TO THE FORD FAMILY: WOULD YOU PLEASE JUST LET HIM REST IN PEACE?

The recent death of Rob Ford and his subsequent funeral has raised some awkward questions. Certainly Ford's death from cancer at age 46 was tragic. No person, no matter what one may think of him or her, deserves to die so young or from such a horrible disease. Cancer is a terrible disease that destroys lives and families. We grieve for the victim and commiserate with the families and friends, especially when the victim is young and leaves small children behind. The sooner we find cures, the better. We all agree on that.

But the behaviour of surviving members of the family, specifically Doug Ford in this case, creates great concerns. Consider these items:

First, when the death was announced, Doug Ford appeared visibly shaken and upset and asked for privacy for the family. Totally reasonable and appropriate for him to do that. Then the arrangements for Rob Ford's funeral became known. The former mayor would "lie in repose" for a period of time so that supporters could pay their respects. Also totally reasonable and appropriate. Then, a service would be held at St. James' Cathedral and a "celebration of life" would follow. For the third time, this is totally reasonable and appropriate.

But a strange thing began to happen. In that time period, people and publications began to pay tributes to the late mayor. Even the Toronto Star got into the act, as though trying to offer some belated apology for its aggressive reporting of Ford's time as mayor. We heard about all Rob Ford's "great accomplishments" and that he was a "man of the people". To many, it became more than a little uncomfortable to hear and read tributes which lionized a man of questionable accomplishment and even more questionable character. All of this may have all fallen into the "don't speak ill of the dead" file, and, again, it's reasonable to do this.

But, during Doug Ford's eulogy to his dead brother, the magic phrases came out. He ended by assuring one and all that the Ford's work would continue and that the so-called "respect for taxpayers" would not end.  And, just like that, Ford politics ruined what could've been a mature, newly defining moment for Ford nation. No, the grieving family was once again plunged into the petty politics it specialized in. In the "celebration of life" that followed, the political phrases continued. In doing this, Doug Ford took the unfortunate death of his beloved brother and turned it in a campaign launch. He tried to rationalize all the over-the-top rhetoric and elaborate funeral ceremonies by saying that "Rob would've wanted it that way." Thus, the Ford brand remains alive even though it's main standard bearer is dead.

Second, a news item yesterday on CTV ( a news outlet that has been somewhat sympathetic to the Fords, unlike the Star or CBC ) showed a very interesting and bizarre report. The image was of Doug Ford striding into Queen's Park to meet his old friend, Lisa McLeod, for a "coffee". Ford seemed surprised at all the media present and tried to look ingenuous and even a little coquettish. CTV made it known that Ford had alerted some media outlets that he was going to visit McLeod, so the media crowd that greeted him at Queen's Park was not unexpected. It came out in the photo op that Ford was seriously considering running in a Scarborough by-election under the Conservative banner. This caught new Conservative leader Patrick Brown by surprise and left him back-peddling rather clumsily. McLeod tried to act the innocent bystander, saying she would support her friend in whatever he would do, including running for Rob Ford's old council seat when it is declared vacant. The whole thing was a carefully orchestrated "media event" that merely kept Doug Ford's smiling face in the public's eye, and kept fanning the fires of his obvious political ambitions, among the most fiercely partisan in Ontario.

Rob Ford has been dead for only two weeks. He has been in his grave for less than that. But the circus of Ford nation continues. Grieving family? Needing privacy ? Visiting an old friend ? All these stretch the bounds of credulity.

The Fords will never change. They are well dressed hillbillies and they need to go away. They are exploiting the good will generated by the unfortunate death of a family member. They are keeping alive the myth of the Ford family brand. They should let Rob Ford truly rest in peace. Leave his widow and her two small children to get on with their lives without cringing at the buffoonery of a crazed brother and uncle who can't leave things alone. Enough of this shameful activity.

WHO'S DRIVING THIS BUS?

