Part 2: "Get Off Your Ass!"

Part 2: 'Get Off Your Ass!'

So in Part 1 we established that there is a health care system, that it costs money to run, and that its finances and service standards are currently locked into a nosedive, due to short-sighted decisions made by the people in charge. It is clear that the major stakeholders in current funding projections and procedures have important interests competing for attention with patient outcomes. Therefore, it's patients who must take a role in steering the system.

It seems impossibly hard- we all have other things to do rather than maintain and administer the health system, and we certainly are not on our own capable of actually performing medical treatments, nor paying for them (leaving aside the obvious fact that doctors and financiers alike are themselves patients, which we will return to very shortly). What many of us are able to control, however, is our own approach to our health, and our priorities for the future of the system that supports us.

The first priority for me is universal access. We all need to know that every resident of this country has access to the same standard of care. It is unconscionable that Canadians in already marginalized communities die from preventable diseases and lack of access to basic medical care. This investment will pay major economic and social dividends, especially among First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

The second is integrity of information. We need to know that our communities are making choices based on evidence and peer-reviewed practices, rather than hogwash or rhetoric. If we're to be free to choose our health outcomes, we must ensure the integrity of the information presented to the public. There are too many taboos and too many salesman, and not enough people to promote the facts about medications, interventions and treatments.

Information is not limited to basic truths like 'quit smoking', 'eat more greens!', and 'get off your ass!'. It is related to knowing what forms to fill out, who to address for different questions, and who has responsibility for what part of treatment. It's about knowing whether something is actually a health problem, rather than an ache or pain, and who should be taking charge of your care.

The third, and in my view the most important, is personal responsibility. Now, for this to be a fair and meaningful measure of health outcomes, everyone needs to be playing on a level field. Claiming that disenfranchised and marginalized communities, or vulnerable viewing audiences and web surfers, are failing themselves in the system as it stands is flatly ridiculous.

However, once we have access to universal care, and the right information, there is no excuse not to lower personal risks through diet, exercise, and healthy lifestyles, and such behaviour will have more obvious benefits. The definition of a sustainable system is one that manages costs even while growing, and if we take better care of ourselves we'll need less taking care of in the future.

In any case, the first two priorities practically require the intervention of government or financiers, but personal responsibility will certainly help the process along. Patients, who I argue should take charge of their health care system, are widely represented in both Government and private companies, and by exercising their personal responsibility for the outcomes of fellow patients, they will advance these aims significantly.

This happens at the ballot box, as it happens in Underwriting and Maintenance and Claims. The people directly involved in the operation of existing systems need to take charge of patient outcomes, and do everything in their power to care for others. It's as simple as that. Double-check the fractions, and make sure it adds up to something positive.

So Part 2. The point is taking shape. Patients must take responsibility for furthering their interests, and everyone involved in the running of the system is a patient themselves. Those who truly bear the greatest responsibility, the Ministers and Executives and Chairs, already know what action they could take- now is the time to take it. Encourage them ; make kind choices yourself, every chance that you get. 

Part 3 will talk about risk.

Part 1: Your Care is Not Free, and It's Only Getting Worse

So Part 1. Let's start with a fact- your health care is not 'free' in that it lacks cost, simply free in that access to it is not hindered by your ability to pay that cost at the point of treatment.

Healthcare, I can attest, is actually gawdamn expensive. There is the physical infrastructure to build and maintain- not just the rooms and buildings themselves of course, but the MRI machines and needles and billions of band-aids. There are highly-educated, highly-skilled people to be made- millions of them operating in concert from front-line patient care to information management to surgical specialties. 

The thing is that it has to be paid for. If prescription drugs or nurses or wheelchairs aren't paid for, they can't be had- medical consequences obviously ensue. This seems clear, but in the land of free healthcare where the point is so easily forgotten it's worth reiterating: this system's health and our health consequently are nobody else's problem but our own.

So, who pays for it? Currently, it's a combination of the federal/provincial government (which leverages a massive economy of scale) and private companies (who leverage some of the few bank balances out there equipped for the job). Consequently, it is these entities who have enormous capacity to influence the structure of the system, and contort it to pursue their goals.

The goal of the governments is easy on paper- make it run as cheaply as possible without causing noticeable problems in the delivery of comprehensive care for all patients in the order of their need. The goal of private companies is even easier on paper- make it run as cheaply as possible.

