We're Going to MaRS

Query - what is the ROI of going to Mars?  

What was the Return On Investment of going to the moon?  There were no new markets to be found nestled in the craters, nor viable resources to extract, nor even disease-beating drugs that could be brought home and patented.

There was really no point in going to the moon itself; what mattered was the journey.

Here's what JFK had to say:

But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and return it safely to the earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun - almost as hot as it is here today - and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out - then we must be bold.

MaRS is in the news right now - the centre, not the planet - because of how much gets spent on it and what Return we're getting On that Investment.

I don't know how many businesses owe their success to MaRS, in whatever measure.  I've rarely dealt with people there in that capacity.  What I know more of MaRS is how it brings people together, pushes boundaries, takes the long view on structural problems like education access and healthcare.

While most of government is trapped by the four year political cycle and most private-sector players, financiers especially, are focused on the low-hanging fruit/quick return, MaRS is a place of people that look to the horizon and ask: how might we get there together?

No doubt MaRS could be better organized and better positioned.  I for one think it's a shame that they feel the need to trump big start-up wins instead of working away at structural solutions, with some entrepreneurial wins as part of the mix.

When even the folk who are supposed to take the long view start focusing on short-term ROI, we aren't going anywhere.  

And we need to move.  The world is shifting around us and we are, frankly, not prepared for what's coming. Canada is like the Shire, inwards-focused and oblivious to how what's happening beyond our boarders can't but change our world forever.

That's the point of MaRS - that's the point of any grand vision or venture.  We didn't go to the moon because of what it could provide us any more than we're aiming for MaRS to get something in return.  

The journey, the challenge is what matters.  It brings us together, empowers us to collaborate and pushes us to be bold.  

That's how problems are solved; that's how winning is done.

If you can't see the ROI on that, then quite frankly - you're not a leader.  

Does Canada want to lead again?  I think we do.

Let's aim high, people - let's go to MaRS.

Andrew Coyne, Radical Visionary

Vision is radicalism that sells.

  - Andrew Coyne

I always get the feeling that if we were ever to chat one-on-one, Coyne and I would disagree on a lot of policy minutiae but agree on big-picture stuff about what makes a dynamic, participatory democracy great.

Coyne is a cynical idealist - he recognizes the system for what it is, but wishes it could be less.  Less expenditure, less a focus on sales and marketing techniques and more a discussion about policy, with actively engaged citizens making informed choices between policy suites and personalities they feel best able to implement their visions.  What matters is whether the policy is suited to the task, whether the change proposed is the change required.

The left-right political dichotomy frustrates him, especially in its arbitrariness.  The centre is what lies in our line of sight, largely determined after the fact rather than during an electoral race.  Always in motion, the centre is.  More appropriately, it's Parties shooting at the wall with the winners being the ones who get to paint the target around the holes they shot.

Meanwhile, the cost of public service continues to escalate.  It seems to me that, in Coyne's mind, it shouldn't - spending should remain as it was; the public service should remain stagnantly the same size as time moves on.  It's the cost of services that really command his attention.

Me, I'm a rational optimist.  I accept that, in politics as in all industries, more energy invariably gets focused on sales than on ideation.  It's almost like we're hard-wired to judge books by their covered - can you blame political Parties for playing the game?

It's less that politics is a blood sport than it its a mating contest - the winner doesn't get a trophy, so much as the chance to sew policy ideas for four years.  In this scenario, Political Parties are the bucks locking horns and the peacocks spreading their plumage while we, the voting public, are passive peahens.

Since Politics is such a game of sales and government is about service provision - not service evolution - there's precious little bandwidth for structural change.  This was a great model to have when the world changed at a more, shall we say, incremental pace, but that's not the case any longer. Infrastructure is ancient, demographics are swelling and changing and technology, of course, evolves faster than institutions can keep up.

The model that kept government contained is now chafing against our need to adapt with the times. We're rubbing to the left and right, finding ourselves constrained and yearning for change, without knowing to what.

It's a Plato's Cave thing - we are limited in our ability to define what we want by the vocabulary we have.  

This is where behavioural economics comes in - what is it truly that people need to succeed in the current social context?  What are the challenges we can't avoid, the opportunities too good to miss up and the positions worth taking now so that we're well-adapted for changes two or three steps down the road?

It's hard to figure any of that out if you're not actively looking down the road, sussing out the nuance of the present in full and projecting out potential scenarios.

Winning coalitions isn't about looking at the big picture any more than delivering a static suite of services is.  

I don't think we should be focusing on the cost of government and trying to reduce service expenses to what they were in some arbitrary position in the past.  To me, that's like trying to feed an adult based on the diet they had when they were children.  What we need to do - not just government, but society as a whole - is think through what it is we need to sustain ourselves individually and systematically.  

