(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
This speech, "Tomorrow Will Not Be Like Today", was given at the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association’s Candidate Nomination Meeting, on June 11, 2009.
----
It’s so great to see all of you here tonight for this historic occasion. As far as we can tell, this is the first contested nomination the Green Party has ever had in Sudbury. In fact, across Canada in the Green Party, I’ve been told that there are only a handful of nomination contests taking place where two or more people have stepped forward to want to represent the Green Party in the upcoming federal election. Maybe that says something about the collaborative nature of our Party. If so, I’m not sure what it says about us here in Sudbury!
But in Sudbury we’re so lucky to have two nominees of exceptional quality before us tonight to choose from. It’s not going to be an easy choice for us to make.
I’ve had the pleasure of working closely with both Fred and Gordon over the past year, and I can tell you that although the choice isn’t going to be easy for you to make, there is some good news here; you can’t go wrong with either of these two gentleman, as they both have the substance, the smarts, the personality, and the experience to represent us in the next election, whenever that may be.
Increasingly, it’s looking like a summer election will not be happening this year. The Liberals rise in the polls after coronating Michael "Tar Sands Forever" Ignatieff seems to have levelled out somewhat now, but his popularity did take a bite of the other party’s support. Even if Ignatieff wanted to, he can not bring down the government on his own. He’d need the support of the NDP and the Bloc to do it, and those are the same parties he’s been stealing support from. Jack Layton, watching NDP support plummet, can’t be all that enthusiastic about terminating the Harper government, just to watch the Liberals sweep away the gains he made in seats last fall.
And Stephen Harper isn’t likely to suicide his own government the way he did last September, as his personal popularity and support continue to trend downwards in the rest of Canada, and have completely bottomed out in Quebec. There is no majority to be gained for Harper, which is kind of a good thing, kind of not, because it means that it looks like we’re going to have to live with the Stephen Harper-Michael Ignatieff Liberal-Conservative co-alition for a while longer yet.
And every day we live with these guys is a day less where action can be taken on the issues which have brought us all together.
We Greens understand that many of the issues which are important to us are being ignored by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. Action is not being taken on the environment, and Canada has become an international outcast for ignoring its Kyoto commitments, and has instead chosen to let greenhouse gas emissions rise with impunity.
Action is not being taken to address the democratic deficit, when almost half of the voting age population of this country doesn’t bother to cast a ballot any more, because they know their votes don’t really matter, because the MP’s they elect will fall in line behind their party leaders like lemmings.
These are but two important issues to Greens, two of many which our governments continue to ignore. We, as citizens of this nation, know that Canada, acting in concert with all other nations, needs to begin reducing carbon emissions. Just about all of us practice this in our daily lives, subscribing to the principles of Reducing, Re-using and Re-cycling. Many of us have banded together in efforts to educate others, to promote the need to reduce carbon emissions at all cost, because we do not want our children to live in a world where no action to reduce was taken by our generation.
Education and advocacy are incredibly important roles for all of us to play. Leading by example is the best way to show our neighbours and others in our community that the small choices that we make have huge pay-offs when coupled with the choices of others.
We in the Green Party, though, understand that education and advocacy alone will not lead to the shifts our society must undertake to avoid the worst of, to paraphrase James Howard Kuntsler, the author of the Long Emergency, to avoid the worst of the coming "clusterfuck" of crises sitting out their on the horizon, 5 maybe 10 years out in the future.
Action on these issues requires political will. The Conservatives and Liberals have no political will to do anything more than be seen to be addressing these issues. They want to greenwash Canadians. They want to fool us into thinking that they are taking necessary steps to addressing these issues of importance. But they are creatures of the status quo, creatures who have a vested interest in continuing to insist that tomorrow will be like today and yesterday.
Well, tomorrow will not be like today. Not at all. And that’s why we Greens have come together, because we realize that we can no longer sit idly by while our Leaders sit on their hands and play make-believe games. It’s long past the time to be playing political games when our country’s health, indeed our planet’s health, is at stake.
Change is a political process, as much as an educational one. We’ve been doing very well with education, not so much with the political side of change.
Why is this? Most Canadian voters continue to buy into the myths created by the spin of the other political parties; repeated by a mass media where an ever decreasing number of voices are allowed to be heard. We know these myths: Conservatives are best at managing finances. Liberal policy will sway any which way to get votes. The NDP are tax and spend socialists which will lead us all to financial ruin.
And the Green Party? Well, we’re simply a "One Issue" Party. Not to be taken seriously.
You’d think that Canadians would realize that these myths are just that: myths. But because they are repeated time and again, they’ve come to take on significant prominence in the minds of many. And we in the Green Party have a lot of work to do to counter these myths.
Pollsters tell us, again and again, that when it comes to the discrete issue of how to handle the environment, Canadians believe that the Green Party is the party of choice to tackle environmental issues. The same polls show the Conservatives would be the ones most Canadians would pick to tackle economic issues, with the Liberals in second place and the Green Party just barely showing.
The very questions themselves are telling of the political paradigm we’ve created and have allowed to flourish. Somehow, in this paradigm, the environment and the economy are two separate issues, best handled in two completely different and unconnected ways. Greens need to start doing a better job of telling Canadians, starting with the pollsters, why environmental and economic issues are actually one and the same, and that when you mismanage the environment you also mismanage the economy.
We need look no further than to the Conservative and Liberal Parties to prove this point. It is a prevailing myth that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.
In the January version of the Conservative budget which the Liberals supported through their votes, a deficit of approximately 34 billion dollars was projected. That means that the government planned to spend 34 billion more than they were going to collect. The Conservatives told Canadians that such a huge deficit was necessary in order to inject "stimulus" money into the economy.
Interestingly, the January budget also highlighted approximately 34 billion dollars worth of tax cuts, 12 billion of which came from lost GST revenue as a result of the Conservatives move to lower the GST by 2 percentage points during the course of previous budgets.
Funny how the amount of the projected deficit equalled the amount of the tax cuts. It’s almost like the Conservatives and Liberals back in January said, "Well, we still need to spend all of the money we’re taking in, but since our political agenda is to cut taxes so that we can get votes, we’ll just ignore sound financial policies and make Canadians pay for the difference somehow later on." And they can do this because most Canadians continue to believe that the Conservatives and Liberals are good financial managers.
Now the projected deficit sits at 50 billion dollars; 50.2 was just announced today. Largely, this has been as a result of bailing out Chrysler and General Motors, which operate in the Liberal-Conservative battleground of Southern Ontario.
50 billion in deficit. Wow. Can you imagine Stephen Harper’s government going there this time last year? I mean, if you were a supporter of the Conservatives, wouldn’t you be shocked and appalled about this deficit? We Greens might think so.
I mean, come on, how can you spend $50 billion more than you take in in a single year? And still call yourself a small-government Conservative? Or a fiscally-sound money manager?
