Civil debate

The following article on political debate in Toronto - picked up in print by my local paper the Bloor West Villager (Dec. 4) - is part of two broader but related topics of concern to me - civil debate and civic engagement that I will be exploring in greater detail in the coming months.

Political debate in Toronto

Toronto faces multiple policy challenges requiring reasoned, respectful discussion between civic leaders and residents - taxes and services, transportation and infrastructure and poverty and equality, to name a few. But unless we reverse this recent trend towards intolerant, divisive public debate, our city is destined to be mired in mediocrity; our progress stalled by overt partisanship and an alienated, disengaged citizenry.

Toronto's positive reputation comes in large measure from the basic civility of its residents - our acceptance of one another, including our diverse backgrounds and opinions. It is this civility which is now threatened by a quality of public debate unworthy of a schoolyard shoving match.

Some recent examples include:

- Council debate over the proposed redevelopment of downtown Jarvis Street. The plan called for reducing one of five traffic lanes, widening sidewalks, planting trees and installation bike lanes. Many supported the re-urbanization of this historic Toronto thoroughfare, while critics expressed concern over the possibility of traffic congestion. But when certain conservative councillors used hyperbolic rhetoric to declare a "war on motorists", the seriousness of this debate was diminished.

- The city's summer labour dispute frustrated residents as well as negotiators on both sides of the issue. In an ad campaign criticizing the negotiating position of civic workers, Canadian Federation of Independent Business CEO Catherine Swift referred to "so-called city workers", immediately weakening the overall civility of public discussions around the dispute. Rather than contributing to efforts to find common ground, the commercials only hardened attitudes and deepened divisions.

- Instead of rising above what she perceived as venomous comments on a recent radio call-in show discussing Mayor David Miller's political record, Councillor Sandra Bussin joined the fray by mocking host John Tory as an electoral loser. As a result, the councillor herself became an issue instead of her concern over intolerant comments.

These sorts of interventions by those who should know better do nothing to further constructive debate on important issues. In fact, they only increase public cynicism towards government while encouraging simplistic solutions to complex policy problems.

We need to hear more from those who empathize with alternate points of view and less from those who demonize them. We need to hear arguments based on reason and evidence, not anger or fear. We need debate that encourages people to join in, not turn away.

The responsibility for the health of our civic discourse does not rest with our politicians alone however; it is shared by all of us. We are fortunate to have this responsibility, one that many other citizens of this world long for. We should embrace it with an open mind and an understanding heart, a healthy dose of skepticism and a touch of humility.

So as the city prepares for an election next year, by all means, bring on vigorous debate. But let us maintain our collective civility. After all, that is the story of Toronto, and that is how we will continue to build a great city.

Christopher Holcroft