Greetings from the new City of Markham where the "city" fathers and mothers have deemed the former Township of Markham, and subsequently the Town of, are sufficiently grown-up to warrant city status. That's one thing ober 300,000 people will do.
Over 40 years ago, I began writing a Canada Day Journal. During my college days, I spent my summers working in public relations for the Ontario government and, for four years, spent July 1 in Thunder Bay, Ontario. After a day of greeting the populace and handing out literature at the Central Lakehead Exhibition, I would repair to my motel room and write - that was on paper with pen and ink - what I had doen that day and what I was feeling, 1000 miles away from home and family (yes, we were still measuring our distances in imperial units).
While most of those notes have long since been misplaced, I recall vividly one year when for reasons of scheduling, I had the day off and, with time to kill, I wandered to Lakehead University campus to look around and compare it to some of the other new university campuses that were springing up in the province in the 1970s. Somewhere outside a student residence, I encourtered a small group busy with a Canada Day BBQ. We got to talking and I ended up staying for hours; an undergraduate liberal arts student from Toronto in a group of graduate and doctoral geologists and foresters who were more accustomed to spening their summer in a tent in the fly infeseted bush. Student residence beds, warm showers and fresh food to BBQ were luxuries they had learned to forego in the pursuit of their careers.
I learned a lot that day about northern Ontario and resource economies; all very different from my southwestern Ontario farm background or my adopted "Toronto as the centre of the universe" perspective. I'd like to think, it helped me empathise with "northerners" duing the subsequent 3 decades I worked in the public service. What I learned that Canada Day mattered.
Can I say the same for today? Well probably not. Still it was a good day beginning with an old fashioned bacon and eggs breakfast on the veranda, overlooking our beautiful garden and pond. Having acquired new tastes, breakfast was enhanced by very non-Ontario-traditional expresso coffee, but that too reflects how the we've all changed in forty years. Then it was off to a boozy brunch with friends as a warm-up to Toronto's Pride Day festival and parade.
After a more than a couple of decades of gay pride festivals, like many of my generation, I've become a bit jaded. Pride remains a "very big deal" for the newly "out", and for those desperately seeking a mate, and this year's was no exception. As always, it was good to see that the number and variety of groups and activities for gay man and women of all ages continues to grow and amaze. And there was, of course, just enough eye-candy to maybe entice attendance again in twelve months.
Back home now, listening to the rustle of the wind in the trees, the birds' pre-dusk chatter, the waterfall falling and, occasionally, fish jumping at insects over the pond (while trying to screen out the distant sounds of Hwy #404 - it is the City of Markham, after all), I can't help but reflect on just how fortunate I've been to have been born in Canada and Ontario, given an excellent public education and a long career in public service and surrounded by good friends and family. When the fireworks start popping in about an hour, I will be ready to say, with renewed passion, "Oh Canada! indeed.
2012-07-01
2012-04-01
Save the Male Glendon Student
GLENDON GUYS ARE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES
by VICKY BROOK CONTRIBUTORIn a solemn announcement last week, York University officials declared the male Glendon Student to be a critically endangered species, stressing that all measures should be considered to avoid an estimated extinction date of 2025.
University officials and students alike have been worried by this downward trend. When Glendon opened in 1959, at least half of its student population was male. The number of men on campus, however, declined severely over the years and today, the male Glendon Student population is estimated to number barely fifty. This does not bode well for the other 2350 female students on campus, who suffer from a lack of eye candy to ogle during class.
In 2005, the provincial government of Ontario awarded Glendon College a $5.6 million grant to further investi- gate this strange phenomenon. “Even more rare is the single, straight, male Glendon Student - those could be extinct as early as 2018,” comments lead researcher Dr. Peter Hardson. “In fact, we can now confirm that Glendon’s squirrel population outnumbers that of straight, available men at Glendon.” It is frighteningly clear that the continuous disappearance of males would wreak havoc on the student social ecosystem at Glendon, resulting in a significant diminishing of sexual tension on campus.
