The Art of Cabinet Making

Have you ever wondered why the United States, a country with 300 million people, has a Cabinet of 22 members, while Canada with its 33 million has a Cabinet of 38?

As I write this, incoming U.S. President Barack Obama – surely a breath of fresh air if there ever was one – is making plans for his Cabinet. He can select anyone he wants for whatever post. For Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, he can choose someone who is an expert in agriculture. For Secretary of the Department of Commerce, he can pick someone with experience in commerce. Same thing for Defence, Justice, Labour, Energy, Transportation, Health – you name it.

Of course, Obama is free to make all his selections from that pocket of America who are born-again, fundamentalist, diehard, bible-thumping Creationists. But I don’t think he’ll do that. He’s too smart to be that ignorant, and besides, this group already had their chance and we know how they fared.

I don’t believe for a minute that Barack Obama is the next president of the United States because he is of mixed race. He is the next president of the United States because he has shown himself to be the best person for the job.

This American presidential election went on for almost two years. Sure, we’re all sick to death of it, even though we remained glued to our TVs on election night. But think what Obama has gone through. At the outset, he was anything but a front runner. In the race for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton was said to have a lock on the job. Obama came out of nowhere, took part in over 20 debates with the former First Lady, won primary after primary, and impressed everyone with his oratory, his insight, and an apparent wisdom far beyond his years. Then he took on John McCain, and we saw more of the same. At this point in time, and it’s early, there is nothing not to like about the man.

Clearly, the single biggest mistake McCain made was in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. But then, that was purely a political appointment which backfired.

Today, Obama can choose his Cabinet from a pool of 300 million Americans. He can choose anyone he wants. Most of us have forgotten, but Canada just had an election too, and Stephen Harper put together a Cabinet of his own.

In Canada, an adoptee of the British Parliamentary system, we do things differently than the U.S. The Prime Minister selects his Cabinet from elected Members of Parliament, and with the odd exception, makes those selections from his party’s caucus. However, most all those selections tend to be political appointments.

If the PM has but a single MP from one region of the country, you can bet this person will be in the Cabinet no matter how little experience or little ability they possess. Why? Because it’s a political appointment. Likewise, a one-armed, legally blind, Aboriginal with strong Metis bloodlines from the North who went clean after an abused adolescence can rest assured that once they get elected they’ll be in the Cabinet as well. Because it’s a political appointment. This is why hapless sorts like Maxime Bernier masquerade in such key Cabinet posts as Minister of Defense – for a few months anyway – until the truth comes out in the form of an ex-biker gal with nice legs. Indeed, it’s why the Canadian Cabinet is a very weak entity, and why a leader like Stephen Harper is apt to run a one-man show.

Today, some guy named Jean-Pierre Blackburn is Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Agriculture. What does he know about agriculture? Not a thing. I checked his bio and he has as much experience in agriculture as I do. But he represents the riding of Jonquiere-Alma in Quebec, and that’s why he’s there.

Rona Ambrose used to be Minister of the Environment until she embarrassed herself, and in the last shuffle was moved to Labour. Oh, and she is “passionate about informing young Canadians on the important role that politics can play in their lives.” It says so in her bio. Maxime Bernier? He’s not in the Cabinet anymore.

But what if Harper had as much freedom to pick his Cabinet as Obama does? What if he really was non-partisan and sincere about picking the best people for the job? He might make Cabinet appointments like this:

Defence – Retired General Rick Hillier. He did more for the Canadian military than anyone else over the past 40 years.

Finance – Paul Martin. Remember him? He’s a Liberal and a former PM, but he was also the best Finance Minister we ever had.

Foreign Affairs – Maurice Strong is probably too old now, but what a minister he would have made in this portfolio.

Public Safety – Julian Fantino. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Environment – David Estrin. He was Canada’s very first environmental lawyer, is recognized internationally for his work, and currently leads this area of specialization at the prestigious law firm of Gowlings.

Minister of State for Sport – Wayne Gretzky. Enough said.

As for some other posts, well, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages should be … nobody. Harper ought to disband this ministry immediately. It’s a waste of time and money. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism? Nobody again. Same reason. 

How about the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification? Huh? I kid you not. This one should also go, along with the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, and Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

What was that last one again? I’m sure you never heard of it, but the Ministry of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is a federal government department responsible for economic expansion in Quebec. It promotes small or medium-sized enterprises, and has 15 offices throughout the province. So how come this have-not province has its own ministry, while another have-not’er by the name of Ontario doesn’t?

Politics. It’s a four-letter word. Twice.

Email news@authorjerryamernic.com

 

Dog’s Breakfast

Last week I did a seminar on Media Relations for the Toronto Police Service at Seneca College. The TPS has a program called Advanced Leadership Course, and the group included both senior officers and civilian employees. One of my slides cited examples of Good Communicators and included the famous JFK quote: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.’ It is a magnificent phrase that goes to the heart of a nation. Any nation. Which brings me to Canada after this most recent election.

Today our Parliament is a dog’s breakfast, something like Israel’s Knesset with its 18 federal parties, none of whom ever holds enough power to implement policies without sacrificing their own principles and being forced to sleep with a motley crew of strange bedfellows. You can call this political rape. Such governments are, at best, bumbling bureaucracies embedded in watered-down, decision-making. Here’s why.

