because everyone else in Europe is doing it. Europe is a great place with wonderful ideas and people but sometimes we need made-in-Toronto ideas to fix made-in-Toronto problems. 

These tendencies do go through cycles. Right now the city is firmly entrenched in the left-of-centre camp. That’s fine, but I detest the insistence that the left-of-centre folks in this city are being ignored.

And if the two respected bloggers feel the left is being shut out that’s actually quite unfortunate. There are many examples, some I highlighted already, that show this clearly is not the case. 

If anything, the right has a very valid case to make for feeling left out of helping build a stronger city. These are the ones who have truly been silenced by the city, most of its politicians, and some residents. 

Regardless of your opinion and political beliefs, this city would work better if people dropped silly labels like “progressive” and focused on what is best for the City of Toronto and the GTA as a whole. Toronto works better when everyone feels included and welcomed to discuss issues.

Both sides have good ideas that can be helpful in tackling the important issues in Toronto. To dismiss one outright is not constructive and only deepens the animosity between people on both sides of the political spectrum.

About Robert Kirsic

A taxing situation

The constant call for cutting taxes that is used to troll for votes on the right -- along with more police and less gay pride -- tends to reverberate well among a number of the better off, especially those who feel victimized by having to contribute to the communal pot. It seems this group will always find and support a simplistic and bombastic candidate for mayor, as long as the mantra of less taxes and less government is first and foremost.  It would seem to be the only criteria that counts.

It puzzles me as to why some folks chose to live in Toronto while at the same time actively trying to dismantle what makes this city a worthy address. 

What are the benefits of being a city dweller? Step out your door and look around.  First and foremost, the diversity of languages, colours, dress and class. I remember old Toronto, having spent a year here in 1968: how terribly white and plain and stuffy and cold after the streets and sights of Montreal.  I couldn't wait to leave.  Now I can't imagine living anywhere else.

And then there are the summers, the public concerts, the celebrations, the book fairs, the arts, the joy of meeting new people, hearing new music, watching good documentaries.  And the food, every possible taste, every exotic spice, if you can afford to eat, you are in the best place in the world to do so.

The different neighbourhoods, the public offerings of individual gardeners, the glorious trees, the relatively clean sidewalks and streets, the parks, big and small, the lake and yes, even the streetcars all enhance our lives. 

We put our garbage out on the curb, and a truck comes and takes it away.  We bring our children to day care, and there are staff there to welcome them. Restaurants are inspected, our water is monitored, our drive home kept safe by patrol cars, and our lives protected by firefighters. Living in community means sharing, it's pooling and growing our tax dollars so that we have big buying power, to keep our transit running,  our garbage collected, our food safe.

We can't go back to having a city in constant turmoil, to having a populist for mayor who appeals to greed and the "I'm alright Jack" mentality of gated communities and gated lives. Toronto deserves better, we all deserve better. 

So ask yourself, what's this city worth? 

Preserve the gains Toronto has made.  Speak up for the city.  Speak out for good government, and our need to ensure it has the funds to govern well.

About Pat Capponi

The progressive silence is deafening

Today's entry is inspired by my last post and leaves me wondering where Toronto's progressive voice is in this mayoral race. My last post left me rambling about something that a reader was kind enough to seek clarification about:

“Hi, Tonika,

while I heard a lot of rhetoric in this piece, and agree with the general sentiment that we should give our seniors more help, I don't quite get the specific issue you are complaining about.”

To be clear the “rant” was about 3 things:

1. As a first generation Canadian, I appreciate the work that my grandmother put in to ensure that my father and subsequently, I had a better life

2. Toronto needs to acknowledge that a newcomer who retires, is not like a Canadian-born retiree through an innovative taxation system

3. This innovative system should be part of a larger seniors strategy that is inclusive and includes the experiences of seniors like my grandmother (who is not sitting on a $500,000 nest egg)

I read the comment three times and then read my post. After the third time I regretfully conceded that the reader was, in fact, correct. My point was lost somewhere between my passionate story about grandma and the end. It really got me thinking about this in a larger context.

