Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Is Greater Sudbury Ready to Host Aerospace Industry?

Last week, mayoral candidate Dan Melanson called for the City to create the economic circumstances to work towards establishing an aerospace industry in Greater Sudbury. Melanson believes that the timing is right for the City to pursue some of North America’s largest aerospace companies, and smaller companies who do business with those companies, to come to town and set up shop. Tax incentives would be the carrot Melanson employs to make our City more attractive to industry. Well-paying, high-tech and industrial jobs would be the spin-off for Greater Sudbury.

It’s an exciting idea, but how realistic is it? Melanson acknowledged that there will be challenges, given that other centres, such as Prince Edward Island, are also trying to attract aerospace companies, and they’ve got a head start on places like Greater Sudbury, which hasn’t gone about pursuing aerospace industries in any meaningful way, despite the Sudbury Airport Development Corporation’s ownership of our airport, and it’s desire to expand a range of complimentary facilities and operations on site.

Greater Sudbury at a Crossroads

Melanson thinks, however, that Northern Ontario is ripe for investment from the aerospace sector, and that existing mining and supply operations, some of which are very high tech in nature, will have a cross-over effect on aerospace start-ups. I think that he’s right about this. I believe that we are entering a time of significant opportunity for Northern Ontario, and that if Greater Sudbury is able to seize this moment, it will lead to long term economic prosperity.

Unfortunately, our City finds itself at a bit of a cross roads – we look ahead toward the future, but we find ourselves in the midst of a bit of a crisis regarding which way to turn in order to get there. Dan Melanson’s candidacy for Mayor is a case in point. It’s clear that Melanson views the creation of a high-tech aerospace sector as a healthy means of creating wealth and prosperity. Yet, other than suggesting the use of tax incentives to kick start that industrial enterprise, the direction that Melanson wants to take our City will ultimately prove to be detrimental to establishing an aerospace industry here.

Aerospace as Part of Larger Industrial Strategy for the City

Some are writing off Melanson’s scheme as air-brained, pointing to the fact that Melanson owns an aviation company and seems to be more concerned about greasing the wheels and wallets of his buddies and, potentially, his own. That’s nonsense, of course. It’s because Melanson is experienced in the business of aviation and has contacts with companies that he has come out with this idea – who, really, knows better what the lay of the land is for aerospace start-ups in Greater Sudbury than someone who is immersed in the day to day operations of the business? If anything, Melanson’s personal business success shows that he knows what he’s talking about – at least when it comes to this idea.

The challenges, however, are numerous. First and foremost, the City has lacked anything resembling a comprehensive industrial strategy – and that’s likely one of the reasons that our airport seems to have been left largely on its own to fend for itself, while other Northern centres like the City of North Bay have gone out of their way to focus development activities in and around their airport. North Bay recently developed an industrial park in proximity to its airport, in order to better attract aerospace companies. Although located in wetland, the industrial park has started to grow, thanks in large part due to North Bay’s pro-business policies related to the park (as an aside, the choice to locate their business park in a significant wetland may ultimately prove detrimental to the success of the business park, and not just for environmental/flood-related reasons. As corporations are becoming increasingly aware of their social responsibilities to communities, it may start becoming difficult for industries to justify locating in areas of higher environmental sensitivity – and especially in those areas which have been transformed from their natural functions into locations for new greenfield development).

The Sudbury Airport Development Corporation (SADC) bills itself is an independent corporation which doesn’t rely on municipal tax revenue for its operation. It was created in 2000, when Transport Canada transferred ownership and governance to local authorities across the country. SADC’s Board of Directors has two spots reserved for municipal Councillors, so although the corporation acts independent of the City, it remains integrated to a degree in the fabric of the City’s governance structure.

And that’s why it seems to me that the City has been missing out on an opportunity to grow both the airport and related jobs. SADC’s mission statement indicates that the airport should be Northern Ontario’s preferred gateway, and that the airport should drive economic development in the City of Greater Sudbury. And SADC seems to be doing its part. After taking a hit in the annual number of passengers in 2009 and 2010, during the economic downturn, annual passenger levels in 2012 and 2013 have been the highest seen at the airport. Inexpensive flights might be part of the reason, but likely this uptick has a lot more to do with the amount of money entering Northern Ontario through the mining, supply and exploration sector.

Greater Sudbury as the Focus for the Sustainable Development of Ontario’s North

Greater Sudbury is one of the world’s mining, supply and exploration centres after all. And the mineral wealth of Northern Ontario could very well continue to drive prosperity in our community throughout the 21st Century. Our City has the infrastructure in place to be the base camp for operations in the Ring of Fire, and given that region’s remoteness from larger urban centres, it’s clear that an active aviation hub would bring benefit to our City.

Mining exploration and supply is hardly a new business to Northern Ontario, even if the stakes have now never been higher. With this in mind, it is very clear that Greater Sudbury isn’t positioning itself to take advantage of our assets. Appropriate planning, starting with an industrial strategy, will be critical if the City is to move forward to seize the opportunities presented by the Ring of Fire and other mineral enterprises which will come on stream with the sustainable development of Ontario’s northern hinterlands. We are truly in the midst of an “all hands on deck” moment in Greater Sudbury, but not all of the hands appear to be working at complimentary purposes. That’s got to change.

Attracting Business Investment - Greater Sudbury’s Strength and Weaknesses

The location of the City’s airport approximately 25 kilometres from the downtown will prove a barrier to creating a vibrant aerospace industry. Too often, the effects of past decisions and bad planning have rippled into our future, leaving us with costly remediation bills. There’s probably nothing that can be done regarding the airport’s location – we’re stuck with it. While some might argue that the remote location will allow for a greater range of potentially noisy industry, the fact is that the high-tech employees of the future (and let’s face it, of today) aren’t going to be too thrilled to travel to and from this remote location to work.

Our City has a lot to offer employers who are interested in creating high-tech jobs. Our City offers a livable experience which would be the envy of any City in the Greater Toronto Area. Recreational opportunities abound. Our roads are relatively free of congestion. Culturally, we continue to punch above our weight class. And our house prices are a bargain compared to those in the GTA. With an increasing focus on redevelopment and infill in order to better keep taxes and service charges down, Greater Sudbury is primed to accommodate opportunities for population growth should it be needed to service remote northern development opportunities.

I don’t write any of this lightly – I’m not exactly known for taking pro-growth stances, as I believe that true sustainable development doesn’t require growth. But, the fact of the matter is that the sustainable development of Ontario’s remote north will require an infusion of both labour and capital – but it’s not going to benefit the entirety of Northern Ontario’s geography. In the bid for new capital and labour investments, not every location will prove attractive. Those that can make the case are much more likely to attract new investment – whether it’s wanted or not (and we should keep in mind that investment isn’t always wanted, depending on the type of facilities being proposed). In that context, it only makes sense for a community to plan for likely outcomes. For Greater Sudbury, a likely outcome is that we are going to see some of that investment happening here. A better outcome would be, given the relative strength and flexibility of our numerous assets, would be to see a large portion of those resources made available to our City.

Livability at the Heart of Municipal Investment Strategy

If we’re going to do that, however, we’ve got to get our act together. Although our City already has many reasons to attract employers creating well-paying jobs, there are an increasing number of obstacles which are becoming apparent in terms of this City’s livability. What was once attractive in the past – larger homes on large lots, located in suburban settings, each with two and three car garages – isn’t nearly as attractive today, especially to younger workers – both those with and without families.

Yet our City’s focus regarding “livability” continues to prioritize large roads to service cars over just about everything else. If we don’t start seriously shifting the focus away from a car culture of convenience and onto creating truly livable communities in our City, Greater Sudbury may find that what was once a local advantage for highly paid employees has lost a lot of its lustre. And big business is taking note of these aspects like never before. Happy employees are more productive employees. Time loss to long commutes stuck behind the wheel of a car is time that might otherwise be spent with families, or used for leisure activities. Working closer to home is becoming increasingly important for a growing number of people. Getting to and from work through the use of active transportation, such as walking and cycling, is also becoming more important.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Just Google “Richard Florida Creative Class” and read about the sorts of communities that Florida describes as being poised to seize tomorrow’s prosperity. And then ask yourself how well Greater Sudbury fits the bill today – and then try to think about to 10 or 15 years ago, and ask yourself again if we’ve come very far in that amount of time. I think we’ve made some progress, but the pace of that progress has been pretty darn slow. If we are going to make the 21st Century as prosperous as it might be for Greater Sudbury, we can’t continue to afford missing out on creating the City we really do need to attract investment that’s going to go somewhere. It doesn’t have to come here just because we consider ourselves to be the Capital of Ontario’s North.