When I watched the Leaders’ Debate, I kept asking myself why Gilles Duceppe was at the table. He represents a party that only runs candidates in Quebec. Thus, it is not a federal party at all, but a Quebec party. Today, with 50 MPs in the House of Commons, the Bloq once again holds the balance of power and, in the process, holds the rest of us hostage. If that’s not a dysfunctional government, I don’t know what is. If Canada was a real country – and it’s really just a collection of component parts – our constitution wouldn’t even permit a party that only runs candidates in one province and is committed to the breakup of the nation. I couldn’t imagine the U.S. allowing the Lone Star Party whose interests are confined to the state of Texas.

I also wondered why Elizabeth May was at the table in that Leaders’ Debate, and I say that with the admission of having voted for the Green Party in the last Ontario election because I thought they made the most sense. But Ms. May was representing a federal party that had never elected a single Member of Parliament, its one and only MP being a convert from the Liberals. Ms. May herself was not an elected MP either. Alas, if the Greens were at that table, why not the Abolitionist Party of Canada, the Communist Party of Canada, the Libertarian Party of Canada, or the Christian Heritage Party of Canada? At last count, we had 32 federal political parties in this country. Or maybe we could have brought back the Marihuana Party or the Rhinoceros Party. Each of them, at the time of the debate, had as many elected MPs as the Greens, which was none.

Today the Greens still have none.

And so, if we were a country that had any sense, there would have been only three people at that table – Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, and NDP Leader Jack Layton. Which is how it should have been in the first place. The various choices for voters would have been more apparent, and single-issue parties wouldn’t have been there.

So, what does all this have to do with that JFK quote? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?’ Plenty. It begs the question whether or not such words apply to Canada, and I think the answer is obvious. These words are about as far from the Canadian reality as the moon.

The single biggest problem in this country is that when we have a problem, we throw money at it, believing it’ll go away. But real life doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t work that way in a country and it doesn’t work that way in a family. Does a good-for-nothing son-in-law stop coming to your door when all you do is give him money? Of course not.

 There is obviously a huge problem concerning our aboriginal population that can’t be addressed in this brief space. However, as far as Ottawa’s strategy is concerned and I use that word lightly, the one constant through the years has been the federal government throwing untold millions of dollars at the problem, with the result that we see today. Many aboriginals are, more or less, wards of the state.

 The issue about supporting the arts reared its head in this election campaign. While the monies directed here are not even close to what goes to the Native community, the fact remains that many people out there think they deserve federal handouts because they consider themselves to be artistes. They too have become wards of the state.

 Provincial premiers spend as much time begging for handouts from Ottawa as they do governing. Indeed, when was the last time you heard someone from the educational or healthcare sectors say: ‘Thank you very much, federal and provincial governments, but we have enough money to spend now and don’t need any more?’ While I suppose some may argue that schools and hospitals should be ‘wards of the state,’ I don’t see many signs in Ottawa or any provincial capital with a concrete plan designed to improve the health of our people or improve the academic smarts of our young.

 Indeed, with our ever-aging population, healthcare eats up so much of our provincial budgets that every province is petrified about what the future holds. What’s more, we have an immigration system that encourages people from every corner of the globe to bring over their entire family tree, whether they can make a contribution or not, and once when they’re on the payroll there is nothing to stop them from taking Junior to the local emergency ward whenever he has a fever.

 Canada is a great big gravy train.

 When I was doing that seminar on Media Relations for the Toronto Police Service, my slide screwed up the JFK quote, and I had it in reverse. ‘Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.’ Someone pointed out the mistake and I apologized. What is truly sad is that the words up on the screen represented the Canadian version.

Big Brother is Watching You

You remember 1984, George Orwell’s epic novel about the future? It was the future of Winston Smith, a nondescript man who lived by himself in a world of Thought Police, and such government ministries as the Ministry of Love, Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Peace. It was a world of propaganda and slogans. Fiction is truth. War is peace. And, of course, Big Brother is watching you.

While no one would argue that Canada is like the world of Winston Smith, it may be a bit naive to think that this country is above the pettiness and, dare I say corruption, which we know has taken place south of the border.

My first book was published in 1984. Victims: The Orphans of Justice was about a man whose daughter had been murdered by a perfect stranger, an offender just released from federal penitentiary on mandatory supervision. Today it’s called statutory release, and it means that just about anyone – lifers side – who are doing federal time get out after 2/3 of their sentence, whether they had qualified for parole or not.

While Victims was about the disgusting manner in which victims of violent crimes were treated by our justice system, it was also an indictment against the automatic early-release system. It even cited the federal government’s own study – the Solicitor General’s Study of Conditional Release – about crimes committed by offenders out on early release. This study said: “Penitentiaries have a strong interest in seeing as many full releases as possible occur in order to save costs.”

How? Back in 1984, it cost $25,000 a year to incarcerate an offender in penitentiary, but only $2,000 a year to supervise that offender in the community under conditional release. So this meant an annual saving of $23,000 a year for every offender let out. Today, of course, those figures are much higher. The average cost of incarcerating a male offender in maximum security is over $110,000 a year, and about $20,000 a year to supervise the offender on statutory release, which works out to a ‘saving’ of $90,000 a year.

