Why Should We Care What The World Thinks About Canada?

In my recent travels and discussions with seasoned foreign policy experts and politicians in the U.S. and Europe, I haven't met one who took Canada seriously anymore, expect as a posturer, a poseur, a political game player.  And these are people who remember a different kind of Canada, and a better approach to diplomacy and politics.

Nobody does trade with North Korea.  No political leader anywhere in the world, even China, takes the successive Kims seriously.  The only reason people give in to North Korea's insistence on not taking "no" for an answer is because they have actual weapons of mass destruction.

But Kim Jong-Un himself is a joke, a cartoon villain parodied by media all over the world.  And because of his tight control of information, that's the end of the story.  The millions who suffer daily in North Korea under his information-starved, authoritarian rule are pretty much ignored.  But hey, inside their borders, they know it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, anyway - their leader has told them as much.

I know there are people who like Stephen Harper's approach to unions, "special interest groups" and Opposition Parties; he's the boss, they're the problem, good for him for putting those who would undermine our country in their place through whatever means necessary.  There are equally those who relish the soundbites they get of their PM, talking tough to Barack Obama or sternly reproaching European leaders for their economic policies.  Take that, former colonial powers!

Alas, those aren't the people who decide whether to sign trade deals with Canada, whether to relocated businesses to Canada or to listen to Canada on issues ranging from security to poverty reduction.  

Schoolyard politics makes for good fundraising letter fodder, but poor international relations.  People don't trust Harper; a man so willing to put his partisan interests first that he'll snub his own country for the benefit of an ally can't be counted on to act responsible in trade negotiations.

There was a time when Canada knew what it stood for and the world knew why we mattered.  Canada's best destiny was and still is as the adult on the world stage, always reliable and always trusted to build bridges and find solutions.

We can lead again - but not until the petulant approach to foreign policy favoured by Harper is discarded.

Until then, we're not punching above our weight - instead, we've become the punchline.

Why Mitt Romney Should Listen to Colin Powell (But Won't)

"Look at the world. There is no pure competitor of the United States of America," he said. "All the problems we talk about in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran ... they count about 700 million people in a world of seven billion. What are the rest of them doing? They're increasing their economies, they're building wealth, they're educating their kids, they're building their infrastructure. That's what we need to be doing."

Colin Powell is a brilliant military strategist - the Sun-tzu kind that sees conflict as costly and inefficient.  For him, success isn't defined as being the last man standing, but rather in terms of security, stability, economic growth and quality of life.

Powell does a brilliant presentation on leadership that should be mandatory reading for anyone who aspires to lead others.  He gets this command stuff, which is why it behooves folks like Mitt Romney to listen.

So why doesn't he?

Romney's track record suggests he defines success as quashing everyone he sees as different from himself.  His business history of slashing and burning teams - the people he theoretically led - fits within the same hawkish approach he's taking to foreign policy.  Romney's not about leadership - he's about dominance.  He probably embraces the "with us or against us" mentality.  For him, America isn't defined by what it stands for so much as what it stands against.

So, the Soviet Union, er sorry, Russia - is the black hat to the US' crusading gunslinger.  Gay marriage isn't just another way of building a family - it's a threat to decency.  It goes on and on.  Leadership is proactive - Romney is reactive.

I'm not so much about winning as I am about success.  I'd love to see a decent competitor for Obama, because that's how you generate new, well thought-out ideas - not by attempting to eliminate competition, but by challenging yourself to do better.  Romney decidedly fails to meet that standard.

We're all better off when we raise the bar - not lower it, as Romney seems determined to do.  Just think what the tenure would be if the match-up was Powell vs. Obama.  We'd all be benefit from genuine police discussion that would result from that race.

Falling On Deaf Ears: Educating Children With Hearing Impairments

“For Ontario to be at its best, we need every Ontarian to be at their best.”

       - Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty

Stephen Harper would love the Ontario Association of the Deaf (OAD) position in favour of maintaining the current number of provincial schools; their argument has “firewalls” written all over it. 

Harper, remember, has intentionally gotten out of the health care game.  At a time when demographic changes, technological advances and financial pressures are causing our outdated health care model (it can hardly be called a system) to buckle, the Prime Minister has thrown a couple bucks at the provinces and said “you’re on your own.”  This is absolutely the worst approach possible; efficiencies and excellence of care are found through systematic integration (like Family Health Teams), not by multiple parties operating in uncoordinated silence.