Innotech Park

In some respects, the City is laying the groundwork for future investment in the high-tech sector. The City’s award-winning Downtown Master Plan, for example, includes a call for the creation of a high-tech business park (Innotech Park – intended to be a hub for innovation and technology, hence the name) just east of Lorne Street and south of Elm, on lands currently occupied by under-used parking lots west of the rail line. The Master Plan points out that this is one of the largest vacant land assemblages in any downtown in Ontario. It’s already serviced, and it sits in the heart of the City. If the City were serious about moving forward with mining and aviation clusters, it would be doing all that it can to make Innotech Park a reality for high tech jobs.

But, for the most part, the City’s Downtown Master Plan is collecting dust on a shelf. The Innotech Park lands are currently under consideration for the development of a casino, precisely because of the massive amount of cheap surface parking they could provide. So rather than being the hub of a long-term job-creating high-tech corporate sector as envisioned by the Master Plan, our City may sacrifice this significant opportunity at the altar of expediency, creating a hand-full of middling jobs, and missing out on any opportunity to make our core more livable. By all means, Greater Sudbury, put your casino downtown – but this isn’t the location for it. Another proposal suggests building the casino on top of the Rainbow Centre, using underutilized space better. We should be doing what we can to encourage that sort of intensification, rather than exhausting our vacant land supply in our core for a facility with questionable economic outcomes for our City.

In this “all hands on deck” moment, the City should be doing what it can to make Innotech Park a reality, and to preserve industrial and commercial lands in sensible locations throughout the City. Again, a real industrial strategy for our City might have something to say about all of this – but that’s not what we’ve got.

Strategies for Future Prosperity: Investment vs. Divestment

Getting back to Dan Melanson’s idea – I think that Melanson is largely on the right track, but I’m not sure that he’s thinking big enough – or strategically for that matter. Much else of Melanson’s campaign is based on the idea of the City divesting from the very things which Florida and so many other futurists are calling on municipalities to invest in. Melanson’s small-minded focus on core services – which he essentially defines as roads and pipes – will disadvantage Greater Sudbury’s pursuit of an aerospace industry to an extreme degree.

Creating the underlying circumstance for business investment in a community involves far more than simply giving tax breaks as Melanson would have voters believe. Yes, tax incentives probably should play a part in growing business and industry, especially those which create good, local jobs (like the aerospace industry certainly does). But tax breaks alone can’t be relied on to achieve the outcomes that Melanson – and others, including me – aspire to for our community. This “all hands on deck” moment certainly can’t be fuelled by cutting cultural supports for our community, or making our City friendlier to cars. Sure, go ahead and find efficiencies with municipal spending – but let’s not lose track of the significant role that spending plays in making our City vibrant and healthy.

An aerospace and aviation hub may very well be a critical part of the City’s industrial strategy – I think if we are going to seize our moment with the Ring of Fire, aviation and aerospace must be a part of the strategy. Yes, there will be challenges to overcome, but that’s not a reason to do what we can to make our City a better place for future generations. Appropriate planning, starting with a sound business and industrial strategy which has at its heart long-term sustainability and livability, would be a good place to start – now!

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)

Monday, August 25, 2014

What might a Bloc Collapse mean for the Green Party of Canada?

Many of Canada’s politically engaged are watching with glee the collapse of the Bloc Quebecois. Election night, 2011, saw the Bloc return to Ottawa with a tiny cadre of 4 MPs (which ultimately grew by one when Claude Patry, elected under the NDP banner, crossed the floor to sit with the Bloc). The rise of the NDP in Quebec was clearly at the expense of the Bloc, and to an extent, the Liberals. Unlike the Liberal Party, however, the Bloc hasn’t been able to find a way forward. Their new leader, Mario Beaulieu, elected by old-guard sovereigntists on a platform pushing aggressive separation, simply isn’t resonating with voters, or elected members of his own Party.

Two of five Bloc MP’s have already left the Party – Marie Mourani was kicked out last year for being less than supportive of the Provincial Parti Quebecois’s so-called Charter of Values. Last week, Jean-Francois Fortin left the Party to sit as an Independent, citing Beaulieu’s leadership and the direction he is taking the Bloc. Today, Andre Bellevance announced that he will be sitting as an Independent in the House, and that he won’t be seeking re-election in 2015. That leaves just Patry, who has said he won’t run in 2015, and Louis Plamondon, who was first elected to the House in 1997. The Montreal Gazette is reporting that Plamondon has apparently advised a local newspaper that he will stand for re-election in 2015 (see: “MP Andre Bellevance leaves Bloc Quebecois”, Montreal Gazette, August 25, 2014).

Not many outside of Quebec are going to miss the Bloc. I’m certainly not.

Canada's Changing Political Landscape

What is becoming evident now is that the federal electoral landscape continues to shift, and in so doing, it will have a national impact. Recent polling by Abacus Data (see: “Federal politics without the BQ”, August 21, 2014) suggests that the NDP, and to a lesser extent the Liberals, would see gains should the Bloc collapse and/or disappear altogether. Certainly, without the Bloc (or with a Bloc that voters perceive to be a significantly less serious party), Tom Mulcair’s chances of holding the NDP’s “Fortress Quebec” are enhanced, and will likely deprive the Liberals from a handful of seats that it might otherwise covet to push Justin Trudeau’s party into majority territory.

Ultimately, though, Trudeau’s popularity in the rest of Canada might be enough for the Liberals to get their majority anyway. But a strong Bloc splitting a handful of ridings with the NDP might have allowed a few Liberals to come up the middle. What’s uncertain is whether Liberals winning tight three-way races might offset Liberals winning straight-up fights with the NDP after having picked up some of the Bloc’s former supporters.

The Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party in the House

Beyond potentially determining whether Canada ends up with a majority or minority government, I believe that a collapsing Bloc may end up having another impact on the 2015 election in the rest of Canada – one that directly affects the Green Party. So let me dive in and talk shop for a few minutes – but throughout this conversation, I’d ask that you keep in mind that I remain glad that the Bloc seems to be removing itself from the Canadian political landscape, as I believe that Canada’s broader interests don’t include a contingent of MP’s whose main reason in the House is to promote the break-up of our country.

The continuing presence of Bloc MP’s in the House of Commons, though, works in favour of the Green Party’s electoral prospects in 2015. Keep in mind that neither the Bloc Quebecois or the Green Party are recognized as an “Official Party” in the House, as neither meets the 12 MP threshold (the Bloc is down to 2 MP’s, while the Green Party is up to 2).

Electoral Success for Greens in 2015

The Green Party is hoping to for a breakthrough in 2015 by finding a way to entice Canadians to elect Greens in a couple of dozen ridings throughout the country. One of the Green Party’s biggest challenges, though, is making connections with voters. A lot of Canadians don’t know what the Green Party stands for, beyond the notion that the Party is pro-environment. A lack of historic success with voters has meant that the Green Party continues to be viewed as “unelectable”, even by voters who are aware of our position and policies, and whom otherwise might want to vote Green.

Greens simply don’t get the media coverage that the other parties do. Pollsters don’t always include the Green Party in their polls. Other party leaders are reluctant to even acknowledge the existence of the Green Party (when was the last time anybody heard Tom Mulcair, or any elected NDP MP, refer to the “Green Party” by name? This is a great tactic that the NDP uses to de-legitimize Greens). All of this creates a significant challenge for the Green Party to gather any oxygen between and during elections, and makes connecting with voters that much more difficult.

One thing Greens are counting on is the more prominent exposure of our national Leader, Elizabeth May, in the upcoming 2015 election campaign. Although May will probably be spending most of her time in just a couple of dozen ridings, her presence at the national televised leader’s debate will bring exposure to May and the Green Party into the living rooms of a lot of Canadian households. A successful performance at the debate may very well generate additional coverage for May and the Party in the small number of days between the leader’s debates and the election.

The Green Party and Televised Leaders' Debates

When May was in the televised leader’s debate in 2008, the Green Party’s vote share rose to its highest ever – almost 7%. In 2011, without a leader in the televised debates, the Green Party was back down to just 3% of the national vote.

Many Greens believe that May’s presence in the House of Commons (along with that of Bruce Hyer) all but guarantees her participation in the televised leader’s debates, based on past precedent. These Greens should be reminded not to pin too much hope on the unelected and unaccountable Broadcast Consortium, which manages the leader’s debates and essentially gets to make up the rules as it goes along. The Broadcast Consortium, in negotiation with political parties (which does not include the Green Party, as Greens are without official party standing in the house). In the past, the Broadcast Consortium has tended to allow the parties to take a leadership role in defining who is invited to the debates, and to the format of the debates.

In 2008, when Stephen Harper broke his own fixed-dated election law and dissolved parliament, the Green Party had 1 MP in the House. Blair Wilson had joined the Green Party earlier in the weekend, and although he never technically sat as a Green, he had been very public about his intention to do so. I remember this time very well, as the thrill of finally having an MP in the House was tangible for me and other Greens. A Green MP meant an opportunity to have our Leader in the televised debates, just as it had meant the same for Preston Manning’s Reform Party in the 1993 election.