So are Stephen Harper and the Conservatives shaking in their boots? Not at all. They’ve been viewing this economic crisis as an opportunity to finally get to do what they’ve been wanting to do all along. By creating this largely artificial deficit, and spending stimulus money for projects they can send their MP’s out to cut ribbons for, the Conservatives have accomplished their goals: they’re appearing to be sensitive to the needs of Canadians by injecting money into the economy while at the same time cutting taxes. And they’ve created a new structural deficit which will need to be slain in the future.
And how do you slay a structural deficit in the budget? You’ve got two options. Raise taxes, or cut expenses. Which do you think the Conservatives will choose? Will Stephen Harper turn to Canadians and say, "Ok folks, the spending orgy is over, now that the economy is turning itself around, sorry about this, but we need to pay to our tab, so time for your taxes to go up." Or will they follow the Chretien-Martin Liberal program of reducing expenses by cutting government services and programs, or downloading them to the Provinces, who will also be up to their ears in red ink.
The word "tax" is never going to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy. Benjamin Franklin said that there are only two gaurantees in life: death and taxes. We don’t particularly look forward to either. But another great American, Oliver Wendell Holmes, had a bit more of a pragmatic and optimistic outlook on taxes, one we all need to keep in mind and remind our fellow Canadians of. Holmes told us that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
Jim Flaherty and the Conservatives tell us that taxes need to be reduced, especially on businesses, in order that Canadian businesses can be more competitive. This is despite the fact that between 1984 and 2006, the Conservatives and Liberals gave up over 250 billion dollars in revenue through tax cuts, a good portion of which went to wealthy businesses.
And were businesses more competitive as a result? Well, the World Economic Forum ranked Canadian businesses as the 5th most competitive in the world back in 1999. In 2008, we’d fallen to 10th spot. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for those who believe that lower taxes leads to more competitiveness. Although they will still likely point out that being 5th or 10th in the world is still something to crow about.
Until they look around and discover that out of the top ten countries in the world who have the most competitive businesses, 6 of those nations are some of those same Northern European countries who Conservatives get all a-twitter about because of their high tax rates! Clearly, competitive business are not made by lowering taxes. Which stands to reason if you step back and think about it, because our taxes are re-invested in making our society more civilized. A business employee is a lot less likely to miss productive work time, for example, if she is receiving state-sponsored health care rather than having to remain sick because she can’t afford to pay her own medical bills.
Clearly, Conservatives do not understand that important issues are all tied-together. Your social well-being is an environmental issue; business competitiveness is a social issue. And a healthy environment is an economic issue!
Canadians should start exploding the myth that Conservatives and their kissing cousin Liberals are sound managers of finances. They are not. Down the road, this financial mismanagement which we’re seeing out of Ottawa today will mean more pain for all Canadians, and disproportionately more pain for the least well-off amongst us, as funding for public services and programs dries up.
That also means less money will be available for our government to begin making investments in the green economy, needed investments to stimulate truly green enterprises, rather than the sorts of brown projects the so-called economic stimulus has largely been providing money for. Rather than investing in streetcars for Toronto, the Conservatives want to see more highways!
Greens, we have a story to share with Canadians, a story which they need to hear. The future is not going to be the same as today. Our finances are in chaos, and our governments are interested in doing only what it takes to get elected, and not interested in doing what needs to be done. Public Representatives like Fred and Gordon and Elizabeth May will do things differently, but we Canadians have to give them the chance to do so.
There isn’t any more time left to delay in taking the actions which we need to take. Change requires education and advocacy, but real change ultimately requires political will. Time and again the Conservatives and Liberals have shown that they do not have the political will to address, or even admit to, the coming crises.
Through your own expression of political will this evening, by casting a ballot for a Green Party candidate, you’ll have taken yet another step in the long march we’ve all embarked on. The road, as we know, will be a hard one, but together we can help each other along, and remain committed to the endeavour. For together, we are strong, and our strength and unity will no longer be ignored.
Thank you
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Speaking Truth to Power: The Need for Adult Conversations with Canadian Voters
(originally posted to Green Party of Canada website on April 30, 2009)
Speaking to the Globe and Mail about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s days as an academic, and with reference to Ignatieff’s recent musings on the possible future need to raise taxes to address the current governmental spending orgy systemic deficits, former Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan provided some very revealing remarks. Not revealing about Ignatieff or even government spending, but revealing about what, in his opinion, it takes to be a winner in politics. Contrasting Michael Ignatieff’s former life as an academic to his current incarnation as Leader of the Official Opposition, Flanagan, tells the Globe, "Then once you get into politics, your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe." This is a revealing statement because of what it says about truth and politics, and the ways in which our political leaders treat the truth.
And we see that play itself out time and time again with the Conservatives and the Liberals. The truth really does become something to hide, conceal, to keep behind closed doors, not to be uttered to anyone on the telephone or especially where a microphone or tape recorder can pick it up.
Our current politicians operate largely in a strange and surreal shadow world, filled with spin and derision, where the truth is known, but not talked about or discussed. How important issues for Canadians actually get addressed in this climate is in anything but a straight-forward way. Rather than speaking the truth, the object of the game is to whack down those who dare to rise up and confront important issues head on.
Is it any wonder, then, in this climate, that important issues are left largely unaddressed? Take climate change, for example. That’s an easy one. That’s probably why most of us are here, as we’ve recognized that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are more interested in playing politics than achieving results.
Ignatifeff’s recent musings about a cap and trade system, while supporting the Alberta tar sands, shows that he’s no different from the Conservatives, who have recently been talking up the same thing. What we’ll end up with is an ineffective cap and trade system, riddled with industry exemptions, costing billions in support, raising the prices on consumer goods, but doing little or nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions. But the Libs and Cons would be seen to be doing something for the environment. And in their dark world of spin, to be seen to be doing something is so much better than to actually be doing something. Especially if it can put some more money into the pockets of the Board of Directors of Sun Cor and others of their ilk.
At least the NDP want to close down the tar sands. But even the NDP play the spin game on worthy alternatives not of their party’s devising. Witness Layton’s slamming Dion’s carbon tax proposal in the last election. Layton knows that a carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gases, but instead focussed on how it might impact low-income consumers, ignoring completely the financial off-sets in Dion’s platform to address this very concern.
For the Green Party’s own carbon tax shifting proposal, since there was no gain at all for Layton to even deign to admit that the Green Party exists, he left us largely alone. Don’t be too sure that the NDP spin doctors will implement the same approach during the next election, as NDP support sputters out.
Say what you want about Michael Ignatieff (and I’ve got a lot to say!). The only decent thing he’s done so far was to candidly and responsibly suggest that taxes might have to be raised in the future in order to pay for all of the money currently being thrown about. I mean, come on, of course that’s the reality, the truth. But he was almost strung-up by the other parties and the media for daring to utter what is obvious to us all. But that’s what our current system appears to be all about, as Tom Flanagan well knows.
Well, the Green Party is doing things differently. We dare to tell Canadians the truth, even when the truth is going to be a hard-sell. Some would suggest this has been a contributing factor to our inability to get elected. But the fact is, to address issues of importance, we can only do so with all of our cards on the table. Climate change can’t be successfully fought without an adult conversation about how the fight is going to impact us all, altering our lifestyles and changing our lives. Change is often something to be feared, and that’s why so many are against it. It’s easier for us all to keep doing things the way we’ve always done them.