Both approaches result in patients paying more for their care at the point of treatment, a focus on short-term savings over long-term investments, and combine to contribute to a lack of overall cohesion in messaging, service, and bureaucracy. 

This won't do. The systems concerned flirt with catastrophe with every passing year. The task is not just to keep up physical infrastructure with a population which is living longer than any before, requiring investment in long-term care and assisted living, but also to manage the ever-increasing demand for a wider range of preventative and palliative care. Freezing the budget means cuts in the future. Hiking premiums will price the most vulnerable people out. Yet freezing the budget or raising premiums are the options as presented by a wide range of executives and ministers.

Political groups will navigate this period based on ideology and soundbites. Financial ones will navigate it pursuing profit and efficiency. The practitioners themselves do not pull enough strings on their own the really take control of responses to these challenges- and they're usually busy with other stuff, too.

It is patients (the most inclusive group possible) who must take control. They must speak loudly about their own experiences with the health care system, whether as ER visitors, relatives, long-term care residents, or insurance underwriters. We need to develop as clear an idea as possible of what is not working well and where has the most pressing need- and the thing that's nice about systems is that they're easier to diagnose when there is reliable data from throughout the system.

In Part 2, we'll start talking about what patients can do.

introduction/confession

i am going to confess a very important thing.

i work for a major financial company. it is big, the largest in Canada by some measures, and pervasive in the torontréal region. i work in the dungeon, albeit, but i am in a way complicit with a whole lot of things i don't agree with.

now, i live in a historically fortunate time, so i'm not being asked to shoot people or burn schools or anything horrendous like that. but there are times, where, to put it nicely, i'm engaging in processes that are causing needless delay and inconvenience to people in very unfortunate positions. 

you see, i work very closely with something that most people claim to be passionate about- health care. now, working for a major financial company offering services related to health care in canada seems like it should be impossible. sadly, it is not. 

your prescription drugs are not paid for by your taxes, and are thusly not covered by your province (except au Québec, mais quand-même l'adhésion au plan privé qu'offre votre employeur est obligatoire). your dental work (which i can tell you for a fact is expensive) is not covered either. if you need to see a psychologist, the government will not pay for it, a physiotherapist neither. my private company will, if you pay into a trust which acts on behalf of the largest shareholders.

now, there is the obvious argument that if the government does not fund these services, they are not necessary. in a manner of speaking, this can be considered true- leaving out rare exceptions, one doesn't die of a toothache or a bum knee. this argument, however, ignores the point- our public health system is not comprehensive, and there is significant demand for treatments outside of them, and hence private companies that fill in the void.

you don't need to be told why this is bad. companies with shareholders need to keep up their short-term profits so as not to lose value- in a financial company with relatively little physical infrastructure to back their net worth (RIM's facilities on their own are worth billions) the question is increasingly pressing. why it's financial companies, specifically, who have taken over covering medical treatments (rather than, say, a trust acting in the interest of the practitioners themselves) is left as an exercise to the reader.

pursuing short-term profits in 2011 is anathema to long-term investment, because of the sheer uncertainty in the field (uncertainty is defined here as 'things look certain to collapse, will we be stuck holding the bag?'). this financial instability and rapidly rising demands leave financial companies in a uniquely bad position to be supporting/controlling this important part of our total health infrastructure. who should fill in the void?

i have elucidated three options. one is paying into a trust that acts in the interests of the largest shareholders, two is paying into one run by elected officials deciding policy on ideological grounds, and three is paying into one that serves the interests of the practitioners alone. 

in the next five columns, over the next week, and informed by my personal experiences, observations, and anecdotes, i will discuss the fourth option at length.

'the canadian historical metanarrative'

is a real big mess. Even, frankly, defining 'Canadian' (big-c) is a bit of a mess. The government tells us that being Canadian is about the Olympics, avoidance of protest, reverence towards members of our armed forces, and the Queen. There is a very carefully edited, whitewashed, and atlanticist narrative that supports these conclusions, and is internally consistent. 

This is their story: Canada was discovered basically empty in the 16th century by European explorers. The first inhabitants were missionaries and teachers from France, and then later colonists from Britain and loyalists from the United States. The Canadian population was tiny, but fought loyally for Britain against the United States on several occasions, guaranteeing the colony's existence separate from the Manifest Destiny. 