In an effort to preserve this dying population, concerned students hosted a bake sale earlier this week to raise money for the “Save the Male Glendon Student” campaign. Organizer Andrea Pollins, in her fourth year, comments that she is very dedicated to this cause, especially since she can only remember seeing a male Glendon Student once or twice during her studies at Glendon: “I even got my camera out one time, to prove to my friends that such things existed. But by the time I turned it on, he had already scampered into the library shelves.”
Sightings of Single Straight Male Glendon Students is even rarer, says Pollins: “Well I thought I saw one the other day – but when I took a closer look, he was actually holding hands with his boyfriend.”
Matthew Halloran, one of these elusive creatures, shares his views, admitting that he does feel like somewhat of a minority. “It really is difficult, y’know, being pursued by beautiful, desperate women all the time. I imagine it’d be nice to have some other guys here to share the burden. Five or more hook-ups a week are exhausting when you got a full course load.”
However, there is reason to hope that the ratio of men and women will balance out once more. The grant researchers have compiled a thousand page document detailing possible measures to stabilize and increase the male population. Among these include offering free tuition to any male who applies to Glendon, and a subsidized meal plan and free keychain to those deciding to major in French. Another recommendation calls for computer chip identification tags to be embedded in the skin of males, as to ensure that they remain at Glendon and not switch to say, Keele or the University of Toronto. So far, public support of this document has been high, and students and staff alike are optimistic that this will mean a positive change for the campus.
Dr. Hardson says, “Just think. By implementing video game systems in every residence and starting an advertising campaign highlighting the abundance of lonely, gorgeous women at Glendon, we can hope to dramatically increase the male population on campus and improve courtship opportunities for all. Besides, what is education without the occasional late-night study partner?”
Originally written for and published by PROTEM Satire Edition; Glendon College, Toronto, Canada Mar 2012 http://protemgl.tumblr.com
2012-03-17
liberals can get it wrong too
It was disappointing to see the Liberal Party's response to the government's latest wireless telecom policy. That the Conservatives seem to have failed to please anyone with their revised strategy is no surprise. Under Tony Clement's direction, the last expansion proved to be a comedy of errors resulting in a litany of court challenges that remain unresolved 3 years later. It created fertile ground for several new wireless carriers to sprout up but none of them have achieved sustainability and it remains only a matter of time until they are forced to sell-out, merge or otherwise fail. Tony's objective - a populist "cheaper cell phones" policy has been partially achieved for a small number of urban Canadians at the risk of long-term damage to the industry.
Now, the Conservatives propose to attract more investment in the system by allowing foreign corporations to buy up to 100% of Canadian telecom carriers - but only those new and small and carriers that have an uncertain future. How is that supposed to attract investors? And do Canadians really want to sell their airwaves to foreigners?
Compounding the problem, the Conservatives chose to limit the amount of spectrum any carrier, new or old, can own. By limiting the amount of spectrum the new and smaller carriers can acquire, according to the leader amongst the new-comers from the last expansion, Tony Lacavera of Wind Mobile, the Conservatives are making it impossible for the small carriers to offer the data-intensive high-speed service Canadians want and denying them the opportunity to grow their business to profitability. Worse, the large and long-established carriers won't be able to get the spectrum they need to serve all Canadians, urban and rural, without buying-out or merging with some of the smaller or newer providers. As a result of the Conservatives' duplicitous policy, the established carriers are being denied access to foreign investment that might speed up the deployment of the next generation of high speed wireless outside half a dozen major urban centres.
While Liberals claim the Conservatives' policy won't encourage competition, the real problem is that Canada already has too much competition and too many carriers. The industry is fragmented to the point future service is jeopardized. Compared to our neighbour, the USA, with three major carriers serving a population 10 times the size and concentrated in a much smaller geographic area, Canada now has more than 9 carriers, not including wholly owned subsidiaries (think Bell/Virgin, Telus/Koodo, Rogers/Fido/Chatr) chasing a relatively tiny market spread over an absolutely huge area, where everyone expects the same the level of service for the same price, whether at King and Bay in Toronto or 500 km north of Prince Albert. It just doesn't work.