But change is also progress. A challenge, yes, but an opportunity as well, to do things better, to build something more than we have today, something grander.
The other parties don’t want to have this discussion, because they are complacent with the way things are done now, it’s what they know. I don’t think Ignatieff and Harper and especially Layton would even know how to have an adult conversation amongst just the three of them if the cameras are rolling.
Change, though, is also inevitable. And Canadians are starting to understand this double-edged nature of change a little bit better. If our society doesn’t decide to make the changes we need to make, change in other forms will be thrust upon us. There is growing recognition that the road we’re on right now leads to higher temperatures, more severe weather events, more expensive heating fuels and gasoline, higher food prices, inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, higher unemployment, more homelessness, more protests and civil unrest, less food available to consume, mass movements of environmental refugees, more armed conflict between nations over dwindling resources such as oil and clean water, more bombing, torture, military occupation, war, disease, devastation, death and destruction, and a loss of all we’ve held dear, fewer chances for our children and grandchildren to live their lives in ways we would wish for them.
There’s a growing understanding that those changes are going to be the ones we face in the future if we don’t start making our own decisions to change now.
And we, as a society, can’t make informed decisions for our world when our so-called political leaders are happy to inhabit their dark nether-world of spin, deception of lies.
For us Greens, and for the benefit of our society, speaking the truth to power, in this case Canadian voters, must always be paramount.
Speaking to the Globe and Mail about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s days as an academic, and with reference to Ignatieff’s recent musings on the possible future need to raise taxes to address the current governmental spending orgy systemic deficits, former Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan provided some very revealing remarks. Not revealing about Ignatieff or even government spending, but revealing about what, in his opinion, it takes to be a winner in politics. Contrasting Michael Ignatieff’s former life as an academic to his current incarnation as Leader of the Official Opposition, Flanagan, tells the Globe, "Then once you get into politics, your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe." This is a revealing statement because of what it says about truth and politics, and the ways in which our political leaders treat the truth.
And we see that play itself out time and time again with the Conservatives and the Liberals. The truth really does become something to hide, conceal, to keep behind closed doors, not to be uttered to anyone on the telephone or especially where a microphone or tape recorder can pick it up.
Our current politicians operate largely in a strange and surreal shadow world, filled with spin and derision, where the truth is known, but not talked about or discussed. How important issues for Canadians actually get addressed in this climate is in anything but a straight-forward way. Rather than speaking the truth, the object of the game is to whack down those who dare to rise up and confront important issues head on.
Is it any wonder, then, in this climate, that important issues are left largely unaddressed? Take climate change, for example. That’s an easy one. That’s probably why most of us are here, as we’ve recognized that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are more interested in playing politics than achieving results.
Ignatifeff’s recent musings about a cap and trade system, while supporting the Alberta tar sands, shows that he’s no different from the Conservatives, who have recently been talking up the same thing. What we’ll end up with is an ineffective cap and trade system, riddled with industry exemptions, costing billions in support, raising the prices on consumer goods, but doing little or nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions. But the Libs and Cons would be seen to be doing something for the environment. And in their dark world of spin, to be seen to be doing something is so much better than to actually be doing something. Especially if it can put some more money into the pockets of the Board of Directors of Sun Cor and others of their ilk.
At least the NDP want to close down the tar sands. But even the NDP play the spin game on worthy alternatives not of their party’s devising. Witness Layton’s slamming Dion’s carbon tax proposal in the last election. Layton knows that a carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gases, but instead focussed on how it might impact low-income consumers, ignoring completely the financial off-sets in Dion’s platform to address this very concern.
For the Green Party’s own carbon tax shifting proposal, since there was no gain at all for Layton to even deign to admit that the Green Party exists, he left us largely alone. Don’t be too sure that the NDP spin doctors will implement the same approach during the next election, as NDP support sputters out.
Say what you want about Michael Ignatieff (and I’ve got a lot to say!). The only decent thing he’s done so far was to candidly and responsibly suggest that taxes might have to be raised in the future in order to pay for all of the money currently being thrown about. I mean, come on, of course that’s the reality, the truth. But he was almost strung-up by the other parties and the media for daring to utter what is obvious to us all. But that’s what our current system appears to be all about, as Tom Flanagan well knows.
Well, the Green Party is doing things differently. We dare to tell Canadians the truth, even when the truth is going to be a hard-sell. Some would suggest this has been a contributing factor to our inability to get elected. But the fact is, to address issues of importance, we can only do so with all of our cards on the table. Climate change can’t be successfully fought without an adult conversation about how the fight is going to impact us all, altering our lifestyles and changing our lives. Change is often something to be feared, and that’s why so many are against it. It’s easier for us all to keep doing things the way we’ve always done them.
But change is also progress. A challenge, yes, but an opportunity as well, to do things better, to build something more than we have today, something grander.
The other parties don’t want to have this discussion, because they are complacent with the way things are done now, it’s what they know. I don’t think Ignatieff and Harper and especially Layton would even know how to have an adult conversation amongst just the three of them if the cameras are rolling.
Change, though, is also inevitable. And Canadians are starting to understand this double-edged nature of change a little bit better. If our society doesn’t decide to make the changes we need to make, change in other forms will be thrust upon us. There is growing recognition that the road we’re on right now leads to higher temperatures, more severe weather events, more expensive heating fuels and gasoline, higher food prices, inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, higher unemployment, more homelessness, more protests and civil unrest, less food available to consume, mass movements of environmental refugees, more armed conflict between nations over dwindling resources such as oil and clean water, more bombing, torture, military occupation, war, disease, devastation, death and destruction, and a loss of all we’ve held dear, fewer chances for our children and grandchildren to live their lives in ways we would wish for them.
There’s a growing understanding that those changes are going to be the ones we face in the future if we don’t start making our own decisions to change now.
And we, as a society, can’t make informed decisions for our world when our so-called political leaders are happy to inhabit their dark nether-world of spin, deception of lies.
For us Greens, and for the benefit of our society, speaking the truth to power, in this case Canadian voters, must always be paramount.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Legalizing Prostitution: A Step in the Wrong Direction
(originally posted at: http://www.greenparty.ca/)
I read with interest today a column from yesterday's Toronto Star, in which Star reporter Leslie Scrivener interviews Canadian journalist-turned-author Victor Malarek about his new book, “The Johns: Sex for Sale and the Men Who Buy It” (http://www.thestar.com/article/617144). In the interview, Malarek discusses his concerns regarding legalizing prostitution, and instead makes a case that legal reform is necessary, but only up to a point. He points out that Sweden has decriminalized prostitution for women, but has aggressively been targetting the Johns who use prostitutes.
Malarek's views are insightful, even though they may not be in keeping with what many of us believe about prostitution. His views are that men have always gained the most out of prostitution, calling prostitution “the world's oldest oppression”. He argues that those parts of the world, such as Amsterdam, which legalized prostitution are now kicking themselves, because women are still being controlled by pimps, and drug problems are rampant.
