Women and Leadership

Rempel, who has spoken publicly in the past about being the target of sexist - and at times frightening - vitriol, said she had no qualms about coming to the aid of her political rival.

"This kind of an issue isn't a partisan thing.  It's a basic human rights thing," she said Wednesday.

Just a wee recap, then - according to John Tory, men get ahead individually because they will complain about how they are being treated.  Part of aggressive manliness is undermining opponents, which can take the form of bigoted comments.

Women, on the other hand, are generally less self-serving.  When they see injustice, it's not the divides that matter to them most, but the defense of what they believe in.

Even if they themselves end up in the line of fire as a consequence.

Is it any wonder that the more women are included in society at all levels, the healthier, more resilient and more successful societies become?

This is 2014 - we can do better.  And together, we will.

Ontario's PCs Need To Pull Together

MPPs Frank Klees and Randy Hillier are touting a review as a democratic way of clearing the air and allowing Hudak to get on with the task at hand — defeating the minority Liberal government in an election expected by next spring.

Everybody in provincial politics likes to use the "the best indicator of future performance is past performance" line.  So, let's look at the past performance of these two MPPs:

 

Frank Klees is an MPP with a history of looking out for Number One. He's run for leadership before and was no fan of John Tory.

Randy Hillier orchestrated the ousting of Norm Sterling, who had been one of the longest-serving and most respected MPPs in the House.  Hillier did this to get his buddy Jack Maclaren into the Legislature.  Hillier is also interested in the Party Leadership.

It's pretty clear what these gents are up to - they want Hudak gone to make space for their own perceived benefit.  They are aggressively, competitively, even opportunistically promoting any openings that serve their interests.

Of course, Hudak should really be in favour of this approach - after all, it's the one he's been promoting with his anti-Union stance; people should be free of the encumbrance of collective bargaining, which is really what Political Parties are all about.  Hillier and Klees are the epitome of what the Hudak Tories say they believe in.

This being politics and all, what the internal fighting amounts to is blood in the water for the other two established Parties, for a gaggle of stakeholder groups and, of course, for media looking for juicy stories.  When everybody gets focused on political cannibalism, what loses focus are substantial issues (of which there are many) and shared solutions (desperately needed on fronts ranging from transit infrastructure to justice).  Political planners fretting over what positions to take can focus on attacking opponents rather than the more challenging task of stretching their cognitive selves to reach the higher-hanging policy fruit.

You'd think Hudak (and folk like Hillier and Klees) would have learned their lesson from Mike Harris, who I hear tell is among the current Leader of the Opposition's advisers:

Former premier Mike Harris allowed his cabinet ministers to audition for his job, arguing he wanted people around him with ambition.

The internal arm-wrestling became so fierce, though, that in August 2001 the then-premier was forced to warn the over-eager leadership hopefuls that there would be two more cabinet shuffles and that they could be demoted if they didn’t cut it out.

 Of course, super-confident people don't subscribe to reality-based politics, but I digress.

For one, I wish that the Hudaks, Hilliers and Kleeses of the world would listen to folk like Peter Shurman, who I most often disagree with but have a great deal of respect for and John Yakabuski, who once honoured my grandfather in the Legislature.  Every difference of opinion doesn't have to result in a pushing match; there is much to be gained through conversation, understanding and compromise.

As counter-intuitive as it may sound,  I really want the PCs to be in the strongest position possible and focused on creative policy solutions; I want a competition of ideas between all Parties with an eye towards what's best for Ontario, rather than what serves partisan interests.  Strength through diversity, etc.

I still find it hard to believe Hudak will ever be Premier; I've got my own thoughts on what I'd like to see happen at Queen's Park.  This isn't about me, though, any more than it's about Hudak or his dissenting MPPs, or phantom menaces like Nick Kouvalis.  

It's about leadership.

If Ontario's Political Parties and those who aspire to control them focus on cynically stabbing each other in the back, fostering grudges and feigning outrage at the kinds of shenanigans which have become business-as-usual across Canadian politics, then they have no place telling Private or Not-For-Profit sectors to pull together and collaborate over shared solutions.

That's a recipe for stagnation.  Which is where we've been for far too long.

If any of us are serious about progressing beyond our political deadlock, especially as we start to lag behind competitor jurisdictions in areas like The Knowledge Economy, we have to take to heart the notion that forward together means leaving no one behind.  

Including your competition.

I hope every individual PC takes this message to heart and start thinking about why they're involved in the first place.  If you can't keep your own house in order, it doesn't give people a lot of confidence about what you can do with theirs.

Is Ontario Ready for Collaborative Change?

The idea is to remove barriers to employment for everyone — not just able-bodied people, but also those with obvious physical or hidden mental challenges. With ODSP caseloads growing by 5 per cent a year, and most of the new and returning recipients coping with mental issues, it is no longer sensible or sustainable to hive them off and write them off.

 

There's growing consensus that the systems we have here in Ontario aren't working.  Healthcare is too feudal, social service supports are too fragmented - the list goes on.  The system that worked well enough once upon a time is past it's best-before date.  The problem, however, is the political risk that comes with big change.  In today's polarized, hyper-partisan political climate, it's guaranteed that opposing Parties will decry anything that speaks of bold reform.  But we can't go on as before. 

 

What's a province to do?

 

Here's a radical notion - picture we had three political leaders that thought more of achieving results, even if through working together, than of scoring political points by working against.  Imagine there was a core set of values that the Liberal, PC and NDP leaders all held and were willing to build shared solutions around.  Why, if there was an attempt by all three Parties to find and communicate consensus to stakeholders and voters, those big changes everyone says are necessary might just be doable - and with all Parties working together, we could actually get viable solutions that would be both effective and have longevity.