Government services might cost more, but result in less out-of-pocket expenses for things like transit or healthcare.  Government may cost less, but with more services being provided at lower cost by the private sector.  Or people might take more ownership of their lives, businesses engage in greater corporate social responsibility with government serving more of an executive function/coordination role.  

Of course, this sort of structural framing requires a radical change in how we perceive ourselves and the role of institutions in our lives.  It's a vision less focused on sales and individual gain and more committed towards optimizing a system of individuals in collaborative fashion.

Perhaps that is how you win elections.  The point is not that there are more important things than winning.  It's that it matters, surely, what you win for.

Parties don't win elections by focusing on why - they win by focusing on how.  They win by narrowing their audience, picking fights and designing policy suites that appeal to targeted voter blocks.  Parties are constrained by these rules of the road; when they cease to play the game as is, they either fall off the map or we cease to have a democracy.

Which is why I'd encourage Coyne to look outside the political box a bit, get away from the usual suspects and take a look at the emerging Open Community, this generations Acquarian Conspiracy. There are virtuous schemers out there looking not to change the system for change's sake, but to align what we have with where we are already headed.

Most of these folk don't hold positions of power, nor do they wield fancy titles or have massive bank accounts.  They aren't catalyzing change because of what's in it for them, but because they are inspired by what we can be.

Leadership from the front - now how radical a vision is that?  The best part is, Coyne doesn't need to wait for someone else to get the ball rolling - he can be part of the change himself.

CSR: Investing in Value Add

Lu Buwei had a vision and was willing to bet his wealth, career, family and life on a long-term investment, because he recognized the value of investing in a person, he became the most powerful person in China.

Not really - it was Qin Shi Huang who became the most powerful person in China.  He unified the nation, built great monuments, shed a great deal of blood and eventually killed himself with mercury poisoning in his vain attempt to live forever.

We remember Qin Shi Huang as much for the misery he caused and the terrible toll his vanity and fear of death took upon the later years of his life.  His is not a happy story, though it is one that endures.

Lu Buwei got mixed up in scandals involving Qin Shi Huang's mother, was stripped of his position by the king he made and eventually committed suicide.  But he is remembered.

Both men rose to the heights of power because of a vision that transcended themselves; both were brought down by their own selfishness.

There's a big difference between investing and adding value:

 - one invests with the aim of eventually gaining a significant return.  

- one adds value with the hopes of providing that return to others.

We have a whole host of leaders out there right now who see themselves as empire-builders, incrementally investing in closed futures they think will immortalize their names in history.  The narrow tactics and devious tricks they employ to get there inevitably lead to the tainting of their legacies and often as not, their fall from grace.

Which is why I love the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility so much; it provides a win-win for everyone.  

There are countless visionary value-adders out there who care not a whit about legacy or what they will get in return; they are truly and openly committed to what they can give, not what they can receive.  

They are driven by their vision, not their own selfish interests.  But there's not a lot of money in altruism.

If the would-be Emperors are smart, they'll recognize the value in out-sourcing the visionary work and positioning themselves as patrons.  That way, they remove the risks of their ego tainting the impact of their legacy but get to take all the credit - the thought leaders and social innovators won't care, so long as they're given the resources and freedom to do what needs done.

Visionary value-adders - invest in them and you won't be disappointed.

#TorontoIs - For or Against?

This is an amazing piece of work, sent by an acquaintance of a friend.  I don't know the author's name.  But if they're reading this, I say: do more stuff like this.  This is really, really powerful.

I have been told, repeatedly, that Warren Kinsella is really good at what he does.  It's unquestionably true; he's the man that brought the War Room to Canada.  It could be argued that he in large part shaped a whole generation of politicing in this country.

He's right, too - the video (you'll have to follow the link to his site to see it) is powerful.  It provides a fascinating contrast between some of the diverse landmarks that are so integral to Toronto's identity and the divisive, small-minded politics of Rob Ford.

The point of this video is to demonstrate to Toronto how the world sees this city - not as one of the most diverse places on earth, not as a centre of art, business and culture, but as the playground of Rob Ford, the crack-smoking Mayor.

The video is designed to incite strong, reactive emotions of discomfort, fear, even anger.  This is how the world sees us, it says; we need to do something to change that.

By and large this is how politics functions - we define ourselves as being different than our opponents and work hard to define our opponents as the devil incarnate.  

We have to fight against, the message goes, often with the tagline only Candidate White Hat can defeat/prevent Candidate Black Hat from bringing us down. 

We don't vote leaders in; we kick bums out.

But there's another way.

Instead of inciting kick-the-bums out re-activeness, we could have leaders that define themselves by their vision, authenticity and commitment to walking the walk.  Calgary has become cool in ways previously unimaginable in no small part due to its Mayor.  