But we’re talking about schools for the deaf.  We’ll get back to Harper later.

Seperate but Equal

As part of its call for a reduction in duplication, gaps and overlaps stemming from our current silo-based service delivery model, the Drummond Commission has called for a consolidation of provincial schools for the deaf.  The provincial school system removes children who are deaf/hard of hearing  from their home communities and the normal education stream.  Instead of being in regular classrooms, these children receive separate education based around sign-language, “the native language of the deaf”.  Note - Drummond isn't caling for the end of such schools entirely; he's simply suggesting the number of students in the existing provnicial school system doesn't support the quantity of aging schools we have at present.  The big “D” Deaf Community favours these schools; they see the provincial school system as a nurturing ground for “deaf culture”, which they feel is distinct from “hearing” culture.

In their letter to the Premier of Ontario, the OAD suggests that “no real changes have been made to ensure that Deaf people are treated as equal to hearing people in Ontario.”  The changes that the OAD seeks are a higher level of support for “deaf culture” in the way that First Nations have rightly decried the systematic campaigns that have been waged against their culture. 

Two things on this score:

Talk to the Hand

One, there’s a chillingly familiar ring to the “separate but equal” message.  It’s hardly a new notion; people throughout history have sought to isolate themselves from others, either to keep a focus on “their” values and belief system, or to block out influences they saw as negative or protect from the perceived threat of the “other.” 

In the case of the Deaf community, the fear is a loss of culture through integration.  They (rightly) feel that being deaf isn’t unnatural, that an inability to hear results in a different world view.  They are absolutely correct about that; those of us who can hear take hearing for granted and would feel lost without this sense.  But is the “deaf” way of experiencing the world at risk through social integration?  Other “cultural” groups have recently advocated for “separate but equal” education funding for their community world views, with less than universal support.

Funny enough, the Deaf community also uses the “excess burden on the majority community” meme in their argument.  They contend that community schools would have to spend more money for appropriate resources to support deaf children, should they be integrated into the regular school system.  Here’s the rub, though – when community schools and their boards see deafness, or learning disabilities, or any niche need as “not my problem” issues, they don’t invest in them. 

It’s really a counter-intuitive approach; the end result is that far too many children with hearing loss and other learning challenges aren’t identified and never receive the help they need.  As a kid with ADHD who was always in trouble with my teachers for not copying lengthy notes off the blackboard fast enough, I found elementary school more of an endurance test than a learning opportunity (I wasn’t diagnosed until high school).  Why on earth would we want to exacerbate that problem, especially when it results in bullying, suicide, family problems, underemployment, crime, etc?  We have to start looking at specific social problems for what they are; shared challenges that require collaborative solutions.

Can You Hear Me Now?

Two – what is the risk in one person having two cultures?  This is an age-old quandary; the existence of Québec language laws is based around the notion that an increase in one culture automatically threatens the existence of another.  Parents used to be told it was harmful to teach their kids two languages at the same time, as it meant they wouldn’t learn either one fully.

I’m an anthropologist by training, so I look at this dualistic perspective differently.  Culture isn’t an immobile, eternal thing – it’s organic.  Cultures evolve through time; French itself is a variant on Latin, just as English is mish-mash of several languages, including French.  To suggest that a worldview is in danger is to imply it is stagnant, which is never the case.  Besides, innovation doesn’t come through isolation, but from diversity.  Alexander Grahame Bell might never have invented the telephone if the deaf people in his life had constantly been isolated from him.

The same applies to the modern classroom.  Finding supports for the individual needs of students has always resulted in stronger, more effective teaching models and classroom environments that benefit all students.  Kids (and adults) with vision impairment aren’t removed from society; they are equipped with glasses.  In addition, text fonts get bigger and clearer, making it easier for all kids to see and absorb lessons.  Same holds true for deaf kids; technology exists to help the vast majority of deaf children hear just as well as anyone else does.  The presence of deaf kids in the “normal” classroom promotes sound dampeners on chair feet and sound amplification systems, helping teachers reach every student, particularly useful in large classes.