As Paul Simon wrote:

"These are the days of miracle and wonder,
And don't cry, baby, don't cry"

The chorus from "The Boy in the Bubble" echoes a very human refrain. We are constantly fearful of the world we live in and the future we face, but we live in a world of amazing technological achievement. How can we do so many amazing things, yet live surrounded by so much hardship? The chorus seems to suggest that all will be well, that all problems and issues will be solved if we put our faith in the "miracles and wonder". Still, we course onwards, lurching from one problem to another: and we wonder if there is any direction, anyone in control. If we can compare our progress to a bus ride, we seem to be riding ever faster and faster, barely under control ... and we wonder: who's driving this bus?

We, in North America and Western Europe, live in a world of plenty. We have enough to eat, have shelter, clothing, medicine, and expect our children to become educated and live safe, productive lives. We have so much, and we can create more. Yet in so many parts of the world, people suffer terrible privation and have little to guarantee survival. Bare survival and subsistence has been the case throughout history. But privation continues into our current time. How can that be? Surely if we can create comfortable, safe and healthy conditions in our world, we can do the same for others: yet, privation continues unabated.

It's easy to blame the situation on those who, according to our sensibilities, exist only to create evil and chaos. We see armies marching towards us ready to inflict terror and suffering . We grow afraid and suspicious. We claim that the suffering we see in the poor regions of the world grow out of the uncivilized and violent races of people who inhabit these regions. "Life is very cheap there", we like to say in some kind of mantra of complacent superiority. It's easy for us to sweep it all under a rug of denial and contempt. They only know how to destroy and create suffering, we tell ourselves. And they want to bring that to us.

So, we denigrate all of them. And when the terror comes to our shores, we thrash about, looking for a solution. Since we are the "superior" societies, we decide that the only way to solve the suffering and end the evil is to show how strong we are. We mobilize our forces and unleash our technological superiority. We react the way we have reacted for centuries. We cry "havoc" and let loose the dogs of war. This will surely bring the evil ones to destruction and cause those who starve and suffer to become free from the violence and privation and to love us for saving them. And when those who are victims of our bombs and bullets look at us with anger and hatred, we are surprised. "How can they not love us?" we think. "Don't they know that we are trying to save them, to set them free?"

It is sometimes tempting to think that we are in control. By carrying the fight to the enemy, we keep violence, terror, famine, disease, and privation of all kinds at arm's length. Every few years, an element of the horror breaks through to attack us where we live, and this creates fresh terror. We react, we attack and we feel that, somehow, we are winning, although the comfort that should naturally come from winning never seems to be close. As long as the terror is based far from home, though, we feel somewhat safe. We can draw a breath of relief: we sleep at night, although a little fitfully: we can turn our attention to ourselves. And we decide to live crazily, since the terror is only held at bay and can't stay at bay for long.

We seek to live happily. We strive for all the good things that our modern lives can provide. We gather as much as we can, for it could all vanish tomorrow if we are not careful, if we are not vigilant. We believe that by working hard, we earn the right to acquire more. It is ours by right, because we are so intelligent, so virtuous, so entitled. And when we have achieved our goal, we strive to gain more. We see this as our reward for our hard work: the more we gain, the more it proves that we are good. Life becomes more meaningful with the more we attain. And who knows? If the foreign evil ever visits our shores, we might lose all we have gained: better to get more and enjoy it now before it's all gone.

And with material gain, there comes a price. The more we produce, and the more we acquire, the more we discard. We have so much and we cast aside so much. But, with the increasing waste, we develop a unique ability to not see it. We can ignore it because it is taken away from our immediate environment and put elsewhere. But it doesn't really go away. It lingers, like the evil we sought to destroy and contain in foreign lands. The problem is not solved, it is merely swept aside ... for now. How soon before the waste and evil and suffering and privation visits our shores permanently? How much time do we have to come up with a solution?