The population grew over the 19th century from successive waves of immigration from Ireland and later Eastern Europe, then in the 20th century earned its independence from Britain through heroic service in two world wars. After the war, Canada became one of the most diverse countries in the world and an innovative economic powerhouse. It retains deep ties to its parent country Britain and its trusted neighbours in the United States.

That's it, right? A Canadian is a person who lives in a society created by settlers from Europe, or one who has been assimilated into it. The Canadian historical metanarrative as elucidated by Canada's New Government is therefore a story of settlement and conquest; it is exclusionary and divisive, disenfranchising millions from their own history. 

Now, let's be clear about one detail- this above narrative is not factually false. The problem is that it is woefully incomplete. The real canadian historical metanarrative depends on you. It depends on where your parents were from, and their parents before that. It depends on when you were born, and where you first lived. It depends if you've moved around a lot, or mostly stayed in one place. It is woven together through generations, through tribulations, and through relationships to others.

Our real history stretches back ten thousand years to the first humans who crossed through our lands on their way to populate the Americas. It is rooted in a deep connection with our environment, our natural resources, and our turbulent weather. It is rooted in community, in working together to thrive against the odds. It is something we all belong to, and something that many of us have no contact with, so steeped in the Coles Notes version above. Canada is not one nation, indivisible- it is many nations interconnected through natural systems and free choice.

We need to restore our real history. We need to reclaim the rights of all canadians, English, French, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and New, to speak on the authority of their relationship with our country. It belongs to all of us, and separate we can not drown out the international influences seeking to claim our national wealth for their private gain. The Harper Government's narrative is divisive on purpose- the more time we spend fighting each other, the less time we can spend fighting those who wish to exploit us. 

We need to keep our wealth here, first to bring equality to living standards and access to sustainable economic opportunity across the country, and next to accommodate newcomers from across the globe as climate change intensifies towards the middle of the century. It's time. It's long past time. It's time to learn our history and preserve our future.

A thought experiment- "the conversationalists"

the g20 debacle in Toronto has made the question of tactics imperative.

first, some terms.

the g20 debacle: hundreds of Canadian citizens arrested and detained in the heart of our commonwealth's largest city and Ontario's capital, the overwhelming majority of whom had committed no crime. the justification of this rights violation was stated as the actions of isolated criminals, provocateurs, voyeurs, and drunks.

the question of tactics: to discuss tactics, we must understand the strategy. To understand the strategy, we must understand the goal. the goal, of course, is an open Canada where our nation's staggering wealth is equitably distributed for the benefit of all who contribute to her life. the strategy is to resist a system which focuses on short-term profits, capital agglomeration, deteriorating social conditions, and monoculture by engaging individuals. 

imperative: it must be done. in other words, il faut que ça change; it's not a request, but a statement of fact. if we do not act to build our canada now, it will be too late. mainstream rhetoric, not only in Canada, but across the globe, is becoming alarming to any student of history. i will confess to being a student of history- and as a student of meteorology predicts a tornado strike, i feel i can tell a war a long way off. it must be stopped.

so A Thought Experiment. I will present a series of suppositions. if you agree with a supposition when you read it, skip to the next one (they are numbered). if you don't agree, read the text below. if after reading, you are still not willing to consider this idea (even in a hypothetical thought experiment!), please feel free to hit the 'home' button on your browser and return to safety. 

1. suppose we accept that there is a 'global capitalist system'. 

i accept that it's a lot to suppose- of the g20 countries, however, almost all are free-market* capitalist, and therefore tend towards inequality, profit-orientation of social services, and bubbles. certain citizens of g20 countries control most of the world's financial institutions, most international organizations, and most large militaries. living in a g20 country, it's easy to underestimate the importance and injustice of the following fact:  a small, select group of countries to a large degree control the human system. 

2. suppose we accept that all human actions are interrelated.

'the human system' describes the sum ensemble of humanity's interactions within itself and with its environment. as grand as it seems, though, it is merely the variously processed, amplified, distorted, and tangled output of myriad individual inputs. there is ample evidence of this in areas such as global climate change, the 'world financial crisis' of 2008, ocean pollution, transnational revolutions, martyrs, singers, and singular bombs- everything is connected from the individual level right up to the very higher workings of the system. 