Needless to say, Victims poked a few holes into the government’s highly touted notion of rehabilitation as I discovered the ease with which violent criminals – murderers, rapists, child molesters – were released onto the streets of Canada every day, and the litany of crimes they committed.

The first time I told the father of the murdered girl that I wanted to write a book, he said: “What if someone paid you $25,000 NOT to write this book?” I had no idea what he was talking about. Well, I forged ahead and wrote it. It was published in paperback with a retail price of $4.50.

At the time, Pierre Trudeau and his Liberals had a majority government. An earlier Trudeau government had publicly endorsed the new approach to corrections. In 1971, Solicitor General Jean-Pierre Goyer said: “We have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society.” Those guys weren’t kidding. Rehabilitation became the mantra of corrections in Canada, and we were told time and again about the high success rates of offenders on parole and automatic release.

After Victims was published, I started receiving cheques for $4.50 from people who couldn’t find copies of it in bookstores. We started tracking where these people were from, and it appeared that anyone living in federal government ridings held by Liberal Cabinet Ministers couldn’t find a copy of it in their ridings. Huh? Come again.

Cheques were arriving from the federal government riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, which was held by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs. And from Windsor-Walkerville, which was held by the then Minister of Justice. And so on right down the list. You couldn’t find a copy of Victims in those ridings if your life depended on it.

I couldn’t believe this was happening, and organized some friends to check it out. They did, and it was. In fact, one day before I left to do media interviews in B.C. and Alberta, the book was actually pulled from the shelves of bookstores in the federal riding of Winnipeg-Assiniboine, which just happened to be held by the furthest west Liberal MP you could find.

Of course, the Tories were very helpful in furnishing me with information about all the crimes committed by offenders on release – when they were in Opposition – but once they took office later in 1984 with their Conservative majority, they disappeared into the woodwork.

I have seen several elections since then, and now yet another one is on our doorstep. I advise my fellow Canadians to listen intently to what your candidates have to say, but don’t forget about Winston Smith. Those hoodwinkers, they’re everywhere.

Read More of Jerry’s articles and book excerpts at http://www.authorjerryamernic.com.

The Olympics and the Saudis

Imagine that you are a woman who can run 100 meters in a shade over 12.5 seconds just like Michaela Kargbo of Sierra Leone does. Or that you’re a middle-distance specialist who can do 800 meters in two minutes flat like Tetiana Petliuk of Ukraine. Or a long-distance runner who can match the sub-33-minute performance of Dulce Maria Rodrigues of Mexico in the 10,000 meters. The only problem is that you are a woman from Saudi Arabia and so, are not allowed to compete.

While I certainly got caught up in the brilliance of such athletes as swimmer Michael Phelps and sprinter Hussein Bolt at the Beijing Olympics, for me the biggest story of the games (that didn’t seem to get a whole lot of attention) concerned the Olympic team from Saudi Arabia. But I suppose that’s because this exposes the blatant hypocrisy of the entire Olympics movement.

In 1964 the Olympics were held in Tokyo. Leading up to those games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that South Africa would be barred from the games because of its apartheid policies. The IOC said this decision would be overturned only if South Africa renounced racial discrimination in sport and ended its policy of not allowing competition between black and white athletes. South Africa then said it would include seven non-whites on its Olympic team, but that wasn’t good enough for the IOC. South Africa was out. The IOC, after all, was an organization steeped in principle and fair play.

For almost three decades following South Africa’s ouster from the Olympics, that country was a touchy subject as far as the Olympics were concerned. At the 1976 Montreal Olympics, more than two dozen countries boycotted the games because New Zealand’s cricket team had been touring South Africa. Some of the countries that took this stance included such leading bastions of human rights as Libya, Iraq, and Iran.

In 1991, South Africa finally repealed its apartheid laws, and the next year at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, it officially returned to the Olympics fold with great aplomb. Nevertheless, for many years the IOC stood its ground on this issue about discrimination in sports and insisted on taking the high road. And why not? It was merely upholding its own constitution.

The Olympic Charter is unequivocal in what it says about discrimination in sport. The section called Fundamental Principles of Olympism states the following: “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”

It also states this: “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.”

Well, Saudi Arabia clearly violates the Olympic Movement. So what was a country like Saudi Arabia doing in Beijing?

Of course, the issue of Saudi Arabia goes far beyond excluding women from its Olympic team. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to vote, buy property or travel. They are not to be seen. The country is the very antithesis of a liberal democracy since no one is even allowed to practice any religion except Islam. It’s against the law.

While it may be naive for Western leaders to preach democracy and human rights to countries and cultures where such things are alien, there is no mistaking the Olympics credo. It’s written in stone. So where is the IOC on Saudi Arabia? What happened to all those noble principles that the organization embodied during almost three decades on the South Africa file? I’ll tell you what happened. Oil.

Saudi Arabia is home to one-quarter of the world’s known oil reserves. What’s more, while all that oil is flowing out of Saudi Arabia, a lot of American and Western money is flowing in.