We like to think that we have the ability to make the important decisions that are needed to provide the solutions. After all, it was we who created all the wealth. It is we who are superior and live such beautiful lives, full of money and material things. Surely we can depend on ourselves to think our way out of the morass. But we are foolish to think this way. Our world has made us venal, and selfish, and subject to temptation. We willingly put ourselves in the hands of a "craven media" who ignore or distort the truth we do not want to see. We are "drunk on popular culture" and think that what we see and hear is the truth. We want to be entertained and kept deliberately silly and immature. Why? Because it's fun. And it allows us to continue as we have always done, not responsible for the consequences of our actions.

We kid ourselves. We believe that, if we are patient enough, if we can keep the bad things at bay, if we can enjoy our little smug and acquisitive world for a few more years, then the solution will be at hand. Technology will be our saviour in the shining new future ahead. Our machines will solve all problems, stop old age and disease from spoiling our lives, end war and hunger and suffering. A brave new world awaits: just live long enough and the machines will save us. Machines are perfect, they do not grow old or sick and they do not fall prey to the temptations and pitfalls of the world we have created. They will save us and will, eventually, become us. And what then? Who will we be? Is there hope for humanity as we ride to the future?

 Decisions made now will have long-lasting effects for generations to come. We look to our leaders for wisdom and guidance. Our leaders must make the right decisions.We can put our faith, as we always have done, in our ability to build things to improve our lives. Or we can realize that these things come with a huge price. Our leaders must find a way to balance technological gain with preserving all that is good about us and our world. Are our leaders up to the challenge? Are they even thinking about this?

The decision they have to make is actually quite a simple one. They must decide if they believe in the innate goodness of people, or if they believe that such a thing doesn't really exist, and that the pursuit of material gain, economic growth and technological progress are the most important goals. One must hope that they have the wisdom to realize that there must be a balance between humanity and gain. They must come to understand that nothing happens without a price being paid. If we pay the price intelligently and without harm, then gain is good. But if we ignore the price and blindly keep moving forward at breakneck speed, heedless of the cost, then we are doomed. Our leaders hold humanity's future in their hands.

And so it goes .... we hope for a victory over all the sham, drudgery, greed, war, suffering and the headlong rush into a technological future of oblivion. We hope we can make good decisions and create a wonderful new world. We hope that our journey forward will be a good and safe one, full of promise and hope. We hope for a good ride.

There's only one problem .... who's driving this bus?

We'd better find out soon. Without a driver, we'll end up going over a cliff. That is not a desired outcome .... for any of us. We need a good driver ... or else the consequences are ....

YOU'VE GOT TO LOVE THE ENGLISH

Thanks to Joy for the use of this anecdote.

"On a train from Manchester to London, an American passenger was berating an Englishman who shared his compartment. "Look here," the American said. "You English set yourselves apart from the rest of the world, with your stiff upper lip and snobbish pretentions. You should be more like the rest of us. Look at me. I'm part Italian, a little Irish, with some Portuguese and Polish, too. What do you have to say to that?" The Englishman looked over his newspaper, lowered his glasses and said "How jolly sporting of your mother."

Bill Bryson is actually an American-born humourist and writer, but has lived in England for forty years. He is able, therefore, to write about the English as someone who lives with them, but is not quite part of them. His "The Road to Little Dribbling" is a collection of episodes of a walk around the island of Britain. His adventures are amazingly funny, but what strikes the reader is his endless fascination with the strange, endearing, sometimes frustrating, and always entertaining eccentricities of the English people. To a quick reader, Bryson sometimes comes off as insulting, but a careful read shows a writer who is a huge anglophile ... and who loves the strange sense of humour of these people. Bryson is also brutally honest: some of what he encounters on his rambles is unbelievably stupid. He pulls no punches when discussing how many English cities have pulled down wonderful old buildings and put up modern monstrosities, especially in the dour and uncertain post-war period from the late-forties until the mid- to late-sixties. Having toured many of these cities, I would lend my voice to this criticism. Bryson is an unabashed fan of the English countryside. He comments on the fact that England has no natural wonders, no huge mountains, nor impressive wide rivers, and is very crowded. But the countryside is an unbelievable wonder, and almost completely man-made. He is constantly fighting to preserve the countryside from developers, a situation we find here in Ontario at this time. Still, despite the criticisms and negative feeling of these items, Bryson never descends into anger or bitterness. His humour, a combination of an American willingness to poke fun and a British willingness to take a joke come shining through.