3. suppose we accept that the 'global capitalist system' is harmful to sustainable development of peaceful communities.

the capitalist model depends on eternal growth and acquisition, and thus is necessarily unsustainable and violent. the capitalist model concentrates wealth in the hands of the few, which others go hungry. the capitalist model rewards the lone wolf bending the rules, avaricious and hungry. the human system depends on the common wealth, the sharing of the fruits of our labour so we can improve our lives. the human model rewards the wolf pack hunting together, dividing their labour while remaining united.

4. suppose we accept that the 'global capitalist system' should be opposed, and its influence reconsidered.

if not, the rich will get richer forever, as capital agglomerates (see also: Marx, Keynes), and the poor (that's probably you!) will get poorer. exploitation of natural resources, and therefore habitat destruction and climate disruption, will accelerate. your community will be deprived of free, quality schooling, free public healthcare, affordable reliable transit, community centres, pools, libraries, and parks, all in order to further cut taxes for non-human entities and children of magnates. must magnates have their own special parks, own special squares and terraces and fields, or can we not just make nice ones for everyone, magnates included?

5. suppose any eventual resistance to the global capitalist system is limited in the variables it can control towards its ends

the mechanisms defining the scope of human interaction have been set by biological imperative long ago, and changing them is hard work. people are largely tribalist, xenophobic, short-sighted, violent, and close-minded. people tend to ignore long-term consequences of their decisions. people tend to tar others with the same brush. any resistance can not be violent (violence begets violence). any resistance can not make decrees (the stricter they are the more they'll be opposed). any resistance can not change everything all at once, and cannot force anyone to change (because a totally new system collapsing would be the end of our prosperity)

6. suppose the easiest variable to control is the relation of individuals to the system and how they perceive their place within it.

reaching an individual, and changing their view of the world and their place within it is difficult, but evidently not impossible. We have all been reached by moments- plays, paintings, symphonies; a lunch, a picnic, a dance; we are reached by a kind, or a harsh, or a remembered word. we are reached by others, by emotions, and by contact. we are animated by contact- solitary confinement is a recognized form of torture. if society is the output of a system, for which the inputs are provided entirely by individuals, changing the nature of the input must be easier than changing the nature of the system. if you don't like the outcome of a game, do you change the game or change your moves? what does a winner do?

7. suppose there are few opportunities to reach the individuals implicated in the 'global capitalist system', and that global summits like the Toronto g20 are one

let's be real. you can't dial up Stephen Harper (though you can try Rob Ford), you can't skype Obama (though you can try representative John Boener), and you can't even get a meeting with most big company CEOs (though you can try lower-middle management). you generally can't control which movies they see, or which newspapers they read. how are you meant to explain your situation to them and ask them to keep you in mind the next time they make a decision that concerns you (you will not have long to wait). 

8. suppose that trying to meet the movers and shakers directly is unfeasible

next time you see Barack Obama, run up to shake his hand!

9. suppose that police and law enforcement officials, by maintaining the gap between people and power, and by virtue of their vital humanity, are therefore the easiest targets to reach at such an event.

unless you're a cop, at an event like this, everyone around you will have just skipped straight to point 9.

so the Thought Experiment- "the conversationalists":

in this thought world where the above statements are true, a large group of protestors (hopefully wearing simple pants and t-shirts, carrying no objects (including signs), very calmly walk up to police lines and engage law enforcement officers in simple conversation. a group of very nice, friendly, talkative people, at most two per nearby officer, engage the formation. these people simply engage in small talk- ask names, where they're from from, the sports you like, what you did on the weekend and the million other normal things that people chat about. record every interaction from every available angle, with audio, streaming where possible, and engage law enforcement on a human level. 

at every instance where an officer engages a protestor as a protestor, and not an individual, respond with commonalities between the officer and the individual. respond with kindness, courtesy and respect. meet any violence with solidarity and serenity. be human and engage. from this meeting of matter and anti-matter: this meeting of basic, common, human interaction, and the alienating facade of a destructive impersonal system, the shockwave spreads, and we rub our eyes, blink, and see each other as simple, ordinary, regular humans, searching for peace, prosperity, and security.

Thank you for participating.