But May was initially disqualified by the Broadcast Consortium. Reports at the time indicated that the Conservatives and the NDP had disagreed with having May at the debate, because both Stephen Harper and Jack Layton believed that the no-compete agreement between the Liberals and the Greens in each leader’s riding meant that the Green Party was really the Liberal Party in disguise. The arrogance of this thinking, and the Consortium’s decision, didn’t sit well with many engaged Canadians, particularly those in the New Democratic Party. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had both offered lukewarm endorsements for May to be invited.

Under pressure from within, Layton eventually changed his mind, and May was invited to the debate. In 2011, however, Layton and then-Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff had no concerns about silencing the Green Party – May was sidelined from the Leader’s debate.

Blocking the Bloc

Could the same thing happen again in 2015? At first blush, it would seem that it can’t. May’s participation in the televised leader’s debate ought to be a given. With two MP’s in the House, one of whom (May) was elected as a Green, based on past precedent (see: Deb Grey, and May herself in 2008), there should be no reason to keep May out.

However, May’s presence in the debates means that Bloc Leader Mario Beaulieu, who can hardly be described as telegenic, especially in English Canada, must also be given the opportunity to participate. And you can bet your bottom dollar that both the Liberals and the NDP, which will be battling hard for Quebec votes, will do all that they can to keep Beaulieu out of the debates.

Tom Mulcair’s NDP and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are doing what they can to show that the level of crassness and political opportunism which exists in their parties rivals that of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. Rather than putting the interests of Canadians, and the interests of democracy front and centre, what we’re seeing from Mulcair and Trudeau is ultra-partisanship and game-playing. Moving ahead towards the 2015 general election, it’s certain that Canadians will only see more of this.

Working together to keep Beaulieu out of the debate might be a double-edged sword for the NDP and Liberals in Quebec. Certainly, neither party will want to take ownership of the decision to silence the Bloc, and will instead point fingers at the Broadcast Consortium, which ultimately does have the authority to determine who gets invited to participate. Keep in mind, though, that the Consortium takes its marching orders from the parties – so if Beaulieu isn’t invited, it’s because the NDP and Liberals don’t want him there.

And if Mario Beaulieu isn’t allowed to participate in the televised leaders debates, Elizabeth May will have to sit them out too.

The good news for the Green Party is that Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, from a purely crass partisan political point of view, might want Beaulieu to participate in the debates, with hopes that the Bloc might be able to steal a few seats in Quebec away from the Liberals and NDP, which will make obtaining a majority government that much harder for those parties. Of course, it may very well be that the Conservative Party ends up supporting sidelining the Bloc from the debates – as a matter of principle and in the interests of a united Canada!

Bumping Beaulieu

What about the people of Quebec? Don’t they get a say in whether the BQ participates in the debates? Well – no, they don’t. Not unless you count the results at the ballot box as an opportunity for expression. And based on what happened to the Green Party in 2011, if I were a Bloc supporters, I wouldn’t want to rely on voters protesting Beaulieu’s exclusion from the debates at the ballot box. It’s far better to have one’s leader in the debates than not. Credibility certainly takes a hit – especially if the leader was there in the past, and not in the present.

If both Bloc MP’s Patry and Plamondon decided that they weren’t going to run again (as Patry has already indicated for himself), the rationale to exclude the Bloc’s unelected leader from the debates becomes that much more compelling. If neither Patry or Plamondon finished this session of the House as Bloc MPs, it’s almost certain that the Bloc Quebecois would be shut out of the leader’s debates. Does any of this mean that May wouldn’t be invited?

The Consortium Speaks

It’s not a given, for sure. Even without a Bloc Quebecois in Parliament, the Consortium might still agree to invite May. But the case against May’s participation becomes easier to make. Take a look at what Bob Weiers, Senior Producer, CBC news had to say about determining how party leaders were invited to the televised leaders debate in the recent Ontario provincial election (see: “Ontario Election 2014: How to Make a Debate”, Bob Weiers, CBC, June 5, 2014)

Weiers, who produced the Ontario leaders debate television program, has probably given us the most insight into how the Consortium decides which leaders to invite. The rationale Weiers uses to come to the decision to exclude the Green Party of Ontario’s Mike Schreiner from the debate is interesting and worth noting. Weiers notes that the networks want to create both a “watchable” and “journalistically sound” program.

Watchability and Journalistic Soundness

Green supporters might automatically think that May’s presence in any televised debate would certainly contribute to the debate’s journalistic integrity and watchability (I know that I feel that way). But we’ve heard far too often that the number of people in any debate really detracts from watchability – and frankly, it’s hard to argue otherwise (although some of the 2011 GOP Presidential primary debates in the U.S. weren’t bad, just tune in to any City of Toronto mayor’s debate and you be the judge). Anyway, I don’t think that Greens should rely on the Consortium inviting May because she’ll contribute to watchability.

So what about journalistic soundness? Well, Weiers goes on to suggest that the Green Party of Ontario really failed to meet the test of being journalistically interesting? Here’s the full excerpt from Weier’s insider piece:

“One contentious issue that the seven broadcast organizations decide alone is who to invite to the debate. It's an issue we agree on unanimously. There are 23 registered political parties for the current election. Clearly, a 90-minute debate that includes all of them is not an option. The criteria we used as a guide is as follows:

• Is the party registered with Elections Ontario?
• Does the party have an identified and full-time leader?
• Are they running candidates in all, or nearly all of the 107 ridings?
• Does the party, based on reliable polling data over a period of time and recent political history, have a legitimate chance to win the government?
• Does the party hold a seat in the legislature that they were elected to in the last vote? (Floor crossers don't count)

The Green Party of Ontario meets some of these criteria. But they did not win a seat in the last election or in a subsequent byelection. In 2011, they received only 2.92 per cent of the popular vote.

That said, if the Greens win a seat next Thursday night and hold it until the next election, there would be a very strong case to be made for them to participate in the next debate.”

Will 'Legitimate Chance to Form Government' Exclude Greens & Bloc?

So, based on Weier’s analysis, since Elizabeth may won a seat in 2011, the Green Party of Canada should be able to make a “very strong case” for participation in the 2015 leader’s debate. So why am I concerned? Well, take another look at that second-last bullet; the one about having a legitimate chance to win government, based on past performance and reliable polling data? I think that it’s fair to say that in the context of the Green Party of Ontario, and the Green Party of Canada, neither Party meets that test.

In the past, it could have been argued that the federal NDP certainly never had a realistic chance to form government. Or the Reform Party for that matter, when they were only running candidates west of the Ontario border. And the Bloc Quebecois throughout its history, never had a chance to form government, given that they’ve only ever run candidates in one province. Yet NDP, Reform and Bloc Leaders have all participated in the debates. Why change the criteria now?

I actually don’t see any good reason to change it – but I’m not the Broadcast Consortium, trying to make the debates watchable and interesting to an ever-decreasing pool of Canadian voters who get upset about having their prime-time shows pre-empted for largely bland political theatre – especially politically theatre which includes the hapless and unknown Mario Beaulieu. Despite Weier’s suggesting that May would have a compelling case, the criteria that he outlines could clearly be used by the Consortium to sideline May – and Beaulieu too, for that matter.

Silencing Greens Gravy for Liberals, NDP

Given that the NDP and Liberals will have the knives out for Beaulieu, sidelining May and the Greens will really just be gravy for them. With the Green Party polling around 15% in battleground British Columbia (where all three of the other national parties believe they can pick up seats – and with redistribution, they might just do that), keeping May and the Greens off of the national front pages of our print media and off of the television sets of British Columbians furthers their ambitions.

The cards are being stacked against Elizabeth May and the Green Party, by both the mainstream media and the other political parties. The only thing which might save May from being shut out of the debates is the continuing presence of the Bloc Quebecois in the House. With MP Louis Plamondon insisting that he’ll run again for the Bloc, it may ultimately be difficult for the Broadcast Consortium not to invite Bloc Leader Mario Beaulieu to the debates – even with Weiers criteria in their back-pocket. If Beaulieu participates, there can be no case against keeping May out – especially if each Party’s caucus consists of one elected MP / one MP who joined after the last general election.

Sinking Bloc Might Sink Elizabeth May Too

If anything, May’s case is much stronger, given that she is the leader of the Party and has a seat in the House, and that her Party will be running candidates in ridings throughout Canada – a likely outcome now that May and the Greens overtures for co-operation have been completely rebuffed by the go-it-alone NDP and Liberals.