The English writer Nick Hornby's latest novel, "Funny Girl" also gives a glimpse at English humour at its best. Hornby has had a long and productive career and his novels and screenplays all have a funny-sad quality about them that I particularly enjoy. In this novel, a young girl from Blackpool wins the title of "Miss Blackpool 1964" and then promptly resigns to pursue a career in television at the BBC. The story is easy to follow and terrifically funny. It also gives insight into how England changed during the early to mid 1960's from a dowdy and quaint little country, still reeling form the privations of the war, into a modern and fashionable country. It is a situation that, to a large extent, England is still trying to come to grips with well into the 21st century. But through it all, through all the trials and uncertainty of the main characters, there is that English sense of humour that Hornby has mastered. It is understated, slightly fatalistic, tremendously ironic, and often self-mocking. It is wonderful and it's good for what ails you.

If England faced nothing but disasters, defeats and humiliations for the rest of its history, they would always be able to make a joke of it.
We could all learn an important lesson from them. Laugh it up when things get heavy .... but do it with style, a sense of flair, a sense of class.

You've got to love the English !

OCTOBER 20 .... REALITY SETS IN

In a previous blog, I speculated on the aftermath of the Canadian general election. Like most people, I thought that the result would be a minority government for one of the major parties, and that the time period after the election (starting today) would be more intense and more interesting than the campaign itself.

I was wrong.

In one of the most remarkable results in modern political history, the Liberals under Justin Trudeau have risen from the political dead to form a strong majority government. There will be no need of all the machinations, negotiations and manoeuverings I predicted would be necessary to make a minority work.

Justin Trudeau is Canada's 23rd Prime Minister, and he will be for the next four years. The Liberals will have free reign to implement their programme for the next four years. Liberals everywhere are rejoicing: Conservatives everywhere are wringing hands and planning their next campaign because, after all, this is what Conservatives do.

Whether the reader feels that the result was a good thing or the end of the world, three things have become evident.

First, anyone who underestimates Justin Trudeau does so at their peril. The Conservative attack ads, which aired well before the election writ was dropped, were highly disrespectful and refused to admit that Trudeau had any real ability. The Conservative campaign manager, at the beginning of the campaign, suggested that if Trudeau showed up for the first debate wearing pants, he'd exceed expectations. And the NDP's Tom Mulcair often referred to Trudeau by his first name only, mimicking the Conservative tactic, and spoke in a condescending manner to the Liberal. Trudeau kept his composure and showed a steady grasp of how politics really works. He is not the intellectual giant his father was, but he is highly intelligent, very disciplined and has a political acumen worthy of any Prime Minister.

Second, anyone who thinks the Conservative Party have suffered an irreparable setback are woefully mistaken. The Conservatives play hard-ball politics all the time. They are never quiet, never satisfied, always looking for ways to attack their opponents and always ready for a fight. Many find this attitude offensive, but one has to tip their hat to the Conservative fighting spirit. Stephen Harper has worn out his welcome ( probably long ago: he will undoubtedly be remembered as one of Canada's least likeable Prime Ministers ), but the Conservatives have a wealth of people to tap for a leadership role. They are not done, not by a long shot.