Where Rob Ford talks about promises made and kept that are anything but, Naheed Nenshi is better known for what he does and how he communicates.  We don't need boastful statements; his deeds speak louder than worlds.

No less than Kinsella himself has wistfully wondered, "wouldn't it be nice to have a leader who things big, and does big things, once again?"

I think so.  I know lots of other people who feel the same way.

Being angry and resentful all the time is tiring.  Eventually, disaffection settles in and people come to accept that things won't be any better and that fighting is only going to make things worse.  It's why Canada is suffering through a winter of discontent, complete with hoarding behaviours typical of hibernating creatures.

It's true that Toronto's international reputation is largely being defined by Rob Ford, but it doesn't need to be.  If the people living here, or the people living across Canada were to see amazing, heroic deeds and hear inspirational stories of what we're really about, we may be shaken out of our misanthropic complacency and catalyzed into positive action.

A quote I'm sure Kinsella would be familiar with fits the bill: "People don't look to us, as leaders, for despair; they can despair on their own.  They look to us for inspiration."

That's the kind of leadership I could get behind.  Don't tell me what's wrong and who's to blame; tell me who's making a difference and give me a vision of how together, we can make our community a place to be proud of.  

Lead, for god's sake.

If you think it's powerful how people will fight when they collectively stand against, you'd be amazed by what they can do when they are united for.

Leaders and Vision: To the Moon, Canada!

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the Office of the Presidency.

Love him or hate him, JFK's Rice speech remains a benchmark for leadership done right.  In stirring words, Kennedy articulated the legacy of a pioneering spirit that Americans rightly take pride in; he laid out in simple terms the course of human development and demonstrated the rapid pace of advancement the world had inherited.  

Then President Kennedy brought forward a bold, almost (but not quite) inconceivable vision of achievement and then went on to describe everything that was and had been done that generated the optimism that yes, putting a man on the moon was possible.

And you know what?  They did.

No young person in the United States or Canada has ever heard such a speech delivered by one of our leaders.  For that matter, none of the young political operatives strategizing plans, crafting narratives and writing speeches for those leaders has heard such a bold, pioneering vision, either.

There's an old quote about wood and cabinets that applies equally to vision; it's awfully tough to build on that which you haven't experienced.

Instead, they are used to bold pronouncements about economic fundamentals; job creation, deficit slaying, so on and so forth.  Hardly inspirational stuff - such expressions are designed to appease and comfort, not to empower and motivate.  Supplementing these planks of pragmatism tend to be fearful overtures - threats overseas, threats of socialists and separatists, things that only one Party or the other can protect the people from.

This makes for good partisan positioning, perhaps; reminding those voters why they need us.  It's a terribly ineffective way to catalyze innovation and to inspire action, though.  

In a way, it truly baffles me that with all the smart, well-read people directing traffic behind the political curtain, there is such resistance to bold visions and such an urge to play it safe.  They fight over slices of the demographic pie, focused with fevered zeal just on winning control over what we have already.  They can and should know better.  So why don't they?

It's because all too often they and the leaders they serve have forgotten that we are still pioneers.  When it becomes about winning, not achieving, you aim for what you see before you instead of aspiring to something greater.

A focus on economic fundamentals is inherently selfish; it's about getting what's yours, not contributing to something greater.  That's fine if you think history is over and that the goal today should be consolidation.

The same holds true for a focus on rhetoric around trust; if the emphasis is on trusting your leaders to govern as you would trust your neighbour to keep your extra front door key, the emphasis once again becomes one's ability to rely, laterally, on their representatives.  

You need economic stability.  You need trust.  But these things are only facets of leadership.

Leaders present visions of where we, collectively, could go, place that destination on a trajectory validated by history and provide the motivation, inspiration, drive to each and every one of us to get there, together.

You can implement all the tax breaks you want, cut all the regulations you want, but if there is no vision people can see and feel compelled to strive towards, then they will continue to do what people tend to do.

Over the past couple of weeks I have been in conversations with a host of community groups, start-ups and pundits pursuing one initiative or another.  Each has struggled to know where to begin, who to bring on board, what direction they should be heading in.  When I ask "what's your end state look like?" I get descriptions of business plans, grumblings about structural problems that have to be addressed, etc.

I then rephrase the question.  "If you were to achieve all you wanted to achieve, in ten years what would the world/your community look like that differs from how it looks now?"  Answering this question tends to be a bit of a process, which is fine - it's one that needs to happen.  

When that vision is more or less clear, I then ask the following:

"What needs to be done between to get from here to there?  What skills, tools, new development are we going to have to look at if we're to bridge the distance?"

And that's it; that's the ingredient that's missing, the reason why capital is frozen and innovation is stagnant.  Canadians have been pretty settled with where we've been, which has made us complacent in a way we can no longer afford to be.  We have no new destination, no challenge to rise up to, no standard we are trying to set for others.