Surely no one in their right mind would call China a leading purveyor of human rights, and it isn’t. While the country has certainly accomplished a great deal in recent years, what was the Tiananmen Square massacre all about? It has been expunged from the history books, not only in China where it never got into the history books, but even here in the West. It is forgotten.

Some voices in the Arab world are courageous enough to speak the truth about Saudi Arabia, although though they are few and far between. One of them is that of Saudi journalist and scholar Ali al-Ahmad who last May wrote these words about the Olympics in the International Herald Tribune: “Bar countries that bar women athletes.” Indeed.

Never mind dreaming that Saudi Arabian women will compete on the track. How about the diving board? Or, God forbid, beach volleyball? Hell, these women can’t even drive a car in their own country, which is a long way from parading around in a bikini.

In the U.S., especially since 9/11, it is said that security will always trump economics. I don’t know if security will always trump economics in the Olympics, but we may very well find out in 2012 when the next summer games are held in London. That will be a security program like the world has never seen before. But one thing is for damn sure. In the Olympics, economics will trump principle every time.

Hero Worship: Facts and Foibles

I just returned from Washington, D.C. where I got a quick education in the art of venerating leaders. The U.S. capital, a city of inspiring architecture, venerates four presidents in particular – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Each has a memorial and each memorial is unique.

The Washington Monument rises 555 feet over the city, a massive obelisk honouring the father of a nation with 300 million offspring. As official sire of the republic, Washington rightly deserves to be recognized by the world’s largest phallic symbol. He is remembered not only as the first president, but as a general who won the nation’s independence from Great Britain, as a farmer who lived and died on the land, and as a cartographer, surveyor, connoisseur of wines, voracious reader of books, entrepreneur, and all things deemed good by Americans. He is on the dollar bill, the capital bears his name, and lampposts throughout the entire Capital Region have his silhouette. The man is ubiquitous.

Even his estate in Mount Vernon, Virginia has been restored to its former glory. The entire experience of his life as depicted on these grounds portrays him as a leader of men.

The FDR memorial captures this president in a different way, telling a story that recognizes his accomplishments through the Great Depression and World War II. But he, too, comes across as a leader.

The same is true of Jefferson and Lincoln. Now Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest of all presidents. The manner in which he sits – 19 feet from top to bottom, 175 tons, surrounded by 36 Doric columns in neoclassical magnificence with a look of wisdom that speaks courage and determination – is all you have to know about the man. But for good measure, the north and south chambers of the memorial are inscribed with the words of his Second Inaugural Address and Gettysburg Address, and people actually read them. Which brings me to my country. How does Canada venerate its leaders? And what leaders do we venerate? Aye, there’s the rub.

The house in Kingston, Ontario where Sir John A. Macdonald lived sits as a museum, but I don’t know a single person who ever visited it. He is on our 10-dollar bill and there are a few statues sprinkled about, but he is best remembered as a man with a large nose who drank.

Mackenzie King was prime minister for over 21 years – 21 years! – which is eight years or two full presidential terms longer than FDR served as US president, and for all that he gets his face on the 50-dollar bill, the odd statue, and not much else. He is remembered as a bachelor who was guided by the spirit of his dead mother.

When we consider more recent occupants of 24 Sussex Drive, I think it’s safe to say that leadership is not the first trait that comes to mind. John Diefenbaker was an able orator, in English anyway, but no leader. Lester Pearson earned his stripes on the international stage as a diplomat, but as prime minister he seemed more nice guy in the mode of Jimmy Carter than a man to follow into battle. Joe Clark had a soft chin and was led around by his wife. John Turner was in office just long enough to show he didn’t belong. Paul Martin wasn’t known as a waffler by accident.

What about long-time PM’s Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien? Mulroney spoke eloquently about the injustice of apartheid in South Africa and managed the economy, but will be remembered for the Schreiber affair, which puts him into Nixon territory. His debatable accomplishments aside, Mulroney will never be revered by his people. Besides, Americans don’t lionize their presidents, especially the dead ones, because of how they managed the economy. They lionize them because they were leaders.

As for Chretien, a rather arrogant and ignorant man, he did win three elections despite the fact he wasn’t conversant in either of the nation’s official languages, which I suppose is something of a feat. But let’s be honest, anyone proposing a monument when either of these two guys is gone would be laughed out.

Of all the prime ministers in my lifetime, Pierre Trudeau is the only one I would call a leader. The man had guts and he could make decisions. However, a monument or memorial to PET? Venerating a man who is the Father of Canadian socialism, who shied away from the fight against Nazi Germany and dismissed the battle as “England’s war,” and who for all his travels and alleged wisdom had precious little understanding of the country outside the province of Quebec, would be a bit much to swallow. Do you recall that after his death, it was announced that Canada’s highest mountain Mount Logan would be renamed after Trudeau? It would be our own version of Mount Rushmore. But it resulted in such ferocious debate that the idea was quickly nipped in the bud.

What about present PM Stephen Harper? He’s still new to the job, but I don’t get much of a sense of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln from him either.