Many in the Green Party might be surprised to discover that the Green Party of Canada now supports the legalization of prostitution, through the adoption of Resolution G08-p014 by internet voting last summer, and recently ratified at the February policy convention. Many who might be concerned about the rights of women might find this resolution interesting, and either a step in the right direction, or the wrong direction. After reading Leslie Scrivener's interview of Victor Malarek, I've no doubt that Malarek's reaction to our new policy would be similar to my own: absolutely appalled.
I have to tell you that I've only recently begun looking into the issue of legalizing prostitution. This all came about when a member of my EDA Executive brought this “green lighted” policy to my attention back in January, and had a conversation explaining to me why this was a very bad direction for the Party to be going in with regards to the rights of women. Legalizing prostitution, he explained, only leads to more situations of abuse, which may seem counter-intuitive. I challenged him and suggested that if prostitution were turned into a legal industry or profession which could be regulated and taxed, wouldn't that be better for everyone?
It might be better for those prostitutes who would qualify for the legal protection of the state, but what legalization will do is create an atmosphere, perhaps even a society of acceptance. My friend pointed to the experience of Amsterdam as an example, much as Victor Malarek has done. There, in part through the sex trade, Amsterdam has become an internatinal sex tourism destination, and prostitution is accepted by all as the “new normal”. And while many sex trade workers might have benefitted from government regulation (such as through health coverage and testing), the experience of many, many more women has been quite different. As demand for sex workers increased, women from elsewhere have been brought in illegally, to service demand. And these women and children continue to be exploited.
My friend also took issue with the second point about taxation. While certainly legalized sex trade workers could assist the national economy through payment of taxes (and receive benefits such as health care, worker's compensation, etc), is this something which the state really wants to get itself involved with? In essence, we would be living off of the avails of prostitution in the much the same way that we currently rely on taxation from tobacco. Why on earth would we want to look for new revenue sources from things like this?
And that's what really got me thinking, and investigating. I understand that there are multiple sides to this issue, and many passionate voices out there who are either completely for or against the legalization of prostitution. Many people believe it will be a benefit to our society to legalize and regulate prostitution. Others, such as my friend, and Victor Malarek, and myself, disagree.
But whatever your views on this issue, you have got to acknowledge that our new policy which supports the legalization of prostitution is going to be extremely problematic for this Party.
Prostitution is simply one of those emotional wedge issues which can turn voters away in droves. For many, there can be no rational argument or debate about this issue: legalization is either right and should have happened a long time ago, or it's wrong and how on earth could I ever support the Green Party if they are going to be the champions for the oppression of women and children?
If we are to grow as a Party, we need to attract voters who are generally more conservative in outlook, because the left is already a very crowded place to be. And not to suggest that all of those on the left are of the same opinion on the issue of legalized prostitution, but certainly those on the right tend to identify themselves more as anti-legalizers. With this notion in mind, we gain nothing from having adopted such a divisive emotional policy.
Further, after our good showing in the last election, there is no way that all of the other parties are going to let us get off scott-free in the next election. Many of our policies, from carbon taxation to proportional representation to income splitting, are going to be offered up by the other parties as reasons to voters to give the Greens a pass in the next election. We're already going to have our hands full offering priority policies to voters and defending from the attacks of other parties. Why on earth, then, have we handed the other parties this emotional-based wedge issue with which to hit us over the head with?
We will turn off voters as a result of this new policy. Already, we are losing members.
I note that in the convention's minutes there was discussion about policy development during those periods between conventions, and that a process might be set up for membership to offer new policies and presumably review existing ones. That process needs to be kick-started before the next general election so that this policy can be revisited by Party membership.
Remember, this policy was adopted through our very cumbersome online voting process; it did not receive the benefit of any personal debate.
I believe it is the wrong policy for our Party at any time, but especially at this time when so many voices, such as Victor Malarek's, are now just starting to be heard about the fiasco which sex trade legalization has caused elsewhere in the world.
And the last thing this Party needs is a liberal candidate (or the media) somewhere out there telling voters that the Greens are going to finance all of those new alternative energy projects by taxing prostitutes.
I read with interest today a column from yesterday's Toronto Star, in which Star reporter Leslie Scrivener interviews Canadian journalist-turned-author Victor Malarek about his new book, “The Johns: Sex for Sale and the Men Who Buy It” (http://www.thestar.com/article/617144). In the interview, Malarek discusses his concerns regarding legalizing prostitution, and instead makes a case that legal reform is necessary, but only up to a point. He points out that Sweden has decriminalized prostitution for women, but has aggressively been targetting the Johns who use prostitutes.
Malarek's views are insightful, even though they may not be in keeping with what many of us believe about prostitution. His views are that men have always gained the most out of prostitution, calling prostitution “the world's oldest oppression”. He argues that those parts of the world, such as Amsterdam, which legalized prostitution are now kicking themselves, because women are still being controlled by pimps, and drug problems are rampant.
Many in the Green Party might be surprised to discover that the Green Party of Canada now supports the legalization of prostitution, through the adoption of Resolution G08-p014 by internet voting last summer, and recently ratified at the February policy convention. Many who might be concerned about the rights of women might find this resolution interesting, and either a step in the right direction, or the wrong direction. After reading Leslie Scrivener's interview of Victor Malarek, I've no doubt that Malarek's reaction to our new policy would be similar to my own: absolutely appalled.
I have to tell you that I've only recently begun looking into the issue of legalizing prostitution. This all came about when a member of my EDA Executive brought this “green lighted” policy to my attention back in January, and had a conversation explaining to me why this was a very bad direction for the Party to be going in with regards to the rights of women. Legalizing prostitution, he explained, only leads to more situations of abuse, which may seem counter-intuitive. I challenged him and suggested that if prostitution were turned into a legal industry or profession which could be regulated and taxed, wouldn't that be better for everyone?
It might be better for those prostitutes who would qualify for the legal protection of the state, but what legalization will do is create an atmosphere, perhaps even a society of acceptance. My friend pointed to the experience of Amsterdam as an example, much as Victor Malarek has done. There, in part through the sex trade, Amsterdam has become an internatinal sex tourism destination, and prostitution is accepted by all as the “new normal”. And while many sex trade workers might have benefitted from government regulation (such as through health coverage and testing), the experience of many, many more women has been quite different. As demand for sex workers increased, women from elsewhere have been brought in illegally, to service demand. And these women and children continue to be exploited.
My friend also took issue with the second point about taxation. While certainly legalized sex trade workers could assist the national economy through payment of taxes (and receive benefits such as health care, worker's compensation, etc), is this something which the state really wants to get itself involved with? In essence, we would be living off of the avails of prostitution in the much the same way that we currently rely on taxation from tobacco. Why on earth would we want to look for new revenue sources from things like this?
And that's what really got me thinking, and investigating. I understand that there are multiple sides to this issue, and many passionate voices out there who are either completely for or against the legalization of prostitution. Many people believe it will be a benefit to our society to legalize and regulate prostitution. Others, such as my friend, and Victor Malarek, and myself, disagree.