Which is why we're falling behind.

These, then, are the question we must be posing, not just of our leaders but of ourselves as well.

Where are we headed?  What awaits us there?  How do we bridge the distance?

But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more that have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun - almost as hot as it is here today - and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out - then we most be bold.

You're up, bold leaders.  Where are we going today?

The Truth About Power Via Margot Robbie

And no one is left unscathed.  It exploits everyone.

Everyone wants to live life like the movies.  They want the perfect everything - perfect body, perfect partner, coolest friends and greatest experiences, all as easily as they seem to come on the silver screen.

Of course, nothing on the silver screen is as simple as it looks.  Film making takes a great deal of preparation, logistics, communication, editing, financing and above all, discipline.

The best film makers don't do what they do for the money and glamour it brings any more than the best politicians are about power and fame.  They have a story to tell or a vision to implement.  They may have fun at what they do, they may indulge in some of the benefits that come from their position, but for the true leaders, what they get never replaces what they leave behind.

Because no one gets everything they want; such is not sustainable and never will be.

Power has to be about balance, as does resource access; when it's not, you're just precipitating a fall. 

Trudeau and the Just Society Redux

There's a debate going on among senior Liberals about how quickly Trudeau needs to translate his rhetoric into actual policy prescriptions, with the closest to him apparently preferring a slow strip tease to a quick reveal.  In part this is driven by a narrow tactical concern about not giving the other parties too much to shoot at too long before the 2015 election.

If you're pissed off at the number of fundraising emails being sent out by the Liberals, they largely don't care.  They are assuming, as political people tend to do, that any and every grievance gets washed away by victory.  

It's typical campaign logic - push people hard, almost as if they were soldiers.  They may get mad, some of them might even walk away, but when you win all those who were brow-beaten, guilt-tripped or pushed beyond all rational limits will rejoice at being part of something successful.  All will be forgiven.  

Better yet, you will know who the weak links (the people who walked off) are so as to avoid them in the future.  You'll have your core group of soldiers, those who endure and are willing to put the win before all else.  What else do you need, when winning is the goal?

Of course, this is the sort of system that develops cynical political operatives that suffer from an almost PTSD-like need for continual combat and become unable to work with those they identify as enemies. 

It also results in the "entitled-to-entitlements" attitude that the public is so fed up with.   

As time marches on and the pressures grow, you find more and more people falling into your "unsuitable" column and your list of tough, aggressive, battle-hardened soldiers starts to shrink.  This is why Stephen Harper's grip is starting to slip - too many people are on the outside, know they'll never be on the inside and have stopped caring.   

Herein lies the great irony of Team Trudeau, a group of young, smart, capable people with lots of ideas, but who have come of age and largely lived within the political culture that Trudeau, as a brand, has chosen to stand against.  They want to change the system, yet are using refined versions of the tools they're familiar with - tools and tricks that, by their very nature, reinforce the political status quo.

The debate about whether to hold off on policy to present as limited a target for opposition versus a more substantial reveal now to start hooking Canadians to more than just platitudes is the wrong one, in just the same way that a strict focus on numbers to the exclusion of morale is counter-productive to what Trudeau hopes to accomplish.

Justin Trudeau wants to change Canada's political culture.  He wants Canada to feel like a society again; he wants people to have confidence in their leaders not on narrow issue-bases like economics or national security, but as leaders.  Trudeau doesn't just want to form government - he wants to catalyze a movement.

This is possible; quite frankly, the timing has never been better.  Canadians don't trust government; we don't trust the people in government, but beyond that we don't have confidence in the institution itself.  There is nothing, no identity, no brand, no vision that currently binds us together.  People are worried about security, sustainability and about what we're leaving behind.

Trudeau has opted not to be tightly scripted, meaning he's got as many opportunities of unexpected moments of brilliance as he does gaffes; over time, making these choices will get easier.  The important thing is that he's created his brand and differentiated himself from his opponents through sincerity.

I think this is the approach his team should be taking to policy.

Instead of throwing a massive book of policies at the people and bracing for the inevitable attacks that will emerge from opponents and media alike, the Liberals need to articulate a clear vision of what they think Canadians want their future to look like.  

This is what Pierre Trudeau did with The Just Society - the path to get there took time to build, but people could see where they were headed.  The same was true of JFK; the goal of putting a man on the moon was considered far-fetched when it was suggested, but it gave the people something to strive towards.

While Tim Hudak has smartly put out a series of policy white papers as litmus tests/catalysts for the sorts of policy prescriptions he may bring forward, there's no vision in place.  Smaller government isn't a destination, nor is fighting unions.  His is a technocratic approach, the same most politicians take.  It doesn't leave the people with a sense of where we may go, only what our leaders feel we should stand against.

