TORONTO – Just what do they do? I first heard this expression uttered in a fashion that only the redoubtable former mayor of North York and subsequently first Mayor of the [amalgamated] City of Toronto – Mel Lastman. He was “surprised” that the then Federal Minister responsible for seniors and Housing showed up in Toronto to discuss common policy objectives between the two Legislative bodies, albeit a mouse and elephant relationship in terms of size, scope and resources.
Fast forward to Friday, August 8, 2025, Woodbridge, where people had gathered to commemorate one of the worst mining disasters in the Western World in the twentieth century, Marcinelle, Belgium, 1956. As some political notables were being introduced, one member of the audience asked – provocatively and quizzically – Member of Parliament? What do they do? … as opposed to city councillors, for example.
It is a lesson for all (me included) that not everyone is smitten with what we may consider self-evident importance of our “intrusion” into everyone’s everyday life. While the citizenry has “an impression” of the perceived obligation to attach ourselves to the theme of the day for ideological reasons, say the importance of expressing disgust with the behaviour of Trump towards Canada, the significance of public protest to institutional behaviour towards the clearly weaker side (think Gaza), the Aboriginal communities and… cyclists, seem to take on a life of their own.
They open up consequential scenarios [often] uncontemplated even by the “professional advocates” who would rush us to a judgement before the Creator calls us away. Normally, one would have had a corpus of law, a constitution, against which to balance zealotry. Call it a mitigation of perceptions that might put passing issues into perspective.
Well, two recent Court decisions, one in British Columbia regarding property rights of Indigenous communities – a serious matter, the other, in Ontario on the Constitutional right of cyclists to “bike lanes”. The Premier of Ontario, ever ready to pounce on political prey, has almost vowed to appeal a questionable decision by the Ontario Superior Court. It said the removal of [some] bike lanes violated the constitutional [Charter] rights to safety of persons on bicycles when they occupy the same terrain as pedestrian motorists.
Personal injury and threat to Life are serious topics. Statistic Canada data suggests a ratio of 3:4 autos to people, irrespective of age etc. (thirty million for forty million people). Transportation congestion may be a personal safety as well as an economic factor. Personal responsibility and dutiful planning must surely be as important – especially in a northern environment like ours.
On the safety side, elected officials have an implicit and explicit obligation to put the safety of all citizens first and foremost, as they implement realistic policies to enhance livelihood and quality of Life. Surely personal choices, while encouraged, cannot displace the common good of all.
Toronto’s panacea of more bike lanes is prompting increasing pushback. The City boasts more than 240 kilometers of bikelanes, many of them in places never meant for that type of traffic. Even pedestrians have no right to indifference in the face of vehicular danger on roads meant for smooth and efficient movement from point A to point B.
In the pics below: a group of cyclists on the road, with an empty cycle path alongside (photo by Priscilla Pajdo)