But whatever your views on this issue, you have got to acknowledge that our new policy which supports the legalization of prostitution is going to be extremely problematic for this Party.
Prostitution is simply one of those emotional wedge issues which can turn voters away in droves. For many, there can be no rational argument or debate about this issue: legalization is either right and should have happened a long time ago, or it's wrong and how on earth could I ever support the Green Party if they are going to be the champions for the oppression of women and children?
If we are to grow as a Party, we need to attract voters who are generally more conservative in outlook, because the left is already a very crowded place to be. And not to suggest that all of those on the left are of the same opinion on the issue of legalized prostitution, but certainly those on the right tend to identify themselves more as anti-legalizers. With this notion in mind, we gain nothing from having adopted such a divisive emotional policy.
Further, after our good showing in the last election, there is no way that all of the other parties are going to let us get off scott-free in the next election. Many of our policies, from carbon taxation to proportional representation to income splitting, are going to be offered up by the other parties as reasons to voters to give the Greens a pass in the next election. We're already going to have our hands full offering priority policies to voters and defending from the attacks of other parties. Why on earth, then, have we handed the other parties this emotional-based wedge issue with which to hit us over the head with?
We will turn off voters as a result of this new policy. Already, we are losing members.
I note that in the convention's minutes there was discussion about policy development during those periods between conventions, and that a process might be set up for membership to offer new policies and presumably review existing ones. That process needs to be kick-started before the next general election so that this policy can be revisited by Party membership.
Remember, this policy was adopted through our very cumbersome online voting process; it did not receive the benefit of any personal debate.
I believe it is the wrong policy for our Party at any time, but especially at this time when so many voices, such as Victor Malarek's, are now just starting to be heard about the fiasco which sex trade legalization has caused elsewhere in the world.
And the last thing this Party needs is a liberal candidate (or the media) somewhere out there telling voters that the Greens are going to finance all of those new alternative energy projects by taxing prostitutes.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Greater Sudbury and the Green Economy: What We Have to Offer
(originally posted at S.A.G.E.: Sudbury Advocates for the Green Economy, Facebook Group)
The Toronto Star trumpets: “1,200 green jobs in the works for Kingston”. What can I say? I’m very happy for Kingston, a City with a population of about 120,000, located approximately 3 hours away from Toronto. Seems to me that building high-tech solar panels using cutting-edge robotics will benefit their municipal economy by providing employment opportunities with very good wages. That’s what the green economy is all about.
And Kingston appears to be strategically positioned to take advantage of the green economy. It’s a medium-sized Canadian city with good access by road and rail to other markets (notably Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal via the rail corridor). It has a number of institutes of higher education, including Queens University. It has a highly-trained workforce in place. It’s a good place to raise a family, as home prices aren’t as silly as they are in the Greater Toronto Area, and just outside of the City are many opportunities for recreation. It’s got that Quality of Life thing going on.
All of what I just wrote about applies equally to the City of Greater Sudbury, except that part about the 1,200 green jobs coming to town. But what’s ultimately good for Kingston can as well be good for Sudbury, because the more the message gets out that the green economy isn’t just about businesses in Toronto, the stronger that message becomes.
The City of Greater Sudbury, in many respects, is already investment-ready. We’re lucky enough to have a lot of planned infrastructure already in the ground. We have a tremendously skilled workforce on which to draw on. We have Laurentian University, College Boreal and Cambrian College to form business partnerships with (and they’ve been doing a decent job of it already). Our City has become a centre of excellence for the arts community, and remain a top tourism draw. We have access to markets across Canada with the Trans-Canada highway going through town, and more importantly for the Green Economy, we’ve got access to both of Canada’s major rail lines. We’ve faced a significant environmental catastrophe and have emerged stronger and greener as a result.
A lot has been going on to attract new business initiatives to our City, and those sorts of activities need to continue. We can’t lose sight of the successes we’ve already had. But nor can we rest on our laurels. Largely, we remain an undiscovered secret in Ontario, and in Canada, even though we have so much to brag about.
And we need to start doing some of that bragging, which can translate into economic opportunities such as that to now be enjoyed by the people of Kingston. Our business leaders, our municipal councillors, and all other leaders within our community need to continue to trumpet Greater Sudbury’s successes to potential investors, and actively engage green businesses with the goal of selling them on Sudbury’s incredible advantages.
I often hear from my fellow citizens that Sudbury has nothing to offer, that there’s nothing going on here. I want to tell them to open their eyes and look at all that is going on here, from the high-tech discoveries made at the SNO-lab in Creighton Mine, to the expansion of the arts community, downtown revitalization, the development of the Centre for Excellence in Mining innovation, green building initiatives, the reforestation of a whole community, Science North...the list goes on and on. Most other cities in Ontario would be extremely jealous of all that we have to offer our citizens and business community. If they’re not jealous already, it’s only because they’re unaware of what we’ve got going on up here.
Let’s continue to talk-up our town, and make connections with the business leaders of the green economy. Surely only good things can come of that.
The Toronto Star trumpets: “1,200 green jobs in the works for Kingston”. What can I say? I’m very happy for Kingston, a City with a population of about 120,000, located approximately 3 hours away from Toronto. Seems to me that building high-tech solar panels using cutting-edge robotics will benefit their municipal economy by providing employment opportunities with very good wages. That’s what the green economy is all about.
And Kingston appears to be strategically positioned to take advantage of the green economy. It’s a medium-sized Canadian city with good access by road and rail to other markets (notably Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal via the rail corridor). It has a number of institutes of higher education, including Queens University. It has a highly-trained workforce in place. It’s a good place to raise a family, as home prices aren’t as silly as they are in the Greater Toronto Area, and just outside of the City are many opportunities for recreation. It’s got that Quality of Life thing going on.
All of what I just wrote about applies equally to the City of Greater Sudbury, except that part about the 1,200 green jobs coming to town. But what’s ultimately good for Kingston can as well be good for Sudbury, because the more the message gets out that the green economy isn’t just about businesses in Toronto, the stronger that message becomes.
The City of Greater Sudbury, in many respects, is already investment-ready. We’re lucky enough to have a lot of planned infrastructure already in the ground. We have a tremendously skilled workforce on which to draw on. We have Laurentian University, College Boreal and Cambrian College to form business partnerships with (and they’ve been doing a decent job of it already). Our City has become a centre of excellence for the arts community, and remain a top tourism draw. We have access to markets across Canada with the Trans-Canada highway going through town, and more importantly for the Green Economy, we’ve got access to both of Canada’s major rail lines. We’ve faced a significant environmental catastrophe and have emerged stronger and greener as a result.
A lot has been going on to attract new business initiatives to our City, and those sorts of activities need to continue. We can’t lose sight of the successes we’ve already had. But nor can we rest on our laurels. Largely, we remain an undiscovered secret in Ontario, and in Canada, even though we have so much to brag about.