It’s no secret that I would count myself among the politically progressive. These circles often consist of advocates, activists and sometimes radicals who enjoy jumping on their soapbox. However, I often find that many of my peers get so passionate about illustrating their point that they lose it. In turn, our conservative counterparts, who often don’t share our fire, desire and compassion use these moments to discredit our views on the basis that we can’t clearly state them in 30 words or less.

The progressive voice in this mayoral race is missing. Why? Is it because overzealous storytelling trumps the utility of the story itself? Can the progressives in this mayoral race just get to the point?

About Tonika Morgan

Mayoral candidates get testy over credibility

When George Smitherman went after Rob Ford at this week’s mayoral debate, he did so with the intention of trying to get his opponent to say something that would hurt his credibility.

When Ford answered the question by rhyming off his philanthropic record with youth in his community, he passed his first big campaign test: Can Rob Ford control himself when put in a corner?

Ford’s ability to temper his response to attacks in the past has been mediocre at best. It’s ironically one of the traits that people appreciate about him. Similarly, Smitherman has been known to have tirades when placed in a similar situation and has attained a fair bit of support for his outbursts as well.

The objective of these two similar political figures is to manage the angry responses, but not go too far to irritate the voter. Both Smitherman and Ford know that if they start to lose support, the voters will most likely go to either Rossi, Pantalone or Mammoliti, not each other. In essence, Smitherman and Ford could play unlikely and unwilling kingmakers if they are not too careful about their attacks on each other.

What I found most interesting about Smitherman’s decision to go after Ford is that it is a clear indication that the Smitherman camp is a bit nervous about Ford’s recent momentum. Front-runners don’t often go on the offensive with their opponents in a personal manner at such an early stage in the election. By doing so, the voter is often left with the impression that the front-runner may not be the front-runner after-all.

Ford’s personal and political history is less than spotless, but then again so is Smitherman’s. These two candidates may be playing a dangerous game from their glass houses if they choose to get too personal throughout the next five months on the campaign trail.

Regardless of the results of this mayoral election, I think this year will go down as one of the most important and exciting campaigns in recent memory.

About Dan Bordonali

Terms limits needed for mayor, councillors

In a recent interview, U.S. President Barack Obama said that he’d “rather be a really good one-term President than a mediocre two-term President.” He noted that “there is a tendency in Washington to think that our job description as elected officials is to get re-elected. That’s not our job description. Our job description is to solve problems and to help people.”

What Obama identifies as an American issue is also prevalent around the world. As the municipal election fires up, it seems like not even City Hall can shield itself from this phenomenon of self-serving politics.

Here in Toronto, first-time politicians Rocco Rossi and Sarah Thomson have both based their election campaigns on replacing an old, dysfunctional group called City Council. According to Thomson, “we must get our career politicians out and bring in fresh thinking and new ideas.” To Rossi, “talented individuals who used to be part of the solution are now part of the problem because, quite frankly, they have stayed too long.”

It seems like the same rhetoric arises every election. But how do we ensure that we get a continuous inflow of fresh, creative ideas? How do we keep our politicians from rotting in their offices from complacency? A two-term limit is the answer.

The idea of imposing a term limit for the Mayor and City Councillors is not a revolutionary idea. Simply by browsing through the comments on this site, anyone can see that more than one Torontonian would advocate for such a measure.

But make no mistake – term limits do not imply that no one is capable of holding public office. Limits certainly are not there to keep people out. What they do is effectively ensure that our politicians are willing to do what is necessary for the public good rather than what will re-elect them for another term.

This, unfortunately, is not the case currently.

According to Lowell Kwan, a soon-to-be voter, "politicians never seem to interact with their constituents unless there's an election. Once they're voted in, they disappear into 'public office' and never seem to come out."

Politics should not be viewed as a pleasant job to settle into towards the end of one’s career. Politicians are elected to tackle tough issues, not sit on them. A two-term limit encourages thoughtful, creative ideas for the issues of today while allowing for long-term planning. It also offers the opportunity for other political candidates to take the lead before things get too comfortable.

However, some would argue voters themselves should dictate who remains in office, and that less capable individuals will get weeded out. But, according to Stephen Thiele, president of The Toronto Party, with 80 to 85 per cent of incumbents remaining in office, the weeding out of politicians hardly ever occurs.