Finally, what is abundantly evident is that our electoral system is in need of an overhaul. One of the loudest criticisms levelled at the previous Conservative government is that, despite the fact that it enjoyed a majority, it only had around 40% support among those who voted. Now, in 2015, we have a strong Liberal majority .... with around 40% support of the electorate. Clearly, the "first past the post" system needs to be modified by a type of proportional representation. Otherwise, vote splitting and strategic voting will result in governments that do not accurately reflect the will of the people. Add to this the very real need for Senate reform, increasing voter turnout, reasonable political advertising ( also known as propaganda ) and Mr. Trudeau will be pressed to seemingly work against his good electoral fortune and bring about reforms that will make Canada more democratic.

As we digest the results, other realities will need to be addressed: our relationship with Indigenous Peoples, the disparity between rural and urban Canada, our role in the world, and our environmental policy come to mind. Justin Trudeau cannot solve all of these at once. But he will be sorely pressed to get to work on them soon. Hopefully, he will get a short "honeymoon" period in which to set priorities and plan. Then, facing fierce opposition from both Conservatives and NDP, he must get down to real work.  He shouldn't get a free pass from anyone. (That includes me, despite the fact that I like him and think he'll do well.) He must deliver. It is imperative that he not fail.

And for the rest of us, we must calm down, get on with real life, but observe closely. It's our Parliament, after all. We must insist that ALL parties make it work effectively.

OCTOBER 20 ... THE CAMPAIGN CONTINUES !

When Stephen Harper called the election at the beginning of the summer, he was hoping for two things. First, he hoped that the campaign would go so long that the Canadian public would lose interest, particularly in the summer months. And second, he was hoping that other issues would crop up, distracting from two negative aspects of his administration: the Mike Duffy scandal and the poor performance of the Canadian economy.

He was incorrect on the first item. Canadians have been engaged and interested in the campaign from day one, and have been more so since Labour Day. Whether this will translate into a larger voter turnout on Oct.19 remains to be seen. But he was correct on the second item. Since hiring an Australian "rain maker" to manage a faltering campaign, the Conservatives have been able to turn a relatively small item, the wearing of a niqab by two women in citizenship ceremonies, into a major issue, particularly in Quebec.

What has happened throughout the campaign is a series of wild fluctuations in support for all the major parties. For many weeks, the NDP under Tom Mulcair had been cruising along based on his solid if unspectacular work as Opposition Leader and the good feelings generated in Quebec from the last election. Then, the Liberals under Justin Trudeau have responded by his perhaps surprising good performance on the campaign trail and especially in the TV debates. Finally, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper, trailing throughout the early weeks and portrayed as a tired and arrogant government which needed to be turfed out, have rebounded based on hot-button items such as the niqab and security and perhaps a new trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations.

This means that the election on Oct. 19 is by no means certain. As of this writing, the Conservatives have a slight lead in the polls nationally over the Liberals, with the NDP seemingly bleeding badly. Depending on how this support plays out in ridings, it seems that two results will occur. Either the Conservatives will win another majority in a similar way to their victory in 2011 (caused by slim wins in many ridings over their rivals and a split in votes on the "left" between the Liberals and NDP ), or the results will give the three parties fairly even numbers in the House of Commons.

If the second scenario proves to be true, get ready for even more intense campaigning. If you thought this election campaign was long, nasty, at times laughable, and edgy, the aftermath in a three- or two-way split of seats will keep us guessing.

If Mr. Harper emerges with the most seats, but not a majority, he will undoubtedly try to form a government. It will not last long. Both Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau have said there would be no way they'd support a Conservative minority. Should Mr. Harper try and fail to win the confidence of the House, it would all fall into the hands of the Governor-General, Mr. David Johnston.

Mr. Johnston is a capable though quiet individual, which is probably why he is well suited for the Constitutional task he may be given. As Governor-General, he has the Constitutional authority to ask anyone he pleases to form a government. But the practice is that he takes advice and acts upon it from the Prime Minister. There will be no prize given for anyone who correctly guesses what advice Mr. Harper will give Mr. Johnston.