And we need to start doing some of that bragging, which can translate into economic opportunities such as that to now be enjoyed by the people of Kingston. Our business leaders, our municipal councillors, and all other leaders within our community need to continue to trumpet Greater Sudbury’s successes to potential investors, and actively engage green businesses with the goal of selling them on Sudbury’s incredible advantages.
I often hear from my fellow citizens that Sudbury has nothing to offer, that there’s nothing going on here. I want to tell them to open their eyes and look at all that is going on here, from the high-tech discoveries made at the SNO-lab in Creighton Mine, to the expansion of the arts community, downtown revitalization, the development of the Centre for Excellence in Mining innovation, green building initiatives, the reforestation of a whole community, Science North...the list goes on and on. Most other cities in Ontario would be extremely jealous of all that we have to offer our citizens and business community. If they’re not jealous already, it’s only because they’re unaware of what we’ve got going on up here.
Let’s continue to talk-up our town, and make connections with the business leaders of the green economy. Surely only good things can come of that.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Proposed Barrydowne Extension
(originally posted at: S.A.G.E. : Sudbury Advocates for the Green Economy; Facebook)
From today’s Sudbury Star: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1495137
So, it looks like Council will begin the process of studying the proposed Barrydowne Extension. As many of you know, talk of an extension of Barrydowne north from it’s current terminus with Maley Drive all the way out to Hanmer has been around for a long while. This route has been depicted in the City’s various planning documents for many years. In a very real sense, this is not a new proposal. And it is one which will be welcomed by many Sudburians currently using Highway 69 North for their daily commute from the Valley into Sudbury, as one of the stated purpose of the Barrydowne extension is to reduce traffic along 69 North. City Councillor Andre Rivest (Ward 6) has been one of the champions for the building of this road for a while now.
Given the above, why am I opposed to the proposed Barrydowne Extension? Isn’t this new road needed in our community?
The short answer to the second question is no, it is not needed. The reasons for that answer are why I am opposed to the proposed Extension. And those reasons have everything to do with the Green Economy and how we go about building a community for the future, rather than for the past. This issue is about a lot more than building a new road. It’s about what kind of community we want to have for our families in the future.
You see, the Barrydowne Extension makes sense within a certain context: If there is to be more low density residential development on agricultural lands in the Valley on the fringes of built-up areas, where residents will have no choice but to get around by way of personal automobiles, than the Barrydowne Extension appears to make some sense. If we build another road to service this exurban development, it will alleviate traffic pressures on the only other existing transportation artery, Highway 69 North. With the Barrydowne extension, we can get more people in more cars from low density residential areas in the Valley to their jobs, recreation and shopping opportunities within Sudbury.
If we are to continue to think about the future of our community in these terms, the Barrydowne Extension certainly would make a lot of sense.
The economic health of our community, however, is in peril from this out-dated, past-oriented, brown mind-set. Communities of the future, which embrace the coming green economy, are already thinking ahead, and making integrated decisions which compliment each other, in order to achieve a desired community vision.
In and of itself, the Barrydowne Extension is not a particular problem, although the costs associated with its construction might be more than the average Sudburian would like. The problem is that building this road keeps open the lid of the Pandora’s Box of problems we have in here in Greater Sudbury which require our immediate attention and action. These problems are: the loss of good, local agricultural lands to low-density, unsustainable development on the fringes of our communities which contribute to an energy-dependent car culture. We will continue to build infrastructure, but not communities.
And this makes absolutely no economic sense. As noted by one of the Sudbury Star’s online comment-writers, by continuing to invest in a City of the Past, we miss out on opportunities to invest those same dollars in projects which we need to build a community ready for the future. That future community, the one we need to start building now, will not have as many places in it for energy consumption-intensive development patterns. People simply will not be able to afford to live in many of the low density subdivisions which are being built today on our suburban fringes. The costs of home heating and transportation will make those locations undesirable. And the fact that many of these areas are built on some of the best farmland in Northern Ontario really adds insult to injury, because we all know that the Green Economy of the future is going to emphasize the need for investments in local agricultural products.
The Barrydowne Extension will continue to facilitate this kind of backward-looking, brown way of community building. The overall costs associated with its development go far beyond the engineering and construction costs which will be cited by everyone involved in the coming debates.
Those of us here interested in building a community ready to embrace the future need to be cognizant of the very real threat posed by the Barrydowne Extension. Simply put, we can’t keep throwing our money away on projects which hinder our prospects to build a Greater Sudbury ready to embrace a green future.
I note that the Sudbury Star indicates that this project needs to first go through an Environmental Assessment process. This will be the one significant opportunity that we will have for public input. We need to seriously start thinking about mobilizing our efforts here. Hopefully, we can use S.A.G.E. as a vehicle to help convince City Council that it would be unwise to invest in the Barrydowne Extension.
From today’s Sudbury Star: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1495137
So, it looks like Council will begin the process of studying the proposed Barrydowne Extension. As many of you know, talk of an extension of Barrydowne north from it’s current terminus with Maley Drive all the way out to Hanmer has been around for a long while. This route has been depicted in the City’s various planning documents for many years. In a very real sense, this is not a new proposal. And it is one which will be welcomed by many Sudburians currently using Highway 69 North for their daily commute from the Valley into Sudbury, as one of the stated purpose of the Barrydowne extension is to reduce traffic along 69 North. City Councillor Andre Rivest (Ward 6) has been one of the champions for the building of this road for a while now.
Given the above, why am I opposed to the proposed Barrydowne Extension? Isn’t this new road needed in our community?
The short answer to the second question is no, it is not needed. The reasons for that answer are why I am opposed to the proposed Extension. And those reasons have everything to do with the Green Economy and how we go about building a community for the future, rather than for the past. This issue is about a lot more than building a new road. It’s about what kind of community we want to have for our families in the future.
You see, the Barrydowne Extension makes sense within a certain context: If there is to be more low density residential development on agricultural lands in the Valley on the fringes of built-up areas, where residents will have no choice but to get around by way of personal automobiles, than the Barrydowne Extension appears to make some sense. If we build another road to service this exurban development, it will alleviate traffic pressures on the only other existing transportation artery, Highway 69 North. With the Barrydowne extension, we can get more people in more cars from low density residential areas in the Valley to their jobs, recreation and shopping opportunities within Sudbury.
If we are to continue to think about the future of our community in these terms, the Barrydowne Extension certainly would make a lot of sense.
The economic health of our community, however, is in peril from this out-dated, past-oriented, brown mind-set. Communities of the future, which embrace the coming green economy, are already thinking ahead, and making integrated decisions which compliment each other, in order to achieve a desired community vision.
In and of itself, the Barrydowne Extension is not a particular problem, although the costs associated with its construction might be more than the average Sudburian would like. The problem is that building this road keeps open the lid of the Pandora’s Box of problems we have in here in Greater Sudbury which require our immediate attention and action. These problems are: the loss of good, local agricultural lands to low-density, unsustainable development on the fringes of our communities which contribute to an energy-dependent car culture. We will continue to build infrastructure, but not communities.