Instead of focusing on what to reveal and when, Team Trudeau needs to define what their/his vision is, where they want Canada to head.  With careful thought and consideration, it's not too hard to find a series of connecting issues, ranging from the silver surge to economic stagnation and a dearth of innovation and tie them together into one theme.  The same holds true for environmental health, infrastructure well-being and the whole open government/open data movement.

Canada, quite frankly, is sick.  It's a country increasingly at war with itself, atrophying and decaying in all the wrong places.  We're falling behind as other jurisdictions race ahead to embrace new industry, new ways of engaging citizens and a practical, rather than just rhetorical commitment to transparency.

One-off perceptions aren't the way forward; to foster a Healthy Society, we need a holistic regimen of initiatives.  Most importantly, we need flow - not top-down, nor left-right, but circulation, engaging all people and all ideas within the body politic.  

This is an evolving process, meaning ideas will be presented, tested on smaller scales and if they work, expanded.  It means thinking laterally; how do the pieces fit together?  Forget isolated coalitions - what do shared solutions look like?

The more people see this approach working, the more the vision of a healthy society becomes like a virus, infecting people with the belief, the hope that things can work.  Opposition Parties can attack the idea as silly, but with every criticism they throw forward, they provide an opportunity for growth and adaptation.  It's a war they cannot win, so long as the focus stays on the vision first.

After all, when we focus on money and numbers, that focus becomes about us and what we get in opposition to others.  That's not leadership, that's opposition.  It's great for a Party to do well and yes, it's true that people like being part of something winning.  But what of the Party itself? What is it part of, except for a system that people no longer believe in?

Team Trudeau needs to think better - in fact, I believe they want to think bigger.  What we, as citizens need is the same thing they, as political operatives need - to be part of some whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, the parts being each and every one of us.

Threats and the Eyes That See Them

It's a universal thing - people think big eyes are cute.  Babies have 'em.  Lots of people with epicanthal folds pay money to make their eyes "look bigger" - which is simply a more permanent way of accomplishing the same trick as mascara.

But if eyes are TOO big, particularly if they're umoving, that's just plain creepy.  If those wide eyes aren't looking at an external threat - if they're looking at you - that'll make your skin crawl.

There's something attractive about wide-eyes that dote or may be more likely to point themselves at threats.  Wide eyes that are clearly seen but fixated on you are threatening themselves.

With that in mind, read this:

Main Category: Psychology / Psychiatry
Also Included In: Anxiety / Stress
Article Date: 05 May 2013 - 0:00 PDT

Emotional Expressions Like Wide-Eyed Fear May Help Us - And Others - To Locate Threats

Wide-eyed expressions that typically signal fear may enlarge our visual field and mutually enhance others' ability to locate threats, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

The research, conducted by psychology graduate student Daniel Lee of the University of Toronto with advisor Adam Anderson, suggests that wide-eyed expressions of fear are functional in ways that directly benefit both the person who makes the expression and the person who observes it.

The findings show that widened eyes provide a wider visual field, which can help us to locate potential threats in our environment. But these widened eyes also help to send a clearer gaze signal telling observers to "look there," which may enhance their ability to locate the same threat, as well.

"Emotional expressions look the way they do for a reason," says Lee. "They are socially useful now for communicating emotional states, but this new research suggests that they were also useful as raw physical signals."

Lee and colleagues found that participants who made wide-eyed fear expressions were able to discriminate visual patterns farther out in their peripheral vision than were participants who made neutral expressions or expressions of disgust.

Next, they investigated the benefits that wide-eyed expressions might confer to onlookers.

The researchers found that participants were better able to tell which direction a pair of eyes was looking as the eyes became wider. And wider eyes helped participants respond to targets that were located in the direction of the gaze. Importantly, these benefits did not depend on recognizing the eyes as fearful.

So why are wide-eyed expressions so helpful for onlookers?

As eyes become wider, we see more of the whites of the eyes, known as sclera. Lee and colleagues hypothesized that this could increase the contrast with the irises that signal the gaze, making it easier to tell where someone is looking. Indeed, their data revealed that iris display and higher iris-to-sclera contrast were correlated with faster response times.

Lee believes that this research demonstrates just how social we are wired to be:

"Our ability to process other people's eye gaze is already finely-tuned; the fact that this processing is further enhanced by expressive eye widening underscores the importance of our eyes as social signals."

God Was a Social Entrepreneur

Of course, God was a social entrepreneur - it's not so hard to work full-tilt at something you care about.



Staffing and work/life balance: Entrepreneurs need breaks from their small business

If god rested on the seventh day, should the entrepreneur?

Prevailing opinion suggests the answer is “no,” mainly because the term ‘work week’ doesn’t apply to self-starters and entrepreneurs looking to grow their business.