But the Governor-General would be well advised to listen to the mood of the country. And if the mood were to suggest that the voters do not want another election so soon after this one, then Mr. Johnston may indeed ask either Mr. Mulcair or Mr. Trudeau to try to form a government. And this is where it gets interesting.

Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau do not necessarily like or trust each other. Just because their parties are both seen as left of centre, they don't always see things the same. A political marriage between these two men would be rocky, to say the least. But, in order for either of these men to form a government, they would need to have the support of the other party to make it work, certainly in the short term. And, if the marriage is seen to work, pressure would be immense on the two parties to consider a permanent merger, as happened many years ago between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party. That merger ended the continual splitting of the vote on the right and allowed the new party, the Conservative Party of Canada, to form governments. The current Liberals and NDP would have to seriously consider such a permanent move. If that move happens, it would undoubtedly be over the objections of the current leaders. It would then be probable that such a merger would spell the end of the careers of both Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau.

(The other parties, the Bloc Quebecois under Mr. Gilles Duceppes and the Green Party under Ms. Elizabeth May, will probably not win more than a handful of seats and will probably not be factors in the election result. But, if the three main parties are in a virtual three-way tie, these smaller parties may have a role to play. )

But, unless we want another election soon, this short term marriage is our best option failing a majority for the Conservatives or the others. We must keep in mind that our task, as voters, is to elect a Parliament, not necessarily a Government. It is up to the Parliamentarians we send to Ottawa to make a Government work. That is the nature of Canadian democracy, which is badly in need of rejuvenation.

Whatever the case, the result on October 19 will probably not end anything, unless Mr. Harper can squeeze out a majority. Failing that, we will see more manoeuvering and posturing than is going on now. As voters, we can't stop paying attention. We must be alert and demand that our elected officials do what we wish. If we do not want an election, they had better not plunge us into one. And the blame game, if another election is sprung upon us, will be explosive. Which leader wants to be portrayed as the one who forced us back into another divisive election? So, the campaign will continue: nasty, bitter and never-ending.

We get the government we deserve. If we are disinterested and unengaged, Parliament will continue to be a gong show. But, if we stay involved and vote in large and significant numbers, it will show the Parliamentarians that we demand they make the Government work. And it will convince the Governor-General that we, and not the Prime Minister, decide what is best for the nation.

Stay tuned.

BEER !

When I turned 18, and was legally able to drink beer, my family took a trip to England to visit our relatives over the pond. It was one of the pivotal events in my life. I was, of course, thrilled to connect with family members I'd not seen in several years, or hadn't  met at all. As a person passionately interested in history, I was like a kid in a candy shop. And, as a new beer drinker, I was fascinated to learn about the beverage. My dad was an enthusiastic beer drinker and he taught me much about the "suds". But being in England with my dad, and joining my granddad, and several uncles and cousins who were beer drinkers, I had a new world open up to me. In Ontario in the early 70's, there were the standard beers to enjoy: Canadian, Blue, OV, 50, Ex and the lot. But in England, a variety of ales, porters, bitters and creams exploded on my young palate. I was hooked.

As years went by, the opportunity to travel continued to come my way. And, of course, the opportunity to sample the world's varieties of beers presented a seemingly endless chance to challenge my taste buds. But, sadly, the variety of beers in Ontario remained in neutral. True, the traditional beers started to give way to brands like Sleeman's, Creemore and Upper Canada. But it was a trickle only, and compared to the vast ocean of brews available world-wide and even as close as the United States, it created some degree of frustration for me.