But my money is against May and Beaulieu’s participation, for all of the reasons identified above. Yes, Canadians should be up in arms if May isn’t invited to participate – just as Canadians should be up in arms if Beaulieu isn’t invited to participate. Oh…wait a minute. We can’t apply our outrage towards biasing democratic processes selectively? Uhm, so if want to foment a popular early-election uprising like what happened 2008 to get May in the debates, we’ve got to take Beaulieu and his separatists too? Or be labelled hypocrites?

Sorry, folks – that’s not going to happen. Canadians from cost to cost to cost will not be calling into Tom Mulcair’s or Justin Trudeau’s office to insist that they change their minds about Elizabeth May knowing that it means Mario Beaulieu and the Bloc would also have to participate in the debates.

I’m just going to cross my fingers that those in charge of the Broadcast Consortium’s federal debate planning didn’t get Weiers memo, or that if they did, they’ll add their own bullet to the equation: that of past precedent. But I’ll believe it when I see it – when I see Elizabeth May in the debate, that is.

Unfortunately, if May appears on my tv screen, I’ll also have to endure watching a man who wants to break up my country debate legitimate national party leaders.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Better Planning Needed to Minimize Risks to Drinking Water

Earlier this month, officials in Toledo, Ohio issued an urgent plea for residents to stop drinking the City’s water. 400,000 residents went without tap water for several days because a massive blue-green algae bloom in Lake Erie had contaminated the municipal water supply with microcystin, a toxic by-product of blue-green algal blooms (see, "Toledo water improving by toxins still a concern for 2nd day", CBC, August 2, 2014).

A combination of warm temperatures and human inputs of phosphorus and nitrogen, mostly in the form of agricultural surface runoff, created a dangerous pea soup out of western Lake Erie.

Here in Northern Ontario, we don’t have the same issues with agricultural runoff as do farming-centred communities around the southern Great Lakes. Yet, blue-green algae is a persistent problem in many of our water bodies. Greater Sudbury’s jewel, Ramsey Lake, one of the City’s major drinking water sources, recently had its recreational beaches closed due to algae.

While algal blooms occur naturally, two factors in Northern Ontario are exacerbating their presence: increased urbanization, and a warming climate.

Storm water runoff from hard surfaces like parking lots and roads flows more swiftly into receiving water bodies. This runoff carries contaminants like motor oil and road salt, along with nutrients like phosphorus. The cumulative impacts from urbanization are the most serious threat to the health of our lakes.

As waters warm, these additional nutrients create a feast for blue-green algae. With a changing climate, our lakes are beginning to warm earlier in the year, and are staying warmer for longer periods, creating more opportunities for algae to bloom.

Closed beaches are merely a summertime nuisance. The disruption of a municipal drinking water supply, as happened in Toledo, is a clear and present risk to human health.

The City of Greater Sudbury took a proactive step in 2012, passing a by-law regulating the application of phosphorus fertilizers on residential lawns. However, additional measures to help minimize risks have proceeded slowly. The City’s Official Plan, adopted in 2005, calls for the development of watershed studies to better direct urban growth. Funding was allocated for a Ramsey Lake watershed study only in 2013 (see: "Watershed study applauded", the Sudbury Star, May 21, 2013), and completion of that study remains years away.

Conservation Sudbury’s Source Protection Plan has yet to be approved by the Ministry of Environment, despite being a requirement of the Clean Water Act, 2006, which was the province’s response to the Walkerton drinking water disaster.

We know how to minimize the risks to our lakes. Natural and human-made storm water treatment can positively impact both the quality and the quantity of water, better filtering contaminants and slowing runoff before entering water bodies.

Doing things right the first time may add some initial costs to development, but it will save taxpayers money in the longer term. Here in Greater Sudbury, the Vale Living With Lakes Centre has a great example of a natural storm water filtration system designed as integral component of the facility. Permeable lockstone in the parking lot permits water to be absorbed more easily by the ground. A bioswale, essentially a ditch with native vegetation, slows and directs runoff towards a collecting pond, where additional filtering occurs before it ends up in Ramsey Lake.

In many cities, bioswales are being considered as elements of integrated transportation and storm water management systems at the time of new road construction, as the installation of remedial storm water infrastructure after development occurs can be expensive.

Planning ahead to address known cumulative impacts in high-risk areas will improve the water quality of our lakes. When it comes to protecting our drinking water sources, we can’t afford to keep pursuing a business-as-usual approach when the underlying circumstances are being constantly altered due to increased urbanization and climate change.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star, Saturday, August 16, 2014 online as "May: Planning needed to protect water", without hyperlinks)

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Knee-Jerk Reaction on Parking Lot Approval Another Missed Opportunity to Prioritize Livability in Greater Sudbury

Here we go again. Today, Greater Sudbury's was asked to approve approximately 1,000 new surface parking spaces at Health Sciences North, Sudury's (relatively) new one-site hospital. Parking has been at a premium since the day the one-site facility opened, having been constructed with a shortfall of approximately 225 surface parking spots. Employees, for whom today's approval of the additional parking spaces is intended to largely serve, have been taking shuttles from the parking facility at the former St. Joseph's Hospital site, which will soon be unavailable due to a condominium project.

The Costs of Traffic

Rather than looking at any alternatives, Greater Sudbury's Planning Committee simply accepted the need for a significant amount of new surface parking at our Hospital by greenlighting the zoning by-law. The zoning request sailed through Planning Committee on the recommendation of municipal staff, despite a number of what appear to be pretty significant planning obstacles for new parking in this location. The 1,000 new parking spaces are certain to have an impact on traffic volumes at the Paris/Centennial intersection, and at the intersection of Paris and Ramsey Lake Road. A major traffic study to look at intersection redesign options, estimated to cost about $300,000 will now be moving forward, with just $75,000 being contributed by Health Sciences North. The remainder of this bill will be picked up by municipal taxpayers. The study is only necessary as a result of the parking lot approval.

The intersection of Paris and Ramsey Lake Road is already very congested, especially at peak hours (which happen to coincide with shift changes at the hospital). The Ramsey Lake Community Improvement Plan, a municipal land use planning document, discourages new development which would significantly increase traffic on Ramsey Lake Road - the very sort of development that our Planning Committee today greenlighted. The Community Improvement Plan provides some very good guidance to our municipal decision-makers: rather than compound traffic problems along this corridor, it indicates instead that future travel needs ought to be addressed through improvements to transit.

Currently, transit access to the Hospital is pretty good during the day. Are there opportunities for further improvements? Absolutely - but none of them were explored before Planning Committee rushed into today's decision. The Council-accepted Sustainable Mobility Plan (2010) provides some recommendations for alternatives to facilitating motor vehicle traffic at each and every opportunity. It encourages the Sudbury Transit to consider partnerships with major employment centres, offering up the "Sudbury Regional Hospital" (now Health Sciences North) as an example of a facility for which partnerships should be explored. Currently, Sudbury Transit partners with Laurentian University (whose campus is located at the end of Ramsey Lake Road) to provide inexpensive bus service. Why weren't similar options explored for the staff of Health Sciences North prior to moving ahead with rezoning for 1,000 additional parking spaces?

Protecting Our Drinking Water

Other than being a major traffic generator, one of the other issues with this proposal is the fact that a new and significant hard-surfaced area will be introduced into the Ramsey Lake watershed. Surface runoff from the parking lot will end up in Ramsey Lake. Additional contaminants in the form of road salt and motor oil will end up in one of Sudbury's major drinking water sources. Additional natural filtration for surface runoff wasn't considered as part of the rezoning request. It's unclear whether existing stormwater facilities for the southern end of the parking lot are up to the challenge of handling run off in that location. Between the northern part of the parking lot and Ramsey Lake, there's nothing in existence of planned to help further filter runoff. This situation is further exacerbated by the loss of natural vegetation in this location; storm water filtering vegetation will have to make way for the new parking lot.

We continue to develop in the Ramsey Lake watershed at our own peril. Already, contamination from road salt exceeds 20 micrograms per litre - the level at which the medical officer of health has to be notified, due to potential health-related impacts. While still within provincial drinking water guidelines, sodium content in the lake is trending upward. This is entirely due to runoff from urbanization.

A Preference for Livability

Look, this post isn't about being against something - it's about being in favour of alternatives which would truly make our community more livable - and questioning why none of these alternative were explored prior to making a decision which will adversely impact our City's livability. At the very least, natural options for stormwater infiltration, such as the permeable pavers and bioswales already at use at the Living With Lakes Centre (also located on Ramsey Lake Road in the Ramsey Lake watershed) should have been a condition of approval. Another asphalt parking lot is, frankly, the last thing the watershed needs.

And do we really need to have 1,000 more spaces? This is a pretty hefty increase over the previously-identified shortfall of 225. The application for rezoning indicates that the intention is that most of these spaces will be used by staff. What about car pooling options, along with transit and cycling? Is there really a demonstrated need for all of these additional spaces?