Promising cheaper cell phones may be a nice populist notion, but it's bad policy and shame on the Liberal for jumping on the bandwagon. Liberals should insist upon an unrestricted auction of the publicly owned airwaves; an auction that could bring in more revenue for the federal government to offset the national debt. Small, unviable and unsustainable carriers would be swallowed-up by profitable competitors who, free from aggressive price -cutting, would have the revenue to deploy the best technology across the nation.
Instead of the phony competition we have now, two or three companies with long-term viability could really fight it out for our business. The result would be better service nationally and realistic prices.
Now, the Conservatives propose to attract more investment in the system by allowing foreign corporations to buy up to 100% of Canadian telecom carriers - but only those new and small and carriers that have an uncertain future. How is that supposed to attract investors? And do Canadians really want to sell their airwaves to foreigners?
Compounding the problem, the Conservatives chose to limit the amount of spectrum any carrier, new or old, can own. By limiting the amount of spectrum the new and smaller carriers can acquire, according to the leader amongst the new-comers from the last expansion, Tony Lacavera of Wind Mobile, the Conservatives are making it impossible for the small carriers to offer the data-intensive high-speed service Canadians want and denying them the opportunity to grow their business to profitability. Worse, the large and long-established carriers won't be able to get the spectrum they need to serve all Canadians, urban and rural, without buying-out or merging with some of the smaller or newer providers. As a result of the Conservatives' duplicitous policy, the established carriers are being denied access to foreign investment that might speed up the deployment of the next generation of high speed wireless outside half a dozen major urban centres.
While Liberals claim the Conservatives' policy won't encourage competition, the real problem is that Canada already has too much competition and too many carriers. The industry is fragmented to the point future service is jeopardized. Compared to our neighbour, the USA, with three major carriers serving a population 10 times the size and concentrated in a much smaller geographic area, Canada now has more than 9 carriers, not including wholly owned subsidiaries (think Bell/Virgin, Telus/Koodo, Rogers/Fido/Chatr) chasing a relatively tiny market spread over an absolutely huge area, where everyone expects the same the level of service for the same price, whether at King and Bay in Toronto or 500 km north of Prince Albert. It just doesn't work.
Promising cheaper cell phones may be a nice populist notion, but it's bad policy and shame on the Liberal for jumping on the bandwagon. Liberals should insist upon an unrestricted auction of the publicly owned airwaves; an auction that could bring in more revenue for the federal government to offset the national debt. Small, unviable and unsustainable carriers would be swallowed-up by profitable competitors who, free from aggressive price -cutting, would have the revenue to deploy the best technology across the nation.
Instead of the phony competition we have now, two or three companies with long-term viability could really fight it out for our business. The result would be better service nationally and realistic prices.
2012-03-14
a necessary climb-down
During the 2011 federal election campaign, as Peter McKay and Julian Fantino consistently vehemently argued that Canada needed to and would spend a gazilion dollars on unproven F-35 fighter jets, ominous clouds were falling over the project in the USA. McKay and Fantino absurdly argued the project was on-time and on-budget even as US Congressional overseers were raising doubts about its viability. Later, as other US allies withdrew or scaled back their commitment to the venture, Fantino continued to insist all was well and the Canada's commitment was rock-solid.
It was anticipated surprise, yesterday, that Fantino has begun to back away from the F-35 stating that no order has been placed and no decision taken on whether to purchase. With the government preparing to slash public services and social benefits, the "we support out Armed Forces" slogan loses traction in the face of spending billions of dollars - the actual cost is impossible to calculate as the project is delayed by technical problems and allies cancel orders - on a jet fighter that may never see service or may be obsolete before it goes into service and would be of little use to the Canadian Forces in any conceivable mission.