Now, we are in a full-fledged beer revolution. Craft breweries are springing up all over Ontario, and I am a complete fan of the trend. Over the last few days, I have been able to sample some little known varieties in small towns and big cities. My friend from Manitoba, Don Sourisseau, has visited recently and it has been a veritable beer festival for us. We sampled a couple of local crafts in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Silversmith Brewery and Oast House brewery, and Don brought some Black Swan back from Stratford. I had laid in some offerings from places as far afield as St. Thomas, Muskoka, Brantford, Ottawa ( my personal favourite, "Old Tomorrow" Canadian Pale Ale ), and various locations in Toronto. It was a road map through our wonderful province and the taste ranged from terrific to horrid ( the brew from St. Thomas was "The Witty Traveler" ... too much clove flavour for us ).

I had enjoyed some of the craft beers in Manitoba a couple of years ago. Don and his wife Joy introduced Lou and I to the Half Pints brewery in Winnipeg. Don reports the brewery is doing well and expanding into Ontario.

This is all good news if you enjoy beer. National brands are all well and good. I like Canadian, Keith's, Moosehead and Rickard's. In the US, I think Coors and Pabst are fine. Australia's Fosters, Japan's Sapporo, India's Kingfisher, Cuba's Crystal and China's Tsingtao are all good brews. But, as I get older, I find I want something different, something challenging, something with "umph" in the flavour. Craft beers deliver that "umph".

Long live the revolution !!

CRYING OVER SPILLED MILK

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

     Mark Twain

Mayor John Tory announced today that Toronto would not submit a bid to the IOC for the 2024 Summer Olympic Games. The mayor cited a lack of support from the public and from the corporate sector. Tory said that he was of the opinion that Toronto would someday host the Games, but now was not the time to submit a bid.

Undoubtedly, most people will be happy by that announcement. A bid would cost several million dollars just to put the city's name on a list of contenders. Then, a campaign would ensue to convince the IOC that Toronto would be a deserving host. And, should the bid prove successful, it would cost at least a billion dollars to prepare the venues and infrastructure to host the event.

"Sigh", is the sound of the collective multitudes. They would not want to "foot the bill", or put up with the endless construction of facilities, or the event itself. Looks like sanity has prevailed.

Balderdash.

Toronto should have launched a bid. An Olympic bid would have been a bold declaration that Toronto is ready to take its place in the realm of world cities. An Olympic bid would have provided a much needed vision of what the city would become in the near and distant future. An Olympic bid would force Toronto to face itself in the mirror and realize, once and for all, that it is no longer the city most of the old order still thinks it is.

Peter Ustinov, the late British actor and raconteur, once famously said that Toronto was like New York, but run by the Swiss. This was back in the 70's, when Toronto was trying desperately to get the rest of the world to notice it, much like a pre-adolescent child. It billed itself as "the city that works" ... implying that it was a place that hummed along and solved all problems sent its way. In reality, the slogan really meant that Toronto was all about work: commerce, labour, a serious and slavish devotion to the Protestant work ethic, devoid of humour or fun. Toronto traced its virtuous ethos to its Orange Order origins: very much a product of its whitebread past.


Fast forward through the next forty years. Toronto is now a multi-cultural city, more than 6 million strong in the GTA, putting it in league with places like New York, Chicago, Lima, Mexico City, Los Angeles and others. Culture finds a fertile home, producing some amazing talent in the arts and entertainment. The best and brightest in the world come to the city to ply their trade and make their fortunes. And the poor and working classes, as elsewhere, struggle to find their way in the new order.

Despite the growth, though, Toronto seems to be mired in the small minded thinking of its Orange Order roots. Transit is a joke. Only this year have we seen a rail link open up between the airport and downtown, something that other major cities have had for decades. Roads are crumbling. Sewers and water mains give way to sinkholes and ditches regularly. The working poor live in substandard housing, and the glass and steel condos that spring up in the urban core shed windows onto the ground below with regularity, signalling that developers can build without any standard or oversight. And gangs and guns proliferate, despite reassurances that the city is still "safe compared to other major cities." Rightly or wrongly, citizens see crime as out of control and unsolvable: they may be right because there is no real solution from the city's leadership.