Clearly, there is a real issue with accessibility for users of Health Science North, including for its staff. With that in mind, there should have been a number of different options explored to address the issue, rather than quickly jumping on the very costly solution of creating a massive number of new parking spaces. With a budget increase proposed next year totaling 4.9%, our Council really should be looking at all options before committing to forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars on a traffic study and improvements for intersection upgrades for intersections which were "improved" within the last 5 years. Especially when less expensive options might have achieved the same results.

Frustrating Our Future

To me, it seems that our Planning Committee has made another knee-jerk approval, without considering all of the options. In defense of Planning Committee, however, the staff report presented to them today also failed to consider many of the options under discussion, or assess a complete range of potential costs resulting from this decision. Both staff and Planning Committee were, however, in possession of an eye-opening letter from the Coalition for a Livable Sudbury, which explains and expands on a number of the issues I've identified here, but much more succinctly and without my angry editorializing.

Yes, I am angry. We had a chance to start doing something right, to start building for the future that we want to have here in Greater Sudbury - for the future that we need to be competitive and prosperous in the 21st Century. Instead, we've continued to embrace the status quo's expensive solutions, which would have been a much better fit for the mid-20th Century and cheap fuel prices. We've chosen to yet again ignore the need to get things right the first time, especially those things which pertain to our drinking water, in favour of doing what's expedient because we've always done things a certain way. No, this isn't the way forward. Today's decision takes us only backwards. We can do so much better than this. We must start. We can't afford to keep going down this road.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Greater Sudbury Election Notes, Part 5: Will Bigger Be Better?

It looks like Greater Sudbury’s Auditor-General is seriously considering throwing his hat in the ring to become the City’s next Mayor. Clearly, if Brian Bigger does ultimately decide to run for the Mayor’s Chair, his entry into the race is going to shake things up. How this might unfold isn’t apparent – but it’s not going to stop me from speculating!

Tomorrow, our Council will decide whether to authorize Mr. Bigger’s request for a leave of absence from his municipally-contracted position in order to pursue his political ambitions. I can’t imagine that the City will decline Mr. Bigger his request, as the optics will be – to say the least – detrimental to every single incumbent on Council who is seeking to be re-elected. With this in mind, Bigger could be in the race as early as Friday – but likely he’ll take some time to wrap things up at the office, and enjoy a bit of a break before he finds himself immersed in the heat of an election. Of course, his name will be on the tips of everyone’s tongues between now and his formal nomination anyway, as the public and media plays the “will he or won’t he” game. Bigger’s got nothing to lose by taking his time.

Who is Brian Bigger?

What will Bigger stand for, and on what will he ultimately decide to campaign? Although it’s quite likely that most Greater Sudburians will have a positive reaction to his entry into the race, that initial reaction could quickly be tempered by what he makes public regarding election priorities. A safer route for Bigger will be to say as little as possible during the election campaign – and run instead on his name recognition and his accomplishments as A-G. But I suspect that Mr. Bigger would find that political course a little unpalatable. After all, he’s already cited one of his reasons for thinking of running for Mayor as being his desire to say things to the public that he can’t to Council. A campaign strategy in which Bigger keeps his mouth closed on the issues may be a safer course for him as a politician, but problematic for him as an individual.

So if Bigger does start to talk about the issues, what will be the important issues for him? And how might those issues contrast to the other candidates? While we’ve seen very little from any of the current candidates for mayor, notably save Jeff Huska, and to a lesser degree Dan Melanson, we probably have a pretty good idea of what former Mayor John Rodriguez and Ward 5 Councillor Ron Dupuis might prioritize. We can probably surmise that with his training as an accountant, and given his current position as Auditor-General, Bigger may be focused on bottom-line issues. But I think that making that assumption is a mistake.

Mayor as Leader

It’s one thing to be an Auditor – quite another to be a Mayor. Counting beans, while important, isn’t the only important aspect of being a Mayor – a leader on Council. To demonstrate his leadership abilities, Bigger is going to have to aim a little higher than the bottom line. Can he do it? Probably – almost certainly if whomever is backing him is serious about Bigger’s ultimate success. But at present, Bigger’s ability to lead may be the most significant hurdle for him to overcome in a field of candidates with demonstrated (and quite different) leadership abilities.

Take former Mayor John Rodriguez. Whatever your personal feelings about Rodriguez, there’s little questioning his leadership abilities after his years of representing voters at various levels of government. That he didn’t always succeed (to say the least) does not repudiate Rodriguez’s years of public service, nor his tireless championing of our communities.

And on the other hand, there’s Dan Melanson, who worked with a small team to accomplish a truly important triumph during the last election: the election of a relatively unknown Marianne Matichuk to the Mayor’s chair. Call it what you will, Matichuk’s campaign was one which Melanson and his team should be writing books about. Further, the continued campaigning that Melanson has been engaging in since the end of the 2010 election, through an organization that he created and led, the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association, is a clear demonstration of his leadership tenacity, no matter how one might personally feel about it.

Does Bigger possess any of these leadership qualities? Can he be a champion for all of Greater Sudbury’s communities? Can he be a builder, as well as a cagey campaigner? Right now, we just don’t know.

Reacting to Bigger

What we suspect, though, is that the other candidates are going to have to figure out a way to react to Bigger’s entry into the race. Who has the most to lose? On the surface, it might appear to be Dan Melanson, whose small government mantra many expect Bigger the bean counter to adopt. But if Bigger does come out swinging about the ledger, starts talking sensibly about the issues and leadership, the Rodriguez and Dupuis, too, might find their campaigns at risk.

Make no mistake, Bigger in the race is going to suck up a lot of the media oxygen – and that’s a substance which is extremely important to one’s political survival. The media has a very difficult time focusing on an election narrative involving more than two candidates – three really is a maximum number for the media (as a Green Party member, have some confidence in me when I say that). Remember what happened to Ted Callaghan in 2010’s Mayoral race? With this in mind, which candidate might find themselves bumped by Bigger?

I don’t think that it’s going to be Melanson – his run for the Mayor’s chair is an interesting story from the media’s perspective, and as a demonstrated shrewd campaigner, I just can’t foresee that he won’t have developed a strategy of some sort to offset Bigger’s entry. No, Melanson will continue to get the coverage – just perhaps less of it than he might like. I’m sure that Melanson was content to have this election be all about him, but if Bigger joins the race, it won’t be.

That leaves John Rodriguez and Ron Dupuis. Who gets left behind may have a lot to do with the strengths of their individual campaigns which, up until now, haven’t appeared to be all that strong. Rodriguez probably has the edge here over Dupuis, given Rodriguez’s past experience as Mayor. Frankly, “former Mayor challenges for his old job back” is a more compelling story than “Long serving Councillor wants to be Mayor”. And that’s why I think that Ron Dupuis’ campaign might ultimately be the one most at risk from Bigger’s entry.

Mayor's Race Drop-Outs

Dupuis already has a lot of challenges to overcome in order to be successful in his bid for Mayor. Will his backers, whomever they are, move to Bigger – a better bet for winning? In politics, this happens a lot – and with our very long municipal election campaigns here in Ontario, these shifts aren’t unusual at all. Dupuis and his team would do well to reconsider whether his pursuit of the Mayor’s chair is worth the risk of being bumped from Council all together. A much safer bet for Dupuis would be to run again in Ward 5.

Melanson, too, could drop out of the race for Mayor, and focus instead on running for a Council seat, even though a small budget campaign likely wouldn’t be his first choice of ways to sell himself to the public. Melanson surely wants to outspend his opponents – advertising, after all, is often the key to success in politics. A small-budget ward campaign is a great leveller for candidates – but those who already have name recognition – even negative name recognition – start from a position of influence. Melanson could probably win a seat in the on Council to represent the ward in which he lives, and eventually run for Mayor at some time in the future.

Rodriguez doesn’t really have the same set of choices. He was Mayor once, and he wants to be Mayor again. Rodriguez is either in or out. Given that he’s had the courage to throw his name in the ring again, I’m don’t expect him to drop out now just because Bigger has entered the field. John has to know that he faces challenges in winning voters, with or without Bigger – and he seems to think that he can do it.

Without a doubt, though, Bigger’s entry into the Mayor’s race will sideline hopefuls Huska and Richard Majkot even more than they’ve already been sidelined. Both candidates might want to think about shifting their sights off of the Mayor’s chair anyway, and play a safer game of running for a ward seat. Huska, particularly, could be an asset to our community on Council. He must realize that he’s not going to get the press – or the votes – needed to make that a reality should he continue to pursue the Mayor’s chair. Bigger’s entry into the race could be a golden opportunity for Huska to bow out, throw his support to Bigger, and instead run in a ward race (although those ward races in the inner city are starting to get a little crowded – Ward 1 might be the best place for Huska to shift his campaign to, but if he does so, he’ll be taking on a very progressive challenger in Matt Alexander, who will be a formidable challenger for that seat).