The timing was to be expected. With the election rhetoric fading from memory and the next campaign 3 years away, when better to re-write the Conservative talking points. McKay was notably close-lipped yesterday, having sent Fantino out with the new message. In a few weeks or months, when Canada withdraws from the partnership acquiring F-35s, McKay and the Prime Minister, hope Canadians will be accustomed to the new messaging and have forgotten just how essential they claimed these fighters to be in the midst of their re-election campaign.
Some of us will be able to smile smugly and say "we told you so".
It was anticipated surprise, yesterday, that Fantino has begun to back away from the F-35 stating that no order has been placed and no decision taken on whether to purchase. With the government preparing to slash public services and social benefits, the "we support out Armed Forces" slogan loses traction in the face of spending billions of dollars - the actual cost is impossible to calculate as the project is delayed by technical problems and allies cancel orders - on a jet fighter that may never see service or may be obsolete before it goes into service and would be of little use to the Canadian Forces in any conceivable mission.
The timing was to be expected. With the election rhetoric fading from memory and the next campaign 3 years away, when better to re-write the Conservative talking points. McKay was notably close-lipped yesterday, having sent Fantino out with the new message. In a few weeks or months, when Canada withdraws from the partnership acquiring F-35s, McKay and the Prime Minister, hope Canadians will be accustomed to the new messaging and have forgotten just how essential they claimed these fighters to be in the midst of their re-election campaign.
Some of us will be able to smile smugly and say "we told you so".
2012-02-20
tales toews tells
It has been a rough week for Canada's Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, albeit primarily due to his own words and actions. A rapid downward spiral followed his statement in the House of Commons that Canadians have one choice - support Bill C-30 allowing police access, without legal warrant or judicial review, to all their online activities OR to support child pornographers. It was an odious remark that offended millions of Canadians of both conservative and progressive bent and precipitated an online storm the like of which hasn't been seen before in Canada. It was a storm which could have been quelled if the minister had promptly apologized and withdrawn his inappropriate comments but, instead, Toews went to the wall the and net citizenry responded with an outpouring of rage and details of the minister's personal life which media had previously left unpublished.
By the weekend Toews was claiming his safety and security, as well as those of his family, had been threatened and that the RCMP has been asked to investigate. Genuine threats to the security and safety of any Canadian, cabinet ministers included, are inexcusable and we await the outcome of the police investigation. Meanwhile, Toews could help himself by getting a grip on his dosier (to borrow the beautiful French expression) and stop misleading his constituents.
Toews claimed in a weekend interview not to have known the extraordinary powers his proposed legislation would have given police. What kind of minister doesn't read his bills and doesn't fully comprehend their content before presenting them to Parliament? How can the prime minister excuse and tolerate such incompetence that brings his whole government into disrepute?
Toews attempted to fire back at his opposition with a misleading open letter to his Winnipeg constituents which opened with the claim that he has been under attack for weeks because of his proposed legislation. That would be legislation that had only been tabled February 14. The minister was wrong by a factor of seven. Continuing to attempt to solicit sympathy by telling his electors that he loves his wife and son "more than life itself" is a bit precious when read in context of the details of his adulterous behavior and divorce drawn form public records and published days earlier. Toews' commitment to the "family values" his party so exuberantly espouses appears equally sincere. Author of his own misfortune, the minister's credibility is nil.
NDP leadership candidate, Paul Dewar, has called on Minister Toews to resign. If the Minister of Public Safety doesn't know his file and can't separate truth from the fiction he would like to believe, it is time not for him to resign but for the prime minister to expel him from government.
By the weekend Toews was claiming his safety and security, as well as those of his family, had been threatened and that the RCMP has been asked to investigate. Genuine threats to the security and safety of any Canadian, cabinet ministers included, are inexcusable and we await the outcome of the police investigation. Meanwhile, Toews could help himself by getting a grip on his dosier (to borrow the beautiful French expression) and stop misleading his constituents.
Toews claimed in a weekend interview not to have known the extraordinary powers his proposed legislation would have given police. What kind of minister doesn't read his bills and doesn't fully comprehend their content before presenting them to Parliament? How can the prime minister excuse and tolerate such incompetence that brings his whole government into disrepute?