Frankly, I envy how Americans wave their flag and venerate their leaders. It smacks of nation-building and the Americans have definitely built a nation. We seem to have inherited ours and that’s a big difference. Americans make their leaders larger than life – while they are in office and especially when they are out of office – and build spectacular monuments to honour them. Despite their foibles.

The bitter irony of George Washington and that 555-foot phallic symbol is that in 41 years of marriage the general didn’t impregnate Martha even once. And never mind that on his Mount Vernon estate he presided over slaves, or that one military campaign not recorded by American history was his decimation of 40 Seneca Indian villages on the finger lakes of New York State. Such things are conveniently overlooked, and let’s not forget that Washington’s career in politics was assured at the age of 27 when he married the young widow of one of the wealthiest men in Virginia.

It seems that having access to money through inheritance, marriage, or dare I say the word theft goes a long way to building a political career, no matter where you reside.

The point I’m trying to make is that if people were completely honest about their heroes, none of these men would be depicted as they are, and no nation would have any heroes. Not without some mythology. Jefferson wasn’t only a father of early America, he was also the father of many blacks who lived their entire lives as slaves. JFK was a womanizer. Nixon a liar. George W. Bush? Well, if the current Oval Office incumbent gets to Mount Rushmore – and I have my doubts – that huge bust of his head might well have nothing in it. It would be hollow. And if Bill Clinton ever gets there, what is on display likely won’t be a bust at all, but an altogether different body part.

Anyway, these guys won’t make it. Still, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt (Teddy, not FDR) look pretty damn good up on that mountain, don’t they? They look strong. And they are. Stone has that effect, as do all those monuments and memorials in D.C.  It’s all part of nation building and Americans are good at that, better than any people on this earth. Such things make them proud, while we Canadians are just … Canadians.

Whatever that is.

Toronto the Good

Frank Sullivan, who lives in West Vancouver, had a letter printed in the Globe and Mail last week. “Given the number of bullets flying around the streets of Toronto,” he said, “I’d think the city’s bureaucrats would be more concerned with preventing lead poisoning than skin cancer.” He was responding to the city erecting shade audits that would measure the angle of the sun at different times of day so as to protect children from the sun’s rays. I won’t get into that now, but I will get into the bit about lead poisoning. Or guns.

 

Frank’s letter made me think back a few years when I was working with a young woman from Sudbury, Ontario at an Ontario government office. At the time, Toronto’s so-called ‘year of the gun’ was making news all over the place, and this woman told me how her mother kept phoning from Sudbury because she was worried about her daughter being shot.

 

Well, let me tell you my story. I was born and raised in Toronto – and encountering such people is becoming more unusual all the time, but that will be another article – and have lived in this city for over half a century. Not once have I ever witnessed any situation or altercation where a gun was involved. Not once! I have never seen somebody get shot. I have never even seen a firearm of any type discharged. No AK-47. No Uzi. No sawed-off shotgun. No pistol.

 

Not a single time in over 50 years.

 

I’m sure that all you people in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal, and everywhere else figure that I must be the only person in Toronto who has been shielded from all this violence, and for such a long time, too. Why, I must be living in a closet with my eyes closed. How could this be?

 

I’ll tell you.

 

The reason I haven’t witnessed any of this violence is because at 3 a.m., on any given morning, you will find me at home in bed. If I’m not in my bed, you will find me in the living room reading a book or watching TV as a means of fighting insomnia. But you won’t find me in those areas of the city infected with gangs and crack houses, which are generally found in low-income, government-subsidized, high-rise towers where thousands and even tens of thousands of people congregate in ugly, seedy ghettoes that breed crime. Which isn’t to say that everyone who lives in such places is a criminal. But the ratio of criminals to the population is a lot higher there than it is on my street.

 

I could draw you a map of Toronto – the entire city – and show you where these places are. This doesn’t mean that innocent people don’t get killed or shot through no fault of their own. They do, just as they do everywhere else in the world, but in Toronto it’s not common. As I say this, my heart goes out to any innocent victims of violence who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. But to imply that Toronto is a city where you one is in constant danger of being shot is ridiculous.

 

This tells me that something is very much amiss in how my town is perceived by those who don’t live here.

 

I have little doubt that if a poll was taken asking Canadians what they thought was the most crime-ridden city in the country, Toronto would be no. 1. How could it not? A day doesn’t go by when the print and air waves – right across the country it seems – aren’t blazing about gun violence or three men found slain in west end or mayor seeks to ban all guns. At the same time, recently released crime stats reveal that Canada’s largest city is also – are you ready? – the safest big city in the country!

 

The highest crime rate was in Regina, Saskatchewan. Population 200,000. In fact, cities with the highest crime rates were all out West.

 

Now I know as well as anyone that figures can lie, just as liars can figure, and politicians are especially good at this. But I just wanted to assure people like Frank Sullivan in West Vancouver that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and it’s not his fault. It’s largely the fault of the media, which has an increasing tendency to create stories, and more than stories, issues that may or may not even exist, and if they do exist what gets reported is way out of whack from the reality. It is also the fault of some of those aforementioned politicians to whom the mere scent of a possible voter can trigger an outbreak of unadulterated BS.