Bigger Impacts

All in all, it remains unclear at this time whether Bigger will be better for Greater Sudbury in the race for Mayor or not. Greater Sudburians do seem excited about the prospect of Bigger making a run – and without a doubt, his entry into the race will have a ripple effect on the other candidates, and potentially on the ward races as well. Whether Bigger is better may be an open question, but without a doubt Bigger will be a game changer in the race for Mayor.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Why Green Party President Paul Estrin's 'Why Gaza Makes Me Sad' Crossed a Line

This blogpost is not about the conflict currently underway in Israel and Gaza. Rather, it’s about the reaction to that conflict which is currently playing itself out in my Party, the Green Party of Canada. And it’s also about my personal experiences with the reaction to the conflict. The specific motivation for this post was a recent blog entry made by the Green Party of Canada’s President, Paul Estrin (see: “Why Gaza makes me sad,” Paul Estrin, Green Party of Canada Blogs, July 25, 2014) which made its way into the public sphere over the weekend thanks to social media connections.

I understand, based on a remark now posted at the bottom of Mr. Estrin’s post, that since publishing the post on Friday, Mr. Estrin has removed reference in the post to his position as President of the Green Party of Canada. Mr. Estrin indicates that he is instead sharing his personal perspective on the Green Party’s blogsite.

The Green Party's Blogsite

First off, let me try to qualify myself here. I am a member of the Green Party of Canada in good standing, and I am currently an Officer with the Nickel Belt Green Party of Canada Electoral District Association. I have no authorization from the Central Party, as per the Party’s Constitution, to speak on behalf of the Party. Nor do I have any authorization from my EDA’s Executive to make statements on its behalf. Given my lack of authorization, I want to make it very clear that I am writing today only as a member of the Green Party of Canada – and no more should be read into this post by anybody.

And the same is true for Mr. Estrin’s post. As a past and one-time frequent contributor to the Green Party’s blogsite, I feel that it is incumbent to let the public know that the Party does not vet or in any way impede the posting of Member’s blogs. If you are a member of the Green Party in good standing, you can apply for a Login to the Member’s section of the site. Once logged in, you can make a post to the Party’s blogsite. Nothing more is required. Blogposts are not hidden by “members only “ firewalls – they are available for the public to view.

The Green Party’s blogsite is a unique feature of my Party, in that it encourages members to actively engage with one another, in a public venue, on matters of importance to the membership – or at least to an individual member. As per the Party’s Constitution, individual members must be authorized to speak on behalf of the Party, or as per the Constitutions of many Electoral District Associations, authorization is also required to speak on behalf of an EDA. Since making my first few blogposts back in 2007-08, I’ve always appended a disclaimer to my blogposts that my views are my own, and that I’m not writing on the Party’s behalf. While not everyone who posts on the Green Party’s site includes similar disclaimers, the fact of the matter is that there is a general understanding in the Party that a post to the blog site is to be in no way construed as representative of the Party’s policy, position or platform.

But values are a different story – one I’ll come back to.

The Party’s blog site is a space created by the membership for engagement. It’s not unusual to find a post made by an individual which challenges member-approved policy or questions decisions made by the Party Leadership. This would be completely unheard of in other parties, and would likely lead to sanctions against individual members. It seems to me that other parties put far too high an emphasis on message management. We Greens instead choose to engage in the messy process we call democracy – and try to do so in a transparent and respectful way. Having a blog site on the Party’s website with content generated by the membership speaks volumes about the inherent values of my Party. Shutting down and stifling respectful differences of opinion has no place in my Party.

That being said, I have to also acknowledge that sometimes, this blog site gets the Party into trouble. In the past, some posts have been made by the membership which have led to questions to the Party regarding the Party’s position on certain matters. People see a post on the Party’s website and some immediately take that post to be representative of the Party’s position or policy – sometimes simply because the Party’s logo might appear on the webpage, other times because it seems to some unfathomable that a political party in Canada in this day and age would tolerate anything but “the party line” posted to its website. Even I, one of the biggest supporters of our blog site, have to acknowledge that the very existence of this blog site causes confusion about the Party amongst the public – and even confusion amongst our own membership.

Years ago, a link to our blog site appeared on the front page of our website. When the Party’s website was redesigned, the link disappeared, and while the blog site still exists, anyone chancing on our site would have a heck of a time trying to find the blogs. But, linking one’s post to social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, can and does make blog posts accessible. And certainly, if you know where to look, you can find all of the blogs.

Since the removal of the link, many Green bloggers, myself included, decided to make the shift to maintaining personal blogs elsewhere other than the Green Party’s website. For a while, I continued to cross-post my blogs to my own personal Sudbury Steve blog and the Party website, but ultimately I moved away from the Party website all together. Now, I only post to the Party’s blog site when I feel that a specific post might be of specific interest to my Party. That being said, I continue to believe that the blog site can be a useful space for members to engage with one another and discuss important issues in a transparent way, although clearly it is being underutilized for those conversations.

Mr. Estrin's Post

All of this brings me back to Paul Estrin’s blog post of Friday, July 25, 2014. Given the above, it is clear to me that Mr. Estrin made this post only as a member of the Green Party in good standing, and not as an official spokesperson of the Party. Although Mr. Estrin is President of the Party, his opinions and posts to our blog site cannot and do not bind the Party to any position at all. That being said, I also totally understand why a blogpost identifying Mr. Estrin as President of the Party can be (and clearly has been) misconstrued as being representative of the Party’s position. I sincerely believe that it was not the intent of Mr. Estrin to mislead anybody into thinking that his opinion was in alignment with the Party. I believe this because I know that Mr. Estrin and I were present at the recent Green Party of Canada General Meeting, held in Fredericton, in which two motions relating to the conflict in Israel and Gaza were discussed by the membership. Further, Mr. Estrin’s own edits to his post clearly demonstrate that he understands his post is representative only of his own opinion, and not the Party’s.

It may be that Mr. Estrin made a mistake by identifying his position in the Party on his blogpost. I’ve not personally made my mind up about that, as I think there was some merit to the membership for him to identify himself as President of the Party. What might have helped initially would have been the sort of disclaimer that he eventually placed on his post, indicating that the view he was discussing was his own alone, and not the Party’s. Again, ultimately, Mr. Estrin made an edit to the post to clarify.

Mr. Estrin’s post has been receiving a lot of feedback in social media, including feedback from Green Party members. Some of my Party’s membership have shared their thoughts and views on the Green Party’s blog site as comments appended to Mr. Estrin’s post. Generally speaking, comments from Greens, including those made by me, have been critical of Mr. Estrin’s post. Other comments in the public realm have praised Mr. Estrin for taking a “bold” stand on the conflict, while yet others have condemned both Mr. Estrin and the Green Party of Canada for holding Mr. Estrin’s views on the conflict.

My Issue with Mr. Estrin's Post

Again, my post today is not going to explore Mr. Estrin’s opinion, or anyone else’s opinion for that matter, on the conflict in Gaza and Israel. I’m here to write about why I believe Mr. Estrin crossed a very serious line with his post, and why I believe he should now resign his position as President of the Green Party of Canada.

The fact that Mr. Estrin expressed his personal opinion on a matter, whether he identified himself as the Party’s President while doing so or not, is not, in my opinion, particularly problematic from the perspective of a legitimate use of the Green Party’s blog site to further discussion amongst members (although I do acknowledge the confusion it has created). That Mr. Estrin’s opinion might not be entirely in keeping with the Party’s policies or positions on this matter is also, frankly, of no concern to me – in fact, I believe that by posting to the blog site, Mr. Estrin’s intention was to foment discussion – the very sort of healthy political discussion that I think we need more of today in Canadian politics, not less.

Where I am expressing significant concern is with some of the characterizations which Mr. Estrin uses in his lengthy post – and in particular, a characterization of Muslims which I find offensive. I know that “cherry picking” certain words and phrases from a much longer piece can lead to mischief – let me be clear, that’s not my intention. The phrase in question stands alone in his lengthier essay, and there appears to be no good reason why Mr. Estrin included it, except to inflame the discussion by painting an identifiable group of people in a negative, and completely inappropriate, light.

The phrase in question is directed towards “peace activists” (which Mr. Estrin refers to in a follow-up comment pejoratively as “peaceniks”):

“We need to re-examine our priorities if we are marching in the streets. Unless we want to see another Mullah amongst us, where other religions aside from a certain variety of Islam are not allowed, where synagogues are used as latrines and garbage dumps and Christians are living in constant fear.”