Toews attempted to fire back at his opposition with a misleading open letter to his Winnipeg constituents which opened with the claim that he has been under attack for weeks because of his proposed legislation. That would be legislation that had only been tabled February 14. The minister was wrong by a factor of seven. Continuing to attempt to solicit sympathy by telling his electors that he loves his wife and son "more than life itself" is a bit precious when read in context of the details of his adulterous behavior and divorce drawn form public records and published days earlier. Toews' commitment to the "family values" his party so exuberantly espouses appears equally sincere. Author of his own misfortune, the minister's credibility is nil.
NDP leadership candidate, Paul Dewar, has called on Minister Toews to resign. If the Minister of Public Safety doesn't know his file and can't separate truth from the fiction he would like to believe, it is time not for him to resign but for the prime minister to expel him from government.
2012-01-14
rideau canal vs scarborough rapid transit
The Rideau Canal from Ottawa to Kingston was constructed under the leadership of Lt. Colonel John By. With nineteenth century technology, freezing winters and scorching summers crews were able to cut through virgin forests and precambrian rock in just six years; 200 km, 47 masonry locks and 52 dams to control water levels.
Six years - that's about the same* as the Toronto Transit Commission says it will take to relay 6 km of track and install new wiring on the Scarborough rapid transit line. This 21st century project will be on an existing right-of-way and constructed road bed, i.e. no significant new construction, and have all the benefits of contemporary technology. The disruption for hundreds of thousands of commuters will be massive and the costs to the city will be huge.
Meanwhile, the commission asks citizens to accept this as a reasonable and normal inconvenience. Do we need some 19th century engineers or just their commitment to getting the job done?
* The commission general manager originally stated it would take 9 years; public relations later reduced that goal to 5 years.
2012-01-10
someone needs better talking points
Brian Topp, running for leader of the Official Opposition, is venting his angst that the Senate could frustrate his agenda should he someday be named prime minister. He is vowing to immediately introduce a constitutional amendment, should he achieve his objective, to abolish the upper house.
There is probably a widespread consensus that the current prime minister's appointments of defeated Conservative Party candidates and sundry other political hacks is offensive to Canadians (note, I haven't seen any polling numbers of this). However, abolition is not going to happen. Topp, should he want to become a national leader, might be better to spend his time in the national spotlight more productively than tilting at windmills.
Topp is still a long way from becoming NDP leader and even further from becoming prime minister. However, should he be the beneficiary of every conceivable break in federal politics, win the leadership, sustain his party's momentum for 3-1/2 years, etc. etc, and be sworn as prime minister, he would still need unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the Senate. That is never going to happen in any government's first term. Moreover, he would be most unlikely to get even the approval of Parliament to ask the provinces for the change; the Conservative dominated Senate would block the effort. I would be far more interested in hearing how Topp would advance an NDP agenda in the face of Senate opposition.
Topp's comments might be amusing were they part of a middle-school student's essay on how to fix Canadian politics. They are that juvenile and naive.
From someone aspiring to national we expect better.
There is probably a widespread consensus that the current prime minister's appointments of defeated Conservative Party candidates and sundry other political hacks is offensive to Canadians (note, I haven't seen any polling numbers of this). However, abolition is not going to happen. Topp, should he want to become a national leader, might be better to spend his time in the national spotlight more productively than tilting at windmills.
Topp is still a long way from becoming NDP leader and even further from becoming prime minister. However, should he be the beneficiary of every conceivable break in federal politics, win the leadership, sustain his party's momentum for 3-1/2 years, etc. etc, and be sworn as prime minister, he would still need unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the Senate. That is never going to happen in any government's first term. Moreover, he would be most unlikely to get even the approval of Parliament to ask the provinces for the change; the Conservative dominated Senate would block the effort. I would be far more interested in hearing how Topp would advance an NDP agenda in the face of Senate opposition.
Topp's comments might be amusing were they part of a middle-school student's essay on how to fix Canadian politics. They are that juvenile and naive.
From someone aspiring to national we expect better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)