 

Toronto is a city which, in many ways, is under fire. Gridlock is horrendous. The streets are falling apart. Many areas are not as clean as they used to be. Some parts of the downtown are in a sorry state because of a proliferation of beggars, panhandlers and drug addicts who are allowed to breed like mosquitoes. But Toronto is the fifth biggest city in North America, and for all big cities in North America, it has the lowest crime rate. Don’t get me wrong. When it comes to dealing with the bad guys, I’m all for getting tough, and in some cases, throwing away the key.

 

But implying that Toronto is under fire from the gun is a bit like calling Afghanistan a democracy.

Physician heal thyself

With all the talk about our healthcare system, we’re missing out on what may be its most pressing problem – the arrogance of some doctors. Awhile back I was referred to a dermatologist for a skin condition. Healthcare being what it is in Canada, it was months before I saw him. He took a few scrapings and said he’d send them to the lab to see what it is. Then he booked me for a second appointment, and said at that time he’d have the results and would examine me again.

This was the dead of winter and on the next visit it was very chilly. I booked the first appointment of the morning. The doctor’s staff was there, along with many patients, but he was not. Some 45 minutes later he waltzed through the door. I asked the receptionist why he was late and she said it was cold outside.

The doctor confirmed the condition, but couldn’t say what type it is. He didn’t examine me as he had promised, and shooed me out saying I should call if things get worse. A wasted visit, at least, for me.

Later I saw another doctor for a different problem. He said he could treat it. He booked me for three weeks hence and, as before, I chose the first appointment of the morning. Alas, I waited 30 minutes for his arrival. He didn’t examine me as he had promised, and only wanted to make sure I had come to see him. I was out in three minutes flat. Another wasted effort for me, another fee for the doctor.

Meanwhile, a small growth had appeared on my chest. My G. P. referred me to yet another dermatologist who said he could remove it with a spray, but it would take three sessions at fifty bucks a crack. It wasn’t covered. And he said he could get rid of those little polyps I had. “I’ll just snip ‘em off. It’s $160. I don’t take debit or cheques. Cash or credit card.”

He talked with the all-business demeanour of a retail checkout clerk, then checked out my earlier skin condition, which he concluded was definitely not what the first doctor had said. I agreed to the polyp removals, which cost $10 a snip. When including the spray for the growth on my chest plus taxes, the total bill was $220 for a 15-minute visit. Add $50 for each of two subsequent visits after that and the guy cost me $320. I realize this was an elective procedure, but the reason I went was to make sure the problem wasn’t serious. Never mind the fact that many years ago I had a growth removed, only then they managed to do it in one visit and it was covered. Strange how inflation infects not only economics, but our biological health as well.

Now let’s move to 2003 when SARS hit Toronto. Where were our leaders? Prime Minister Jean Chretien was golfing in the Dominican Republic. Ontario Premier Mike Harris was golfing in Arizona. Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, who didn’t play golf, got interviewed on CNN where he asked, “What’s the WHO?” (The World Health Organization had issued a worldwide ban on traveling to Toronto). Over the next few weeks, 44 people died and Toronto was widely seen as a pariah. The perception, especially by US media, was that of a massive outbreak in the community, everyone in masks, people afraid to go outdoors, and “rampant fear and paranoia” on the streets.

The facts were that only hospital staff and patients were in masks, and notwithstanding the media coverage, it was pretty much life as usual. But Toronto’s handling of the situation was a classic in how NOT to do crisis communications. There was no single point of contact with the media. No clear concise messaging. No plan. And no leadership. But one voice of reason did emerge. Dr. Sheela Basrur.

Leadership is tested when times are tough and this diminutive woman – a doctor no less – shone like a beacon when all others failed miserably. She took control. She explained things in a way that people understood. She said to be calm.

Dr. Basrur was a physician who embodied the Hippocratic Oath, and not only during SARS, but during her entire life. After obtaining her medical degree, she visited such places as Nepal and India where she learned first-hand about preventive medicine. So she went into public health. Because of her, restaurants must now post notices in their windows saying if they passed or failed a health inspection. She helped make Toronto’s smoking ban in public places a reality. She developed a plan to tackle bioterrorism. And during SARS she led.

Three weeks ago she died at the age of 51 from a rare form of cancer. Though I never met her, I felt the same way I did when Terry Fox died. As if I had lost a friend.

The Hippocratic Oath, which I once thought all doctors adhere to, says, “In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients.” Today doctors visiting your house has gone the way of the dodo bird. But what’s that about attitude? Like regarding patients as being so inconsequential it doesn’t matter if you show up on time. Or citing your services as if they are a shopping list. Or would you please not dally so I can move on to my next customer. Whatever happened to doctors being people who care for their fellow human beings and, in the process, show a little compassion? A person like Dr. Sheela Basrur. Unfortunately, such physicians seem to be few and far between.

Canadian security wasn’t busted by Maxime and Julie

The ongoing saga about our recently-sacked Minister of Foreign Affairs and his former girlfriend of dubious connections, who together have managed to bust national security, is the kind of thing the international media eats up. Like a pit bull with lockjaw that won’t let go, the story goes on and on with new revelations. Indeed, imagine if Maxime Bernier was Prime Minister of Canada with Julie Couillard as his wife. Why, the Pierre-and-Maggie show would have seemed like Ozzie and Harriet by comparison.