 

Of course, that's not doable with the current configuration - just witness the goings on at Queen's Park of late.  With Premier McGuinty exiting the stage, there will soon be a new leader for the Liberals, likely to be one of a few women with track records of finding shared solutions.  Andrea Horwath, for her part, has occasionally played the role of peace maker.  That leaves Tim Hudak as the sole leader who is adamantly committed to an election and hasn't exactly carved out a reputation as a team player.

 

Hudak has committed to a Spring election, no matter what happens between now and then.  Like Rob Ford, he's not interested in working together - he just wants to win.  Especially for Hudak, it's critical he does; if he doesn't, that's two general election losses and a lost by-election against him.  It would be the end of his political career and result in a PC leadership race.  IF that scenario were to play out, a strong contender for the PC leadership role would be the amazing Christine Elliot - a woman who is unquestionably in politics for the right reasons and willing to work with anyone to address the issues that matter.

 

 I'll get in trouble for writing this, surely - in partisan politics, you're supposed to wish the worst possible leadership on your opponents, not the best.  I'm terrible at being self-serving that way - besides, I actually love the idea of a Legislature that functions the way parliaments were intended to.  It might make for boring TV or news, but so what - you want spicy political entertainment, watch Game of Thrones.  Just imagine the possibilities if Ontario had three women leaders with shared goals willing to put the best interests of the province ahead even of their own partisan aspirations. 

 

It might just be the only way Ontarians can move forward - together.

 

Support This Bill

Elliott’s bill, partly inspired by Holly, calls for the creation of a select committee to address the “urgent need” for a comprehensive developmental services strategy to address the needs of Ontarians with intellectual disabilities and those dually diagnosed with intellectual disabilities plus mental illnesses.

 

 

We don't tell asthmatics to "get over" their conditions, nor do we tell people who are visually or hearing impaired to just suck it up and move on.  We do, however, completely undermine the significance of mental illnesses and cognitive development.  We stigmatize people as "dumb" or "crazy" and just assume they are doomed to a life on the periphery of society.

 

Mental illness and addictions cost the Ontario economy $39 billion annually.  By 2020, mental illness will be the number one cost driver of disability claims.  These claims, plus drug costs and employee assistance programs set the private sector back at least $2.1 billion annually.  Our reactive at best, laissez faire at worst approach just isn't working.

 

Christine Elliot is the real deal - she understands and cares about mental health.  She's not the only MPP who's passionate about this issue.  We need to support them in making this Bill a reality and ensuring it's intent translates into meaningful action.

 

Really, we can't afford not to.

 

Good On Lisa Raitt: Addressing Occupational Mental Health and Safety

"Too often people just suffer in silence. As Minister of Labour, I'm looking at a range of policy and program options to better address mental health challenges in the workplace."

  - Lisa Raitt, Canada's Minister of Labour

It's happening.  Slowly, agonizingly so, but as the idea of cognitive labour and mental fitness starts to gain hold, it's gaining momentum.

I have predicted elsewhere that a broad-based move towards mental fitness promotion, particularly as it relates to work and work performance, is on its way.  It has to be; the nature of labour (not to mention society) is shifting from repetitive, physical and quantity-based to creative, cognitive and innovation-based.  Just as work design at the end of the 19th Century impeded production by fostering sickness and injury, today's work design and motivational tools actually impede the type of production the market is looking for.  We need a proactive mental fitness strategy if we're to keep moving forward.

The Industrial Revolution fostered the labour movement, which in turn sparked the introduction of workplace health and safety and benefits like health care and sick leave.  It was good business, but it also had the advantage of improving productivity and employee satisfaction.  The Knowledge Economy similarly relies on cognitive function in new, demanding ways - to help people realize their full potential (providing greater returns for their employers), we have to start accommodating mental health.  There's a reason why we have a recognized mental health crisis now, when cognitive labour is in demand.

There's only one way forward and that's to break down the stigmatic silos around mental health, which in turn means re-evaluating the way we understand what the mind is and how our biology, environments and accommodations impact mental health/cognitive function.  It will be a challenging process that will make many feel uncomfortable, but it's the right thing to do from a policy, performance and moral perspective.

This goes beyond personal interest, beyond partisan interest, beyond mandate and even the limitations of ability we set for ourselves to this notion of something called the public good.

Lisa Raitt sums it up nicely: "Let's think beyond duty. Each and every one of us has a role to play in creating workplaces where diversity and special needs are accommodated and respected."

Kudos to people like Lisa Raitt, but also Don Drummond, Michael Kirby, Kevin Flynn, Christine Elliot, Gerrard Kennedy and the countless people who work and live with mental health challenges every day. 

Let's move forward together; more importantly, let's make sure we leave no one behind.

Am I hopeful?  Certainly - but that's because I understand the way cognition produces hope.

We're finally connecting the dots between stigma, mental health, health care, social growth, diversity, education, service delivery and innovation.  It's a good time to be alive.

UPDATE:  It should come as no surprise that Lisa Raitt has personal experience with mental illness.  This isn't an ooh-ahh, we must look at her differently thing; if she had diabetes, or developed cancer, or caught a cold, we wouldn't stigmatize her.  Nor should we now.

Sidebar - there's a funny thing where people advocate for causes that they know - I sit on the Board of Directors for an organization that helps children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and the vast majority of my co-Board Members have deaf family members.  As mental health/mental fitness becomes more normalized, I think we're going to see an increase in proactive advocacy, which is how it should be.