Yet we are told that Toronto is a world class city. A major financial hub, with markets and investment on a par with other world financial centres. Our markets are attractive, we are told. Corporations have offices here: our banks are the envy of the world. Money lives here.

Oh really? The immense fortunes accumulated by the wealthy corporations are kept in a modern equivalent of Fort Knox. Accountants jealously guard funds in the billions of dollars, kept as a hedge against the coming economic Armageddon , watched over by financial overlords who resemble Ebenezer Scrooge, or Silas Marner, or Gollum, who lugubriously wrings their hands over their piles of gold and whisper "my precious" over and over.

This is no longer the "city that works". It is no longer "Toronto the Good". It is, instead, a smug, little town that looks like a huge city in the 21st century, but acts like the "Hogtown" or "Muddy York" it was a hundred years ago.

Toronto could have dreamed big. It could've broken the shackles of its dull past. It could have presented a vision of a new city of the future. It could have used the recent Pan Am Games as a springboard for bigger and better things, as Rio de Janeiro has done. It could have gone alongside great cities like London, Paris, Sydney, Beijing, Seoul, Rome, Tokyo, Berlin, Moscow, Mexico City, Los Angeles, Athens. Even second tier cities like Atlanta, Stockholm, Helsinki, and Barcelona have dared to dream big. But not Toronto.

Dreams don't reside here.

Taxpayers don't want to pay. They cite the example of Montreal in 1976, where the costs were irresponsibly burdened on the citizens. But they ignore the profits earned by modern Games. They don't see the potential economic gains that a successful bid would bring.

Governments don't want to pay. They point to deficits and complaints of taxpayers. But they ignore the fact that infrastructure needed for a city to survive and grow must be provided with or without the Games. In the case of Toronto, the infrastructure needed has been woefully ignored or delayed in the name of "respect for taxpayers." Infrastructure crumbles, and taxpayers complain anyway. A successful Games bid would be a spark for further and rapid infrastructure development which would last well beyond the Games.

Corporations don't want to pay. All this despite record profits in the banking and financial sector. All this despite untold billions held in reserve by most major corporations doing nothing, accomplishing nothing. The windfalls that corporate backing would bring to a successful bid is ignored. The Games in 1984 in Los Angeles realized huge profits for the corporations which involved themselves in the Games. But Toronto corporations seem to be great accountants, but bad history students. They don't want to speculate in a future that seems to have plenty of upside: this is a microcosm of Canadian business ineptitude that has plagued our country since its earliest days. "Let someone else do it," is the corporations' mantra. "Leave us alone to go along as we've always done." No entrepreneurialism here.

Toronto doesn't like to compete. It doesn't want to risk defeat. It is worried about being branded a "loser", especially since it failed in its bid for the 1996 Games. A loss like that didn't make Toronto want to come back fiercer and more determined. It made Toronto slink back into its corner, licking its wounds, whimpering like a small child pleading "please don't dislike us, please don't make fun of us .... let us just go away." Indeed, Toronto became a loser, and hasn't come out of the shadows.

The opportunities for the youth of the city is ignored. Athletes are just the tip of the iceberg. Volunteer opportunities abound. And employment in the construction of the venues and infrastructure would provide a shot in the arm for the city's youth.

The taxpayers are undoubtedly heaving a sigh of relief. "Thank God there's no Olympics", they may say. "Just think of the traffic chaos, the disruption caused by endless construction, the amount on my property taxes ...."  Yes, none of that will happen now that the Olympics aren't on the horizon. Right?

Toronto, you're so small. Your time to grow up was right in front of you. Your time to strive for the big prize was there for the taking. Your opportunity to be bold, visionary and brave was there. But you took the easy way out. No risk, no reward. Instead, an empty promise from a lacklustre mayor who is the perfect embodiment for his people and his city."Someday, we'll be really, really good" .... but not now.

Enjoy your protracted adolescence.