Placing deaf kids in normal classrooms doesn’t create an unnecessary burden; it provides incentive to make the system better for all.  When you get down to it, that’s the whole point of society in the first place.

Key to creating the right environments providing the right supports is early-identification and accommodation (something already understood, as evidenced by the growing focus on health promotion).  Communication and language acquisition isn’t just about speaking, or listening, or signing; it’s about cognitive development.  Just as undernourished children face greater, unnecessary limitations as adults, the same holds true for kids who aren’t given proper exposure to the full spectrum of communicative abilities as their brains develop.  As we get older, our brains switch gears from absorbing new information and developing new neural pathways towards solidifying existing ones; it’s why it’s harder to learn new languages as you age and why older people tend to be more inflexible in their opinions than youth.

Listening to the Voice of Reason

As I have written elsewhere, the core message of the Drummond Report was that our current, silo-based model of service delivery is failing us.  Individual groups competing for funding to provide variations on the same suite of services are costing us far more than necessary, creating a whole range of new problems in the process.  Like a well-loved old sweater, we might be used to this model, but the problems it is causing are now tipping the scales in favour of change.

What we need now is leadership willing to take on the challenge of reform.  To succeed, our leaders need a deep understanding of how the various social pieces fit into an integrated whole, plus the courage and patience to help the rest of us connect the dots.  There is a hopeful future waiting around the corner, but we can only get there if we’re moving forward together.

That means letting go of yesterday’s stigmas and looking for opportunities to work together tomorrow.  It means accepting the mistakes of the past and addressing them today; we all know what happens to those who refuse to learn from history.

Which brings us back to Stephen Harper. 

In what will likely be defined as his greatest moment as Prime Minister, Stephen Harper issued an apology to First Nations/Métis people for their isolation through the residential school system.  In this apology, Harper spoke the following words:

“We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this.”

Maybe he wouldn’t support the OAD’s position, after all.

Conclusion

People with hearing loss – “the deaf” – have unique experiences of the world, resulting in unique world views.  This doesn’t have to be their only world view.  Technology exists that allows the vast majority of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing to be full participants in main stream schools, develop to the maximum of their ability, then contribute those abilities to the greater good of our society.  Having these children in regular classrooms will result in a need for stronger identification and accommodation practices in our schools.  That’s a good thing, because the need exists already – we just haven’t had enough incentive to address it completely. 

When deaf/hoh kids participate in regular schools, they aren’t the only ones who gain new perspective; the same applies to hearing teachers and kids.  By being forced to pay attention, the “hearing community” will have reason to learn more about the deaf worldview – and benefit from it, just as Alexander Grahame Bell did.  This sharing of ideas will enhance the perspectives of all involved, promoting understanding and innovation, while also encouraging more efficient, integrated service delivery.  Which is exactly what the Drummond Report called for.

Social success is not to be found through standing against, but rather, through working together.  Communication, after all, is a two-way street; we can’t learn from each other if we’re aren't prepared to listen.

Ethics, Planning and Diversification – A Lesson For Stephen Harper

“Saudi Arabia can get a lot of growth, but that is not the right growth. Take away the oil and Saudi Arabia would be like a poor African country.”

A Resource-Based Economy

PM Stephen Harper, bolstered by the Alberta government, is looking to natural resources as the source of economic growth for Canada, moving forward.  It’s the hewing wood, hauling water model of economic prosperity.  The model that, you know, was previously employed by our manufacturing sector.  This is the Henry Ford model of production – create a stratigraphy of labour, keep people in the dark and therefore, in their place, rinse and repeat.  It’s a very linear approach.

You can argue there will always be a market for Canada’s natural resources and, where oil is concerned, China’s going to be thirsty for our oil for a very, very long time.  How can betting on oil fail?

Consider – the US is leery about benefiting from the Tar Sands because of environmental concerns – concerns shared by a large number of Canada’s international partners. 

China, while an economic giant, still has a terrible human rights record.  They aren’t necessarily the best long-term planners, either.  They oppress their own people, their minority groups, plus they interfere in international affairs, stifling action where human rights interests might interfere with their economic interests.  Again, the world is watching; if Canada has put all its economic eggs in the Chinese basket, does that foster a world view that we’re complicit in this oppression?