And this makes absolutely no economic sense. As noted by one of the Sudbury Star’s online comment-writers, by continuing to invest in a City of the Past, we miss out on opportunities to invest those same dollars in projects which we need to build a community ready for the future. That future community, the one we need to start building now, will not have as many places in it for energy consumption-intensive development patterns. People simply will not be able to afford to live in many of the low density subdivisions which are being built today on our suburban fringes. The costs of home heating and transportation will make those locations undesirable. And the fact that many of these areas are built on some of the best farmland in Northern Ontario really adds insult to injury, because we all know that the Green Economy of the future is going to emphasize the need for investments in local agricultural products.
The Barrydowne Extension will continue to facilitate this kind of backward-looking, brown way of community building. The overall costs associated with its development go far beyond the engineering and construction costs which will be cited by everyone involved in the coming debates.
Those of us here interested in building a community ready to embrace the future need to be cognizant of the very real threat posed by the Barrydowne Extension. Simply put, we can’t keep throwing our money away on projects which hinder our prospects to build a Greater Sudbury ready to embrace a green future.
I note that the Sudbury Star indicates that this project needs to first go through an Environmental Assessment process. This will be the one significant opportunity that we will have for public input. We need to seriously start thinking about mobilizing our efforts here. Hopefully, we can use S.A.G.E. as a vehicle to help convince City Council that it would be unwise to invest in the Barrydowne Extension.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Three Little Birds singing "Every Little Thing is Gonna Be All Right"
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
It’s hard not to dwell on the pessimism prevalent in the national press coverage of the global financial crisis. It seems that almost every day, one expert or another contradicts previous estimates for the length of time that it will be before a recovery sets in. Earlier in the year, the public was being told that recovery would begin in the third quarter of this year, and that the Canadian economy could be expected to grow by upwards of 3%. Now, the latest "experts" are predicting a longer recessionary period with recovery only starting in early 2010, and it’s likely going to be hampered by a period of very slow growth.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to sing the same old tune, which sounds a lot like Bob Marley’s "Three Little Birds" ("Don’t Worry About A Thing"; ok, I confess, I had to look up the title on Wikipedia). Media commentators have been quick to justify Harper’s positivity in the face of this massive economic upheaval by claiming that Canadians need to be told that things are going to be all right, lest there be panic in the streets leading to a larger financial crisis. I guess Harper telling us that every little thing is gonna be all right might actually be the strongest plank in the Conservative’s economic stimulus plan.
But I’ve always believed that Canadians have done much better when we’re told the truth by those whom we’ve elected to power, rather than being led astray by wishful thinking. With this in mind, I started to think whether or not I’m right, or Stephen Harper is right: do Canadians want our government to tell us the truth?
In the last election, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP didn’t see the need to have a discussion with Canadians regarding a number of the looming crises which our nation will be confronting in the coming decades. There wasn’t even much of a peep about the economic crisis which began to emerge a few weeks before the vote took place, even though it came as no surprise to many in the financial sector. Discussions about global warming were high-jacked by partisan rhetoric about how a tax on carbon would or would not destroy Canadian households. And even that certainly wasn’t high on the list of important issues amongst the three major national parties, particularly after Stephane Dion went silent.
Only the Green Party stood up and talked about the coming crises of climate change and global warming; peak oil and increased energy costs; and, the crisis in public service delivery we’ll experience brought on by shifting demographics as a result of baby boomers retiring.
Based on the results of the last election, one could conclude that perhaps Stephen Harper has it right, and I’ve got it wrong: Canadians aren’t really interested in hearing about the challenges we’re all going to be facing in the very near future. Form triumphs over substance. After all, the Green Party didn’t elect a single MP. It’s easy to think that maybe Canadians aren’t keen on thinking ahead, or planning for a future which is going to be vastly different from our present.
Look beneath the surface, though, and there are some hopeful signs that the opposite is actually true. Support for our Party increased. Our Leader, Elizabeth May, was part of the nationally televised debates after a grass-roots outcry changed the minds of decision-makers. Our party had more organized campaigns than ever before, and although we did not elect any MP’s, certainly many voters, even those who did not vote for us, were sympathetic to our Party.
One of the things that we will have to focus on next time is to convince those sympathetic voters to throw in their lot with us. And I think one of the best ways to do so would be to stand up and tell Canadians the truth about the situation we’re all in, about the future that we’re going to be facing. Whether they want to hear it or not. And I believe Canadians, once they hear about a future told to them by the Green Party, will want to understand more about this future, about both the challenges and the opportunities.
The fact is, the other parties are too focussed on partisan games to have this discussion with Canadians. As a result, we can own this ground. One of the challenges for us, though, as a small party, will be to begin to shift the media around to providing coverage about issues that matter (substance), rather than spending the majority of its time on Stephen Harper’s sweaters or pooping puffins (that’d be "form").
In these difficult economic times, even the media might be more interested in discussing issues. Certainly I believe Canadians are ready to become involved in such a discussion. And together we can begin to turn things around, offering vision, leadership and hope about real issues. Indeed, to become the only choice for Canadian voters concerned about what’s just around the corner. We know it’s there. We can hear it breathing. Why do the "Three Little Birds", the Conservatives/Liberals/NDP, want to pretend it’s not there? Is it maybe because if they tell us about it, we’ll expect them to do something about it, and when we realize they have no plan, we’ll look for someone better to lead us?
No. It couldn’t be that. Maybe it’s just because it’s easier to get votes if no one ever worried about much of anything.
Is it any wonder that it’s so difficult not to be pessimistic?
It’s hard not to dwell on the pessimism prevalent in the national press coverage of the global financial crisis. It seems that almost every day, one expert or another contradicts previous estimates for the length of time that it will be before a recovery sets in. Earlier in the year, the public was being told that recovery would begin in the third quarter of this year, and that the Canadian economy could be expected to grow by upwards of 3%. Now, the latest "experts" are predicting a longer recessionary period with recovery only starting in early 2010, and it’s likely going to be hampered by a period of very slow growth.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to sing the same old tune, which sounds a lot like Bob Marley’s "Three Little Birds" ("Don’t Worry About A Thing"; ok, I confess, I had to look up the title on Wikipedia). Media commentators have been quick to justify Harper’s positivity in the face of this massive economic upheaval by claiming that Canadians need to be told that things are going to be all right, lest there be panic in the streets leading to a larger financial crisis. I guess Harper telling us that every little thing is gonna be all right might actually be the strongest plank in the Conservative’s economic stimulus plan.
But I’ve always believed that Canadians have done much better when we’re told the truth by those whom we’ve elected to power, rather than being led astray by wishful thinking. With this in mind, I started to think whether or not I’m right, or Stephen Harper is right: do Canadians want our government to tell us the truth?
In the last election, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP didn’t see the need to have a discussion with Canadians regarding a number of the looming crises which our nation will be confronting in the coming decades. There wasn’t even much of a peep about the economic crisis which began to emerge a few weeks before the vote took place, even though it came as no surprise to many in the financial sector. Discussions about global warming were high-jacked by partisan rhetoric about how a tax on carbon would or would not destroy Canadian households. And even that certainly wasn’t high on the list of important issues amongst the three major national parties, particularly after Stephane Dion went silent.
