Another Election??

I do not know how times I have voted it. It feels like a lot. I have voted in every election for the past 50 years with the exception, I think, of the provincial election in 1972 when I lived in Toronto. It does not really matter how many elections I have watched as every election is unique both in terms of who is running and what the issues are. It should be noted that I have a terrible track record in that only once or twice has the person I voted for, gotten elected. I am never discouraged by this record, not have I ever chosen who I have voted for out of frustration or desperation. However, as I get older I do have a sense that the consequences of my choice may have perhaps less impact upon my life if for no other reason than I may not live long enough to feel the full effect of whatever policies get created.

It would be fair to say that I am not particularly excited by the upcoming federal election. Four years ago there was, at least amongst some of the people I knew, an overwhelming sense that the country would not tolerate another four years of Harper's brand of conservatism. There was a feeling that not only was it time for a change but that a change would happen. While I did not vote for the Liberals, there was a hope that Trudeau's "sunny days" would have a beneficial impact on the emotional health of the country. Certainly in the first few months there was a sense of optimism as he took to the world stage and preached about a better, kinder, more responsible type of government. It was hard not to feel good when he ensured that his cabinet was balanced in terms of female/males ministers because it was time that it happen.

But in the last 36-40 months, much of that optimism has evaporated. As any party finds out, running the country is complicated. There is seldom one answer that will make everyone happy. That if the party wants to run the country for more than one election cycle, the Prime Minister needs to make decisions that are political in nature - decisions that they may not have made as private individuals, decisions that will make at least some of the people very unhappy. As dissatisfied as some Canadians are with the direction of the present government, I do not think that that dissatisfaction is strong enough to intentionally push Trudeau's Liberals out of power. If there was a very strong party waiting in the political wings to take over - perhaps but there is no one.

The Conservatives will retain their percentage of the voting public. People who have not been upset in the past by their right-wing agenda, their barely hidden near racist beliefs about some immigrants and their fundamental belief that we all have equal opportunity to succeed will not be upset with anything that gets said in the next few weeks.

The NDP are but a sad copy of their previous glory. There is no sense that the leadership of the party has any capacity to generate excitement in the general public or for that matter even within the core of their supporters. The country could use a party that had a clear vision of what Canada would look like if the government believed that we need to take care of each other, that we need to have more, not fewer programs, that support those who are struggling. The NDP could have been that party - they aren't now and perhaps never will be again.

The Green Party may be the most dynamic party of the bunch. Their leader is a brilliant, well educated multi-experienced leader. The party has had a number of successes at the provincial level and some pundits argue that they are on a roll, that they have the momentum. Those pundits might be right except that the Greens have little organization at the federal level and virtually no one other than their leader who has any practice of being a Member of Parliament. While their values are clear in terms of the environment - I am far less clear about how they would impose those values through policies. In my mind, the primary question is: if the Greens increase their voting percentage - who will they take those votes from. If the NDP lost voters it would not change the political landscape. If the Greens took too many votes from the Liberals - the Liberals could lose their majority.

The question then becomes: who would form the government?

Canadian Human Rights - How Much is Enough - or Too Much?

There can be no doubt that the Canadian Government has not provided anywhere near adequate services to Indigenous people. From shoddy housing to poor medical care, from non-functioning or none existing water treatment systems to an education system that feels as if it is designed to encourage drop-outs, the government has consistently done far less than the bare minimum. Regardless of various governments promises to "fix" the problem, nothing seems to change. The result of a century and a half of poor decisions based on bad information and racial bias has profoundly damaged communities, families and individuals. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights found that the government of Canada had discriminated against First Nations children by under-funding on-reserve child welfare services. On this past Friday, that Tribunal ordered the government to pay each child who had been affected by that system $40,000.00 as some sort of recompensation for the lack of support and care.

The debate should never be about whether or not it happened. Of course, the child welfare system on reserves was underfunded. Nor can one disagree about the fact that if children do not get the kinds of support they need - when they need it - irreparable harm can occur. However, I think there is legitimate place for us to discuss the amount of money awarded and of what benefit it will be.

I think one of the reasons why various courts and tribunals have the right to impose fines/financial punishments against people or organizations is so "teach" those organizations or people a lesson. If one fines a corporation for doing something that they should not have done - ideally the shareholders of that corporation lose money and therefore tell the executives to not do that again. In other words, people experience a direct consequence from the bad behaviour and at least theoretically, learn to not do it again. When a large corporation such as Ford or Volkswagen face substantial fines - they do change their behaviour or companies that produce Oxycontin or tobacco go out of business

Fining the Canadian government because it did not provide enough services will not teach anyone a lesson. Neither the politicians or any of the bureaucrats that were involved will ever face any sort of consequence for their decision. The taxpayers will pay the bill - and nothing will change. If the tribunal were fining the government to teach them a lesson - it is not going to work.

The other reason for the tribunal to award $40,000 to each individual (or in some cases their parents or grandparents) is to compensate them for the lost time and social dysfunction that the lack of services created. Giving a consistent amount makes almost no sense to me. It assumes that all children were affected equally, that all of the children had bad experiences and that all of the children were worse off than if nothing had happened and they had stayed with their caregivers. None of that is true. Some children, depending upon their age and how they were supported and by whom would have had different experiences. For example, some may have lost all contact with their natural families - perhaps others less so. I am not sure how one decides who deserves a higher form of compensation than others, but it strikes me that giving everyone the same amount is just lazy. It also suggests a strange bias in that it assumes that everyone is the same.

Finally, it is a lot of money (some reports suggest that the payout could be upwards of two billion dollars). Within First Nation communities there are many reasons why there can be such social dysfunction that a social service agency needs to become involved. Most of those reasons are a direct result of our government's inaction or action. If the social fabric of a community has broken down, it would seem to me that we collectively as a nation, must address the root concerns. To provide expensive band-aids to a percentage of the population does feel like something that will help a community. I fear that the problems will just continue to re-appear.

In a perfect world, there would be both sufficient money and the political will to address all of the problems. We do not live in a perfect world. If we did - these problems would not exist.