It’s more like “work life,” says Mark Surrette, President of Knightsbridge Robertson Surrette and an entrepreneur of more than 30 years.

“As an entrepreneur, it never goes away,” says Surette, who has run businesses ranging from retail to traffic control to property management. “24/7 is a strong phrase, but my black berry never gets turned off.”

Surrette, like many others, believes mobile communication technology is the double edged sword that carves out a work-centered lifestyle for many successful business people.

On one hand, his mobile device has freed him from marriage to the office, which is where you would’ve found him on evenings and weekends in the 1980s and1990s.

In today’s digital age, he can now get work done from home, on the road, watching football or even “stepping out at a dinner party.”

On the other hand, being connected means there’s no such thing as a day off anymore.

“You don’t think of it as working a lot of hours, because there’s no real delineation between work and the other things you do,” he says. “It’s part of life. It never goes away.”

Dwayne Kennedy, the 26-year-old cofounder of THE COLLECTIONS, a Toronto-based fashion production and promotions company, says working six to seven days a week, 60-70 hour per week is the standard in his business.

When he’s not doing day-to-day tasks, he’s out networking, a must-do in the fashion industry.

“What we do does take up most of our time, and it’s ongoing,” says Kennedy, who, along with partner Brian Richards, operates the Disconnect Fashion Film Festival. “We generally don’t have days off...it’s hard to turn it off when your work is something you’re so passionate about.”

Michael Leiter, an expert on workplace burnout and the Canada Research Chair of Occupational Health and Well being at Acadia University, says that while overworking oneself can lead to exhaustion and reduced productivity, when someone loves what they do, they can better cope with working longer periods.

“That is a solid finding from our work on ‘burnout,’” says Leiter, a psychologist and author who’s written extensively on workplace health. “When you love what you do, share the work with the people you care about, recieve fulfillment from the enjoyable activities and have control over your domain, you can sustain energy much more than you could when lacking these qualities.”

He says overextension is so common among entrepreneurs because so few start with the financial backing to hire support staff.

“There is not usually enough activity to constitute multiple jobs for others at the beginning,” he says. “The entrepreneur covers all elements.”

Justin Trudeau Throws In - Here's His Speech

I'm reminded of the words another Liberal leader once uttered: "People don't look to leaders for desperation - they can despair on their own.  People look to us for hope."

 

This, then, is Justin Trudeau's Idea of Canada:

 

 

The prepared text of Justin Trudeau's speech in Montreal on Tuesday night announcing his leadership bid for the Liberal Party:

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

Make no small dreams, they have not the power to move the soul." -Goethe

 

Now that'll take courage, but more than that, it'll take hard, honest work. So let me start by telling you about the folks who taught me that best, here in Papineau.

 

On this side of the riding, it’s Parc Ex. People from every nation live here. They make this neighborhood so vibrant. On the other side of Jarry Park, Xavier and Ella-Grace’s favourite park, is Villeray, one of those solidly francophone neighborhoods that defines Montreal. Artists and intellectuals live there, but so too do many families.

 

In the east side of the riding, there is St-Michel, where you find people like my good friend Ali Nestor – a boxer – who teaches us how to fight poverty, social exclusion and, from time to time, conservative senators.

 

This community is not just remarkable for our diversity of ideas, of cultures, of beliefs. What is truly remarkable is that this diversity thrives peacefully.

 

Here, we trust each other and we look to the future together.

 

This trust that binds us together here in Papineau is the trust that binds this country together.

 

My friends : I love Montreal. I love Quebec.

 

And I am in love with Canada.

 

I choose, with all my heart, to serve the country I love. That's why I'm so happy to announce here, tonight, my candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

 

So I’m here to ask for your help, because this road will be one long, Canadian highway. We will have ups and downs. Breathtaking vistas and a few boring stretches. And with winter coming, icy patches.

 

But we will match the size of this challenge with hard, honest work.

 

Because hard work is what’s required. Always has been.

 

Canada’s success did not happen by accident, and it won’t continue without effort. This magnificent, unlikely country was founded on a bold new premise. That people of different beliefs and backgrounds, from all corners of the world, could come together to build a better life for themselves and for their children than they ever could have alone.

 

This new idea that diversity is strength. Not a challenge to be overcome or a difficulty to be tolerated.

 

That is the heart and soul of the Canadian success story.

 

That, and the old fashioned idea of progress. The idea that we owe a sacred duty to Canadians who come after us. To work hard. To build a country that offers them even more than we had. More opportunity, more choices, more success, just as our parents and grandparents did for us.

 

These are the values that define and unite us.

 

I have seen a lot of this country. And I can tell you that those values are alive and well, from coast to coast to coast.

 

My fellow Liberals, these values are not the property of the Liberal Party of Canada. They are not

 

Liberal values; they are Canadian values.