The implication here is clear, and it’s nasty. Canadians and others “marching in the streets” in favour of ending the conflict in Gaza and Israel must be willing to accept what Mr. Estrin believes to be the inevitable the outcome of such protests. Mr. Estrin’s conclusion is completely off-base, and extremely offensive. And it grossly mischaracterizes Muslims as being anti-Jewish and anti-Christian.

And that’s why I believe that Mr. Estrin’s post has no place on the Green Party’s website. Anti-Islamic language such as Mr. Estrin’s has no place in any respectful and legitimate discourse on any subject, much less on a site hosted by the Green Party for respectful discourse.

The Values of the Party

Further, Mr. Estrin’s gross mischaracterization of Muslims is not in keeping with the Green Party’s values, specifically that of “respecting diversity”. By attempting to associate anti-Jewish and anti-Christian behaviour with an identifiable group, in this case a “certain variety” of Muslims, Mr. Estrin has clearly crossed the line of respectful discourse and veered instead into what can only be construed as offensive.

If Mr. Estrin sincerely believes that we are at risk of Muslims turning synagogues into latrines because of our peaceful protests, not only is Mr. Estrin completely misinformed, but he needs to resign his position as President of the Green Party – and frankly, he should also resign his membership in the Party. And let me be clear – Mr. Estrin does, in fact, make it very clear that he is quite serious about his belief in this risk, as later in the piece Mr. Estrin attempts to justify his fears by indicating that these events happened in Jordan in the past. Mr. Estrin should keep in mind that the past is not prologue, and what may have happened in another place and another time is not demonstrative of what may happen here and now.

Unfortunately, this gross mischaracterization of Muslims taints Mr. Estrin’s piece in its entirety – at least for me. While others have seen valid points in Mr. Estrin’s post, the anti-Islamic tone precipitated by Mr. Estrin’s characterization of Muslims is hard to overlook and should not be overlooked.

Legitimacy and Confidence

Yesterday, I posted a comment to Mr. Estrin’s post in which I asked Mr. Estrin to resign. I reposted my comment to my Facebook Page, to which Mr. Estrin responded – so I know he’s seen my request for him to step down as President. I continue to believe that for the good of the Party, Mr. Estrin should resign. Mr. Estrin can make this decision on his own – and should do so in the next day or two.

Otherwise, the Party may be left with no choice but to have our Federal Council review the situation and make a decision on his removal from Federal Council, as per Section 2.1.5.1 of the Party’s Constitutional by-laws. In arriving at a decision, should one be warranted, I believe that it is incumbent upon our Federal Council to strongly consider the anti-Islamic viewpoints expressed by Mr. Estrin, and question whether these views can be reconciled with the Party’s value of respecting diversity.

If Mr. Estrin does not act on his own initiative, and if our Federal Council fails to act, I believe that my Party is headed towards a crisis of legitimacy. This is not about free speech or controlling the views of party members – I sincerely hope that my blogpost has made it clear that I, and the majority of Greens, value the ability to publicly disagree with one another and our Party, if done with respect. This isn’t about anybody’s opinion on the conflict underway in Israel and Gaza. And this certainly isn’t about trying to sweep a sensitive political matter under the carpet, as some have suggested.

This is about respectful discourse in keeping with the values of the Party.

And I believe that’s the line Mr. Estrin has crossed.

Of course, it may be that by writing this post, as a member of the Party, I am also in contravention of the Party’s by-laws and should be made subject to discipline. I believe that what I’ve written here today (and elsewhere yesterday) has been in keeping with the values of the Party. If I am to be made answerable for what I’ve written, I’ll accept whatever consequences arise as a result. The good of the Party remains my primary concern, and it is what has motivated me to write about this episode with Mr. Estrin. I continue to believe that the good of the Party would be best served by not having Mr. Estrin occupy the position of President any longer – no matter how that may come about. If expressing my opinion on this matter should lead to a complaint process with the Party’s Ombuds Committee, or our Federal Council’s consideration of my expulsion, I am prepared to reiterate my reasons and motivation for writing this post to whatever body of the Party that may charged with considering the matter.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Lack of Attention to Lake Water Quality Contributing to Systemic Public Concerns in Greater Sudbury

Something has been simmering beneath the City of Lakes’ political surface for some time now, and as the summer temperature has started to rise, the issue appears to be bubbling to the top of mind of our citizenry. It’s not the usual issue about roads, or about how tax dollars are spent and why – although both roads and taxes play a part in shaping and defining this issue. In short, Greater Sudburians are becoming increasingly fed up with the lack of attention we are collectively paying to water quality issues, especially those which impact drinking water sources, such as Ramsey Lake.

These water quality concerns are themselves part of a broader discussion having to do with the livability of our City. Frustration from many sides has really started to set in with the baby steps that our City has been making, versus the strides that citizens have really started to expect. Too often, when it comes to progressive measures to make our City a better place for residents, resistance is encountered, and every little effort ends up taking up far too much time and resources. It’s often two steps forward, one step back.

The health of our lakes, though, is really a bellwether issue, because it is an issue based both on logic and emotion. Logically, we know that it’s important to maintain and improve the health of our lakes, especially those which are sources of our drinking water. We know that as Sudburians, we must be good stewards of our natural resources. It’s because most everybody in the City seems to have some attachment to our lakes that the issue can take on an emotional aspect as well. We’re proud of our lakes, and we like to use them and show them off. In a City with 330 lakes, it’s hard not to form a positive attachment to them!

Blue-Green Algae

Yet every summer, the notices from the Health Unit start to come out. This beach or that beach is closed, thanks to blue-green algae. Right now, a number of beaches on Ramsey Lake are closed, and it’s not clear when they may be reopened again. So much for taking the kids swimming at Bell Park, Sudbury’s emerald jewel in the heart of our City.

Blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, is toxic – you can get very sick just by swimming in water which has been contaminated by it. It forms at this time of year due to a number of factors, but the presence of high nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the water is a primary culprit. These nutrients naturally occur in our lakes, but urban development contributes additional inputs, thanks in part to a lot of additional hard surfaces which hurry stormwater runoff into receiving water bodies before it can be absorbed naturally.

For more information on blue-green algae, visit Health Canada’s website.

Now, after that public service announcement, back to my blog.

Watershed Studies

Provisions requiring watershed studies have been in the City’s Official Plan at least since 2005 (the year that the Official Plan was updated to incorporate all area of the amalgamated City). While watershed studies for major lakes have been required for almost a decade, none have been done. In 2013, Council voted to make watershed studies a priority (see: “Greater Sudbury city council unanimously passes motion in support of watershed studies”, Naomi Grant, Grassoots Media Co-Op, May 16, 2013), but we’ve heard little more about them since that time. Now, with the City’s Official Plan being updated again, it seems likely that watershed studies are going to remain sidelined for the foreseeable future.

These watershed studies are important, as they would provide a level of baseline data regarding the health of lakes and rivers in a watershed. Ideally, watershed studies would be used to help direct development to appropriate locations – those areas where it will have a minimal impact on the health of our waterbodies. At the very least, they’ll provide direction for mitigating development impacts on the watershed. But instead of doing these studies upfront, Greater Sudbury has continued to put the development cart before the precautionary principle horse. Incredibly, large areas of the City have been set aside for as-of-right urban development through the Official Plan and zoning without knowing whether these locations make any sense from a water quality perspective. A great example of this is the abundant land within identified floodplains designated “Living Area” in the Official Plan.

Our City isn’t alone in operating like this, but with our massive geography and the sheer number of lakes and rivers within our boundaries, we feel this issue more acutely than elsewhere. Development decisions in this City may look at mitigating and minimizing impacts on certain environmental features (such as establishing setbacks from shorelines for buildings and septic systems), but these one-off decisions fail to assess the real culprit with lake water quality issues: cumulative impacts. The watershed study would be the appropriate vehicle to start looking towards cumulative impacts, and shaping the direction of future development as a result.

Yet we’ve not prioritized the development of these studies.

Concerned Citizens

In light of this reality, is it really any surprise that citizens are now starting to get a little hot under the collar where new development is proposed and the long-term impacts on the health of our lakes, rivers and streams aren’t known, and aren’t being assessed?

Citizens have started banding together, demanding that a higher level of practice be used by our City when it comes to new development. A few years ago, urban lake stewardship groups came together under the banner of the Greater Sudbury Watershed Alliance, in part over concerns that individual voices were being dismissed by City Hall. The Coalition for a Livable Sudbury has brought a number of citizens groups together to advocate for watershed studies, and the implementation of healthier and pre-emptive responses to water quality management, such as naturalization instead of expensive retrofits (like what we see on Lady Ashley Court a few years back).

Together, these groups have experienced only limited success – they’ve at least brought the issue forward onto the Council table agenda. Generally speaking, however, they’ve failed to change the culture at City Hall in any meaningful way. Development decisions in absence of water quality impact information continue to be made. New homes are being built in sensitive flood plains. Stormwater management standards remain mired at the level of provincial minimums.