But did this couple really reveal Canadian security for the joke that it is? No. The security of our country was already a slice of Swiss cheese with holes galore.

A few years ago I was involved with an Ontario government task force that was looking at the correctional system. We were doing hearings around the province, and one day we had to fly to Sault Ste. Marie. Our group of eight, including a former deputy minister who was leading the task force, met at the Avitat Skyservice terminal immediately west of Pearson International Airport. We had our own pilot and our own plane. There was no wait. We were in the air 20 minutes after arriving at the terminal.

I had never been to this place before. I followed the directions and drove into the parking lot past a security gate. To my surprise, it was unmanned. I parked my car and all those 747’s at Pearson were in clear unobstructed view, no more than a quarter-mile away. I could easily have driven up in a pickup truck with a rocket launcher in the back, set the thing up, and blasted away at the main terminal and any aircraft I chose. There was no security. None whatsoever. And this well after 9/11, a stone’s throw from the country’s busiest airport.

I was awestruck. In dismay, I wrote to Senator Colin Kenny, who is Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security & Defence, and told him about my experience. He replied and said this is how Canada does things.

Indeed. Just how lax are we in defending ourselves and keeping the nation safe? Well, for starters, we are the only country I know of in the West that has no national security police keeping tabs on our ports. We did at one time, mind you. The Canada Ports Police were disbanded in 1997, a federal-government decision that was based on economics; the feds thought the agency was slowing down commercial trade in ports in the Atlantic provinces. And so, ever since then there has been no federal police service committed to protecting Canada’s 19 ports. Halifax? Nope. St. John’s, Newfoundland? Uh-uh. Montreal? Nada. Vancouver? Afraid not.

In the U.S., especially since 9/11, they say security always trumps economics. Not so in this country. Here it’s the reverse, that is, if there is any security at all.

Do you know of any other country, barring Afghanistan perhaps, that doesn’t require people to fill out an exit form when they leave? Canada doesn’t. You come here and fill out a customs form which tells authorities how much liquor and tobacco you brought with you. But when you leave? Nothing. This means the authorities have no idea what happened to you. Just about every country – at least, those that take national security seriously – requires newcomers to fill out a form upon arrival and another form when leaving. There is good reason for this. It allows a country to keep track of people who come through their borders. But not Canada. We allow them in and then let them get lost, and it doesn’t matter who they are. Once you’re in, you’re in. No surprise then that we’re very good at losing people.

Federal Auditor-General Sheila Fraser knows about this. She recently announced that the Canada Border Services Agency doesn’t collect enough data to “properly manage detentions and removals,” which is why the agency has lost track of 41,000 people who were ordered to leave. She said many of the missing deportees were failed refugee claimaints, and that the agency doesn’t keep up with the thousands of illegal immigrants who enter this country, including criminal types who remain on the lam.

Orillia is a beautiful town north of Toronto. It has 41,000 people. Imagine losing the population of Orillia. Or Truro, Nova Scotia. Or Rimouski, Quebec. Or Penticton, B.C.  They’re all about the same size.

Last Friday morning I was on the 401 passing Pearson International Airport when I decided to check out that same Avitat Skyservice terminal that I had visited before. I got out at the Dixie Road exit, went north to Britannia, then east to Midfield and through the so-called security gate. As before, there was no one in it. Is anyone ever in it? Is it only for show, like a Neighbourhood Watch sign when, in fact, no one is really observing anything? I don’t know the answer to these questions. But at 8 a.m. on a Friday, at a terminal adjacent to the biggest airport in Canada, one might think there would be some form of security on the grounds. There wasn’t. Not even Maxime or Julie were guarding the premises. Only in Canada, you say? Pity.

Is Canada a CROC?

Stephen Harper is the first non-Quebecker to serve as prime minister of Canada for more than nine months since Lester Pearson. That’s more than four decades.

Pierre Trudeau, who was from Montreal, Quebec, was PM from 1968 to 1979 and again from 1980 to 1984 – a total of 15 years. Brian Mulroney, who was from Baie Comeau, Quebec, was PM from 1984 to 1993 – nine years. Jean Chretien, who hailed from Shawinigan, Quebec, was PM from 1993 to 2003 – 10 years. Paul Martin was born in Windsor but realized that only a Quebecker can lead the Liberal Party and become Prime Minister in the modern era, so he moved to Montreal and represented the federal riding of Lasalle-Emard. He too was a PM from Quebec, in power from 2004 to 2006 – a period of two-and-a-half years.

Trudeau, of course, was a Liberal as were Chretien and Martin, while Mulroney was a Conservative. But what about other prime ministers over the past 40 years? Well, for starters we have Joe Clark, a Conservative from Alberta who did all of nine months in 1979. Then we have John Turner, who was actually born in England but raised in B.C. and Ontario, and when he took over the Liberal Party from Trudeau represented a constituency from B. C. Turner did but a three-month shift in 1984. And finally there is Conservative Kim Campbell, who was from B.C. and lasted but four months in 1993.