 

I’ve too often heard it said in Liberal circles that the Liberal Party created Canada. This, my friends, is wrong.

 

The Liberal Party did not create Canada. Canada created the Liberal Party.

Canadians created the Liberal Party.

 

The great, growing and optimistic middle class of the last century created a big-hearted, broad-minded consensus. And built a better country. For themselves, yes. But more important, for each other, and for their children.

 

Canadians built Medicare.

 

Canadians built an open and dynamic economy.

 

Canadians welcomed newcomers from around the world into their communities and businesses.

 

Canadians developed an independent foreign policy, and when necessary, bled for our values in faraway lands.

 

Canadians brought their constitution home.

 

Canadians demanded that their inalienable rights and freedoms be placed above the reach of politics.

 

And Canadians balanced the budget.

 

The Liberal Party was their vehicle of choice. It was the platform for their aspirations, not their source.

 

When we were at our best, we were in touch, open to our fellow citizens and confident enough in them to take their ideas and work with them to build a successful country.

 

If there is a lesson to be drawn from our party’s past it is not where we landed but how we got there.

We were deeply connected to Canadians. We made their values our values, their dreams our dreams, their fights our fights.

 

The time has come to write a new chapter in the history of the Liberal Party.

 

This will be a campaign about the future, not the past. I want to lead a movement of Canadians that seeks to build, not rebuild. To create, not recreate.

 

After all, we live in a very different world, my friends. Twenty years ago, I was part of the first graduating class at my university to get email. I was of the last group of pre-Google high school teachers.

 

And now, my kids don’t know there was a world before Blackberries.

 

But if the way we will build it is new, what we have to build is timeless.

 

We know what Canadian families want. Good jobs. A dynamic and growing economy that allows us to educate our kids as they mature, and to care for our parents as they age.

 

We want a compassionate society that pulls together to help the vulnerable, and gives the less fortunate a chance at success.

 

We know that Canada is the freest society on Earth because we trust each other. So we want a government that looks at Canadians with respect, not suspicion. That celebrates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That believes in your choices, your values and your liberty.

 

Some say that youth carry our future. I say youth are an essential resource for our present. We need to empower all young Canadians, through world-class education, through rich and relevant work experience, and through opportunity to serve their communities and their world. Their voices, their choices, matter deeply, as do their actions: they are already leaders today.

 

And directly, to our First Nations, the Canadian reality has not been - and continues to not be - easy for you. We need to become a country that has the courage to own up to its mistakes and fix them together, people to people. Your place is not on the margins. It is at the very heart of who we are and what we are yet to become.

 

We want a foreign policy that will give us hope in the future and that will offer solutions to the world.

 

We want leadership that fosters and celebrates economic success in all regions of the country. Not leadership that seeds resentment between provinces.

 

We need to match the beauty and productivity of this great land with a new national commitment to steward it well. My generation understands that we cannot choose between a strong and prosperous economy, and a healthy environment. The conservative approach may work for a few, and for a while. But we know we can’t create long term prosperity without environmental stewardship.

We need to learn what we have forgotten. That the key to growth, to opportunity, to progress, is a thriving middle class. People with good jobs. Families who are able to cope with modern life’s challenges.

 

A thriving middle class provides realistic hope and a ladder of opportunity for the less fortunate. A robust market for our businesses. And a sense of common interest for all.

 

The great economic success stories of the recent past are really stories of middle class growth. China, India, South Korea and Brazil, to name a few, are growing rapidly because they have added hundreds of millions of people to the global middle class.

 

The news on that front is not so good at home; I don’t need to tell you that. You, like our fellow Canadians all over the country, live it every day. Canadian families have seen their incomes stagnate, their costs go up, and their debts explode over the past 30 years.

 

What’s the response from the NDP? To sow regional resentment and blame the successful. The Conservative answer? Privilege one sector over others and promise that wealth will trickle down, eventually.

 

Both are tidy ideological answers to complex and difficult questions. The only thing they have in common is that they are both, equally, wrong.

 

We need to get it right. We need to open our minds to new solutions, to listen to Canadians, to trust them.

 

And as we face these challenges, the only ideology that must guide us is evidence. Hard, scientific facts and data. It may seem revolutionary in today's Ottawa, but instead of inventing the facts to justify the policies, we will create policy based on facts. Solutions can come from the left or the right, all that matters is that they work. That they help us live - and thrive - true to our values.

 

Because middle class growth is much more than an economic imperative.

 

The key to Canadian unity is the shared sense of purpose so hard to define but so deeply felt. The sense that we are all in this together. That when Albertans do well, it creates opportunities for Quebecers. That when Quebecers create and innovate, it echoes across the country and around the world. That whether you’re in St. Boniface or St. John’s, Mississauga or Surrey, we have common struggles and common dreams.