Like Herding Cats (ou, le berger des chatons)

So, one of the most interesting things about this coming parliament is the fact that close to one third of all MPs will be taking their seats for the first time. This is a big deal for a few specific reasons, but the big general one is that there are a whole bunch of people who have no experience with political custom, decorum, or the traditional workings of the machinery of government. 

As we all know, the real work of the government is not done by elected MPs, but by the hundreds of thousands of civil service members who staff departments, provide recommendations, network with concerned parties, and implement the decisions taken by Parliament. When you have a third of MPs all meeting these civil service members for the first time, trying to learn their names, figure out who one should talk to about what (and who to avoid), you're set up for a slow start to government.

Now, an important distinction needs to be made here, which astute readers will have already thought to themselves: there is a huge qualitative difference between new Conservative MPs and new NDP ones. In the former case, there is a strong party apparatus with working relationships to the civil service reaching back at least  years, a party culture of internal discipline and strict whipping, and a more unified, cohesive ideological vision than the latter's.

Really, the worst damage that rookie Conservative MPs can do to their party is embarrassment. Not to generalize, but young, rural MPs often have less experience speaking 'politically correct' Ottawese (Ottaois) than those from urban areas and those with experience in the national spotlight. It only takes one young MP to say something in front of the press that would pass without comment in Wildrose, AB but cause riots in St-Pierre, QC, to galvanize opposition to Mr. Harper's party in these newly-Blue areas.

For the NDP, however, the stakes are higher. Leur surge au Québec est important, mais il est évident qu'il ne s'agit pas forcément d'une 'nouvelle direction' pour le Québec, mais plutôt d'une vote 'contre' les structures politiques corrompues partout au Québec. Ça se voit chez la mairie de Montréal, dans l'état de nos infrastructures (et le coût de les remplacer), et dans la dialogue publique qui semble ignorer problèmes plus larges auxquels les québécois(e)s font face. Pour que le NPD puisse devenir le gouvernement, il faut s'impressionner aux gens du pays de sorte qu'on voit que le NPD c'est le parti qui va se battre à Ottawa dans notre intérêt.

Je vois un Québec qui prend charge, prend un leadership role, de l'amélioration du sort de tout canadien(ne), et non pas seulement ceux avec qui on partage la langue maternelle. Au Québec, l'idée d'être solidaire, de garder la foi quand entourée des gens qui s'y opposent- de soutenir les communautés et s'intéresser aux conditions des voisins- est à la base fondamentale de la société. Le Canada anglophone aurait besoin d'une telle esprit, d'une telle message, et au sein d'un parti national détenant d'une base solide partout au pays, le deux-tiers du NPD québécois(e) se trouve avec une très bonne opportunité de changer les termes du débat d'ici 2015.

The NDP simply have more to lose. Two-thirds of their MPs represent Quebec, and at least half of them will represent their constituents in French. The Quebec tradition of communities in solidarity working for the defence of shared values, heritage, and culture against liberalizing and homogenizing outside influences is a message that could have great pull in other areas in Canada, and there is a lot to be learned in English Canada from Quebec's history of oppression and re-invention. In four years, the NDP could completely reshape the national dialogue, making for a much clearer choice in 2015- a choice that could barely be articulated in 2011's polite society.

In Québec especially, it can be argued that the rise of the NDP is really a vote against the ossified political caste that has been much publicized recently as participants in a variety of corruption scandals touching construction, the Montréal metro mayors' offices. People want to end corruption in our government, and the only party which is not demonstrably corrupt won a whole bunch of ridings where even weeks ago they had no hope. This could well be a breath of fresh air.

If the rookie MPs can make friends, play nice, treat their colleagues of all parties with respect, and at every turn draw a contrast with the secretive, scripted Government, they could be an incredibly effective Opposition. If they throw up their hands at the size of the task in front of them, then they're not fit for government. It's all about attitude- if the NDP start playing the same old political games, they'll disappear as quickly as they arrived.

So, rookie MPs. A mixed blessing, but the potential is there- it only takes a culture of respect, honesty, openness, and fairness to change everything forever. Easier said than done, perhaps.