Only the Green Party stood up and talked about the coming crises of climate change and global warming; peak oil and increased energy costs; and, the crisis in public service delivery we’ll experience brought on by shifting demographics as a result of baby boomers retiring.
Based on the results of the last election, one could conclude that perhaps Stephen Harper has it right, and I’ve got it wrong: Canadians aren’t really interested in hearing about the challenges we’re all going to be facing in the very near future. Form triumphs over substance. After all, the Green Party didn’t elect a single MP. It’s easy to think that maybe Canadians aren’t keen on thinking ahead, or planning for a future which is going to be vastly different from our present.
Look beneath the surface, though, and there are some hopeful signs that the opposite is actually true. Support for our Party increased. Our Leader, Elizabeth May, was part of the nationally televised debates after a grass-roots outcry changed the minds of decision-makers. Our party had more organized campaigns than ever before, and although we did not elect any MP’s, certainly many voters, even those who did not vote for us, were sympathetic to our Party.
One of the things that we will have to focus on next time is to convince those sympathetic voters to throw in their lot with us. And I think one of the best ways to do so would be to stand up and tell Canadians the truth about the situation we’re all in, about the future that we’re going to be facing. Whether they want to hear it or not. And I believe Canadians, once they hear about a future told to them by the Green Party, will want to understand more about this future, about both the challenges and the opportunities.
The fact is, the other parties are too focussed on partisan games to have this discussion with Canadians. As a result, we can own this ground. One of the challenges for us, though, as a small party, will be to begin to shift the media around to providing coverage about issues that matter (substance), rather than spending the majority of its time on Stephen Harper’s sweaters or pooping puffins (that’d be "form").
In these difficult economic times, even the media might be more interested in discussing issues. Certainly I believe Canadians are ready to become involved in such a discussion. And together we can begin to turn things around, offering vision, leadership and hope about real issues. Indeed, to become the only choice for Canadian voters concerned about what’s just around the corner. We know it’s there. We can hear it breathing. Why do the "Three Little Birds", the Conservatives/Liberals/NDP, want to pretend it’s not there? Is it maybe because if they tell us about it, we’ll expect them to do something about it, and when we realize they have no plan, we’ll look for someone better to lead us?
No. It couldn’t be that. Maybe it’s just because it’s easier to get votes if no one ever worried about much of anything.
Is it any wonder that it’s so difficult not to be pessimistic?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
"Bloc Newfoundland & Labrador" Party?
(originally posted at http://www.greenparty.ca/)
Well. Looks like it takes an article in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/596487) quoting highly-placed (and colourful!) persons to generate any further discussion about this old blogpost of mine: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blogs/2022/2009-01-30/could-liberal-mps-rejection-budget-lead-rise-newfoundland-and-labrador-party
But, with Liberal Senator George Baker chatting with the press today about the potential inevitability (and that's a legit concept in Newfoundland) of the formation of a Newfoundland and Labrador separtist party, I felt the need to re-visit this old post.
Now, you've got to take Mr. Baker with a few grains of salt, it's true. But it's really not that far-fetched to think that he's likely onto something here. The time is particularly opportune for the formation of such a beast, for all of the reasons I've identified previously (and for some of the ones George identifies in his roaring rant to the media).
Ultimately, I continue to feel that this would spell bad news to our Party. But perhaps there is an opportunity sitting here for us to seize on? I don't think that the Green message has really resonated that well with Newfoundlanders, but if the winds of change are truly starting to blow in off of the mainland, perhaps we can steal some of the gail and turn our own ship around.
Rather than a "Bloc Newfoundland", how about a Green Party committed to fight the good fight for Newfoundland and Labrador? To honour agreements with the Province made by previous governments. To agree to, once and for all, resolve the boundary disputes with Quebec (which are starting to cause tensions now that Quebec has decided to dam some of the rivers flowing out of Labrador for hydro-electric projects).
We need to explain to Newfoundlanders that a tax on carbon will not kill off shore oil development, but will instead position the economy for a more sustainable, and ultimately more green, form of energy development. Investments in alternative energy, such as tidal, could also be made in Newfoundland.
And then there are all of the rest of our good policies which make sense throughout Canada.
I'm just not sure what we would tell Newfoundlanders about the seal hunt that they would want to hear. But we might be able to think of something. I've heard it said that the seal hunt is to Newfoundland like arts funding is to Quebec.
Unless we begin to make a concerted effort to woo the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador into our camp, offering them a chance for real change within a national framework, I really do believe that Mr. Baker's prediction might come true. And while I would hate to see a "national" political party waving the pink-white-and-green flag of separatism, I also can't blame Newfoundlanders for feeling that their voice isn't being heard in Ottawa.
Kind of like the 7% of Canadians who voted for the Green Party in the last election!
Well. Looks like it takes an article in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/596487) quoting highly-placed (and colourful!) persons to generate any further discussion about this old blogpost of mine: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blogs/2022/2009-01-30/could-liberal-mps-rejection-budget-lead-rise-newfoundland-and-labrador-party
But, with Liberal Senator George Baker chatting with the press today about the potential inevitability (and that's a legit concept in Newfoundland) of the formation of a Newfoundland and Labrador separtist party, I felt the need to re-visit this old post.
Now, you've got to take Mr. Baker with a few grains of salt, it's true. But it's really not that far-fetched to think that he's likely onto something here. The time is particularly opportune for the formation of such a beast, for all of the reasons I've identified previously (and for some of the ones George identifies in his roaring rant to the media).
Ultimately, I continue to feel that this would spell bad news to our Party. But perhaps there is an opportunity sitting here for us to seize on? I don't think that the Green message has really resonated that well with Newfoundlanders, but if the winds of change are truly starting to blow in off of the mainland, perhaps we can steal some of the gail and turn our own ship around.
Rather than a "Bloc Newfoundland", how about a Green Party committed to fight the good fight for Newfoundland and Labrador? To honour agreements with the Province made by previous governments. To agree to, once and for all, resolve the boundary disputes with Quebec (which are starting to cause tensions now that Quebec has decided to dam some of the rivers flowing out of Labrador for hydro-electric projects).
We need to explain to Newfoundlanders that a tax on carbon will not kill off shore oil development, but will instead position the economy for a more sustainable, and ultimately more green, form of energy development. Investments in alternative energy, such as tidal, could also be made in Newfoundland.
And then there are all of the rest of our good policies which make sense throughout Canada.
I'm just not sure what we would tell Newfoundlanders about the seal hunt that they would want to hear. But we might be able to think of something. I've heard it said that the seal hunt is to Newfoundland like arts funding is to Quebec.
Unless we begin to make a concerted effort to woo the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador into our camp, offering them a chance for real change within a national framework, I really do believe that Mr. Baker's prediction might come true. And while I would hate to see a "national" political party waving the pink-white-and-green flag of separatism, I also can't blame Newfoundlanders for feeling that their voice isn't being heard in Ottawa.
Kind of like the 7% of Canadians who voted for the Green Party in the last election!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)