 

It is the middle class, not the political class, that unites this country. It is the middle class that makes this country great.

 

We know some Quebeckers want their own country. A country that reflects our values, that protects our language and our culture, that respects our identity.

 

My friends, I want to build a country too. A country worthy of my dreams. Of your dreams. But for me, that country reaches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Great Lakes to the Grand North.

 

Quebeckers have always chosen Canada because we know it is the land of our ancestors - who built this country from east to west. They were here to write the first chapters of the great Canadian history of courage, liberty and hope. We have left our footsteps everywhere.

 

Will we put this history aside now because people of other languages came after us with the same dream of building a better country ? Of course not. Our contribution to Canada is far from over.

 

I want the Liberal Party to be once again the party that promotes and cherishes the francophone reality of this country. I want my party to support francophone communities across the country. And I want the Liberal Party to be once again the vehicle for Quebeckers to contribute to the future of Canada.

 

Now my candidacy has been the source of some speculation over the past months. The odd newspaper article has been written. Some have been very odd indeed.

 

But I said to Liberals after the last election that we need to get past this idea that a simple leadership change could solve our problems.

 

I believe that still. My candidacy may shine a few extra lights upon us. It may put some people in the bleachers to watch. But what we do with that opportunity is up to us.

 

All of us.

 

And when Canadians tune in, we need to prove to them that we Liberals have learned from the past, yes. But that we are one-hundred-per-cent focused on the future.

 

And not the future of our party: the future of our country.

 

I am running because I believe this country wants and needs new leadership. A vision for Canada’s future grounded not in the politics of envy or mistrust. One that understands, despite all the blessings beneath our feet, that our greatest strength is above ground, in our people. All Canadians, pulling together, determined to build a better life, a better Canada.

 

To millions and millions of Canadians, their government has become irrelevant, remote from their daily lives, let alone their hopes and dreams. To them, Ottawa is just a place where people play politics as if it were a game open to a small group, and that appeals to an even smaller one.

 

They do not see themselves or their values reflected in Ottawa

 

My friends, we will do better.

 

This is not a personal indictment of Mr Harper or Mr Mulcair. On the contrary, I honour their commitment and their service. But I think they are both dead wrong about this country. And, I want to tell you, together, we can prove it.

 

There will be many highs and lows between now and April. And if we work hard and find success, I know there will be many, many more between then and 2015.

 

I do not present myself as a man with all the answers. In fact, I think we’ve had quite enough of that kind of politics.

 

But I do know I have a strong sense of this country. Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we want to go. And I believe I can bring new forces to bear on old problems. I can convince a new generation of Canadians that their country needs them. That it values their energy, ingenuity and vision. Together, we can convince young Canadians that serving this great country is its own reward.

 

I promise you this: if you entrust me with the privilege of leadership, I will work long, hard and tirelessly. I learned first-hand from the people of Villeray, St-Michel and Park Extension that there are no shortcuts, no easy ways to earn trust and support. You have to work at it, day in and day out.

 

Because that's what it's going to take, and that's what Canadians deserve.

 

Think about it for a moment: when was the last time you had a leader you actually trusted? And not just the nebulous "trust to govern competently", but actually trusted, the way you trust a friend to pick up your kids from school, or a neighbor to keep your extra front door key? Real trust? That's a respect that has to be earned, step by step.

 

I feel so privileged to have had the relationship I've had, all my life, with this country, with its land, and with its people.

 

From my first, determined steps as a toddler to my first, determined steps as a politician: we've travelled many miles together, my friends...

 

You have always been there for me. You have inspired me, and supported me in good and more difficult times. And you have made me the man and the father I have become.

 

I chose today to launch this campaign because it is my little brother’s birthday. Michel was killed in an avalanche, doing what he loved, in the country that he loved as much as anyone I have ever known. Michel would be 37 years old today. Every day, I think about him and I remember not to take anything for granted. To live my life fully. And to always be faithful to myself.

 

At Michel's funeral, my father read from the Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Paul wrote, “when I was a child, I spoke as a child. But now that I am a man, I put away childish things.”

 

It is time for us, for this generation of Canadians to put away childish things. More, it is time for all of us to come together and get down to the very serious, very adult business of building a better country. For ourselves, for our fellow Canadians, and for our children.

 

We Canadians live in a blessed country. We are the most diverse people on Earth, yet we are peaceful. We are tough but we are compassionate. We are confident, but we work hard and we earn it. We have resources that are the envy of the world.

 

Let us pledge to one another to match those resources with resourcefulness. Let us rededicate ourselves to the glorious, improbable, work-in-progress that is Canada. And to serve its people through the only party willing to speak to and for all Canadians: the Liberal Party of Canada.

 

So tonight, Sophie and I draw on our love for our family and offer up all we have in service to Canada, and to each and every one of you.

 

Join us.