Two Critics (and one bonus!) who should caucus with the NDP, even if they don't have Ministries:

Two critics who should caucus with the NDP, even if they don't have Ministries:

The NDP and Jack Layton have an enormous opportunity to frame the terms of the debate over the next four years. As this election campaign has proven beyond a doubt, the right message, repeated to the right people, will propagate through the Canadian electorate and can generate real change at the ballot box- but it's up to the Opposition to present a message to Canadians that gets them thinking about important issues that have been skirted by the other parties and national media. 

To that end, there are two critics that the NDP should have in their caucus, who should be consulting with public leaders in these fields and broadcasting their results through twitter, Facebook, and any other venues which youth consult, in order to leverage that mass exposure into national media attention and force the Conservative government to address them.

1. Public Transport- An Official Critic for Public Transport would consult with the heads of public transit agencies in cities such as Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver to get an understanding of how these big cities have tried to manage their high volumes and unique challenges, and to more clearly ascertain what their real funding needs are to maintain and even improve their services, and then hammer away with those facts at every opportunity. They should also be networking with equivalent officials in smaller hubs such as Québec, Halifax, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, Edmonton, and Winnipeg to find out what these areas have tried, what obstacles they face, and again broadcast these facts and needs at every opportunity. 

This critic is important because over the next four years, it is a near certainty that gas will rise to $1.40/L and stay there, meaning that more Canadians than ever will be depending on public transit to get around. We need evidence to back up our assertions that this will be very important in the suburbs, and that public transit is a better solution than gas price controls and new roads, and once we have it (many would say that we in fact already do) we can't shut up about it for a second. This critic would ideally already have connections within the public transport agencies, use public transit themselves to commute, so they know how expensive and frustrating it is in most of Canada.

2. Official Languages- A Critic for Official Languages would go a long way to shoring up support in Québec and making sure that the NDP surge is sustainable. The sovereigntist movement has never really been about the independence of the political unity of the province of Québec, but rather the survival and development of the French language in North America. The Bloc's problem was that their vision of the French fact excluded the hundreds of thousands of franco-Ontariens, Acadiens, and francophones de l'Ouest, making it narrow and limiting, encouraging a drain on traditional french-speaking places as their youth fled to opportunities in Québec.

This critic is important because over the next four years, we have the potential to change forever the Québec-Canada antagonistic relationship into a harmonious and collaborative English-French relationship. This critic needs to rassemble community leaders from marginalized francophone communities outside of Québec, and put them directly in contact with similar organizations in Québec, with the goal of encouraging solidarity within the french-language community from coast to coast. This critic would ideally be French-speaking, represent a riding not in Québec, but have strong ties to Québec organizations such as the Office de la langue française as well as a working relationship with the Comissioner of official languages.

BONUS

3. Environment- The Critic for the Environment should rightly be Elizabeth May. The Green party winning a seat is a mixed blessing- the Green party tends to let other parties believe that they can let environmental issues slide to a greater degree with the Greens around, because the people who are really motivated by those issues will vote for the Greens anyway. If the people truly susceptible to an environmental message are always going to vote Green, the parties can safely downplay the environmental message and kick the can even further down the road. 

This doesn't have to be so. The NDP can incorporate Elizabeth's proven track record of environmental activism into their own party fold, letting her keep her association with the Greens but giving her a platform louder than previously thought possible. By showing that they are willing to defer to the Green party leader on the Environmental front (while still maintaining a degree of control over the message), the NDP can build bridges between them and Green-minded Canadians across the country. Four years from now, we may all be a lot greener than we ever imagined we could be, so the NDP working with the Greens straight away seems a prudent strategic choice and fully coherent with the NDP's message of sustainability and collaboration.

Next time: 'Like herding cats'- what happens when a third of all MPs are noobs?

While it's fresh-

So, a big train ride from Toronto to Montréal ahead of me tomorrow, but before I spend all day flooding the internet with post-election thoughts, strategies, and messages, I thought I'd write some things down while I'm still 'fresh' from Jack Layton's amazing party downtown. 

1. Holy Shit Québec!

We did it! The Bloc are in tatters, M. Duceppe is gone from the Commons after a long dignified career, and Québec has said resoundingly YES to working with Canada to solve our common problems and secure our common future prosperity. The NDP will need truly massive support over the coming weeks to build an organization in a province that didn't have one less than three weeks ago. Young Canadians, especially young professionals, should get down to their constituency office tomorrow and see how they can help.