Oh – and China’s got a major water shortage problem that is only going to get worse.  Of course, environmental degradation through environmentally unsound practices has nothing to do with it; China’s policies certainly don’t impact food growth or population quality-of-life.  You know the saying about what happens when the watering hole shrinks.  With a fixation on control, a widening gap between urban wealth and rural poverty and a water shortage, what kinds of conversations do you think are happening in the upper echelons of the Chinese government? 

You can bet that, while China’s publicly wooing Canadian oil, they’ve already got their eye on our fresh water supply, too.

Dirty Tricks

"If you're Elections Canada, you're going to think, 'What is it that we can do to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen?' And it's probably something that they haven't given a lot of thought to because it's never happened here before."

The Federal Conservatives are shocked, shocked to find out that dirty, illegal tricks have crept into the politics of the nation.  There is no connection, of course, between this degradation of our democracy and the general aggressive tactics of the Harper Tories.  Time will tell who all is involved; either way, there is a pattern of behaviour that has been established and nurtured by the Tories, whether it was their implicit intent or not.

The net result of all this political nastiness is a disillusioned and increasingly angry populace.  Like Karl Rove before him, Stephen Harper set out to build a conservative dynasty; instead, he has only managed to polarize and embitter the nation he has sworn to lead.

Weaving the Tapestry

How do natural resource dependence, China reliance and political dirty tricks connect?

They are all the product of linear thinking.  While I’m sure top-dog Harper strategists spend significant time mulling the SWOT of their various political strategies and tactics while sipping latés in their war rooms, how successful have they been at looking at the whole canvas? 

I suppose you can’t generalize by saying that a refusal to consider the opinion of Opposition Parties in the House or in Committees is reflective of a closed-mind approach to planning.  Politics is an iceberg, after all – we only ever see the tip.  You can’t look to an aggressive, divisive political approach as demonstrative of a blind tendency to attack rather than contemplate.  It’s probably not fair to suggest that a pathological penchant for control and secrecy paints a picture of limited, linear thinking.  The same could hold true for an over-reliance on one sector as the only vehicle for future growth.

All these threads, by themselves, are not conclusive; taken as an aggregate, however, there’s that pattern of behaviour again. 

“It is really about societies that have a more equitable distribution of political power versus those that don’t.  It is about societies where the elite, the rich, can do what they want and those where they cannot.”

“…the leaders of extractive regimes don’t implement policies that stifle sustainable growth out of ignorance. They aren’t stupid; they are merely and rationally pursuing their own self-interest. The real ignorance is that of outsiders who fail to appreciate that in an extractive regime, the interests of the rulers and the ruled do not coincide.”

As I have written before, I don’t think Stephen Harper is a bad man.  I don’t think his team is intentionally knee-capping Canada.  I do think their singular, aggressive focus on control has brought them short-term success, but to their (and our) long-term detriment.

The whole reason we have a Parliament and elected representation is because a diversity of opinion is essential to leadership – you can’t plan ahead if you don’t have perspective.  Decorum and ethics aren’t about putting on airs or pandering to others; it’s about fostering a climate that allows for discussion to happen.  Altruism isn’t about selfishly giving to the weak – it’s about creating an environment that provides greater opportunity for every individual.

Social evolution is creative destruction; either you foster it yourself, or you become consumed by it.

What’s the lesson for Stephen Harper?

- Take the time to listen to your opponents; they might tell you something helpful.

- Don’t put all your eggs in one basket – Canada has a lot more to offer than just oil.  Diversify.  Look at natural resources, but renewable fuels, too; there's a market for them.  If water’s going to be of interest, build Canada’s blue economy.  Proactively take advantage of emerging trends rather than be blindsided by them.  Look to the Arts; there’s plenty of economic and cultural growth and export opportunity to be had with Canada’s entertainment industry.

- If you’re going to think about political strategy 24/7, think about it in your role as Prime Minister, not as the Conservative Leader.  It’s what we’re paying you to do.

- Leadership is inclusive.  It doesn’t matter where you come from, it’s what you find along the way – meaning us Canadians.  We’re a pretty clever, entrepreneurial lot, given the opportunity.

Legacy isn’t about control – it’s about what you leave behind.