Others will point out the fact that more capable politicians who are meant to stay will not be able to. But with 2.48 million people in Toronto, there must be more passionate and capable individuals out there than the main contenders we see in the media. New voices would have a more even playing field, as the numbers of long-standing politicians with solid financial foundations would decrease.

As the quotes mentioned earlier in this article, more new faces in office makes for a variety of fresh perspectives which better represent the people. And politicians who are not focused on winning the next election and hunting for sponsorships for their re-election campaigns will put their concentration towards the public good.

Whoever is elected to City Council will need to stop talking about issues and start fixing them. More importantly, those elected must not get complacent and forget why they are there in the first place – for Torontonians. Term limits will ensure that happens.

About Gorick Ng

Increasing intercultural relations

Two years ago, city councillor Rob Ford made disparaging and stereotypical remarks about people of Asian descent, saying “Oriental people work like dogs” and that “they're slowly taking over.”

Ford initially defended his remarks as complimentary, and only apologized after city councillors voted to force his apology

So, why is this relevant now?

Ford recently announced his candidacy for the mayor's seat in one of the most diverse cities in the world. As a public figure, the mayor represents Toronto both in Canada and abroad.

Our mayor is a reflection of our city and our people. He or she should be a leader we can be proud to call our own.

As a Torontonian of Chinese descent, the sting of Ford's comments lingers even now. And I know many of my fellow Asian-Canadians feel the same way.

To gain the trust of voters, particularly ethnic minorities such as myself, city councillors need to do more than just throw around words like “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” They need to demonstrate cultural sensitivity, and a real understanding of the racial dynamics in Toronto.

This city may be diverse, but there is a lack of integration among Toronto's ethnic communities. As local leaders, city councillors shouldn't reinforce these divisions – they should break them down.

I recall attending anti-racism and anti-oppression sessions during my time as a member of the Toronto Youth Cabinet several years ago. The city should offer similar programs to the general public. It should also host more intercultural events that will bring various ethnic groups together. Far too often, I see events such as the Toronto Chinatown Festival marketed and publicized specifically to Chinese communities. Meanwhile, other minority communities are left in the dark about these kinds of festivities, and as a consequence, lose out on an opportunity to explore and understand another culture.

Only when city councillors show this kind of racial awareness and act upon it, can they possibly earn my vote, and the vote of thousands of other Torontonians like me.

About Anita Li

It’s all about respect for human dignity

Joey Edwardh.

Blogging does not come naturally to me, so it has not been easy to start on this journey.

My thoughts and comments come from the periphery of our urban region. I live and work in Halton, that geography squeezed between Peel and Hamilton. It is an interesting vantage point from which to observe our urban region.

My lens does not allow me to celebrate our region, for its magic does not work for everyone; too many are left outside its opportunities, excluded. Disability, poverty, gender, old age, racism and homophobia interact to create a city region where many live their lives in quiet desperation. I ask why we condemn so many of our neighbours to live in hardship, excluded? I ask what is necessary to make this city region a place where all belong and prosper?

I conclude that the answer lies in our understanding of and respect for human dignity. Strong public services are essential building blocks of human dignity and we must be vigilant in supporting and sustaining these services.

One institution that is failing us is our social assistance system that denies dignity to those we purport to help. In fact, the system is punitive. Not only are people expected to live far below, that is thousands of dollars below, our low income cut off (poverty line) but in the recent provincial budget we eliminated the special diet allowance for those requiring nutritious food due to disease such as diabetes.

To be mean spirited is one thing; to be uninformed and not recognize the cost downloaded to the health care system in future years is ignorant. Whether mean spirited or ignorant, both destroy lives.

There is no short cut if human dignity is to be respected. The greater we allow the gap to grow between the "haves" and the "have nots," the greater the divisions across our city region.

The poor are growing and so are the rich but they live in different neighbourhoods and social worlds. Their lived experiences are totally separate, making it difficult to understanding each other.

I fear these divisions mean that there is little respect and solidarity on which to build a common political, economic, social and cultural agenda for a city region where all belong, where all are respected.

This is my challenge to those who would seek to represent us in the next municipal elections.

About Joey Edwardh