2. Goddamn Ontario, let's talk about Proportional Representation

The NDP vote split massively in Ontario, and Mr. Harper won a national majority with slightly less than 40% of the vote at last count. Now that the NDP are the Official Opposition and the Liberals are a rump party needing a new leader, this is the perfect time to start getting a PR system set up before 2015. The crucial thing here is that the NDP need to propose a real alternative and sell people on it who didn't vote for them, and that requires research, discussion, and strong marketing and PR. As Mr. Layton said, don't oppose, propose.

3. The youth turned up in record numbers, and we're not going anywhere. 

Mr. Layton reeled off a whole bunch of important priorities which we as young Canadians need to discuss and debate. We need to bring First Peoples into the fold dés maintenant, we need to integrate the NDP party mechanism into multiple linguistic and cultural opportunities, both representing ourselves to them and adding their voices to our debates. We need a plan for public transit, a plan for sustainable urban renewal, a plan to end senior poverty, and a plan for the North that doesn't involve jets and jails. We need to propose now.

The real work, friends, starts tomorrow, so I'll let you all sleep now- congrats to all the candidates and volunteers, and to all the millions of Canadians who voted for change today. Bonne fin de soirée!

2011 Election Endorsement (La plainte d'un jeune canadien)

If you read the news, you're probably aware that after the 2008 crash the financial problem was 'fixed' by injecting skrillions of dollars into some of the biggest companies in the world, deemed 'too big to fail'. 

If you're an astute reader of the news, you're probably aware that this was one of several necessary measures to prevent paralysis of the global economy, but that many of the others measures, such as the regulation of the whole fiscal casino that has made so many worthy executives into billionaires, were ignored. We're still ravaging our ecosystem (and using it to drive to the Gigaplex), undercutting our economic base (outsourcing and mechanizing Canadians' work in pursuit of next quarter profits), and waging atrocious wars all across the globe (killing millions and costing trillions). 

If you are a careful, thoughtful, and critical reader of the news, you are aware that the Liberals and the Conservatives are both complicit in the edification of these now rotting structures, and that both Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff underestimate both the scale of the crises and the intelligence of Canadians. They don't seem to expect us to remember that they lead parties responsible for the current strength of corporations and their privatizing pull. They don't want to talk about the state of the environment, the welfare of First Peoples, or the wars in the middle east.

Friends, if we're going to get out from under all of these dozens of impending world crises, we need to move. If we're going to come out on top we'd better have a plan in mind. We need to frankly, fully, and quickly evaluate our lifestyles- we need to think about the things we consume and the ways how we get them. We need to decide what Canada is before we can decide effectively what Canada will do. 

I have my own vision of Canada. In my Canada, it's not about making money from health care, or education, or war. My Canada is a great place for everyone who finds themselves here, whether their great-grandparents were from Timmins or Timbuktu; whether they are gay or 'ethnic' or speak French. My Canada is a place where no-one wonders where their next meal will come from, how they will pay a babysitter, where they'll spend a week of January nights. My Canada is not about unlimited material wealth, it is about unlimited opportunity.

In this election, the only credible candidate who comes even close to sharing this worldview, and who is not complicit in the creation of the whole mess of problems to begin with, has a 'stache. His name is Jack. The only person I trust to stand up for me and my family when it's us versus Exxon is Jack. The only party filled with people and ideas strongly connected to my communities- the arts community, the youth community, and the student community, to name a few- is his party, the NDP.

In this election, the best possible parliament squabbles and does nothing, and the worst possible parliament transparently attacks the underpinnings of our society. Neither of these will suffice to resolve Canada's problems, but at least one of them is easy to visibly and loudly oppose. But it doesn't really matter in the end, because our problems are global in scale, and so while Parliament is important, it's not the most important thing by a long shot.

After this election, it will take a whole government, not just elected MPs, but hundreds of thousands of people engaged in the work of making Canada run effectively. It will take reasoned opinion, informed dissent, and dispassionate consideration to guide our state, and it will take millions of Canadians to get up, get active, and make a difference to fuel the fire. If we all reach out to touch lives, then we ourselves will be touched.

This election, don't vote for a strategy, don't vote for the winner, don't place the burden of the election on your own head. Vote for your vision of our country, and we'll see how many of us agree about what. And then we'll talk about it on May 3, when the real work begins.

If you like this article, pass it on.