The Camel’s Back Breaks – Second Avenue

Yet, even though their successes have been very limited, these groups are starting to experience push-back from the City, developers and other citizens who may have different agendas. Recently, when a major road widening of Second Avenue was presented as a fait accompli to Minnow Lake residents, the Minnow Lake Restoration Group and Minnow Lake Community Action Network decided to write a letter to the Ministry of the Environment requesting a “bump up” to the municipal environmental assessment process used to determine the level of consultation and assessment of alternatives. By breaking the project down into multiple parts over a number of years, rather than treating the project as a whole, it was very clear from the outset that the City was doing what it could to avoid going through a more comprehensive level of environmental assessment – one which would look at cumulative impacts and assess other options.

The fiasco and finger-pointing which have resulted from Second Avenue could easily have gone down quite differently had the City better prioritized watershed planning. Again, these plans are a requirement of the Official Plan, and in almost 10 years our City of Lakes hasn’t managed to prepare a single one. The Minnow Lake Restoration Group has argued that the five-laning of Second Avenue will create additional stormwater inputs which will flow directly into Ramsey Lake. The City says that those inputs are manageable – but really, the City doesn’t know, because the background work has never been done. Right now, all the City can really do is offer its best guess. And while that may have been good enough in the past, as Bob Dylan sang, “the times they are a-changing”.

If the redesign of Second Avenue were the only project which was being considered within the Ramsey Lake watershed, chances are that the City’s “best guess” might just be fine. But it’s not. There is significant development which has been approved for the Minnow Lake area (which is in the Ramsey Lake watershed), including the massive residential subdivision south of the Silver Hills big box stores. Still in the Ramsey Lake watershed, three multi-storey apartment towers have been greenlighted for lands overlooking the Brady Mall, and the former St. Joseph’s hospital site is being redeveloped into multiple condominium units. Another big subdivision just west of the Sudbury Curling Club and just off of Howey Drive is currently at the Ontario Municipal Board, where it will likely be approved. Ramsey Lake’s watershed has not enjoyed a comprehensive assessment of how these and other developments will impact it.

Adapting to a Changing Climate

And the blue-green algae continues to bloom, earlier every year it seems. Studies prepared for the Nickel District Conservation Authority show that Sudbury can expect hotter and longer summers over the coming decades, thanks to climate change. Temperatures here are expected to increase slightly more than average global temperatures (generally, the further north one goes, the more extreme the temperature change is likely to be – Sudbury’s mid-latitude position means we won’t be impacts as much as some regions, but we’ll receive more than our fair share of warming). Since we can’t change the weather patterns, if we’re going to get lake water quality issues under control, we’ve got to figure out a way to address other inputs, such as nutrients from stormwater runoff.

The argument has gone that watershed studies are simply too expensive to undertake, even for priority waterbodies like Ramsey Lake, a drinking water source. I can’t buy this any longer, as the cost of not doing these studies and continuing to approve development in absence of data and direction will end up costing this City more in the long run than doing things right, up-front, and prior to decisions being made. We can’t afford (literally afford) to ignore this any longer.

Deligitimizing Public Discourse

Yet, the intransigence at City Hall remains real. And the push-back on citizens who dare speak out against development in absence of information is starting to get a little nasty. A column written by Northern Life reporter Darren MacDonald recently took to task two individuals who have been in the forefront of wanting to make our City more livable (see: “Did activists hijack the Second Avenue consultation process?”, Northern Life, July 21, 2014). I have to admit, I have become used to seeing MacDonald’s arguments made by anonymous posters in the comments section of his paper and other local media, but it surprised me that a journalist would attack the good work being done by John Lindsay, Dot Klein and the Minnow Lake CAN and Minnow Lake Restoration Group - particularly through implying that somehow they've gone outside of the system to achieve their ends. The headline used the term "hijack", which implies illegal action and evokes images of terrorism. Was this just to be provocative, or was there a not-so subtle insinuation that Lindsay and Klein are acting in a immoral manner? Either way, the term is clearly an attempt to delegitimize their participation in a public process.

This kind of delegitimizing attack from our local media on individual citizens will no doubt cast a shadow on those who otherwise might desire to speak up in favour of making our communities better places to live. Lindsay and Klein have been following the rules. For the Northern Life to compare them to "hijackers" is both incorrect and frankly, beyond the pale. In the column itself, MacDonald goes only so far as to suggest that they are "taking advantage" of the system - I would suggest that even that frame is incorrect, and assert rather that they are participating within the public system, legitimately.

Either we have democratic, transparent public processes for development activities, or we say that even the mirage of citizen participation in decisions affecting our communities is something we shouldn't tolerate as a society. For the media to denigrate legitimate and legal expressions of public discourse is extremely troubling.

Changing the Culture at City Hall

MacDonald’s angst appears to be motivated by the notion that somehow John Lindsay and Dot Klein are to blame for costs associated with holding up construction for another season. MacDonald also creates a straw-man argument that those who stand in the way of intensification and redevelopment within urban areas are proving a detriment to a City keen on implementing smart growth principles. MacDonald also completely misses the point that the public consultation process for Second Avenue was designed to be anything but real consultation, and although the City chose to address some of the concerns raised by cyclists and decided to include off-street cycling infrastructure on paved boulevards (likely simply because they could), this last-minute inclusion actually demonstrates the failure of the process. Why weren’t groups like the Coalition for a Livable Sudbury, the Minnow Lake CAN and the Sudbury Cyclists Union invited to provide input into the project prior to the creation of plans in the first place? Did the City really not expect the Minnow Lake CAN not to show up and voice its concerns over the redesign of a major arterial which, once again, failed to consider the inclusion of cycling infrastructure, despite the direction provided to the City through the Sustainable Mobility Plan, accepted by the City in 2010? This is the same Minnow Lake CAN which was instrumental in getting bike lanes on the Howey-Bellevue-Bancroft corridor.

Rather than approach the public for real input and a desire to assess alternatives, which would have promoted public buy-in to the project, the City instead said “Here’s what we’re going to do. Now tell us what you think.” Again, in the past, that might have been enough, but the camel’s back has been broken. The approach that citizens are now telling our City to engage in is to come to the public first, as a starting point, and ask “Given that we have this challenge, what do you think we can do to address it to achieve the outcomes we need to achieve?”

Change the Starting Point

Our decision-making processes are public for a reason: they have been designed with citizen engagement in mind. And although it’s often true that our public bodies choose to do the very minimum when it comes to engagement, those minimum requirements processes are nevertheless there to engage the public. Although some in our City have started to bemoan what’s happened with Second Avenue, the fact is that our Environmental Assessment process is a public one, and real concerns raised by citizens are often legitimate, and can lead to improved outcomes. The really unfortunate part is that our City hasn’t followed through on the promises that it made in the Official Plan to undertake watershed studies which could otherwise guide development (and lead to less friction and better decision-making). And as an addendum, although permitted by EA rules, coming to the public so late in the process with a fait accompli really isn’t the best way to engage in meaningful consultation.

The City can’t have it both ways, though. If it wants to play around with development projects in order to get away with doing as little as possible with public participation, all within the rules, it can’t then take issue with citizens who are themselves following the same rules in order to have their voices heard. This isn’t NIMBY. This isn’t about opposing intensification in neighbourhoods. It’s about ensuring that good decisions are made which have minimal impacts on communities. It’s really about changing the starting point of the development process by relocating it to a place which is truly consultative. In the long run, it’s about minimizing potential conflicts and doing things right the first time.

21st Century Solutions

Moving ahead into the 21st Century, our lakes will continue to face challenges to their long-term health, especially those which are impacted by development. For too long we’ve ignored water quality issues, and those issues have now started coming to a head. There aren’t any easy answers to address these issues, given the current physical state of the City, but we can do a much better job of minimizing impacts on a go-forward basis. To do so, however, requires data and direction – the very sort of data and direction which could be provided through the creation of watershed plans which assess the cumulative impacts from development.

Comprehensive planning which leads to better decision making isn’t focused narrowly on costs. Frankly, it’s not all about money. But for those who are concerned about the bottom line above all else, comprehensive planning can, and does, save money over the long term by getting things right the first time. Although our leaders have said for many years that we can’t afford to do the watershed studies required by our Official Plan, we are already paying far too high a price for a lack of understanding of the impacts that our past, and current, development decisions are having on our lakes.

Had lake water quality impacts been assessed upfront by the City for Second Avenue, it’s doubtful that this construction season would have been lost. Blaming private citizens for the costs of delay is completely wrong-headed, given the City’s broken promises to the public with regards to watershed planning. Second Avenue, blue-green algae and the stronger voices of citizens groups ought to be a wake-up call to our City to finally get moving and deal with these important issues in a transparent and accessible manner.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)