Now math was never my forte, but if we look at our history since 1968, it’s clear that the province of Quebec has been awfully well represented in the top office of the land. Until Mr. Harper came along a little over two years ago, Canada was served by a Quebecker as prime minister for some 37 years and by a non-Quebecker for less than a year and a half – 16 months to be exact. In fact, we might conclude that prime ministers from Quebec are measured in years, if not decades, while prime ministers from TROC (The Rest Of Canada) are measured in months.

What about the Supreme Court? Did you ever wonder where those mysterious judges, whom as we all know are appointed by the federal government, hail from? Well don’t look now, but the Hon. Justice Michel Bastarache is soon to retire and his position will have to be replaced, but M. Bastarache is still with us and he was born in Quebec City, so he’s a Quebecker.

The Hon. Justice Louis Le Bel was born in Quebec City as well. The Hon. Justice William Binnie was not born in Quebec City – wouldn’t it be ridiculous if every Supreme Court justice was from the same town? – but he was born in Montreal, so he too is a Quebecker. Believe it or not, the Hon. Morris Fish was also born in Montreal. That’s yet another Quebecker. And just to ensure that Quebeckers have the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Marie Deschamps was born in Repentigue. That makes five out of the nine current Supreme Court justices who are from the province of Quebec.

Ontario, which has 13 million people or 4.5 million more than Quebec, has but one judge who was actually born in the province – the Hon. Louise Charron, who is from Sturgeon Falls. The other members of the Supreme Court are the Hon. Marshall Rothstein, who is from Winnipeg, Manitoba; the Hon. Rosie Abella who was born in Germany (but raised in Ontario); and Chief Justice the Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin who is from Alberta.

Where am I going with all this? The current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is Stephane Dion and guess where he’s from? What makes this so ironic is that the first words about the man on the party’s website are: “Stephane Dion is a voice for change.” But I ask you, what kind of change is having yet another Prime Minister from Quebec?

There are all kinds of reasons why a Canadian citizen would vote for one party and not another, but one thing is crystal clear about the Liberal Party of Canada. It is focused on Quebec and has been for the past 40 years. What kind of country is this when our leader is always from Quebec and when five of our nine Supreme Court justices are also from Quebec?

I’ll tell you what kind of country. Cockeyed, that’s what. At least, that’s what we are if you don’t live in Quebec because that province seems to be getting pretty good value for itself. As for the rest of us, we are the Cockeyed Rest Of Canada or CROC for short. Add a ‘K’ and you have CROCK, which pretty well sums up the kind of leadership we’ve had for the past 40 years – unless you’re from Quebec.

What Port Security?

If Canada had an eight-member agency looking after national security at our ports, and those agents were Curly, Larry and Moe, with the others belonging to one family — Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo and Gummo — we’d be better off than we are now. That’s because we don’t have an agency looking after national security at our ports. Canada stands alone in the G8 and is one of the few industrialized countries in the world without a special police force dedicated to the protection and security of ports, which is why those in the know weren’t surprised with what happened in Halifax the other day. Four stowaways climbed off a container ship in the Port of Halifax and no one blinked an eye. Were our security forces on lunch? No. We don’t have a security force.

It wasn’t always this way. In 1997, the federal government disbanded the Canada Ports Police, the on-site, 24/7 agency dedicated to policing our ports. The reasoning was that the agency slowed down commercial trade, especially in the Atlantic provinces. The 40,000-member Canadian Police Association protested vehemently, but it didn’t matter.

Consider New York City, the biggest port in the United States. Canada’s decision would be like shutting down the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, and replacing them with nothing. That’s what happened here, and right across the country. In Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax, St. John’s, you name it.

The International Association of Airport and Seaport Police (IAASP) consists of police and law enforcement agencies that protect airports and seaports around the world. Mike Toddington used to be chief officer of the Vancouver detachment of the Canada Ports Police and is now executive director of the IAASP. He once reported that $1.2-billion in illicit drugs were seized at the Port of Vancouver over a seven-year period. Interception rates are said to be only 5% of the total traffic at such places. Do the

math and Vancouver would have been more than a $3-billion-a-year operation. That means illicit drugs were the #1 business at the port. However, this was before the Canada Ports Police was disbanded. I asked Toddington how the international community regards our ports security. “Canada does not have a lot of credibility,” he said with the utmost of generosity.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department is dedicated to protecting the port of New York City. In Asian cities like Singapore, auxiliary police are employed by the ports, along with regular police permanently assigned to the ports. Hong Kong has a division of port police exclusively responsible for the port. States in Australia have their own dedicated harbour police or marine divisions patrolling the waterways. The United Kingdom has river police, which are absorbed into the London Metropolitan Police, and also the federal government Home Office, which has a special division of the national police dedicated to the ports. Holland has the port police in Rotterdam as a special division of its national police service. Canada has local police who may or may not respond to calls. There is no one on the ground around the clock at our ports.

In 2006, former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli told the Senate national security committee that he had 124 officers stationed at our three biggest airports and only 30 officers at our 19 ports. He said: “Our assessment is that the marine ports are the greatest single threat in terms of organized crime and national security.”

The Three Stooges and the Marx Brothers were comedians, but no one would have called either group a laughingstock. That word is used to describe an object of ridicule. Like us.

Published in the National Post, April 1, 2008